44 | 2008 · Ključne besede: revija Varstvo spomenikov, spomeniška zakonodaja, Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, varstvo narave, konservatorstvo, restavratorstvo,

44Varstvo spomenikovJournalfor the Protection of Monuments

44 |

2008

Izdaja/Publisher: Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije/Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of SloveniaZanj/Publishing Executive: dr. Robert PeskarUredniški odbor/Editorial Board: dr. Andrej Gaspari, dr. Vito Hazler, dr. Ljubo Lah, dr. Robert Peskar, mag. doc. Tamara Trček PečakUrednica/Editor: Biserka RibnikarLektoriranje/Slovene Language Editor: Alenka KoblerPrevod v angleščino/English Translation: AmidasOblikovanje/Designed by: NuitTisk/Printing: Tiskarna Littera PictaNaslov uredništva/Editorial office: Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, Metelkova 6, p.p. 103, SI 1001 Ljubljana

Distribucija in prodaja/Distribution and sales: Buča d.o.o., Kolarjeva 47, 1000 Ljubljana, T: +386(0)1 230 65 80, E: [email protected]

Ljubljana 2008

Varstvo spomenikovJournal for the Protection of Monuments

44

4

Varstvo spomenikov, 44

5


Kazalo

Robert Peskar 60 let Varstva spomenikov 760 years of Varstvo Spomenikov 17

Barbara Nadbath, Gašper Rutar Žabji grad, pozabljena srednjeveška utrdba na južnem obrobju Ljubljanskega barja 28Žabji Grad, a Forgotten Medieval Fortification at the Southern Margin of the 37Ljubljansko Barje Wetland

Judita Lux, Jurij RavnikPoskus rekonstrukcije obsega poznoantičnega grobišča Lajh v Kranju 43An Attempt to Reconstruct the Size of the Lajh Late Antiquity Cemetery in Kranj 59

Katarina Udovč, Danilo BreščakPoznogotske in renesančne pečnice iz Novega mesta 70Late Gothic and Renaissance Tiles from Novo Mesto 81

Mateja Neža SitarEdini Quagliev (avto)portret in posledice obnov 86The Only (Self )Portrait of Quaglio and the Consequences of its Renovation 107

Bogdan BadovinacSporočilnost malo znane vedute Zgornjega samostana Žičke kartuzije 116The Communicative Quality of a Little-Known Veduta of the Upper Monastery 129of the Žiče Charterhouse

Vanja ProhinarStolna cerkev Marijinega vnebovzetja v Kopru: 136stavbna zgodovina in pregled obnove južne steneThe Cathedral Church of the Assumption in Koper: A History of the Building 155and an Overview of the Renovation of the Southern Wall

Sabina Kramar, Judita Lux, Breda MirtičAnaliza izbranih vzorcev malt in drugih gradbenih materialov iz objekta 2 170rimske vile pri MošnjahAnalysis of Selected Samples of Mortars and Other Construction Materials from Object 2 190of the Roman Villa near Mošnje

Lucija Močnik Ramovš, Barbka Gosar HirciRetuša: kako in s čim? 202Mednarodna delavnica retuširanja oljnih slik in lesene polihromirane plastikeRetouching: How and with What? 222International Workshop on Retouching Oil Paintings and Wooden Polychrome Sculpture

Mojca MarjAna KovačKonservatorske raziskave – temelji konservatorskega programa/načrta 228Conservation Research – the Foundations of a Conservation Programme/Plan 244

6


7


Robert Peskar

60 let Varstva spomenikovUDK 050:719(497.4)(091)UDK 719(497.4)(091)

Ključne besede: revija Varstvo spomenikov, spomeniška zakonodaja, Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, varstvo narave, konservatorstvo, restavratorstvo, oris dejavnosti

Spoštovani, naša osrednja revija za teorijo in prakso spomeniškega varstva, Varstvo spomenikov, praznuje v letu 2008 že 60 let obstoja oziroma izhajanja. V avgustu 1948 je izšla prva številka revije kot vestnik takratnega Zavoda za zaščito in znanstveno proučevanje kulturnih in prirodnih znamenitosti Ljudske republike Slovenije, kar pomeni, da je 44. številka Varstva spomenikov, ki je pred vami, jubilejna. Da bi visoki jubilej obeležili na primeren način, bi zagotovo veljalo na kratko orisati dosedanjo vsebinsko zasnovo revije in njen namen, na drugi strani pa tudi opozoriti na nekatere zgodovinske mejnike in poslanstvo njenega izdajatelja, Zavoda za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije (kratica ZVKDS). Da je tako oziranje v bližnjo preteklost, čeprav je ob 50-letnici revije nastal že krajši priložnostni prispevek,1 v začrtanem kontekstu nadvse smiselno, so pripomogle okoliščine pred šestdesetimi leti, ki jih lahko v grobem označimo kot podobne današnjim. Leta 1948 je bil namreč sprejet prvi slovenski Zakon o varstvu kulturnih spomenikov, ki ga lahko štejemo kot prvega predhodnika novega Zakona o varstvu kulturne dediščine v Sloveniji, ki velja od 1. marca 2008.

60 let Varstva spomenikov

Ko je Ministrstvo za prosveto LRS 27. avgusta 1945 ustanovilo Zavod za zaščito in znanstveno proučevanje kulturnih in prirodnih znamenitosti Ljudske republike Slovenije,2 se je zelo kmalu pokazala potreba po posebnem glasilu, ki naj bi poljudno tolmačilo cilje, načela, konkretne naloge, akcije in ukrepe spomeniškega varstva širšemu krogu slovenske javnosti in še posebej, kot je zapisalo uredništvo v uvodu prve številke,3 upravnim organom ljudske oblasti, različnim kulturnim in gradbenim ustanovam, šolam in drugim množičnim organizacijam. V ospredju naj bi bilo tudi kulturno izobraževanje pred-stavnikov različnih strok, ki bi v tem glasilu dobili splošen vpogled v delovanje in potrebe spomeniškega varstva, pri tem pa je bil poseben poudarek seveda na splošnem cilju, da naj bi glasilo pripomoglo k trajni ohranitvi umetniških del naših prednikov oziroma mojstrov, umetnikov in tujcev na naših tleh. Čeprav je leto 1948 rojstno leto samostojne publikacije za potrebe takratne spomeniške službe, pa ima pisno poročanje o spomeniškovarstvenih akcijah na spomenikih v Sloveniji dolgo tradicijo in kontinuiteto. Tu seveda ne mislimo zgolj na publikacijo dunajske kraljevo-cesarjeve centralne komisije za ohranjanje spomenikov, ki je izhajala od leta 1856 do leta 1918,4 temveč tudi na graški Kirchenschmuck, ki je kot glasilo društva Kunstverein der Diözese Seckau izhajal od leta 1870 do leta 1905,5 Izvestja Društva za krščansko umetnost v Ljubljani, ki so izšla v petih zvezkih za leta od 1895 do 1912,6 in seveda poročila o spomeniškovarstvenih akcijah v Zborniku za umetnostno zgodovino od leta 1921 do leta 1943. Poročila je kot vodja leta 1919 ustanovljenega Spomeniškega urada za Slovenijo pod naslovom Varstvo spome-

Dr. Robert Peskar, Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije

Zvezda Delak KoželjProgramski model delovanja etnologa konservatorja 256Programme Model for the Functioning of a Conservator Ethnologist 263

Bernarda ŽupanekDediščina na razpotju: emonski spomeniki med včeraj in jutri 271Heritage at the Crossroads: Monuments of Emona Between Yesterday and Tomorrow 283

Danijela BrišnikRaz(k)rita Celeja 291Primer prezentacije arheoloških najdb v urbanem prostoru – Narodni dom Celje Celeja Revealed An Example of the Presentation of Archaeological Findings in an Urban Space – 298the Celje National Hall

Pregledi, ocene, predstavitve, zapisi

In memoriam Marko Butina 304

In memoriam Vladimir Knific 308

8


9


nikov do leta 1938 urejal nestor spomeniškovarstvene stroke v Sloveniji, France Stelè, nato pa do leta 1943 konservator France Mesesnel, ki je tragično preminul leta 1945. Naštete publikacije in poročila so predstavljali osnovo za vsebinski koncept in poslanstvo samostojne revije, ki je začela izhajati, kot rečeno, leta 1948, le leto pozneje kot sorodno glasilo avstrijske spomeniške službe, Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kunst und Denkmalpflege. Preden opozorimo na nekatere vsebinske poudarke, velja naglasiti, da je revijo začel izdajati takratni Zavod za zaščito in znanstveno proučevanje kulturnih in prirodnih znamenitosti Ljudske republike Slo-venije, ki ga je od leta 1945 do leta 1948 vodil Fran Šijanec in bil hkrati prvi urednik revije.7 Sledili so mu Edo Turnher, ki je bil kot direktor zavoda odgovorni urednik do leta 1962, nato do leta 1968 Mica Černigoj in za njo Marijan Kolarič do leta 1969. Sprva je bil za vsebinski koncept soodgovoren uredniški odbor, ki je poimensko (Jože Kastelic, Marijan Mušič, Ciril Velepič) naveden v drugi številki, od leta 1955 do leta 1965 je za vsebino revije skrbel Marijan Zadnikar s sodelavci. Od leta 1966 (X. številka) do leta 1974 je revijo urejala Helena Menaše s sodelavci, od leta 1975 do leta 1991 pa je bila glavna in odgovorna urednica Iva Mikl Curk. Revija je pod njenim uredništvom dobila tudi podnaslov Revija za teorijo in prakso spomeniškega varstva, ki ga ima še danes. V novejšem času, od leta 1992 do leta 2000, je revijo urejala Jerneja Batič, ko jo je izdajala Uprava Republike Slovenije za kulturno dediščino pri Ministrstvu za kulturo kot pravni naslednik nekdanjega leta 1945 ustanovljenega zavoda. Ko pa je bil na podlagi novega Zakona o varstvu kulturne dediščine leta 1999 ustanovljen današnji Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, ki je združil do takrat samostojne regionalne zavode za varstvo naravne in kulturne dediščine, Restavratorski center in nekatere zaposlene na Upravi za kulturno dediščino, je vlogo glavne in odgovorne urednice prevzela Biserka Ribnikar. V začetku revija ni bila namenjena samo spomeniški oziroma konservatorski službi, temveč je izpoln-jevala tudi določene potrebe tedanjih slovenskih muzejev, zlasti za splošna poročila o terenskem delu, stanju in položaju muzejev ter za ožje strokovne razprave.8 Zaradi vse obširnejše muzejske tematike so okviri spomeniške revije postali pretesni, zato so te teme prevzele različne muzejske publikacije in od leta 1962 ponovno oživljena revija Argo. Podobno velja za področje varstva narave, za katero je Zavod za spomeniško varstvo pod različnimi nazivi skrbel vse do resorske delitve na podlagi zakona s konca leta 1994 oziroma do ustanovitve samostojnega Zavoda za varstvo narave leta 2001. Sprva je bila namreč v reviji zastopana tudi naravovarstvena problematika, leta 1962 pa je tedaj imenovani Zavod za spomeniško varstvo LRS začel izdajati samostojno publikacijo z naslovom Varstvo narave. Leta 1992 je Zavod Republike Slovenije za varstvo naravne in kulturne dediščine izdal zadnjo 18. številko revije za teorijo in prakso varstva naravne dediščine, šele deset let pozneje pa je z 19. številko pod okriljem Zavoda Republike Slovenije za varstvo narave publikacija doživela nadaljevanje izhajanja. Zaradi naštete vsebinske pestrosti ni naključje, da prva številka Varstva spomenikov prinaša poleg uvoda in kratkega zgodovinskega orisa izdajatelja tudi prvi slovenski »Zakon o varstvu kulturnih spomenikov in prirodnih znamenitosti v Ljudski Republiki Sloveniji«, ki je bil sprejet 19. maja 1948.9 Čeprav zakon obsega le 20. členov, so ti zapisani razmeroma jasno in v večini segmentov ob njihovem doslednem upoštevanju popolnoma zadoščajo za celovito varstvo in ohranitev spomenikov, kar je še posebno z vidika današnje zakonodaje presenetljivo. V 16. členu so predvidene celo davčne olajšave za lastnike, kar pomeni, da smo s sedanjo zakonodajo v tem segmentu naredili korak nazaj. Z aktualno spomeniško zakonodajo se v poznejših številkah revije še večkrat srečamo,10 nazadnje v članku Jelke Pirkovič, ki je bila zelo kritična zlasti glede resorske delitve naravne in kulturne dediščine ter nalog in pristojnosti lokalnih skupnosti pri razglašanju kulturnih spomenikov.11 Čeprav je revija vsebinsko raznolika, so v njej zaradi specifičnih razmer že od začetka prevladovale raz-prave, predstavitve in poročila, ki so bili povezani s spomeniškovarstveno problematiko nepremične kulturne dediščine, še posebej s problematiko prenov in ohranjanja konkretnih zvrsti dediščine. Poleg predstavitve arheoloških raziskav na Ptuju, Bledu in drugod v prvih nekaj številkah zasledimo posebne prispevke o posegih in problemih ohranjanja naših najpomembnejših umetnostnih spomenikov, kot so nekdanji cistercijanski samostan v Kostanjevici na Krki,12 Marijina cerkev na Ptujski Gori,13 minoritska cerkev na Ptuju,14 mariborski grad15 ter vrsta drugih, ki jih ne bomo posebej naštevali, so pa vsi prispevki zaradi opisa obsega posegov, konkretnih ugotovitev in dokumentarne vrednosti izjemno pomembni tudi za različne raziskave v današnjem času. Dalje so tedanji pisci, večinoma konservatorji zavoda, posebej poudarjali problematiko posameznih zvrsti dediščine, od katerih velja mogoče posebej omeniti varstvo

in raziskave grajske arhitekture,16 srednjeveškega stenskega slikarstva in izdelave kopij,17 varstvo in rekon-strukcije arheoloških spomenikov v Šentpetru in drugod,18 poseben poudarek pa je bil tudi na ohran-janju in varstvu spomenikov NOB. Ker je revija že od vsega začetka služila teoriji in praksi spomeniškega varstva, seveda nastopajo vse pogosteje tudi prispevki o spomeniškovarstvenih doktrinah in konkretnih tehničnih metodah. Od teh velja najprej opozoriti na prispevek Franceta Stelèta,19 ki je razčlenil odnose med restavratorskimi posegi na spomenikih in estetskim dojemanjem, pozneje pa zasledimo več bolj ali manj analitičnih člankov, ki obravnavajo bodisi teoretična načela ali filozofska razmišljanja o varovanju spomenikov skozi zakonodajo in ob definicijah spomenikov in njihovih varstvenih režimih,20 posebnostih nekaterih zvrsti dediščine, kot je na primer arheološka dediščina,21 bodisi nasprotja med teoretičnimi izhodišči in stvarnostjo v praksi,22 katerim lahko dodamo tudi krajše opise ne posrečenih obnov kot posledico neustreznega odno-sa lastnikov do spomenikov.23 Ob prispevkih o teoriji spomeniškega varstva ne bo odveč opozorilo, da je takratni Zavod za spomeniško varstvo LR Slovenije leta 1962 začel izdajati revijo Vestnik, ki je kljub osnovnemu namenu, da bi revija služila najširšemu krogu bralcev, že od druge številke prinašal vrsto osnovnih teoretičnih, metodoloških in praktičnih razlag o osnovnih opravilih, doktrinah in nalogah spomeniškovarstvene službe v Sloveniji, ki jih je prispevala večina takratnih konservatorjev. Doslej je izšlo devetnajst številk, v letu 2008 je načrtovana dvajseta na temo arheoloških raziskav dna Blejskega jezera. Kot posebej dragocene prispevke v reviji Varstvo spomenikov, še posebno, ker bi tovrstnih prispevkov želeli več, pa lahko označimo tiste, ki podrobneje opisujejo restavratorske in druge posege na spomenikih tudi v tehničnem smislu. Kot pars pro toto naj omenimo prispevek Ceneta Avguština o posegih v mestni hiši v Kranju,24 opis načinov restavriranja srednjeveških stenskih slik na posameznih spomenikih25 in posamezne prispevke Ivana Bogovčiča.26 Restavratorska dejavnost je bila podrobneje predstavljena tudi v drugih priložnostnih publikacijah, še posebno v samostojni publikaciji Res, ki jo je samostojni Restavra-torski center Republike Slovenije začel izdajati leta 1992 in bo po daljšem odmoru s peto številko znova zaživela predvidoma z objavo rezultatov restavratorskih in drugih posegov na freskah Giulia Quaglia v ljubljanski stolnici. Vendar je bila tudi restavratorska dejavnost spomeniške službe posebej predstavljena v posebni XVI. številki Varstva spomenikov kot obeležje dvajsetletnice obstoja in dela posebnega konser-vatorskega (restavratorskega) ateljeja Zavoda za spomeniško varstvo SR Slovenije, ki je ob tej priložnosti leta 1972 pripravil tudi razstavo. Ob kratkem in sumaričnem pregledu vsebine bi veljalo ne nazadnje opozoriti še na prispevke o posa-meznih opravilih znotraj delovnih nalog konservatorjev, ki pa so bile redkeje predstavljene v zaokroženih pregledih za daljše obdobje. Enega prvih je prispeval Ivan Komelj, ki je v X. številki, posvečeni Fran-cetu Stelétu, pripravil pregled novoodkritih fresk kot rezultat sistematičnih odkrivanj v Sloveniji od leta 1945 do leta 1965 in njihovo okvirno stilno opredelitev.27 Pozneje beležimo podoben, a žal zelo kratek prispevek Olge Zupan, ki je naštela nekatere novoodkrite primere na Gorenjskem,28 in prispevek podpisanega, ki je znova nekoliko bolj sistematično in z ustrezno mero stilnih in časovnih opredelitev pripravil pregled novodokritih lokacij srednjeveških fresk na Dolenjskem v času od ustanovitve Zavoda za varstvo naravne in kulturne dediščine Novo mesto leta 1980 do leta 1996.29 Sicer pa je treba v tem kontekstu omeniti vsaj še tiste prispevke, ki prinašajo vpogled v delovne naloge konservatorjev v luči posameznih zvrsti oziroma temeljnih strok, kot ga predstavlja na primer prispevek Nataše Štupar - Šumi, ki je lepo nanizala vrsto nalog arhitektov konservatorjev znotraj spomeniške službe,30 kar pozneje, če odštejemo različne prispevke Petra Fistra,31 prav tako redko zasledimo. Je pa nasproti temu bogata in pestra dejavnost spomeniške službe v Sloveniji razvidna iz poročil o konservatorskih delih na posameznih objektih kulturne dediščine, ki so bila sestavni del revije vse do 36. številke, se pravi do leta 1997, od 37. številke naprej pa izhajajo vzporedno v posebnem zvezku Varstvo spomenikov – Poročila. Čeprav je bila delitev mišljena predvsem v smislu želje po oblikovanju še bolj tehtne vsebinske zasnove revije, katere članki so bili od te številke naprej tudi prevedeni v angleščino, pa je zaradi določene krize spomeniškega varstva, ki je z raznimi reorganizacijami in novo zakonodajo vplivala tudi na revijo, do tedaj redno izha-janje doživelo določene časovne zamike. Šele z odločnim programom dela ZVKDS za leti 2006 in 2007 je znova uspelo ujeti ritem rednega izhajanja revije v dveh zvezkih, in sicer s poglobljenimi strokovnimi in znanstvenimi prispevki, in zvezku poročil o posegih na objektih kulturne dediščine, ki pretežno sloni na delu konservatorjev ZVKDS. Taka je delitev tudi jubilejne 44. številke. Sicer velja še dodati, da 10.,

10


11


20., 30., in 40. številka vsebujejo krajevna kazala za vseh deset številk nazaj. Celovitejši pregled o pomenu publikacije bi pokazale šele temeljite raziskave o zgodovini spomeniškega varstva v Sloveniji po drugi svetovni vojni, ki pa se jih za zdaj še nihče ni lotil, in tudi raziskave zgo-dovine matičnih strok, zlasti arheologije, etnologije in umetnostne zgodovine. Poznamo sistematične preglede začetkov spomeniškovarstvene dejavnosti v Sloveniji,32 nekaj malega o tem je mogoče zaslediti v prispevkih na priložnostnih simpozijih,33 vendar zaradi občutljivosti teme in vloge tudi določenih političnih skupin lahko zaenkrat beležimo in pričakujemo predvsem preglede in ocene,34 redkeje poglo-bljene analize,35 pa še teh v večini primerov ni mogoče neposredno prevesti v prakso oziroma v program dela ZVKDS. To se je ne nazadnje izkazalo ravno z Zakonom o varstvu kulturne dediščine iz leta 1999 in začetkom reorganizacije javne službe za varstvo kulturne dediščine na podlagi dveh ustanovitvenih sklepov iz let 1999 in 2003, katere nadgradnja v reorganizaciji se žal brez ustreznih analiz nadaljuje v letu 2008 s sprejetjem novega Zakona o varstvu kulturne dediščine36 in novega sklepa o ustanovitvi ZVKDS.37 Kakšne posledice bosta imela zakon in ustanovitveni sklep na varstvo in ohranitev kulturne dediščine ter delovanje ZVKDS, v tem trenutku seveda še ni mogoče reči, upamo pa, da bistveno ne bosta vplivala na prihodnost revije Varstvo spomenikov, saj bi morala založniška dejavnost in z njo pove-zana promocija kulturne dediščine ostati še naprej ena od temeljnih nalog ZVKDS.

Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije 1999–2008

Kot rečeno, je bila revija Varstvo spomenikov z izjemo krajšega obdobja vseskozi odvisna od Zavoda za varstvo kulturne dediščine, lahko bi celo rekli, da je revija nekakšno ogledalo ali njegov odsev, zato bi vel-jalo ob tej priložnosti na kratko orisati nekaj zavodovih glavnih nalog in perspektiv ter poudariti glavne značilnosti delovanja v preteklih letih. Ni namen, da bi na tem mestu naštevali številna preimenovanja in vse organizacijske oblike zavoda, želimo predvsem opozoriti na glavne okoliščine, ki so pogojevale njegovo delovanje od leta 1999, ko so bili samostojni regionalni zavodi v Celju, Kranju, Ljubljani, Mariboru, Novi Gorici, Novem mestu in Piranu ter Restavratorski center združeni v enotni javni zavod. Podlago za združitev so predstavljali tedanji Zakon o varstvu kulturne dediščine ter dva ustanovitvena sklepa iz let 1999 in 2003.38 Kronološko so pomembnejši dogodki znotraj okvira enotnega javnega zavoda razvrščeni od leta 1999, in sicer najprej ustanovitveni sklep in imenovanje vršilca dolžnosti direktorja, arhitekta Jova Grobovška,39 nato imenovanje direktorja ZVKDS Janeza Kromarja od decembra 2000 za dobo petih let. Leta 2000 je bila sklenjena najemna pogodba za poslovne prostore na Cankarjevi 4 v Ljubljani, leta 2004 je sledila selitev skupnih služb na Metelkovo 4, vendar je zaradi zakonskih določil uradni naslov ZVKDS ostal na Cankarjevi 4 in se je šele z najnovejšim ustanovitvenim sklepom optimistično spremenil na Metelkovo 6, kjer ZVKDS sicer še nima prostorov. Leta 2005 se je ZVKDS vpisal tudi v evidenco raziskovalnih organizacij. Konec leta 2005 je ZVKDS dobil novega direktorja, podpisanega, a mu je z odločbo minis-tra za kulturo z julija 2008 mandat predčasno prenehal z imenovanjem za vršilca dolžnosti generalnega direktorja ZVKDS. Z združitvijo osmih samostojnih javnih zavodov se je ZVKDS leta 1999 soočil z vrsto težav, s katerimi so se prej bolj ali manj uspešno spopadali na regionalni ravni. Od najočitnejših velja omeniti težave s poenotenjem metodologije dela, standardov in delovnih navad ter s kadrovanjem. Že iz obeh ustano-vitvenih sklepov je razvidno, da sta konstituiranje ZVKDS in združitev trajala skorajda štiri leta, pa še to v nepopolni obliki, saj so računovodstva, fizično sicer večinoma združena, ostala ločena, kar je po svoje razvidno tudi iz posebnega seznama naročnikov, ki ga je Ministrstvo za kulturo posredovalo na Ministrstvo za finance, da so samostojni naročniki poleg ZVKDS tudi vse njegove območne enote in Restavratorski center. To je v praksi prineslo vrsto nepotrebnih, a nujnih opravil v računovodstvu, kar je posledično povzročilo razvoj obsežnega računovodskega sektorja, ki ga sicer dodatno narekujejo tudi drugi slovenski zakonski predpisi. Vendar težave niso bile toliko povezane s samim združevanjem kot z vrsto nalog, ki so bile naložene z novo zakonodajo leta 1999 in ustanovitvenima sklepoma.40 Čeprav imamo na prvi pogled opraviti z zelo raznoliko in nepregledno dejavnostjo, pa je bilo mogoče vse te na-loge razvrstiti v tri temeljne programske sklope, ki so postali tudi osnova pri strukturi letnega programa dela ZVKDS od leta 2006 do leta 2008. Prvi sklop predstavlja prostorsko in pravno varstvo kulturne

dediščine, kamor sodijo evidentiranje in valorizacija, dokumentiranje ter vsi segmenti in potrebni post-opki za pravno varstvo kulturne dediščine s posebnim poudarkom tudi na upoštevanju mednarodnih konvencij, uveljavitvi metodologije za vzpostavitev različnih ravni varovanja in končno varstvo kulturne dediščine v prostoru, ki je postala ena od prioritet v delovnih procesih. Z novim zakonom iz leta 2008 je prostorsko varstvo postalo celo edina oblika pravnega varstva, priprava strokovnih osnov zanj pa je prešla v pristojnost Ministrstva za kulturo. Drugi sklop predstavljajo načrtovanje in izvedba posegov – vzdrževanje kulturne dediščine, kamor spadajo izdelava smernic, pogojev in soglasij, meritve in izdelava arhitekturnih posnetkov, raziskave – preiskave objektov, izdelava konservatorskih programov in konservatorsko-restavratorskih projektov ter izvedba najzahtevnejših posegov. Tretji sklop predstavlja prenos znanja, kjer je posebna pozornost posvečena predstavitvi raziskav in posegov, izobraževanju in pripravi izobraževalnih procesov, promociji, založništvu in mednarodnemu sodelovanju. Znotraj tega sklopa smo močno izpostavili vlogo naše revije Varstvo spomenikov in tudi drugih publikacij (Vestnik, Res, zbirka vodnikov), ki bi morale soditi v železni repertoar založniške dejavnosti javne službe. Druga opravila, ki so v vsebinskem smislu varstva kulturne dediščine obrobnega pomena, za zakonito poslovan-je ZVKDS pa ključnega, so bila uvrščena v četrti sklop, to je med druge naloge. V prvih letih obstoja je imel ZVKDS poleg prostorske stiske, s katero se sicer spopada še danes, tudi nekaj izrazitejših finančnih težav. Po bilanci leta 2005 je bilo skrb vzbujajoče zlasti negativno finančno stanje v zvezi s stroškom dela (plače, prevoz na delo, prehrana), ki je znašalo dobrih 36 milijonov SIT primanjkljaja; tega je moral ZVKDS pokrivati iz drugih finančnih postavk, od katerih so bile nekatere vendarle nekoliko bolj uspešne. S posebnimi ukrepi je uspelo ZVKDS na področju kadrovskih razmer primanjkljaj v letu 2006 zmanjšati za 50 odstotkov, v letu 2007 pa skorajda v celoti. Razlika, ki je ostala, je zgolj posledica dejstva, da v nasprotju s kolektivno pogodbo ZVKDS od ustanovitelja ni dobil dovolj sredstev za prevoz na delo zaposlenih. Našteto delo ni bilo edini korak na organizacijsko-poslovnem področju. V letu 2006 in 2007 je namreč ZVKDS oblikoval in sprejel več pravilnikov (Pravilnik o uporabi službenih vozil, Poslovnik Raziskovalnega sveta, Pravilnik o razporeditvi delovnega časa, Pravilnik o notranjem revidiranju, Pravilnik o oddaji javnih naročil, za katera ni potrebno objaviti javnega razpisa, Pravilnik o zavarovanju osebnih podatkov), ki so pogoj za zakonito delo. Sledila je še vrsta ukrepov kot posledica prve kvalitetne notranje revizije ZVKDS, in sicer uvedba protokola za evidentiranje poslovnih dogodkov, enotna evidenca pogodb in naročilnic, predvsem pa sprejetje Strateškega načrta revidiranja, Letnega načrta revidiranja 2008 in Oceno tveganja 2008, v zaključni fazi pa je še Register tveganja pri poslovanju ZVKDS, ki ga mora ZVKDS kot posredni proračunski porabnik pripraviti najpozneje do konca leta 2008. Vse to je narekovalo nekaj dodatnih ukrepov, od legalizacije računalniških programov do izobraževanja zaposlenih ter postopnega izboljševanja tehničnih zmogljivosti ZVKDS, ki imajo za posledico dvig kvalitete dela. Pri posodabljanju tehničnih zmogljivosti je ZVKDS poleg sredstev Min-istrstva za kulturo v letu 2007 vključil prvič tudi lastna sredstva v višini 40 odstotkov, v letu 2008 pa celo 140 odstotkov lastnih sredstev glede na odobrena proračunska sredstva. Delež lastnih sredstev je nedvomno omogočilo dejstvo, da so bili v letu 2006 letni cilji znotraj programa dela zlasti z naslova druge javne službe močno preseženi, medtem ko smo beležili v okviru rednega programa dela presežek rezultatov v povprečju za 15 odstotkov, v letu 2007 pa za dobrih 25 odstotkov. Leto 2007 je bilo v poslovnem smislu rekordno, čemur so poleg zakonskih razmer deloma botrovale tudi manjše kadrovske spremembe. Čeprav na videz neznatne, so bile pomembne že dve zamenjavi vodij območnih enot in številne projektne zaposlitve, ki jih ni financiralo Ministrstvo za kulturo, temveč druge javne službe, in so ponekod in občasno omogočale tudi izpolnjevanje nalog rednega programa, saj je lahko ZVKDS le na ta način malenkostno razbremenil posamezna redna delovna mesta.41 V vsakem primeru pa je bila za uspešno poslovno leto zaslužna večina zaposlenih ter vodij območnih enot in Restavratorskega centra; za to bi si nedvomno zaslužili posebno pohvalo, ki pa je žal doslej ni bilo mogoče izraziti v finančnem smislu. Odsev vsega tega bo izražen zgolj v obsežnih zvezkih poročil o spomeniškovarstvenih akcijah za leti 2007 in 2008.Po drugi strani so se v vsebinskem pogledu delovanja ZVKDS v zadnjih letih jasno izluščili tudi nekat-eri obsežni sklopi problemov, od katerih je najizrazitejše pravno varstvo kulturne dediščine. Register kulturne dediščine namreč pogosto ni zagotavljal dovolj trdnega pravnega varstva, prav tako pa tudi ne prostorski in razglasitveni akti, saj so bili navadno varstveni režimi premalo definirani. Za šibko točko se je izkazala tudi monokratična ureditev poslovanja ZVKDS, znotraj katere je za strokovnost in zakonitost

12


13


poslovanja edina odgovorna oseba direktor. Predlog ZVKDS, da bi z novo zakonodajo in ustanovitven-im aktom tako ureditev spremenili, in sicer v smislu uprave, kjer bi bili vsaj za pomembnejše odločitve odgovorni trije, s čimer bi bila tudi kulturna dediščina manj ranljiva, pa so avtorji zakona in ustano-vitvenega akta gladko zavrnili. Nenehne spremembe zakonodaje s področja urejanja prostora in varstva kulturne dediščine niso bile ravno v prid pospešenim izboljšavam delovanja, saj onemogočajo uvedbo rutinskega izvajanja delovnih nalog in prinašajo zaradi nenehnih spreminjanj postopkov večinoma jalove rezultate. Kakšen bo eksperiment nosilcev kulturne politike, ki se obeta z že omenjenim novim Zako-nom o varstvu kulturne dediščine in ustanovitvenim sklepom, s katerima se regionalna mreža območnih enot in institucializirano konservatorstvo zmanjšujeta, pa bo mogoče več pisati ob naslednjem jubileju. Dalje se je izkazalo, da je področje dokumentiranja spomenikov, ki je ena od glavnih nalog ZVKDS, razmeroma šibko, vendar pa to velja predvsem za topografske opise in fotografsko dokumentacijo, glede katere je ZVKDS doslej lahko organiziral le nekaj izobraževalnih tečajev. Na drugi strani je izdelava grafične dokumentacije v zadnjih letih v posameznih enotah ZVKDS tudi po zaslugi prizadevanj prvega vršilca dolžnosti direktorja ZVKDS leta 2000 dosegla raven, ki je povsem primerljivo s svetovno. S prev-lado digitalne tehnologije in problemov hranjenja digitalne dokumentacije je ZVKDS soočen z obsežno problematiko, ki bo imela večje finančne posledice. Vsekakor je za rešitev teh problemov že naredil nekaj korakov, saj je bila v letu 2007 izvedena sistemska mreža povezav med računalniškimi sistemi vseh enot kot temelja za vzpostavitev programskega sistema za enotno hranjenje digitalne dokumentacije, ki bo predvidoma na vpogled tudi na spletnih straneh in dostopna za registrirane uporabnike predvidoma v letu 2009. Seveda bi na strokovnem področju morali našteti še vrsto drugih težav in spornih odločitev, ki so imele za posledico med drugim tudi nezadovoljne lastnike kulturne dediščine, a je treba na drugi strani poudariti, da je na približno 10.000 upravnih oziroma kulturnovarstvenih aktov (pogojev, soglasij, mnenj), ki jih ZVKDS izda vsako leto, manj kot 1 odstotek pritožb. Nezanemarljive so bile tudi velike težave ZVKDS v zvezi z izvajanjem zavarovalnih arheoloških raziskav, saj je imel na podlagi zakona iz leta 1999 monopolni položaj kot edini možni izvajalec, a se je na tak status relativno pozno odzval; pri tem je vprašanje financiranja poizkopavalnih postopkov na arheološkem gradivu, s katerim ima ZVKDS večinoma velike prostorske in druge težave, še vedno ostalo nerešeno. So pa bili povzetki rezultatov arheoloških raziskav redno objavljeni vsaj v zvezku poročil Varstva spomenikov. Delovanje in poslovanje ZVKDS je bilo v zadnjih letih osredinjeno tudi na izpolnjevanje določenih strateških ciljev, od katerih so bili nekateri del dolgoročnih ciljev ZVKDS že od leta 2003. Večinoma so bili predstavljeni v osnutku strateškega načrta ZVKDS do leta 2013.42 Temeljni cilj predvidenega strateškega načrta je gotovo omogočiti zavodu najboljšo osnovo za racionalno in uspešno poslovanje, s tem pa v največji možni meri zagotoviti oziroma zagotavljati varstvo in ohranitev nepremične kulturne dediščine v Sloveniji, kar je bistveni pogoj za zagotovitev in prepoznavnost kulturne identitete slovenske države v vedno bolj globaliziranem svetu. Osnutek strateškega načrta zato vsebuje oris pravnoformalnih možnosti za poslovanje ZVKDS, oris področja delovanja in glavnih programskih vsebin z navedbo os-rednjih posebnosti, izhodišč za pripravo strateškega načrta ter seveda oris strateških ciljev in ukrepov. Od teh bi radi posebej izpostavili povečanje dostopnosti kulturne dediščine in dostopnosti celovitih infor-macij o njej, zagotavljanje kvalitetnejšega strokovnega in znanstvenega vrednotenja kulturne dediščine, dalje poenotenje in dvig strokovne ravni dela po posameznih organizacijskih enotah. Kot poseben cilj, ki je sicer v ospredju že od leta 1999, je mogoče označiti uveljavljanje nedestruktivnih metod raziskav kot osnovno in preventivno varstvo dediščine, zgolj pobožna želja pa je vzpostavitev centralno vodenega depoja vzorcev (v smislu študijskih in dokumentacijskih zbirk) in drugih ostankov kulturne dediščine s poudarkom na sistematičnem hranjenju in možnosti ponovne uporabe starega gradbenega materiala (opeke, tlakovci ...). Strateški cilj ZVKDS bi moralo biti izpolnjevanje nalog v okviru že omenjenih treh temeljnih pro-gramskih sklopov vsebin varstva kulturne dediščine, in sicer na ravni, ki bi bila jasno primerljiva z ravnijo evropskih projektov s področja ohranjanja kulturne dediščine. Temu strateškemu cilju bi morala biti podrejena obravnava obstoječe kadrovske strukture ZVKDS in s tem povezano izobraževanje delavcev, ki se že zdaj deli na dve ravni. Prvo raven predstavlja dodatno izobraževanje v organizaciji ZVKDS (tečaji, predstavitve, delavnice), drugo pa podiplomski študij zaposlenih (magisteriji, doktorati) s temami s področja varstva in ohranjanja kulturne dediščine in matičnih strok (arheologija, arhitektura, krajinska arhitektura, etnologija, restavratorstvo, umetnostna zgodovina, zgodovina, tehnične vede) ter naravo-

slovnih ved (na primer kemija). V tem kontekstu bi lahko govorili o vsaj 200 redno zaposlenih, od tega je 50 odstotkov visoko usposobljenih strokovnjakov in vsaj 30 odstotkov strokovnjakov z akademskimi na-zivi. Taka struktura zaposlenih bi lahko brez večjih težav obvladovala tudi različne raziskovalne naloge in projekte, ki bi se pretežno vezali na problematiko konkretnih objektov kulturne dediščine in njihovega ohranjanja, pri čemer bi pomemben delež zavzemale tudi naravoslovne raziskave. V tem sklopu bi bila podprta usmeritev k tistim projektom, ki bi problematiko reševali z večdisciplinarnim delom in tudi v sodelovanju z različnimi institucijami. Odsev teh teženj je končno vsebina jubilejne številke Varstva spo-menikov. Cilji bi v tem primeru predstavljali kvalitetnejše in uspešnejše ohranjanje kulturne dediščine ter prepoznavnost in uveljavitev ZVKDS, kar bi bilo mogoče dosegati tudi z obveznim publiciranjem vseh rezultatov raziskav in projektov bodisi v samostojnih publikacijah ZVKDS (Vestnik, Res) bodisi v obliki člankov v Varstvu spomenikov ali drugih uveljavljenih publikacijah, ter seveda s predavanji in predstavit-vami. Slednje bi bile osredinjene tudi na mednarodno sodelovanje, v okviru katerega bi bila prioriteta primerjanje ravni varstva in ohranjanja kulturne dediščine, skupne organizacije delavnic s ciljem promo-cije javne službe varstva v Sloveniji, primerjave in poenotenje standardov varstva, pridobivanje sredstev iz EU ter promocije kulturne dediščine v Sloveniji in njene prepoznavnosti v EU. Zakonski predpisi s področja porabe javnih financ, javnih naročil, računovodskih standardov in strateške usmeritve v Republiki Sloveniji narekujejo, da bi moral ZVKDS začeti tudi poslovnoorganizacijsko ra-cionalizacijo posameznih področij poslovanja, od računovodstva do različnih delovnih skupin z natančno uveljavitvijo protokolov poslovnih dogodkov. Nekaj nam jih je v zadnjem letu že uspelo oblikovati, večina se bo izluščila šele po zaključku že začetih analiz glavnih segmentov dela, ki se izvajajo predvsem s pomočjo notranjih revizij s ciljem zmanjšati tveganja, določiti prioritete dela in racionalizirati delovne naloge. Vse našteto je nedvomno v močni odvisnosti s kadrovsko strukturo zaposlenih, katere zgodovina je v okviru javne službe varstva kulturne dediščine zelo pestra in s posameznih vidikov tudi zaskrbljujoča, na kar je opozoril že Gojko Zupan pred skoraj desetimi leti.43 Na tem mestu ne bomo ponavljali nje-govih ugotovitev, vendarle pa bi opozorili, da se je število zaposlenih na ZVKDS od leta 1991 do danes povečalo za 17 zaposlenih, in sicer med letoma 1999 in 2000 za 11 zaposlenih in med letoma 2002 in 2004 za 6 zaposlenih. Razlogov je več. V prvi vrsti je večje število zaposlenih narekoval nov Zakon o varstvu kulturne dediščine iz leta 1999, ki je prinesel številne nove naloge ter opravila in seveda združitev prej samostojnih zavodov za varstvo naravne in kulturne dediščine v enotni javni zavod. Večje število za-poslenih, zlasti administrativnega kadra, so narekovali tudi drugi zakonski predpisi, na primer s področja javnih naročil, računovodskih standardov, upravnih postopkov, porabe javnih sredstev itd., zaposlitve strokovnih kadrov pa izrazito povečan obseg dela, ki so ga poleg omenjenega Zakona o varstvu kulturne dediščine narekovale tudi družbenogospodarske razmere,; od teh je najočitnejša porast gradbene deja-vnosti v Republiki Sloveniji od leta 1998 do leta 2006, ki je po podatkih Statističnega urada Republike Slovenije večja za 2,65-krat. V obdobju od leta 2002 do leta 2004 beležimo znova povečanje števila za-poslenih, in sicer je leta 2002 Ministrstvo za kulturo zaradi ukinitve nekaterih nalog eno delovno mesto preneslo iz svojih vrst na ZVKDS, leto pozneje pa še eno; leta 2004 je Ministrstvo za kulturo na ZVKDS premestilo še štiri zaposlene (tri z visoko izobrazbo, eno osebo s srednjo), ki jih ni več potrebovalo. Ob koncu leta 2007 je tako ZVKDS obsegal 203 delovna mesta, ki jih je financiralo Ministrstvo za kulturo, poleg njih pa še 37 projektnih zaposlitev, ki jih je ZVKDS financiral iz drugih virov iz naslova druge javne službe (glej tabelo I).44 Med redno zaposlenimi je bila stopnja izobrazbe glede na naloge, ki so zavodu zaupane, seveda močno v prid visokoizobraženih kadrov (glej tabelo II), kar ostaja, kot rečeno, tudi prioriteta v doslej zastavljenih izhodiščih za kadrovski načrt. Poudarek je na obravnavi nadomestnih zaposlitev, in sicer deficitarnih kadrov (gradbeniki, arhitekti, konservatorji-restavratorji, naravoslovni profili, pravniki), in skrbi za tista področja dela, ki doslej niso bila ustrezno rešena (na primer podvodna arheologija). Splošni cilj je izdelati kadrovski načrt, ki bo zagotavljal racionalno in učinkovito kadrovsko zasedbo glede na zastavljene naloge, kar pomeni ustrezno zaposlovanje mladih najsposobnejših kadrov za vsa področja poslovanja in strokovnega dela ZVKDS. Po obsegu nalog, ki jih je ZVKDS dobil z novim zakonom leta 2008, to konkretno pomeni okoli 205 redno financiranih iz naslova osnovne javne službe in vsaj 20 do 30 zaposlenih za določen čas oziroma nedoločen čas, a bi bili vir financiranja različni projekti (vsaj 2 do 3 milijone evrov letno), ki bi vzporedno s tem omogočali ustvarjanje letnega presežka prihodkov nad odhodki (okoli 100.000 do 200.000 evrov); to bi zagotavljalo konstantno posodabljanje tehničnih zmogljivosti ZVKDS ter s tem konkurenčnost in narekovanje standardov.

14


15


Opisane perspektive še zdaleč niso nerealne, saj je mogoče možnosti njihovih uresničitev že danes pod-preti s konkretnimi poslovnimi rezultati. Realizacija v naslednjih letih bo nedvomno odvisna od organov zavoda in še posebej od ustanovitelja oziroma predstavnikov Ministrstva za kulturo, ki po drugi strani lahko v celoti spremenijo zastavljene načrte. Če smer razvoja ostaja v začrtanih okvirih, potem lahko že danes trdimo, da zanimivih in pestrih tem, prispevkov in besedil, ki bodo predstavljeni v naši reviji Varstvo spomenikov, ne bo primanjkovalo. S tem bi zagotovili možnosti za izpolnitev glavnih ciljev revije, ki niso zgolj beleženje našega dela, novih metod in nadgradnja dosedanjih rezultatov, temveč tudi večja odmevnost naše dejavnosti, ki bi omogočala kritične primerjave in končno tudi ustrezno promocijo dejavnosti, revije in še posebej slovenske kulturne dediščine tako doma kot tudi v tujini.

Tabela 1: Število zaposlenih ZVKDS od leta 1991 do 31. 10. 2007

31. 12. 1991

31. 12. 2000

31. 12. 2002

31. 12. 2004

31. 10. 2007

ZVKDS MOP ZVKDS MOP ZVKDS ZVKDS ZVKDS Projekti

OE CE 17 4 17 4 17 19 19 3

OE KR 18 18 4 18 17 17 3

OE LJ 27 3 29 8 29 23 23 3

OE MB 31 3 33 6 32 32 32 9

OE NG 21 4 21 4 23 23 23

OE NM 19 2 22 5 23 22 22 2

OE PI 16 1 16 5 16 16 16 1

RC 37 32 29 31 31 11

SS 9 11 20 20 5

186 17 197 36 198 203 203 37

203 233 198 203 240

Legenda:

ZVKDS Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, strošek dela, ki ga financira Ministrstvo za kulturoMOP Ministrstvo za okolje in prostor (v času samostojnih zavodov za varstvo naravne in kulturne dediščine)OE območne enoteRC Restavratorski centerSS skupne službeProjekti projektne zaposlitve (večinoma) za določen čas, strošek dela ni financiran iz javnih sredstev, namenjenih ZVKDS

Tabela 2: Struktura zaposlenih ZVKDS (financiranih iz MK) na dan 31. 10. 2007

TARIFNA SKUPINA

I–IV V VI VII VIII IX

OE CE 1 3 1 10 4 0 19

OE KR 1 3 1 7 5 0 17

OE LJ 1 0 2 15 5 0 23

OE MB 2 3 3 13 10 1 32

OE NG 1 6 1 12 3 0 23

OE NM 0 5 2 8 5 2 22

OE PI 1 0 2 7 5 1 16

RC 0 4 1 16 8 2 31

SS 0 2 3 11 1 3 20

SKUPAJ 7 26 16 99 46 9 203

Opombe1 Marijan Slabe, Ob petdeseti obletnici Varstva spomenikov, Varstvo spomenikov, 38, Ljubljana 1999, str. 286–293; glej tudi Alenka

Kuševič, Razvoj spomeniškega varstva na Slovenskem, Varstvo spomenikov, 38, Ljubljana 1999, str. 247–263, in Gojko Zupan, Strokovni delavci v zavodih in perspektive, Varstvo spomenikov, 38, Ljubljana 1999, str. 264–285.

2 Fran Šijanec, Zavod za varstvo spomenikov LRS, Varstvo spomenikov, 1, Ljubljana 1948, str. 6.3 Varstvo spomenikov, 1, Ljubljana 1948, str. 1–2.4 Publikacija je izhajala pod naslovom Mittheilungen der Kaiser. Königl. Central-Commission zur Erforschung und Erhaltung der Kunst- und

historischen Denkmale, Dunaj, zadnjih šestnajst let pa kot Mitteilungen der K. K. Central-Commission für Denkmalpflege.5 Vida Urek, Slovenica v reviji Kirchenschmuck (1870–1905) – bibliografski popis, Zbornik za umetnostno zgodovino, n. v. IX, Ljubljana

1972, str. 145–158.6 Glej Josip Dostal, Varstvo spomenikov in naše cerkve, Peto izvestje Društva za krščansko umetnost v Ljubljani 1907–1912, Ljubljana 1913,

str. 56 in dalje. 7 Ivan Komelj, Vida Fatur, Delavci Zavoda SR Slovenije za spomeniško varstvo v letih 1945–1975, Varstvo spomenikov, XX, Ljubljana

1976, str. 141–158. 8 Na primer Bogo Teplý, Delo muzejev v l. 1953-1954, Varstvo spomenikov, V, 1953–1954, str. 172–178. 9 Spomeniška zakonodaja, Varstvo spomenikov, I, Ljubljana 1948, str. 3–6. 10 Dinko Gregorin, Razmišljanja o spomeniškem varstvu ob novi ustavi, Varstvo spomenikov, XX, Ljubljana 1976, str. 93–106.11 Jelka Pirkovič, Ali so spomeniki drobiž v igri med političnimi strankami?, Varstvo spomenikov, 36, Ljubljana 1997, str. 7–12.12 Emilijan Cevc, Kostanjeviški samostan, Varstvo spomenikov, I, Ljubljana 1948, str. 13–15. 13 Marijan Zadnikar, Restavracija cerkve na Ptujski gori, Varstvo spomenikov, III, 1–2, Ljubljana 1950, str. 11–29.14 Marijan Zadnikar, Minoritska cerkev v Ptuju, Varstvo spomenikov, III, 3–4, Ljubljana 1950, str. 88–113.15 Bogo Teplý, Ivan Meznarič, Odprava hišne gobe ter obnova viteške dvorane v mariborskem gradu, Varstvo spomenikov, III, 3–4, Ljubljana

1950, str. 141–148.16 Ivan Komelj, Ob raziskovanju dolenjskih gradov, Varstvo spomenikov, I, Ljubljana 1948, str. 19–21; Ivan Komelj, Dolenjski gradovi in

spomeniško varstvo, Varstvo spomenikov, III, 1–2, Ljubljana 1950, str. 39–46.17 Ciril Velepič, Srednjeveško stensko slikarstvo v Sloveniji ob kopiranju in razstavi v tujini, Varstvo spomenikov, II, Ljubljana 1948, str.

66–75.18 Peter Petru, Upravičenost rekonstrukcije posameznih arheoloških spomenikov, Varstvo spomenikov, IX, 1962–1964, Ljubljana 1965, 3–11;

glej tudi več prispevkov v XV. številki Varstva spomenikov.19 France Stelè, Estetika in dokumentarnost v restavriranju spomenikov, Varstvo spomenikov, V, 1953–1954, Ljubljana 1955, str. 5–13.20 Milan Železnik, O prvobitni podobi likovnih spomenikov in nekaterih aktualnih nalogah spomeniškega varstva, Varstvo spomenikov, VIII,

1960–1961, Ljubljana 1962, str. 48–55; Ivan Sedej, resnica in mit v teoriji spomeniškega varstva, Varstvo spomenikov, XV, Ljubljana 1972, str. 7–14; Ivan Komelj, Avtentičnost »avtentičnih« spomenikov NOB (Prispevek k metodologiji varstva), Varstvo spomenikov, XXVII, Ljubljana 1985, str. 49–52.

21 Iva Mikl Curk, Teorija varstva arheoloških spomenikov v naši praksi, Varstvo spomenikov, XXIII, Ljubljana 1981, str. 81–94; Davorin Vuga, Prispevek k teoriji in praksi zaščitnega arheološkega izkopavanja, Varstvo spomenikov, XXIII, Ljubljana 1981, str. 95–99.

22 Marijan Zadnikar, Razkorak med spomeniško teorijo in prakso, Varstvo spomenikov, XI, Ljubljana 1966, str. 5–13.23 Marinka Dražumerič, Historiat neke obnove. Frančiškanska cerkev sv. Lenarta v Novem mestu, Varstvo spomenikov, 34, Ljubljana 1992,

str. 154–160. 24 Cene Avguštin, Mestna hiša v Kranju, Varstvo spomenikov, IX, 19611964, Ljubljana 1965, str. 61–72.

16


17


25 Miha Pirnat, Čelovnik, Fojana, Panngrč Grm, Krtina, Varstvo spomenikov, XVII–XIX/2, Ljubljana 1975, str. 75–88.26 Na primer Ivan Bogovčič, Tesnenje razpok v stenskih slikah s poliuretanskim kitom, Varstvo spomenikov, XXII, Ljubljana 1979, str.

199–204.27 Ivan Komelj, Dvajset let odkrivanja srednjeveških fresk, Varstvo spomenikov, X, 1965, Ljubljana 1966, str. 39–76.28 Olga Zupan, Srednjeveško stensko slikarstvo na Gorenjskem. Sondiranja in odkrivanja v letih 1965–1985, Varstvo spomenikov, 28, Lju-

bljana 1986, str. 209–212. 29 Robert Peskar, Gotsko stensko slikarstvo na Dolenjskem in v Beli krajini - nova odkritja, Varstvo spomenikov, 37, Ljubljana 1997, str.

69–96.30 Nataša Štupar - Šumi, O delu arhitekta v spomeniškovarstveni službi, Varstvo spomenikov, XIII–XIV, 1968–1969, Ljubljana 1970, str.

41–92.31 Na primer Peter Fister, Obnavljanje starih polihromacij na sakralni arhitekturi, Varstvo spomenikov, XIII–XIV, 1968–1969, Ljubljana 1970,

str. 93–106.32 Franjo Baš, Organizacija spomeniškega varstva v slovenski preteklosti, Varstvo spomenikov, V, 1953–1954, Ljubljana 1955, str. 13–37.33 Alenka Kuševič, Razvoj spomeniškega varstva (kot op. 1), glej tudi prispevke simpozija v istoimenskem zborniku Umetnostna zgodovina

in spomeniško varstvo. Posvetovanje ob 75-letnici ustanovitve Slovenskega umetnostnozgodovinskega društva (1921–1996), Ljubljana 1997. 34 Jelka Pirkovič, Vrste opravil v spomeniškem varstvu, Varstvo spomenikov, 32, Ljubljana 1990, str. 11–21.35 Jelka Pirkovič, Osnovni pojmi in zasnova spomeniškega varstva v Sloveniji, Vestnik, XI, Ljubljana 1993. 36 Zakon o varstvu kulturne dediščine (ZVKD-1), Uradni list Republike Slovenije, št. 16/2008, str. 1121–1145.37 Sklep o ustanovitvi Javnega zavoda Republike Slovenije za varstvo kulturne dediščine, Uradni list Republike Slovenije, št. 65/2008, str.

8776–8782.38 Zakon o varstvu kulturne dediščine, Uradni list Republike Slovenije, št. 7/1999; Sklep o ustanovitvi Javnega zavoda Republike Slovenije za

varstvo kulturne dediščine, Uradni list Republike Slovenije, št. 38/1999; Sklep o ustanovitvi Javnega zavoda Republike Slovenije za varstvo kulturne dediščine, Uradni list Republike Slovenije, št. 110/2003.

39 Sklep o imenovanju vršilca dolžnosti direktorja javnega zavoda (Uradni list Republike Slovenije, št. 108/1999).40 Če jih na kratko naštejemo, so to: evidentiranje dediščine in posredovanje podatkov v register dediščine; dokumentiranje, inventa-

riziranje, raziskovanje in preučevaje dediščine; valorizacija dediščine; priprava strokovnih podlag za razglasitvene akte in soglasja za upravne postopke; izvajanje raziskovalnih projektov z metodami, ki pomenijo poseg v dediščino; dokumentiranje vzdrževanja, posegov, rabe in prometa dediščine; usmerjanje in nadzor nad upravljanjem in gospodarjenjem z dediščino v lasti države oziroma lokalnih skup-nosti; priprava smernic s področja dediščine za sprejemanja prostorskih in planskih aktov; priprava konservatorskih in restavratorskih programov; sodelovanje z lastniki spomenikov in drugimi, ki imajo interese v zvezi s posameznim spomenikom, ter posredovanje pojasnil, nasvetov in navodil; pripravljanje strokovnih zasnov za varstvo dediščine; izdajanje kulturnovarstvenih mnenj, pogojev in soglasij; priprava konservatorskih in restavratorskih projektov za varovanje, obnavljanje in oživljanje dediščine; načrtovanje, usmerjanje, organiziranje in vodenje posameznih najzahtevnejših konservatorskih in restavratorskih posegov na spomenikih; sodelovanje pri presoji in skrbi za materialno stanje dediščine; zagotavljanje in vodenje enotne dokumentacije restavratorske dejavnosti; izvajanje strokovne matičnosti, oblikovanje metod in standardov ter usmerjanje, usklajevanje in spremljanje njihovega izvajanja; usklajevanje restavratorske dejavnosti in skrb za razvoj restavratorske stroke ter njeno usmerjanje; vodenje evidence izvajalcev dejavnosti varstva dediščine na podlagi dovoljenj in koncesij, usmerjanje in nadzor nad njihovim delom; sodelovanje v upravnih postopkih, ki se nanašajo na varovanje in rabo dediščine, ter priprava strokovnih podlag, ki jih vodi ministrstvo; popularizacije dediščine in njenega varstva; opravljanje dejavnosti v informacijskih pisarnah in izpostavah zavoda; usmerjanje in sodelovanje pri izobraževanju in izpopolnjevanju ter usposabljanju kadrov na področju konservatorstva in restavratorstva; vključevanje v sistem varstva dediščine v primeru oboroženega spopada in varstva pred naravnimi nesrečami; sodelovanje z drugimi javnimi zavodi in institucijami na področju varstva dediščine in drugih področjih kulture, ki v Sloveniji in mednarodnem prostoru delujejo v javnem interesu; mednarodno sodelovanje z institucijami s področja varstva dediščine; sodelovanje pri slovenskem in mednarodnem kulturnem ter znanstvenem sodelovanju s sorodnimi institucijami, raziskovalnimi ustano-vami in drugimi državnimi javnimi zavodi; sodelovanje z mediji in RTV Slovenija.

41 ZVKDS je za leto 2007 pripravil analizo obremenjenosti posameznih delovnih mest (glej Robert Peskar s sodelavci: Strateški načrt ZVKDS 2007–2013 (Osnutek), Ljubljana, marec 2008, str. 25–26 (razmnoženo kot tipkopis)), iz katere je razvidno, da so restavratorji arhitekti najbolj obremenjeni zaposleni znotraj ZVKDS, in sicer v povprečju za okoli 25 odstotkov nad povprečno letno kvoto ur v ok-viru rednega dela, to je 1600 ur. Sledijo arheologi z okoli 20-odstotno obremenjenostjo, direktor ZVKDS z okoli 14-odstotno povečano obremenitvijo, vodje območnih enot z 10-odstotno obremenitvijo, obremenjenost restavratorjev in različnih tehnikov pa v povprečju znaša manj kot 5 odstotkov.

42 Robert Peskar, Strateški načrt ZVKDS (kot op. 41), str. 14 in dalje (razmnoženo kot tipkopis). 43 Gojko Zupan, Strokovni delavci v zavodih in perspektive (kot op. 1), str. 264 in dalje.44 Podatke o zaposlenih je zbrala Maja Horvat, vodja kadrovske službe pri ZVKDS.

Robert Peskar

60 years of Varstvo SpomenikovKey words: Varstvo Spomenikov review, monument legislation, Institute for the Protection of Culture Heritage of Slovenia, nature conservation, conservation work, restoration work, description of activities

Dear readers, Slovenia’s main review, Varstvo Spomenikov, which deals with the theory and practice of protecting monuments, celebrates its 60th anniversary in 2008. In August 1948, the first issue of the review was published as the newsletter of the then-Institute for the Protection and Study of Cultural and Natural Monuments of the People’s Republic of Slovenia. This means that the 44th Varstvo Spomenikov is a ju-bilee edition. In order to mark this high jubilee in suitable fashion, we should briefly describe what the review’s purpose has been so far, as well as draw attention to some historical milestones and the mission of its publisher, the Institute for the Protection of Culture Heritage of Slovenia (the Institute). This retrospective is meaningful, despite the fact that a short article has already been written to mark the 50th anniversary of the review,1 because the present context can be roughly described as similar to that of 60 years ago. In 1948, the first Slovenian law governing the protection of cultural monuments was adopted, and we can count it as the first precursor to the new Cultural Heritage Protection Act, which has been in force since 1 March 2008.

60 years of Varstvo Spomenikov

When, on 27 August 1945, the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of Slovenia founded the Institute for the Protection and Study of Cultural and Natural Monuments of the People’s Repub-lic of Slovenia,2 very soon the need emerged for a specific newsletter which would explain in layman’s terms the aims, principles, concrete tasks, activities and measures of monument protection to the wider Slovenian public, and especially, as the editors wrote in the introduction to the first edition,3 to the au-thorities, various cultural and construction institutions, schools and other organisations. Also of prime importance should be the cultural education of representatives from different fields, who would gain from the newsletter a general picture of the functioning and needs of monument protection. The em-phasis was on the general goal, which was for the newsletter to help bring about the lasting preservation of works of art created by our predecessors – master craftsmen, artists and foreigners who lived in these parts. Although 1948 was the birth year of this independent publication for the needs of the monument protection service, reporting on these activities has a long tradition in Slovenia. We do not here mean just the publication of the Viennese imperial central commission for the preservation of monuments, which was published from 1856 until 1918,4 but also Kirchenschmuck of Graz, which was issued from 1870 until 19055 as the newsletter of the association Kunstverein der Diözese Seckau, and the reports Iz-vestja Društva za krščansko umetnost v Ljubljani, which were published in five editions for the years from 1895 until 1912,6 and of course the reports on monument protection activities in Zbornik za umetnostno zgodovino from 1921 until 1943. These latter reports (entitled “Varstvo spomenikov” and founded in 1919) were edited by the nestor of monument protection specialists in Slovenia, France Stelè, who was the director of the Monument Office for Slovenia. He was editor until 1938; then the conservator France Mesesnel, who tragically died in 1945, took over until 1943. The above publications and reports

Dr Robert Peskar, Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia

18


19


provided the conceptual basis for the content and mission of the independent review, which was first issued in 1948, only one year later than the related newsletter of the Austrian monument preservation service, Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kunst und Denkmalpflege. Before we draw attention to the review’s content, it is worth emphasising that the review was first published by the old Institute for the Protection and Study of Cultural and Natural Monuments of the People’s Republic of Slovenia, which was led from 1945 until 1948 by Fran Šijanec, who was also the first editor of the review.7 He was followed by Edo Turnher, who was director of the institute and chief editor until 1962, then Mica Černigoj until 1968, followed by Marijan Kolarič until 1969. To begin with, it was the editorial committee as a whole (Jože Kastelic, Marijan Mušič, Ciril Velepič) which was responsible for the content; between 1955 and 1965 Marijan Zadnikar with his collaborators looked after the magazine’s content. Between 1966 (X. edition) and 1974, the review was edited by Helena Menaše and her collaborators, while between 1975 and 1991, the editor-in-chief was Iva Mikl Curk. Under her leadership, the review gained the subtitle Revija za teorijo in prakso spomeniškega varstva (Re-view for the theory and practice of monument preservation), which it still has to this day. In more recent times, between 1992 and 2000, the review was edited by Jerneja Batič and published by the Department for Cultural Heritage at the Ministry of Culture as the legal successor to the former institute, which was founded in 1945. When on the basis of the new Cultural Heritage Protection Act, the present-day Institute for the Protection of Culture Heritage of Slovenia was founded in 1999, bringing together the previously independent regional institutes for the preservation of natural and cultural heritage, the Res-toration Centre and some employees at the Department for Cultural Heritage, the role of editor-in-chief was taken over by Biserka Ribnikar. In the beginning, the review was not intended only for those working in monument preservation or con-servation, but also fulfilled certain needs of Slovenian museums, especially by providing general reports on field activities and the state of museums and by presenting specialised technical discussions.8 Due to the increasing importance of museum topics, the framework of this monument review became too small, so these topics were taken over by various museum publications and the review Argo, which was resuscitated for the first time since 1962. The same is true for the field of nature conservation, which the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage cared for under different names until fields were sepa-rated on the basis of a law from the end of 1994, or until the independent Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation was founded in 2001. To begin with, the review also covered aspects of nature conservation, and in 1962 the newly founded Institute for the Protection and Study of Cultural and Natural Monuments of the People’s Republic of Slovenia began issuing an independent publication entitled Varstvo Narave. In 1992, the Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for the Protection of Natural and Cultural Heritage issued the last, 18th edition of the review for the theory and practice of protecting natural heritage. Only 10 years later did the publication await its subsequent, 19th edition, under the auspices of the Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation. Due to the variety listed above, it is no coincidence that the first edition of Varstvo Spomenikov also includes (alongside an introduction and short historical outline of the publisher) the first Slovenian law governing the protection of cultural monuments and natural attractions in the People’s Republic of Slovenia, which was adopted on 19 May 1948.9 Although the law consists of only 20 articles, they are written relatively clearly, and if they are consistently followed, then they are entirely sufficient for the comprehensive preservation of monuments, which is particularly surprising from the point of view of current legislation. Article 16 even foresees tax relief for owners, which means that current legisla-tion represents a step backwards in this regard. In later issues we come across present-day monument legislation many more times,10 most recently in an article by Jelka Pirkovič, who was particularly critical of separating natural and cultural heritage and the duties and responsibilities of local communities in proclaiming cultural monuments.11 Although the review has diverse content, it has been dominated since the beginning by discussions, pre-sentations and reports connected with aspects of protecting buildings considered to be monuments of cultural heritage, especially the question of renovating and preserving specific types of heritage. Besides presenting archaeological studies carried out in Ptuj, Bled and elsewhere in the first few issues, we can find special articles on the work and problems of preserving our most important artistic monuments, such as the former Cistercian monastery in Kostanjevica na Krki,12 Our Lady’s church on Ptujska Gora,13

the Minorite church in Ptuj,14 Maribor Castle15 and many others. However, all the articles are also of great significance for different contemporary studies due to their descriptions of the work carried out, the concrete findings and their documentary value. The former article writers, most of them conserva-tors working for the institution, placed particular emphasis on aspects of individual types of heritage. Perhaps we should make special mention of the protection and study of castle architecture,16 medieval wall paintings and the production of copies,17 and the protection and reconstruction of archaeological monuments in Šentpeter and elsewhere.18 Due to the former socio-political situation, special atten-tion was also attached to the preservation of monuments honouring the so-called National Liberation Struggle (NOB). As the review has always served the theory and practice of monument preservation, there are an increas-ing number of articles on doctrines of monument preservation and concrete technical methods. Of particular interest is the article by France Stelè,19 who differentiated the relations between the restoration of monuments and aesthetic perception. Later we come across more analytical articles, which deal either with theoretical principles or philosophical ideas about protecting monuments through legislation or with defining monuments and their protection regimes,20 the particularities of certain kinds of heritage, for example archaeological heritage,21 or contradictions between theory and practical reality,22 to which we can also add short descriptions of renovations which went wrong as a result of the owner’s improper attitude towards the monument.23 It is also worth mentioning that in 1962 the old Institute for the Pro-tection of Monuments began issuing the review Vestnik, which despite originally being aimed at a wide readership, brought a series of basic theoretical, methodological and practical explanations about basic work, doctrines and the duties of monument protection services in Slovenia from the second edition onwards. The articles were contributed by most of the conservators active at the time. Nineteen issues have so far been published and the twentieth is planned in 2008, devoted to the archaeological explora-tions of the bottom of Lake Bled. Precious articles in Varstvo Spomenikov, the likes of which we would like to see more, include those which give technical details on the work of restorers. As a pars pro toto I will mention the article by Cene Avguštin on the work carried out on the Town Hall in Kranj,24 the description of methods of restoring medieval paintings on individual monuments25 and some articles by Ivan Bogovčič.26 Restoration work has also been presented in greater detail in other publications, especially in the independent publica-tion Res, which the independent Restoration Centre of the Republic of Slovenia began issuing in 1992, and which following a lengthy break will come alive again with issue V, which will probably announce the results of restoration work on the frescos of Giulio Quaglia in the Ljubljana cathedral. However, the restoration work carried out by the monument preservation service was also specially presented in issue XVI of Varstvo Spomenikov to mark the 20th anniversary of the special conservation (restoration) workshop of the Institute for Monument Preservation, which also prepared an exhibition in 1972 to mark this occasion. We should also draw attention to the contributions on individual tasks of conservators, which were, however, less frequently presented in conclusive reports covering longer periods. One of the first such contributions was provided by Ivan Komelj in issue X, which was dedicated to France Stelè. Komelj pre-pared a review of newly discovered frescos following systematic studies in Slovenia from 1945 to 1965 and gave them an approximate classification according to their style.27 Later we come across a similar, al-though unfortunately very short, contribution by Olga Zupan, who listed some newly discovered items in the region of Gorenjska,28 as well as a contribution by the author of this article, who prepared a review of locations of medieval frescos in the region of Dolenjska discovered from 1980, when the Institute for the Preservation of Natural and Cultural Heritage Novo Mesto was founded, until 1996.29 His overview was again systematic and had appropriate stylistic and temporal classifications. We should, however, also mention in this context at least those contributions which provide an insight into the tasks of conserva-tors in light of individual specialisations, for example the contribution by Nataša Štupar-Šumi. She very clearly describes different tasks carried out by architects working in conservation for the monument pres-ervation service.30 Later, we rarely come across similar contributions, if we discount the various articles by Peter Fister.31 One can, however, become acquainted with the rich and diverse activities of the monu-ment preservation service in Slovenia from the reports on conservation work carried out on individual items of cultural heritage which were an integral part of the review up until issue XXXVI (1997). From

20


21


issue XXXVII onwards, however, they appear in a separate section entitled Varstvo spomenikov – Poročila. This separation aimed above all to further raise the professional level of the review’s content, whose articles were also translated into English from issue XXXVII onwards. However, a crisis in monument preservation also affected the review, with various reorganisations and new legislation, and while it was previously issued regularly, it began coming in delayed intervals. Only with the decisive programme of work by the Institute in 2006 and 2007 did they again succeed in catching up with the regular rhythm of publication of the review in two separate parts. One of them contains in-depth specialist articles, and the other reports on work on items of cultural heritage – mainly the work of Institute conservators. Issue XLIV is also divided into these two separate sections. Issue numbers X, XX, XXX and XL also contain tables of contents for the preceding 10 issues. Only a thorough study of the history of monument preservation in Slovenia following the Second World War would give a more comprehensive insight into the significance of this publication. However, no one has yet embarked on such a study or a study of the history of related subjects, especially archaeology, ethnology and art history. We are familiar with systematic overviews of the beginnings of monument preservation in Slovenia,32 and we can find some small contributions on this theme at occasional sympo-sia.33 However, due to the sensitivity of the topic and the role of certain political groups, we can for now expect above all general overviews and evaluations,34 rarely in-depth analyses.35 In most cases, the latter cannot in any case be directly translated into practice or incorporated into the work of the Institute. This was the case with the Cultural Heritage Protection Act from 1999 and the beginning of the reorganisa-tion of the public service for the protection of cultural heritage on the basis of two founding resolutions from 1999 and 2003. It continues to undergo reorganisation, unfortunately without suitable analyses, in 2008 with the adoption of the new Cultural Heritage Protection Act 36 and the new resolution on the founding of the Institute.37 It is impossible to say as yet what effects the law and the founding resolution will have on the protection and preservation of cultural heritage and the functioning of the Institute, but we do hope they will not too much affect the future of the review Varstvo Spomenikov, as publishing and promoting cultural heritage should remain one of the primary tasks of the Institute – except, of course, if those responsible for the content of the law and the reorganisation of the service have other plans.

Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia 1999–2008

The review Varstvo Spomenikov was (for all but a short period) always dependent on the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage. It could even be said that the review was like its mirror image or reflec-tion, so this opportunity should be taken to briefly describe some of the institute’s main duties and per-spectives, and to stress the main characteristics of its functioning in the past years. My aim here is not to list all the different names and organisational forms which the institute has had. Above all, I wish to draw attention to the main circumstances which affected its functioning from 1999, when the independent regional institutes in Celje, Kranj, Ljubljana, Maribor, Nova Gorica, Novo Mesto and Piran, and the Restoration Centre were united in one unified public institute. It was the old Cultural Heritage Protec-tion Act and two founding resolutions from 1999 and 2003 which formed the basis for unification.38 Important events which occurred within the unified public institution are listed chronologically from 1999 onwards, beginning with the founding resolution and the naming of the acting director, architect Jovo Grobovšek,39 followed by the naming of the Institute director, Janez Kromar, from December 2000 for a period of five years. In 2000, a tenancy agreement was signed for the premises on Cankarjeva 4 in Ljubljana. In 2004, there followed the transferral of all departments to Metelkova 4, but due to legal pre-scriptions, the official address of the Institute remained on Cankarjeva 4 and only changed optimistically to Metelkova 6 with the latest founding resolution, although the Institute still does not have its premises there. In 2005, the Institute also registered as a research organisation. At the end of 2005, the Institute gained a new director (the author of this article), but a provision by the Minister of Culture in July 2008 cut short the mandate with the naming of a new acting director of the Institute. The merging of eight independent public institutions meant that in 1999 the Institute faced a series of problems which it had previously dealt with more or less successfully on a regional level. One of the more manifest problems is that of unifying work methodology, standards and working habits and hu-

man resources. It is clear from both founding resolutions that setting up the Institute and joining all the institutions took almost four years and was not even complete, seeing as the accounting, although under the same roof, remained separate. This is evident from the special list of contracting entities which the Ministry of Culture passed on to the Ministry of Finance, which shows that alongside the Institute, its independent contracting entities also include all the regional units and the Restoration Centre. In prac-tice, this produced a series of unnecessary but urgent tasks in accounting, which consequently brought about the development of an extensive accounting sector, which is otherwise regulated by other Slove-nian legal regulations. However, the difficulties were not so much connected with the unification as with a series of tasks which were imposed with the new legislation in 1999 and the founding resolutions.40 Although at first glance we are dealing with very varied and complex activity, it was nonetheless possible to arrange these tasks in three basic groups, which also became the basis for the structure of the annual programme of work for the Institute between 2006 and 2008. The first group consists of the spatial and legal protection of cultural heritage, which also includes record-keeping, evaluating, documenting, and carrying out all the necessary procedures for the legal protection of cultural heritage, with a special emphasis on respecting international conventions, introducing methodologies for setting up different levels of protection and finally protecting cultural heritage in physical space, which became one of the priorities in the working processes. With the new law from 2008, spatial protection has even become the sole form of legal protection, and preparing the basis for it is now the responsibility of the Ministry of Culture. The second group consists of planning and implementing measures for preserving cultural heritage, which includes drawing up guidelines, conditions and agreements, measuring and producing architectural drafts and studies of the buildings, drawing up conservation programmes and conserva-tion-restoration projects, and carrying out the most demanding work. The third group consists of the transfer of knowledge, where particular attention is paid to presenting studies and work, training and the preparation of training, promotion, publishing and international cooperation. Within this group, we have placed a particular emphasis on the role of our review, Varstvo Spomenikov, as well as other publica-tions (Vestnik, Res, a collection guidebooks), which should make up the core of the publishing activi-ties of the public service. Other tasks which are of secondary importance for the protection of cultural heritage but of key importance when it comes to the lawful functioning of the Institute were listed in the fourth group (other tasks). During the first years of its existence, the Institute not only had problems with its premises (which it still has today), but also some serious financial difficulties. What was particularly worrying following the 2005 balance-sheet was the negative financial state connected with work expenses (salaries, transport to work, food), which amounted to a more than SIT 36 million deficit; the Institute had to cover this from other financial outlays, of which some were more successful than others. With the help of special measures, the Institute succeeded in reducing the 2006 deficit in staff payment by 50%, and in 2007 it almost completely disappeared. The remaining difference resulted only from the fact that in contrast to the collective treaty, the Institute did not receive sufficient funds for transportation to work for its employees from its founder. The listed work was not the only step taken in the field of organisation and business. In the years 2006 and 2007, the Institute shaped and adopted several rules (Rules governing the use of the institute’s cars, Manual for the World of Research, Rules governing the distribution of working hours, Rules on internal auditing, Rules on issuing public orders for which no public tender must be published, Rules on insuring personal details), which are obligatory for lawful functioning. There followed a series of measures resulting from the first proper interior revision of the Institute, including: the introduction of a protocol for keeping a record of business events, a unified record of contracts and order forms, and above all the adoption of the Strategic auditing plan, the 2008 annual auditing plan and Risk estimation 2008, and in the final phase also the Register of risk in Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia operations, which the Institute as an indirect budget user must prepare by the end of 2008 at the latest. All this dictated some further measures, from legalising computer programmes to educating employees and gradually improving the technical capabilities of the Institute, which would result in a rise in the quality of the work. In modernising its technical capabilities, the Institute for the first time in 2007 included its own funds, amounting to 40%, alongside those provided by the Ministry of Culture. In 2008, this proportion amounted to 140% in relation to the authorised budget money. This propor-tion was undoubtedly made possible by the fact that in 2006, the annual targets within the programme

22


23


of work, especially coming from a different public service, were far surpassed, while in the regular programme of work we recorded a profit averaging 15%, and in 2007 this increased to 25%. The year 2007 was a record year in business terms, and this was helped by legal means as well as by small staff changes. Although insignificant at first glance, the two replacements of directors of regional units and the many project jobs which were not financed by the Ministry of Culture but by other public services were significant. In some places and at some times they also enabled the fulfilment of tasks of the regular programme, as only in this way could the Institute take some pressure off the individual full-time em-ployees.41 By all means, the successful business year could not have happened without the effort invested by most employees, the leaders of regional units and the Restoration Centre; they certainly deserve a special commendation for this, which it has, however, unfortunately not yet been possible to express in financial terms. The reflection of all this will be expressed only in extensive files on monument preserva-tion activities in 2007 and 2008.However, in the past few years, some problematic areas in the functioning of the Institute have become clear. The most distinct is the legal protection of cultural heritage. The cultural heritage register often failed to provide sufficiently solid legal protection, and neither did the spatial and proclaiming acts, as the protective regimes were usually not well enough defined. Another weak point proved to be the monocratic functioning of the Institute, with the director being the sole person responsible for profes-sionalism and legality. A proposal from the Institute to change this situation with new legislation and a founding act, by setting up a management board in which three people would be responsible at least for the more important decisions, making cultural heritage less vulnerable, was refused by the writers of the law and the founding act. Constant changes in legislation governing spatial management and the protection of cultural heritage did not exactly benefit the accelerated improvements in functioning, as they thwarted the introduction of routine implementation of work tasks, and as a result of the constant procedural alterations, they generally fail to produce results. For the next anniversary it will be possible to write more on the planned new Cultural Heritage Protection Act and founding act, which envisages reducing the network of regional units and institutionalised conservation work. It was also found that the domain of documenting monuments, which is one of the main tasks of the Institute, is relatively weak, but this holds true above all for topographical descriptions and photographic documentation, for which the Institute has hitherto only been able to organise a few training courses. On the other hand, in recent years, producing graphic documentation in individual Institute units at-tained a level in 2000 which is entirely comparable with the rest of the world. This is also a result of the efforts invested by the first acting Institute director. With the predominance of digital technology and the problems of storing digital documentation, the Institute is faced with a great challenge which will have significant financial consequences. Certain steps towards solving these problems have already been taken: in 2007 a systematic network of connections between the computer systems of all the separate units was put in place as the basis for setting up a programme system for the unified storage of digital documentation. It is expected also to be accessible to registered users on the Internet in 2009. We could also list a series of other problems and controversial decisions, which resulted (among other things) in dissatisfied owners of cultural heritage, but on the other hand it must be stressed that for every 10,000 administrative acts (terms, agreements, opinions) which the Institute issues every year, less than 1% re-ceive complaints. The Institute also had considerable difficulties in carrying out protective archaeological excavations, as on the basis of the law from 1999 it had a monopoly, being the only possible contractor, but it responded to this status relatively late; however, the question of financing post-excavation work on archaeological material, which the Institute has great problems storing, remained unsolved. However, the findings of the archaeological excavations were regularly published at least in the report supplement accompanying Varstvo Spomenikov. In recent years, the operations of the Institute have focused also on fulfilling certain strategic targets, of which some have been long-term goals of the Institute since 2003. Most of them were presented in the draft strategic plan for the Institute until 2013.42 The fundamental goal of the foreseen strategic plan is certainly to provide the institute with the best possible foundation for rational and successful opera-tions, while at the same time ensuring the best possible preservation of architectural cultural heritage in Slovenia. This is the fundamental requirement for fortifying Slovenia’s cultural identity in the increas-ingly globalised world. The draft strategic plan therefore includes an outline of legal possibilities for the

functioning of the Institute, a description of its activities and its main programme contents, including central particularities and the points of departure for preparing a strategic plan, and of course a de-scription of strategic goals and measures. We would like to draw particular attention to increasing the accessibility of cultural heritage and information on it, ensuring higher quality academic evaluation of cultural heritage, and further unifying and raising professionalism in individual organisational units. A special target which has been at the forefront since 1999 is the introduction of non-destructive research methods as the basic and preventative protection of heritage. Setting up a centrally managed depot of samples (in the form of academic and documentary collections) and other remains of cultural heritage with an emphasis on systematic storage and the possibility of renewed use of old construction material (bricks, paving stones) is, however, still wishful thinking. The strategic goal of the Institute should be to fulfil its duties making up the aforementioned three fun-damental programme groups for the protection of cultural heritage, and at a level which will be clearly comparable with that of European projects in the field of preserving cultural heritage. This strategic goal should be the focus of the existing Institute staff structure and the training of staff connected with it, which is already separated into two levels. The first level represents additional training in the organisa-tion of the Institute (courses, presentations, workshops), and the second is the post-graduate study of employees (master’s, PhD) with topics in the field of preservation of cultural heritage and related fields (archaeology, architecture, landscape architecture, ethnology, restoration, art history, history, technical sciences and natural sciences such as chemistry). In this context we could talk about at least 200 full-time employees, 50% of them being highly trained experts and at least 30% of them having academic quali-fications. Such a structure of employees would have no trouble mastering the different research tasks and projects, which would mainly be connected with preserving actual instances of cultural heritage. An important portion would also be taken up by research in the field of natural sciences. This area would support those projects which would solve problems through multi-disciplinary work, also in cooperation with different institutions. A reflection of these tendencies is, after all, the content of the jubilee edition of Varstvo Spomenikov. Targets in this case would be higher quality and more successful preservation of cultural heritage and making the Institute better known and respected, which could also be achieved with the obligatory publication of all results of research and projects, either in independent Institute publications (Vestnik, Res) or in the form of articles in Varstvo Spomenikov or other respected publica-tions, and of course with lectures and presentations. The latter would also be focused on international cooperation, within whose framework the priority would be comparing levels of protection and pres-ervation of cultural heritage, common organisational workshops aimed at promoting public protection services in Slovenia, comparing and unifying standards of protection, obtaining funds from the EU, and promoting cultural heritage in Slovenia and making a name for it within the EU. Legal regulations concerning the use of public finances, public orders, accounting standards and stra-tegic directions in the Republic of Slovenia dictate that the Institute should also begin rationalising individual operations areas, from accounting to various working groups, with a precise enforcement of protocols for business events. In the past year, we have succeeded in shaping some of them; most of them will only obtain their final shape after analyses on the main segments of work are finished. These analyses are carried out above all with the help of interior revisions aimed at reducing risks, defining priorities and rationalising tasks. Everything listed above undoubtedly depends very much on the staff structure, which has a very var-iegated history and is worrying from certain points of view. Gojko Zupan already warned about this almost ten years ago.43 I will not now repeat his findings, but I would nevertheless warn that since 1991 the number of people employed by the Institute has increased by 17. This happened between 1999 and 2000 with 11 additional employees, and between 2002 and 2004 with 6 new employees. There are a number of reasons for this. The increase was firstly caused by the new Cultural Heritage Protection Act from 1999, which brought numerous new tasks and of course the unification of the previously indepen-dent institutions for the protection of natural and cultural heritage into one public institution. A greater number of employees, especially of administrative staff, was also dictated by other legal regulations, for example from the field of public orders, accounting standards, administrative procedures, the use of public funds, etc., employing experts and a marked increase in the quantity of work, which besides the above act was also dictated by socio-economic circumstances; the most evident of these is the growth

24


25


in construction work in Slovenia between 1998 and 2006. According to information provided by the Statistical Office, it increased by a factor of 2.65. Between 2002 and 2004, the number of employees again increased because in 2002 the Ministry of Culture transferred one of its workplaces to the Institute due to the cancellation of certain tasks, and one year later another one; in 2004 the Ministry of Culture transferred another four of its employees whom it did not need to the Institute (three of them with uni-versity qualifications and one with high school education). At the end of 2007, the Institute employed 203 people who were financed by the Ministry of Culture, and alongside them a further 37 project employees, which the Institute financed from other sources from another public service (see Table 1).44 Among those in full-time employment, most have a university education (see Table 2), and this remains a priority in the future planning of human resources. The emphasis is on dealing with replacement jobs in profiles that are lacking (civil engineers, architects, conservators-restorers, natural sciences people, lawyers), and caring for those areas of work which have hitherto not been suitably dealt with (e.g. un-derwater archaeology). The general aim is to produce a human resources plan which will ensure rational and effective staff to deal with the tasks in hand, which means the suitable employment of young capable staff in all domains of work of the Institute. Considering the extent of the tasks which the Institute was given with the new law from 2008, this means around 205 regularly financed staff from the primary public service and at least 20 to 30 employed (full-time and part-time) but financed by various projects (at least EUR 2 to 3 million annually). This would also create an annual profit of between EUR 100,000 and 200,000, enabling the constant modernisation of technical capabilities and therefore competitive-ness and the setting of standards. The above perspectives are by no means unrealistic, as the possibility of realising them can already be backed up with concrete business results. Their realisation in the coming years will undoubtedly depend on the institute’s bodies and especially on the founder, i.e. the representatives of the Ministry of Culture, who can on the other hand completely change the plans. If the direction of development remains as planned, then we can already say there will be no lack of interesting and varied topics, contributions and articles which will be presented in our review, Varstvo Spomenikov. This would ensure that the main targets of the review can be fulfilled. These are not just keeping records of our work, new methods and improving on results already achieved, but also greater publicity for our work, which will enable critical comparisons, and finally also the suitable promotion of our work, the review and especially Slovenian cultural heritage, both in Slovenia and abroad.

Table I: Number of employees in the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia from 1991 until 31.10.2007.

31. 12. 1991

31. 12. 2000

31. 12. 2002

31. 12. 2004

31. 10. 2007

ZVKDS MOP ZVKDS MOP ZVKDS ZVKDS ZVKDS Projects

OE CE 17 4 17 4 17 19 19 3

OE KR 18 18 4 18 17 17 3

OE LJ 27 3 29 8 29 23 23 3

OE MB 31 3 33 6 32 32 32 9

OE NG 21 4 21 4 23 23 23

OE NM 19 2 22 5 23 22 22 2

OE PI 16 1 16 5 16 16 16 1

RC 37 32 29 31 31 11

SS 9 11 20 20 5

186 17 197 36 198 203 203 37

203 233 198 203 240

Key:

ZVKDS Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, cost of work financed by the Ministry of CultureMOP Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning (at the time of independent institutes for the protection of natural and cultural heritage)OE regional unitsRC Restoration CentreSS common jobsProjects project jobs – (mainly) temporary, cost of work is not financed from public funds earmarked for the ZVKDS

Table II: Structure of Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia employees (financed by the MK) on 31.10.2007.

TARIF GROUP

I–IV V VI VII VIII IX

OE CE 1 3 1 10 4 0 19

OE KR 1 3 1 7 5 0 17

OE LJ 1 0 2 15 5 0 23

OE MB 2 3 3 13 10 1 32

OE NG 1 6 1 12 3 0 23

OE NM 0 5 2 8 5 2 22

OE PI 1 0 2 7 5 1 16

RC 0 4 1 16 8 2 31

SS 0 2 3 11 1 3 20

TOGETHER 7 26 16 99 46 9 203

26


27


Notes1 Marijan Slabe, Ob petdeseti obletnici Varstva spomenikov, Varstvo spomenikov, 38, Ljubljana 1999, pp. 286–293; see also Alenka

Kuševič, Razvoj spomeniškega varstva na Slovenskem, Varstvo spomenikov, 38, Ljubljana 1999, pp. 247–263, and Gojko Zupan, Stro-kovni delavci v zavodih in perspektive, Varstvo spomenikov, 38, Ljubljana 1999, pp. 264–285.

2 Fran Šijanec, Zavod za varstvo spomenikov LRS, Varstvo spomenikov, 1, Ljubljana 1948, p. 6.3 Varstvo spomenikov, 1, Ljubljana 1948, pp. 1–2.4 The publication was entitled Mittheilungen der Kaiser. Königl. Central-Commission zur Erforschung und Erhaltung der Kunst- und histo-

rischen Denkmale, Vienna, and for the last 16 years it was known as Mitteilungen der K. K. Central-Commission für Denkmalpflege.5 Vida Urek, Slovenica v reviji Kirchenschmuck (1870–1905) – bibliografski popis, Zbornik za umetnostno zgodovino, n. v. IX, Ljubljana

1972, pp. 145–158.6 Glej Josip Dostal, Varstvo spomenikov in naše cerkve, Peto izvestje Društva za krščansko umetnost v Ljubljani 1907–1912, Ljubljana 1913,

p. 56 onwards. 7 Ivan Komelj, Vida Fatur, Delavci Zavoda SR Slovenije za spomeniško varstvo v letih 1945–1975, Varstvo spomenikov, XX, Ljubljana

1976, pp. 141–158. 8 E.g. Bogo Teplý, Delo muzejev v l. 1953–1954, Varstvo spomenikov, V, 1953–1954, pp. 172–178. 9 Spomeniška zakonodaja, Varstvo spomenikov, I, Ljubljana 1948, pp. 3–6. 10 Dinko Gregorin, Razmišljanja o spomeniškem varstvu ob novi ustavi, Varstvo spomenikov, XX, Ljubljana 1976, pp. 93–106.11 Jelka Pirkovič, Ali so spomeniki drobiž v igri med političnimi strankami?, Varstvo spomenikov, 36, Ljubljana 1997, pp. 7–12.12 Emilijan Cevc, Kostanjeviški samostan, Varstvo spomenikov, I, Ljubljana 1948, pp. 13–15. 13 Marijan Zadnikar, Restavracija cerkve na Ptujski gori, Varstvo spomenikov, III, 1–2, Ljubljana 1950, pp. 11–29.14 Marijan Zadnikar, Minoritska cerkev v Ptuju, Varstvo spomenikov, III, 3–4, Ljubljana 1950, pp. 88–113.15 Bogo Teplý, Ivan Meznarič, Odprava hišne gobe ter obnova viteške dvorane v mariborskem gradu, Varstvo spomenikov, III, 3–4, Ljubljana

1950, pp. 141–148.16 Ivan Komelj, Ob raziskovanju dolenjskih gradov, Varstvo spomenikov, I, Ljubljana 1948, pp. 19–21; Ivan Komelj, Dolenjski gradovi in

spomeniško varstvo, Varstvo spomenikov, III, 1–2, Ljubljana 1950, pp. 39–46.17 Ciril Velepič, Srednjeveško stensko slikarstvo v Sloveniji ob kopiranju in razstavi v tujini, Varstvo spomenikov, II, Ljubljana 1948, pp.

66–75.18 Peter Petru, Upravičenost rekonstrukcije posameznih arheoloških spomenikov, Varstvo spomenikov, IX, 1962–1964, Ljubljana 1965, 3–11;

see also the articles in issue XV of Varstvo Spomenikov.19 France Stelè, Estetika in dokumentarnost v restavriranju spomenikov, Varstvo spomenikov, V, 1953–1954, Ljubljana 1955, pp. 5–13.20 Milan Železnik, O prvobitni podobi likovnih spomenikov in nekaterih aktualnih nalogah spomeniškega varstva, Varstvo spomenikov, VIII,

1960–1961, Ljubljana 1962, pp. 48–55; Ivan Sedej, Resnica in mit v teoriji spomeniškega varstva, Varstvo spomenikov, XV, Ljubljana 1972, pp. 7–14; Ivan Komelj, Avtentičnost »avtentičnih« spomenikov NOB (Prispevek k metodologiji varstva), Varstvo spomenikov, XXVII, Ljubljana 1985, pp. 49–52.

21 Iva Mikl Curk, Teorija varstva arheoloških spomenikov v naši praksi, Varstvo spomenikov, XXIII, Ljubljana 1981, pp. 81–94; Davorin Vuga, Prispevek k teoriji in praksi zaščitnega arheološkega izkopavanja, Varstvo spomenikov, XXIII, Ljubljana 1981, pp. 95–99.

22 Marijan Zadnikar, Razkorak med spomeniško teorijo in prakso, Varstvo spomenikov, XI, Ljubljana 1966, pp. 5–13.23 Marinka Dražumerič, Historiat neke obnove. Frančiškanska cerkev sv. Lenarta v Novem mestu, Varstvo spomenikov, 34, Ljubljana 1992,

pp. 154–160. 24 Cene Avguštin, Mestna hiša v Kranju, Varstvo spomenikov, IX, 19611964, Ljubljana 1965, pp. 61–72.25 Miha Pirnat, Čelovnik, Fojana, Panngrč Grm, Krtina, Varstvo spomenikov, XVII–XIX/2, Ljubljana 1975, pp. 75–88.26 E.g. Ivan Bogovčič, Tesnenje razpok v stenskih slikah s poliuretanskim kitom, Varstvo spomenikov, XXII, Ljubljana 1979, pp. 199–204.27 Ivan Komelj, Dvajset let odkrivanja srednjeveških fresk, Varstvo spomenikov, X, 1965, Ljubljana 1966, pp. 39–76.28 Olga Zupan, Srednjeveško stensko slikarstvo na Gorenjskem. Sondiranja in odkrivanja v letih 1965–1985, Varstvo spomenikov, 28, Lju-

bljana 1986, pp. 209–212. 29 Robert Peskar, Gotsko stensko slikarstvo na Dolenjskem in v Beli krajini - nova odkritja, Varstvo spomenikov, 37, Ljubljana 1997, pp.

69–96.30 Nataša Štupar - Šumi, O delu arhitekta v spomeniškovarstveni službi, Varstvo spomenikov, XIII–XIV, 1968–1969, Ljubljana 1970, pp.

41–92.31 Na primer Peter Fister, Obnavljanje starih polihromacij na sakralni arhitekturi, Varstvo spomenikov, XIII–XIV, 1968–1969, Ljubljana 1970,

pp. 93–106.32 Franjo Baš, Organizacija spomeniškega varstva v slovenski preteklosti, Varstvo spomenikov, V, 1953–1954, Ljubljana 1955, pp. 13–37.33 Alenka Kuševič, Razvoj spomeniškega varstva (c.f. footnote 1); see also the contributions from the eponymous symposium in the an-

thology Umetnostna zgodovina in spomeniško varstvo. Posvetovanje ob 75-letnici ustanovitve Slovenskega umetnostnozgodovinskega društva (1921–1996), Ljubljana 1997.

34 Jelka Pirkovič, Vrste opravil v spomeniškem varstvu, Varstvo spomenikov, 32, Ljubljana 1990, pp. 11–21.35 Jelka Pirkovič, Osnovni pojmi in zasnova spomeniškega varstva v Sloveniji, Vestnik, XI, Ljubljana 1993. 36 Zakon o varstvu kulturne dediščine (ZVKD-1), Uradni list Republike Slovenije, No. 16/2008, pp. 1121–1145.37 Sklep o ustanovitvi Javnega zavoda Republike Slovenije za varstvo kulturne dediščine, Uradni list Republike Slovenije, No. 65/2008, pp.

8776–8782.38 Zakon o varstvu kulturne dediščine, Uradni list Republike Slovenije, No. 7/1999; Sklep o ustanovitvi Javnega zavoda Republike Slovenije za

varstvo kulturne dediščine, Uradni list Republike Slovenije, No. 38/1999; Sklep o ustanovitvi Javnega zavoda Republike Slovenije za varstvo kulturne dediščine, Uradni list Republike Slovenije, No. 110/2003.

39 Sklep o imenovanju vršilca dolžnosti direktorja javnega zavoda (Uradni list Republike Slovenije, No. 108/1999).40 Briefly, they include: keeping a record of heritage and transferring data to the heritage register; documenting, drawing up inventories and

studying heritage; evaluating heritage; preparing the technical basis for proclaiming acts and agreements for administrative procedures;

carrying out studies using methods which represent an intervention in heritage; documenting maintenance, interventions, use and trade in heritage; guiding and supervising heritage management in state or local community possession; preparing guidelines from the field of heritage for the adoption of spatial and planning acts; preparing conservation and restoration programmes; cooperating with the owners of monuments and others with interests connected with individual monuments, and providing explanations, advice and instructions; preparing the technical basis for the protection of heritage; issuing preservation opinions, conditions and agreement; preparing conser-vation and restoration projects for protecting, renovating and reviving heritage; planning, guiding, organising and leading individual highly demanding conservation and restoration work on monuments; cooperation in evaluating and caring for the material state of heritage; providing and managing unified restoration documentation; implementing professional governance, shaping methods and standards, and guiding, aligning and accompanying their implementation; managing restoration work and caring for the development of the field of restoration and its general direction; keeping records of contractors carrying out heritage preservation work on the basis of permits and concessions, guiding and supervising their work; cooperating in administrative procedures connected with the preservation and use of heritage, and preparing the technical basis prepared by the ministry; popularising heritage and its preservation; carrying out activities in the institute’s information bureaus; guiding and cooperating in educating and training staff for conservation and restora-tion work; incorporation in the system of heritage protection in the event of armed conflict and protection against natural disasters; cooperating with other public institutes working in the field of heritage preservation and other aspects of culture which are in the public interest in Slovenia and abroad; international cooperation with institutions in the field of heritage preservation; cooperating with related Slovenian and international cultural and scientific institutions, research foundations and other national public institutions; cooperating with the media and RTV Slovenia.

41 For 2007, the Institute prepared an analysis of the workload of individual work places (see Robert Peskar et al.: Strateški načrt ZVKDS 2007–2013 [Osnutek], Ljubljana, March 2008, pp. 25–26 [circulated as typescript]), from which it can be gathered that restorers work-ing on architecture are the most burdened employees within the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia; on average, they put in around 25% more hours than the average annual quota of hours, which is 1,600 hours. The next most overworked groups are the archaeologists with around 20% increased workload, the director of the Institute with around 14% increased workload, and directors of regional units with 10%. The workload of restorers and various technicians averages less than 5% excess.

42 Robert Peskar, Strateški načrt ZVKDS (c.f. footnote 41), p. 14 onwards (circulated as typescript). 43 Gojko Zupan, Strokovni delavci v zavodih in perspektive (c.f. footnote 1), p. 264 onwards.44 Information on employees was gathered by Maja Horvat, head of human resources at the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage

of Slovenia.

28


29


Barbara Nadbath, Gašper Rutar

Žabji grad, pozabljena srednjeveška utrdba na južnem obrobju Ljubljanskega barjaUDK 902.2(497.4Ljubljansko barje)UDK 904:728.81(497.4Kamnik pod Krimom)»653«

Ključne besede: arheologija, predhodni arheološki terenski pregledi, nedestruktivne raziskave, Kamnik pod Krimom, Žabji grad, srednji vek, stolp, zaščita

Povzetek

Žabji grad, z obrambnim jarkom utrjen stolpast grad, je bil postavljen na manjši istoimenski vzpetini, s katere so se lahko nadzorovale poti po severnem robu Ljubljanskega barja od Ljubljane do Vrhnike z odcepom v Podlipsko dolino, poti po južnem robu z odcepi za Cerknico in Lož ter promet po zgornjem toku Ljubljanice. Stavbne ostaline so danes na terenu le še slabo prepoznavne. V drugi polovici 20. stoletja so v okolici gradu nastala nova naselja. V letu 2008 pa poteka gradnja novega naselja tudi na samem vznožju gradu.

Uvod

Ekipa ZVKDS, OE Ljubljana, je spomladi 2007 na območju predvidene stanovanjske pozidave, parc. št. 914/4, 920/1, 922/1, 922/2, 924/5, 924/6, vse k.o. Kamnik, izvedla predhodne arheološke terenske preglede, družba Arheotip, d. o. o., pa pod strokovnim nadzorom ZVKDS, OE Ljubljana, nedestruk-tivne arheološke raziskave (dokumentiranje mikroreliefa in izdelava digitalnega modela reliefa). Pri tem so bile na zemljišču s parc. št. 914/4, k.o. Kamnik, odkrite srednjeveške stavbne ostaline.

Zgodovina raziskav

V literaturi je lokacija redko omenjena. Ostanki posameznih utrdb, ki se nahajajo 1100 korakov pod Notranjimi Goricami in naj bi izvirale iz rimskih časov, so omenjeni v spremljajočih opombah vojaške karte iz zadnje tretjine 18. stoletja.1 Med slednje morda lahko pripišemo tudi ostaline Žabjega gradu, ki jih je slabo stoletje pozneje A. Müllner2 pogojno pripisal antičnemu objektu. Tu sta bila odkrita antična nagrobnika,3 ki so ju nato prepeljali v Kamnik pod Krimom; danes sta pogrešana.4

Čeprav so morale biti ruševine dovolj opazne tudi še v 19. in v sredini 20. stoletja, ko so še zadnjič odvažali kamenje iz zidov, J. J. Valvasor Žabjega gradu ne omenja niti kot ruševine niti kako drugače.

V Krajevnem leksikonu dravske banovine5 se lokacija starejšega gradu omenja na vzpetini s cerkvijo sv. Jožefa, kar pa lahko z gotovostjo označimo za neutemeljeno.Prve strokovne arheološke raziskave so bile izvedene spomladi in poleti 2007 na jugovzhodnem pobočju6 ter jeseni 2007 na vrhu Žabjega gradu.7

Žabji grad – lega, stavbne ostaline, ohranjenost

Vzpetina Žabji grad je severovzhodni pomol Žalostne gore. Vrh (312 m) je poraščen z gozdom. Vzpetina je s severozahodne, severne in vzhodne strani naravno zavarovana s strmimi prepadnimi stenami. Prav tako je z vseh treh strani obdana z vodami. Danes je s severne strani obdana z Zadružnim kanalom in Nardežem, na vzhodni strani pa s Podpeškim potokom in prekopom Založnica, ki tečeta po manjšem barjanskem zatoku s kraškim bruhalnikom Črnelnikom. Vendar moramo opozoriti, da so vodotoki v preteklosti potekali drugače; še v 18. in 19. stoletju (sl. 2) je bil Žabji grad z zahodne in severne strani obdan s potokom Knahval, z vzhodne pa s potokom Kamnitzka.8 Vsi omenjeni vodotoki se izlivajo oziroma so se izlivali v Ljubljanico.Dostop na Žabji grad je mogoč z zahodne strani, s strani Sodnega vrha čez sedlo in po južni strani, kjer je razmeroma strmo pobočje (sl. 1). Lega Žabjega gradu omogoča proti jugu pregled nad staro cesto Vrhnika–Borovnica–Kamnik pod Krimom–Podpeč–Ig–Babna Gorica, ki se čez Ljubljanico in Barje iz Podpeči mimo Kušljanove graščine v Logu navezuje na (v antiki) najpomembnejšo prometnico Vrhnika–Ljubljana. Na vzhodu se je stara cesta navezovala na pot iz Ljubljane do Škofljice, kjer se je odcepila pomembnejša, že prazgodovinska in antična pot, ki je čez Ig, Golo in Lož potekala naprej proti Jadranu na eni ter na drugi strani od Škofljice mimo Višnje Gore proti Dolenjski.9 V srednjem veku je bila pomembna tudi pot od Iga po Želimeljski dolini do Turjaka in naprej do Velikih Lašč. Na zahodu se prav tako že v antiki nakazuje pot Bistra–Borovnica–Pokojišče–Begunje–Cerknica,10 ki je sama tako kot Lož, kamor se pot tudi nadaljuje, pomembno križišče poti. Pot po južnem robu barja je tako krajša povezava med Vrhniko in Višnjo Goro oziroma tudi med glavnima prometnicama proti Primorski in Dolenjski. Druge pomembnejše poti so Žabji grad obšle. Z Žabjega gradu pa je bilo ravno tako mogoče nadzirati promet po Ljubljanici.Na pobočju Žabjega gradu so bile v terenu dobro vidne prazgodovinske naselbinske terase; danes so vidne še na jugozahodnem pobočju ter terasa zahodno od gradu, ki se nahaja tik nad severno prepadno steno. Na vrhu vzpetine na manjšem, 15 x 12,5 m velikem poravnanem platoju ležijo ostaline stolpaste stavbe nepravilnega pravokotnega tlorisa (10,5 x 10,5 x 12,5 m) z notranjo delitvijo. Na zahodni strani, kjer je dostop najlažji, je objekt varoval 5 m širok obrambni jarek, ki elipsasto objema njegovo zahodno stranico. Jarek je ohranjen v globini od 0,8 do 1,5 m. Njegov potek se zabriše ob jugozahodnem vogalu objekta. Na jugovzhodnem delu je še mogoče zaslediti sledove terasiranja v smeri sever–jug. Ohranjenih zidanih struktur na tem delu ni.Pri predhodnem arheološkem terenskem pregledu sta bili na območju stolpa izkopani dve testni sondi. Prva je bila izkopana na vrhu poravnanega platoja. V izkopu niso bili dokumentirani arheološki depoziti, niti strukture, temveč le dolomitna skalna osnova. V testni sondi 2 pa sta bila dokumentirana kamniti zid ter estrih. Drobnih arheoloških najdb v sondah ni bilo. Odlomki lončenine, ki bi jih pogojno lahko pripisali visokosrednjeveškemu obdobju,11 so med najdbami, odkritimi pri površinskem pregledu in iz-kopavanjih na južnem pobočju, redki. Odsotnost najdb je nenavadna. Lahko jo razumemo kot indic za kratkotrajno poseljenost gradu ali pa kot dokaz, da je bil grad opuščen in so stanovalci večino inventarja odnesli s seboj.Žabji grad, ki je bil temeljen neposredno na umetno poravnano dolomitno skalno podlago, je po tlorisu in dimenzijah soroden utrdbam spanheimskih ministerialov v okolici Ljubljane. Med prvimi naj iz-postavimo utrdbo na Oklučju,12 kjer stanovanjski obrambni stolp meri približno 10 x 10 m, Stari grad nad Želimljami oziroma Falkenberg13 s stolpom znotraj obodnega obzidja v izmeri približno 11,5 x 7,4 m, kot tudi Osterberg oziroma Stari grad nad Podgradom14 z ruševinami v izmeri 13,5 x 7,5 m. Zunaj območja, ki je pripadalo koroškim vojvodom Spanheimom, pa lahko omenimo na primer Stari grad Smlednik,15 katerega romanski stolp, ki je bil sprva branjen le z obrambnim jarkom, je zgrajen v skoraj identičnih dimenzijah, in sicer ima stolp kvadratnega tlorisa stranico dolgo nekaj več kot deset metrov, ter tako imenovani Zgornji stolp na Kranclju v Škofji Loki.16

Barbara Nadbath, Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, Območna enota Ljubljana Gašper Rutar, Arheotip, d. o. o., Ljubinj 24, SI-5220 Tolmin

30


31


Stavbne ostaline Žabjega gradu so danes na terenu le še slabo prepoznavne. V preteklosti so večino kamenja iz zidov uporabili domačini pri zidavi hiš in škarp. Na nekaterih delih je kamenje pobrano do same skalne osnove. Še ohranjene stavbne ostaline pa so poškodovane oziroma uničene z večjimi ali manjšimi novodobnimi vkopi. Po pripovedovanju domačinov so tod kopali tudi pesek, preperelo živo skalo, ki so ga uporabljali pri gradbenih delih. Eden izmed vkopov je uničil jugozahodni vogal stolpa.Poleg neposredne bližine okoliških naselij in s tem povezanega izkoriščanja ruševin za priročni kamno-lom ter relativno lahke dostopnosti lahko k vzrokom za slabo ohranjenost stavbnih ostalin gradu štejemo tudi samo geologijo terena. Sedimenti nad skalno podlago so zelo tanki; tako na vrhu (sonda 1) kot na jugovzhodnem pobočju so povprečno debeli 15 cm (razen depresije v skalni podlagi).

Identiteta utrdbe

S propadom stolpastega objekta je odšlo v pozabo tudi njegovo pravo poimenovanje. Le identifikacija s katerim od gradov oziroma stolpov, omenjenih v srednjeveških pisnih virih, omogoča zgodovinopis-no analizo ter opredelitev njegove vloge in pomena v tedanjem družbeno-ekonomskem in političnem življenju. Žal nam pisni viri tokrat niso v pomoč.Z obrambnim jarkom utrjen stolp je stal na območju, ki je v 12. in 13. stoletju pripadalo koroškim vojvodom Spanheimom,17 vendar v pisnih virih iz tega časa ni omenjen. Omenjen ni niti v ustanovni listini bistriške kartuzije z dne 1. novembra 1260, ko je bila natančno navedena meja posestva kar-tuzije. V neposredni bližini Žabjega gradu poteka skrajna vzhodna meja; meja tod poteka od Ljubljanice mimo Kamnika pod Krimom proti Rakitni in Cerknici. Vzpetina s cerkvijo sv. Ane je tedaj pripadala ižanskemu gospostvu. V ustanovni listini je navedena tudi meja imunitetnega zemljišča kartuzije, ki je potekala od Kamnika po obeh bregovih Ljubljanice do njenega izvira. Dokument izrecno navaja, da znotraj omenjenega območja sodijo vsa močvirja, pašniki in gozdovi h kartuziji:18 “… Limitamus eis siq-uidem terminos emunitatis secundum consuetudinem ordinis eorum a Stein fluvii Laibaci usque ad originem dicti fluminis cum paludibus, pascuis, silvis, secundum quod fluvius Laibacus dividit …” Natančneje je meja imunitetnega ozemlja navedena v listini iz leta 1264.19 “Meja se pričenja pri skali nad vodo, ki se izliva v Ljubljanico, in ta skala je nekako v sredini med Ljubljano in Borovnico (Wreuncz), gre od te skale preko vzpetin do vasi z imenom Rakitna (Raquitina), od tam naravnost do cerkve v Cerknici (Cirqueniz) …”Meja med bistriškim in ižanskim gospostvom je na tem delu ostala bolj ali manj nespremenjena do raz-pustitve kartuzije Bistre v letu 1782. Mejna linija je v ljudskem spominu ostala živa tudi še v današnjem času kot meja med Notranjsko zahodno in Dolenjsko vzhodno od sv. Ane. Vzpetinico Žabji grad zaradi prepadnih sten, ki jo varujejo s severne in vzhodne (barjanske) strani, prav lahko imenujemo Skala. Ravno tako pa bi lahko rekli tudi, da se nahaja nekako na pol poti med Ljubljano in Borovnico. Potoka, ki sta jo v preteklosti obdajala, sta se izlivala v Ljubljanico (sl. 2). Torej mejno točko, skalo nad vodo, lahko nedvomno postavimo na Žabji grad oziroma v njegovo neposredno bližino (današnja meja med katastrskima občinama Preserje in Jezero poteka po zahodnem pobočju sv. Ane).V srednjeveških pisnih virih Žabji grad torej ni omenjen. Postavlja se vprašanje, zakaj. Ker stolp ni omenjen v ustanovni listini kartuzije, domnevamo, da je moral biti tedaj že opuščen. Vendar je zanimivo, da se ne omenja niti kot ruševina, saj je kot tak predstavljal veliko boljšo prostorsko orientacijsko točko kot “skala nad vodo”.Kljub zgoraj naštetemu Žabji grad verjetno lahko pripišemo nekemu spanheimskemu ministerialu. V virih se namreč omenja spanheimski ministerial Gizilbert iz Krnosa (Gurnitz) na Koroškem, ki je imel fevdno posest v okolici Bistre.20 Čeprav natančnejša lokacija te posesti ni znana, bi Žabji grad pogojno torej lahko pripisali Gizilbertu. Domnevamo tudi, da ta ni prebival na Žabjem gradu. Težko si namreč predstavljamo, da bi ministerial imel sedež znotraj območja samostanskega posestva. Hkrati pa je treba poudariti, da se Gizilbert v času Ulrika III. Spanheima imenuje po Krnosu, po Ulrikovi smrti pa po Ljubljani; torej ta posest zanj ni bila zelo pomembna. Nadaljnji pokazatelj, da lahko to fevdno posest lociramo v okolico Žabjega gradu, je listina, s katero sta Gizilbertov sin Vulfink in njegova žena Elizabeta leta 1300 bistriški kartuziji med drugim prodala kmetijo v Kamniku.21

Žal moramo ugotoviti, da na vprašanje o času nastanka in propada Žabjega gradu v tej fazi raziskav ne moremo dati zadovoljivega odgovora. Predpostavljamo, da je bil pozidan sočasno z drugimi spanheim-

skimi ministerialnimi gradovi v okolici Ljubljane; torej najpozneje v 12. stoletju.22 A je moral biti že zgodaj opuščen, najverjetneje že v prvi polovici 13. stoletja. Vendarle se je v ljudskem izročilu védenje o gradu ohranilo v ledinskem imenu in zgodbi o “starih gavgah”, vislicah, ki naj bi stale na vrhu vzpetine, poimenovane Sodni vrh. Tu naj bi po legendi bližnji graščaki kaznovali svoje podložnike. Ravno tako znajo domačini povedati zgodbe o globokih jamah na območju gradu s skritimi zakladi.

Moderna urbanizacija in zaščita

Neposredna okolica Žabjega gradu je bila še v sredini 19. stoletja neurbanizirana (sl. 4). Zemljišča so bila v rabi kot njive in travniki. Prva domačija je stala na jugozahodnem vznožju Sodnega vrha ob cesti Kamnik–Borovnica. V 20. stoletju, predvsem po drugi svetovni vojni, so se nova poselitvena jedra vasi Kamnik pod Krimom razvila na južnem pobočju Sodnega vrha, na Lazah, ter ob cesti Podpeč–Borovni-ca. V zadnjem desetletju 20. stoletja in prvih letih 21. stoletja pa je bilo s stihijsko gradnjo enodružinskih hiš pozidano zahodno in severozahodno pobočje Sodnega vrha. Načrtujejo se še nova manjša naselja enodružinskih hiš ali dvojčkov. Eno takih se letos gradi na jugovzhodnem pobočju Žabjega gradu. Na južnem vznožju Žabjega gradu pa je bil že pred leti v nasprotju z zahtevami konservatorske stroke zgrajen poslovno-skladiščni objekt.Vzpetina Žabji grad leži znotraj območja registriranih enot kulturne dediščine.23 Območje je v prostor-skih aktih varovano z drugim varstvenim režimom za arheološko dediščino, ki dovoljuje spremembo rabe zemljišča po izvedenih predhodnih arheoloških raziskavah, medtem ko se nepremične sestavine spomenika ali dediščine ohranjajo in situ.24

S predhodnimi arheološkimi raziskavami so bile na območju predvidene pozidave stanovanjskega nasel-ja, imenovanega Žabji grad, odkrite prazgodovinska naselbina in srednjeveške stavbne ostaline. V skladu z določili kulturnovarstvenih aktov je bilo zemljišče na jugozahodnem pobočju po izvedenih zaščitnih izkopavanjih sproščeno za gradnjo. Na območju stavbnih ostalin pa je bila v skladu z rezultati nedestruk-tivnih raziskav zahtevana sprememba izvedbenega načrta za gradnjo desete hiše naselja. Zahtevali smo, da se stavbne ostaline srednjeveškega stolpa ohranjajo in situ. Ravno tako se ne sme spremeniti raba tega dela zemljišča.Investitor, ki v prostor posega z namenom gradnje za trg, želi del zemljišča s srednjeveškimi stavbnimi ostalinami funkcionalno priključiti k nastajajočemu novemu naselju. Srednjeveške stavbne ostaline bi prekril z zemljo in s tem pridobil prostor za vrtno oziroma parkovno zasaditev. Taki posegi s kulturn-ovarstvenega stališča niso dopustni. Arheološka dediščina mora v skladu s petim odstavkom 5. člena Malteške konvencije in 2. členom ZVKD-1 ostati dostopna strokovni in laični javnosti. Dopustna bi bila vključitev prezentiranih stavbnih ostalin po zaključenih arheoloških raziskavah, prezentacija ostalin pa bi morala potekati v skladu s konservatorskim načrtom (13. alineja 3. člena ZVKD-1).

Zaključek

S predhodnimi arheološkimi raziskavami je bila odkrita srednjeveška utrdba, iz srednjeveških pisnih vi-rov neznana, ki je po tlorisu in dimenzijah, kot tudi glede na izbiro lokacije, sorodna drugim spanheim-skim utrdbam v okolici Ljubljane. S tem se dopolnjuje védenje o procesu spanheimskega koloniziranja in oblikovanja kulturne krajine na Kranjskem v 12. in 13. stoletju.Anonimna utrdba je bila locirana na vzpetini, s katere je bil mogoč vizualni nadzor tedaj pomembnejših komunikacij, tako kopenskih kot vodnih. Raba ruševin za priročni kamnolom pri graditvi okoliških stavb skozi daljše časovno obdobje je ostaline tako osiromašila, da so v prostoru le še težko prepoznavne. S tem se je začelo postopoma izgubljati tudi védenje domačinov o starih zgodbah in legendah, povezanih z Žabjim gradom. Predvidena gradnja novega naselja na samem vznožju gradu in zahteve konservatorske stroke po izvedbi predhodnih arheoloških raziskav in zaščitnih arheoloških izkopavanjih je med zain-teresirano lokalno javnostjo te napol pozabljene legende ponovno obudila. Informatorji so pripadniki generacije, ki je rojena tik po drugi svetovni vojni. Ti so zgodbe, ki so jim jih v rani mladosti pripovedo-vali njihovi starši in stari starši, skozi svoje življenje potisnili vstran, kot nekaj starega, nemodernega ter

32


33


nezanimivega. Žal jih niso predali naprej svojim potomcem. Tudi samo ledinsko ime je pri generaciji, mlajši od štiridesetih let, že pozabljeno. Širitev naselij, ki jo praviloma razumemo kot enega od poglavitnih vzrokov uničevanja dediščine, se je v našem primeru izkazala za vzvod, s katerim se je vedenje o preteklosti ponovno obudilo. Zavedamo se, tako kot je poudarila tudi A. Plestenjak,25 da so za uspešno ohranjanje dediščine pomembne predvsem njena pravilna vključitev v moderni čas in njena uporabnost ter tako imenovana “dodana vrednost”, ki jo dediščina nudi vsakemu zainteresiranemu posamezniku tu in zdaj. V trenutku, ko se na območju Ljubljanskega barja oblikuje krajinski park ter območje kulturnega spomenika, sta promocija kulturne dediščine in ozaveščanje lokalne javnosti o njenih vrednotah še posebej pomembna.

Opombe1 Rajšp, Ficko 1996, 4.2 Müllner 1897, 111.3 CIL III 10749+p. 2186 in 10750.4 AIJ 56; Bregant et al. 1980, 14; ANSl, 194.5 Krajevni leksikon 1937, 355.6 Nadbath et al. 2008.7 Nadbath, Rutar, Draksler 2008.8 Rajšp, Ficko 1996, 5.9 Truhlar 1975, 100–101.10 Truhlar 1975, 100.11 Gre za razmeroma majhne odlomke trupa lončenih posod, ki niso bile izdelane na hitrovrtečem se kolesu.12 Kos 1994, 17; Gaspari, Nadbath 2008a.13 Kos 1994, 16–17; Gaspari, Nadbath 2008b.14 Kos 1994, 32; Jakič 1997, 232; Grilc 2003, 44–48; Grilc 2005, 277.15 Reisp 1987, 15; Kos 1994, 37; Stopar 1998, 69.16 Kos 1994, 39; Štukl 2004, 10–11.17 Komac 2006, 112.18 Schumi 1884–1887, 211–213; Kobe 1961, 166; Mlinarič 2001, 512–513.19 Podatke navajamo po Mlinarič, 2001, 37, in jih nismo preverili v originalnih listinah.20 Kos 1985, 293; Mlinarič 2001, 71.21 Kos 1975, 251; isti 1985, 293; Mlinarič 2001, 71.22 Kos 1994, 125, 129; Komac 2006, 112, 117.23 Žabji grad leži na območju registriranih enot kulturne dediščine, ki sta v Registru nepremične kulturne dediščine vpisani kot Ljubljana

– Kulturna krajina Ljubljansko barje (EŠD 11819) in Kamnik pod Krimom – Arheološko območje Žabji grad (EŠD 11155). Tik pod vznožjem Žabjega gradu poteka tudi meja enote Ljubljana – Arheološko območje Ljubljansko barje (EŠD 9368). Enota Ljubljana – Kulturna krajina Ljubljansko barje (EŠD 11819) je v postopku razglasitve za krajinski park, enota Ljubljana – Arheološko območje Ljubljansko barje (EŠD 9368) pa za razglasitev za kulturni spomenik.

24 Strokovne podlage 2002; Smernice 2007.25 Plestenjak 2007, 205.

LiteraturaAIJ: Hoffiler, V., Saria, B., Antike Inschriften aus Jugoslawien, I (Norikum). 1938.ANSl: Arheološka najdišča Slovenije, Ljubljana 1975.BREGANT, T., JERMAN, M., SLABE, M., VUGA, D.: Varovanje arheoloških spomenikov Ljubljanskega barja. – Arheološka zaščitna raziskovanja na Ljubljanskem barju v letu 1979 I., Ljubljana 1980.GASPARI, A., NADBATH, B. Želimlje – Stari grad, Falkenberg. – Varstvo spomenikov, poročila 44, 2008.GASPARI, A., NADBATH, B.: Želimlje – Stari grad, Oklučje. – Varstvo spomenikov, poročila 44, 2008.GRILC, V.: Podgrad pri Ljubljani, Kratka zgodovina. Kulturno društvo Podgrad, Ljubljana 2003.GRILC, V.: Prispevek k zgodovini gospostva Osterberg. – Kronika 53, 2005, 267–282.JAKIČ, I.: Vsi slovenski gradovi. Ljubljana 1997.KOBE, K.: Iz zgodovine Bistre. – Kronika 9, 1961, 165–173.KOMAC, A.: Od mejne grofije do dežele. Ulrik III. Spanheim in Kranjska v 13. stoletju. Thesaurus Memoriae Disertationes 5, Ljubljana 2006.KOS, D.: Med gradom in mestom. Ljubljana 1994.KOS, M.: Gradivo za historično topografijo Slovenije (Za Kranjsko do leta 1500) I. (A – M). Ljubljana 1975.KOS, M.: Srednjeveška kulturna, družbena in politična zgodovina Slovencev. Izbrane razprave, Ljubljana 1985.KRAJEVNI leksikon dravske banovine. Ljubljana 1937.

MLINARIČ, J.: Kartuzija Bistra. Ljubljana 2001.MÜLLNER, A.: Emona. Laibach 1879.NADBATH, B., KLASINC, R., TICA, G., LEGHISSA, E., KUSETIČ, J., LAHARNAR, B., DRAKSLER, M.: Žabji grad, prazgodovina. – Varstvo spomenikov, poročila 2008 (v tisku).NADBATH, B., RUTAR, G., DRAKSLER, M.: Žabji grad, srednji vek. – Varstvo spomenikov, poročila 2008 (v tisku).SCHUMI, F.: Urkunden – und Regestenbuch des Herzogthums Krain II/2. Laibach 1884–1887.SMERNICE varstva kulturne dediščine za SPR Občine Brezovica. ZVKDS, OE Ljubljana, Ljubljana 2007.STOPAR, I.: Grajske stavbe v osrednji Sloveniji. I. Gorenjska, Med Polhovim Gradcem in Smlednikom. Ljubljana 1998.STROKOVNE PODLAGE s področja varstva kulturne dediščine za spremembe in dopolnitve prostorskih sestavin dolgoročnega plana občine Brezovica. ZVKDS, OE Ljubljana, Ljubljana 2002.PLESTENJAK, A.: Komunikacijski problemi med arheologijo in javnostjo. – Varstvo spomenikov 42–43, 198–214.RAJŠP, V., FICKO, M.: Slovenija na vojaškem zemljevidu 1763–1787. 2. zvezek, Ljubljana 1996.REISP, B.: Grad Smlednik. Kulturni in naravni spomeniki Slovenije, Zbirka vodnikov 156, Ljubljana 1987.TRUHLAR, F.: Stara pot ter poskus rekonstrukcije nekdanje prometne mreže. – Arheološka najdišča Slovenije. Ljubljana 1975, 99–101.ŠTUKL, J.: Arheološke raziskave srednjeveške Škofje Loke. Katalog razstave, Škofja Loka 2004.

34


35


Sl. 1 Jugovzhodno pobočje Žabjega gradu z dobro vidnimi prazgodovinskimi naselbinskimi terasami in pogozdenim vrhom s srednjeveškimi stavbnimi ostalinami; pogled proti severozahodu (foto: M. Lukić)

Figure 1 South-eastern slope of Žabji grad with clearly visible prehistoric settlement terraces and wooded summit with the ruins of a medieval building; view towards the northwest (photo: M. Lukić)

Sl. 2 Lega Žabjega gradu na izseku vojaške karte (po Rajšp, Ficko 1996)

Figure 2 The aspect of Žabji grad in a section of the military map (after Rajšp, Ficko 1996)

Sl. 3 Tloris stavbnih ostalin Žabjega gradu z obrambnim jarkom in z lego testnih sond predhodnega terenskega pregleda (izvedba: G. Rutar)

Figure 3 Ground plan of the ruins of Žabji grad and its defensive moat, and the aspect of the test probes of the preliminary field inspection (made by: G. Rutar)

36


37


Sl. 4 Širitev urbanizacije v neposredni okolici Žabjega gradu (izvedba: G. Rutar)

Figure 4 The spread of urbanisation in the direct vicinity of Žabji grad (created by: G. Rutar)

Barbara Nadbath, Gašper Rutar

Žabji Grad, a Forgotten Medieval Fortification at the Southern Margin of the Ljubljansko Barje WetlandKey words: archaeology, preliminary archaeological field inspections, non-destructive research, Kamnik pod Krimom, Žabji grad, the Middle Ages, tower, protection

Summary

Žabji grad, a tower castle with a defensive moat, was erected on a small rise of the same name, which af-forded control of the route along the northern margin of the Ljubljansko barje wetland from Ljubljana to Vrhnika and the junction leading to the valley of Podlipska dolina, the route along the southern margin and the junction for Cerknica and Lož, as well as traffic along the upper stream of the Ljubljanica River. The ruins of the building are barely recognisable where they stand today. A new settlement emerged in the second half of the 20th century in the environs of the castle. In 2008, an entirely new settlement is being constructed around the actual slope of the castle hill.

Introduction

In the spring of 2007, a team from the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia (the Institute), Ljubljana Regional Unit, in the area of the envisaged residential development, parcels no. 914/4, 920/1, 922/1, 922/2, 924/5, 924/6, all within the local ward of Kamnik, conducted preliminary archaeological field inspections, while the company Arheotip, d. o. o., under the expert supervision of the Institute’s Ljubljana Regional Office, performed non-destructive archaeological research (document-ing microrelief and producing a digital model of the relief ). In this process, on land in parcel no. 914/4, in the ward of Kamnik, the remains of a medieval construction were found.

Research history

This location is rarely mentioned in literature. The ruins of individual fortifications, situated 1,100 steps below the Notranje Gorice hills, and supposedly dating back to Roman times, are mentioned in notes accompanying a military map from the last third of the 18th century.1 Among these we may perhaps in-clude the ruins of Žabji grad, which less than a century later A. Müllner2 ascribed tentatively to a build-ing from antiquity. Here two ancient gravestones were found,3 and were then transported to Kamnik pod Krimom; today they are missing.4

Barbara Nadbath, Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Ljubljana Regional Unit Gašper Rutar, Arheotip, d. o. o., Ljubinj 24, SI-5220 Tolmin

38


39


Although the ruins must still have been sufficiently noticeable in the 19th and middle of the 20th century, when stones were last removed from the walls, J. J. Valvasor makes no mention of Žabji grad, either as ruins or anything else. In the Lexicon of Place Names in the Drava Banovina5 the location of an old castle is mentioned on a rise together with the Church of St. Joseph, but this may be noted with some certainty as unfounded.The first professional archaeological research was conducted in the spring and summer of 2007 on the south-eastern slope6 and in autumn 2007 on the top of Žabji grad hill.7

Žabji grad – aspect, building remnants, degree of preservation

The Žabji grad rise is a north-eastern extension of the hill of Žalostna gora. The top (312 m) is over-grown with forest. The rise is naturally protected on the north-western, northern and eastern sides by steep cliffs. Equally, it is lined on all three sides by water. Today it is bounded on the northern side by the Zadružni [Cooperative] Channel and the Nardež, and on the eastern side by the Podpeški stream and Založnica ditch, which flow through a small wetland inlet with its karstic vent-hole of Črnelnik. Yet we must note that in the past, these watercourses flowed differently; in the 18th and 19th centuries (Figure 2), Žabji grad was still bounded on the western and northern sides by the Knahval stream, and on the east by the Kamnitzka stream.8 All these watercourses flow or flowed out into the Ljubljanica.Žabji grad can be accessed from the west, from the side of the Sodni vrh hilltop via the saddle and along the southern side, where there is a relatively steep slope (Figure 1). The aspect of Žabji grad affords a view towards the south over the old Vrhnika–Borovnica–Kamnik pod Krimom–Podpeč–Ig–Babna Gorica road, which runs over the Ljubljanica and Barje wetlands from Podpeč past Kušljanova Manor to Log, linking up with the main transport route (of antiquity) from Vrhnika to Ljubljana. In the east the old road linked up with the road from Ljubljana to Škofljica, from which branched off a more important, prehistoric and ancient route, which ran through Ig, Gola and Lož towards the Adriatic on one side and on the other side from Škofljica past Višnja Gora towards the Dolenjska region.9 In the Middle Ages there was also an important route from Ig through the valley of Želimeljska dolina to Turjak and on to Velike Lašče. In the west, there appears to have been another road in antiquity encompassing Bistra–Bo-rovnica–Pokojišče–Begunje–Cerknica,10 which like Lož, to which the route continued, was a major crossroads. The route along the southern margin of the wetland area is thus a short cut between Vrhnika and Višnja Gora, and thus also between the main transport routes towards the coast and Dolenjska. Other relatively important routes skirted around Žabji grad. Equally, it was possible to oversee traffic along the Ljubljanica River from Žabji grad.On the slope of Žabji grad the prehistoric settlement terraces were clearly visible in the field; today they are still visible on the south-western slope, along with the terrace west of the castle, situated just above the northern cliffs. At the top of the rise, on a small, 15 x 12.5 m levelled plateau lie the ruins of a tower structure of irregular rectangular ground plan (10.5 x 10.5 x 12.5 m) with internal divisions. On the western side, where access is easiest, the structure was protected by a 5 m wide defensive moat, which runs elliptically around the structure’s western side. The moat is preserved to a depth of 0.8 to 1.5 m. Its course has been erased around the south-western corner of the structure. In the south-eastern section it is still possible to identify the traces of terracing running north-south. There are no preserved built structures in this section.In the preliminary archaeological field inspection, two test probes were dug in the area of the tower. The first was dug at the top of the levelled plateau. The excavations documented no archaeological deposits, nor any structure, but just the dolomite bedrock. Test probe 2 documented stone wall and compacted topsoil. There were no small archaeological finds in the probes. Fragments of pottery, which could tenta-tively be ascribed to the high Middle Ages,11 are rare among the finds discovered in a surface inspection and excavations on the southern slope. The absence of finds is unusual. It could be interpreted as an indicator of the short-lived occupation of the castle, or indeed as evidence that the castle was abandoned and the inhabitants took the majority of the inventory away with them.Žabji grad, which was built directly onto a foundation of artificially levelled dolomite rock, is in ground plan and dimensions similar to the fortifications of the Spanheim ministerials in the area around Lju-

bljana. First we should point out the fortification at Oklučje,12 where the residential defensive tower measures approximately 10 x 10 m, the Old Castle above Želimlje, or Falkenberg13, with a tower within the perimeter walls measuring approximately 11.5 x 7.4 m, as well as Osterberg or the Old Castle above Podgrad14 with its ruins measuring 13.5 x 7.5 m. Outside the area that pertained to the Carinthian Span-heim dukes, we may also mention the Old Castle of Smlednik,15 whose Romanesque tower, which was first protected merely with a defensive moat, was built in almost identical dimensions, with the side of the tower, set on a rectangular ground plan, being a little over ten metres long, and the so-called Upper Tower [Zgornji stolp] at Krancelj in Škofja Loka.16

The ruins of the Žabji grad building are barely recognisable where they stand today. In the past the majority of the stones from the walls were used by local people to build houses and embankments. In some parts the stones had been removed right down to the actual bedrock. The remaining parts of the structure have been damaged or destroyed by major and minor excavation work in the modern era. The local people relate how gravel was quarried there from the weathered rock, and was used for construction works. One excavation destroyed the south-western corner of the tower.Apart from the direct vicinity of surrounding settlements and the associated exploitation of the ruins as a handy quarry with relatively easy access, the actual geology of the terrain may be added to the reasons for the poor degree of preservation of the structure’s remnants. Sediments above the bedrock are very thin; both on the summit (probe 1) and on the south-eastern slope, their average thickness is 15 cm (apart from depressions in the bedrock).

Identity of the fortification

The true name of the tower disappeared into oblivion with the collapse of the structure. Only an iden-tification with some of the castles and towers mentioned in medieval written sources enables a historio-graphical analysis and a definition of its role and importance in the socio-economic and political life of the time. Unfortunately written sources are of no help here.The tower fortified with a defensive moat stood in an area which in the 12th and 13th centuries belonged to the Carinthian Dukes of Spanheim,17 although it is not mentioned in written sources of that period. It is not even mentioned in the founding charter of the Bistra Charterhouse of 1 November 1260, when the boundaries of the Charterhouse estates were precisely noted. The easternmost boundary runs in the direct vicinity of Žabji grad; the boundary runs there from the Ljubljanica past Kamnik pod Krimom and on towards Rakitna and Cerknica. The hill with the Church of St. Anne then belonged to the Ig feudal estates. The founding charter also indicated the boundary of the Charterhouse immunity land, which ran from Kamnik along both banks of the Ljubljanica to its source. The document explicitly states that within this area all wetlands, pastures and forests pertain to the Charterhouse:18 “… Limitamus eis siquidem terminos emunitatis secundum consuetudinem ordinis eorum a Stein fluvii Laibaci usque ad originem dicti fluminis cum paludibus, pascuis, silvis, secundum quod fluvius Laibacus dividit …” The boundary of the immunity land is set out in greater detail in a document from 1264.19 “The boundary begins at the rock above the water that flows into the Ljubljanica, and this rock is in some way in the middle point between Ljubljana and Borovnica (Wreuncz), and it runs from this rock via the hills to the villages named Rakitna (Raquitina), and from there straight to the church in Cerknica (Cirqueniz) …”The boundary between the Bistrica and Ig feudal estates in this section remained more or less unchanged up until the dissolution of the Bistra Charterhouse in 1782. The boundary line remains today a part of the popular tradition as the boundary between the Notranjska and Dolenjska regions west and east, respectively, of the Church of St. Anne. The little rise of Žabji grad may indeed be called a rock (Skala) owing to its cliff walls, which protect the hill on the northern and eastern (wetland) sides. Equally, we could also say that it is situated roughly at the half-way point between Ljubljana and Borovnica. The streams that surrounded it in the past, flowed into the Ljubljanica (Figure 2). In other words the bound-ary point, the rock above the water, may without doubt be identified as the Žabji grad hill or its direct vicinity (today’s boundary between the cadastral municipalities of Preserje and Jezero runs along the western slope of St. Anne).

40


41


So there is no mention of Žabji grad in medieval written sources. Why, we may ask? Since the tower is not mentioned in the founding document of the Charterhouse, we may suspect that it must have been already abandoned. It is interesting, however, that it is not even mentioned as a ruin, since as such it represented a much better geographical orientation point than the “rock above the water”.Nevertheless, we may probably ascribe Žabji grad to some Spanheim ministerial. Indeed sources men-tion the Spanheim ministerial Gizilbert of Krnos (Gurnitz) in Carinthia, who held a feudal estate in the area of Bistra.20 Although no precise location of this estate is known, Žabji grad could by this token be ascribed tentatively to Gizilbert. We may also suspect that he did not reside at Žabji grad. Indeed it would be hard to imagine a ministerial holding a seat within the boundaries of a monastic possession. At the same time it should be stressed that during the time of Ulrik III of Spanheim, Gizilbert was named after Krnos, and after Ulrik’s death he was named after Ljubljana; in other words this possession was of no great importance to him. A further indicator that this feudal estate can be placed in the area sur-rounding Žabji grad, is a document whereby Gizilbert’s son Vulfink and his wife Elizabeta sold a farm in Kamnik to the Bistra Charterhouse in 1300.21

Sadly we must recognise that at this stage of the research we cannot provide a satisfactory answer to the question of the emergence and collapse of Žabji grad. We may assume that it was built at the same time as other Spanheim ministerial castles around Ljubljana; in other words in the 12th century at the latest.22 Yet it must have been abandoned very early on, and most probably by the first half of the 13th century. Nevertheless the folk tradition maintained a knowledge of the castle in the name of the local feature and in the story of the “old gallows”, which supposedly stood at the top of the hill named Sodni vrh [Judge-ment Hill]. Here, according to legend, the neighbouring lords punished their subjects. The local people are also happy to tell stories of deep caves in the area of the castle with hidden treasures.

Modern urbanisation and protection

In the middle of the 19th century the direct vicinity of Žabji grad was still not urbanised (Figure 4). The land was in use as fields and meadows. The first homestead stood on the south-western foot of Sodni vrh by the Kamnik–Borovnica road. In the 20th century, and especially after the Second World War, new centres of settlement for the village of Kamnik pod Krimom developed below the southern slope of Sodni vrh, at Laze, and along the Podpeč–Borovnica road. In the final decade of the 20th century and first few years of the 21th century, the unbridled construction of single family homes meant the devel-opment of the western and north-western slopes of Sodni vrh. Even more new, smaller developments of single family houses or duplexes are planned. One such development is being built this year on the south-eastern slope of Žabji grad. Some years ago, counter to the demands of the conservation profes-sion a commercial and storage facility was built at the southern foot of Žabji grad.The hill of Žabji grad lies within an area of registered units of cultural heritage.23 The area is protected by spatial planning acts under a different protection regime for archaeological heritage, which permits changes to land use after preliminary archaeological research, while the immovable components of the monument or heritage are preserved in situ.24

It was preliminary archaeological research in the area of the envisaged development of a residential settle-ment, named Žabji grad, that led to the discovery of a prehistoric settlement and the medieval ruins. In line with the provisions of cultural protection acts, the land on the south-western slope was approved for development after protective excavations were performed. In the area of the ruins, in line with the results of non-destructive research, a change was requested to the execution plan for the construction of the tenth house in the settlement. We requested that the ruins of the medieval tower be preserved in situ. At the same time, the use of this part of the land should not be changed.The investor, who is performing the encroachment for the purpose of construction for the market, wish-es to incorporate the part of the land with the medieval ruins functionally into the emerging new settle-ment. The investor would cover the medieval ruins up with earth and thereby obtain space for a garden or park arrangement. Such encroachments are not permissible from a cultural protection viewpoint. In accordance with Article 5(5) of the Malta Convention and Article 2 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act (ZVKD-1), archaeological heritage must remain accessible to professionals and lay persons. It would

be permissible to include the presented ruins following the conclusion of archaeological research, but the presentation of ruins would have to be carried out in accordance with a conservation plan (13th indent of Article 3 of the ZVKD-1).

Conclusion

Preliminary archaeological research uncovered a medieval fortification unknown in medieval written sources, and which in its ground plan and dimensions, as well as in its selected location, is similar to other Spanheim fortifications surrounding Ljubljana. This serves to supplement our knowledge of the process of the Spanheim colonisation and shaping of the cultural landscape in Carniola during the 12th and 13th centuries.The anonymous fortification was located on a rise that afforded visual control over what were then im-portant communications, both on land and water. The use of the ruins as a handy quarry in constructing local buildings over a long period so impoverished what remained that it is barely recognisable where it lies today. With this there was also a gradual loss of knowledge among local people of old stories and legends associated with Žabji grad. The envisaged construction of a new settlement right at the foot of the castle hill and demands of the conservation profession for preliminary archaeological research and protective archaeological excavations reawakened these semi-forgotten legends among interested local people. Those coming forward with information belong to the generation born just after the Second World War. These are stories that were told to them when they were very young by their parents and grandparents, and throughout their lives were pushed to one side as being something old, un-modern and uninteresting. Sadly they did not pass on these stories to their own offspring. Among the generation under forty years old, even the local vernacular name is already forgotten. The expansion of settlements, which we generally regard as one of the main causes of destruction of heritage, turned out in this case to be the instrument by which knowledge of the past was reawakened. We are aware, as was stressed by A. Plestenjak,25 that the successful preservation of heritage requires pri-marily its proper inclusion in modern times and its usability and what is termed the “added value” which heritage offers each interested individual here and now. At a time when a landscape park and cultural monument zone is being created in the area of the Ljubljansko barje wetland, the promotion of cultural heritage and raising awareness among the local public of its value are especially important.

Notes1 Rajšp, Ficko 1996, 4.2 Müllner 1897, 111.3 CIL III 10749+p. 2186 and 10750.4 AIJ 56; Bregant et al. 1980, 14; ANSl, 194.5 Krajevni leksikon [Lexicon of Place Names] 1937, 355.6 Nadbath et al. 2008.7 Nadbath, Rutar, Draksler 2008.8 Rajšp, Ficko 1996, 5.9 Truhlar 1975, 100–101.10 Truhlar 1975, 100.11 These are relatively small fragments of the bowl of pottery vessels not thrown on a rapidly rotating wheel.12 Kos 1994, 17; Gaspari, Nadbath 2008a.13 Kos 1994, 16–17; Gaspari, Nadbath 2008b.14 Kos 1994, 32; Jakič 1997, 232; Grilc 2003, 44–48; Grilc 2005, 277.15 Reisp 1987, 15; Kos 1994, 37; Stopar 1998, 69.16 Kos 1994, 39; Štukl 2004, 10–11.17 Komac 2006, 112.18 Schumi 1884–1887, 211–213; Kobe 1961, 166; Mlinarič 2001, 512–513.19 Data is presented from Mlinarič, 2001, 37, and not checked in the original documents.20 Kos 1985, 293; Mlinarič 2001, 71.21 Kos 1975, 251; ibid. 1985, 293; Mlinarič 2001, 71.22 Kos 1994, 125, 129; Komac 2006, 112, 117.

42


43


Judita Lux, Jurij Ravnik*

Poskus rekonstrukcije obsega poznoantičnega grobišča Lajh v Kranju UDK 904(497.4Kranj)«653«:726.8UDK 726.8(497.4Kranj)«653«

Ključne besede: arheologija, pozna antika, Kranj – Lajh, grobišče, zgodovina raziskav, tloris grobišča

Uvod Zaradi predvidene izgradnje treh stanovanjskih blokov na območju Sotočja v Kranju (na lokaciji stavb tovarne Sava) je v letu 2007 Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, Območna enota Kranj, pod vodstvom Milana Sagadina in Judite Lux izvedel zavarovalne arheološke raziskave na območju znanega poznoantičnega grobišča Lajh v Kranju. Grobišče je vpisano v register kulturne dediščine, ki ga vodi Ministrstvo za kulturo, pod zaporedno številko EŠD 5145. Že od leta 1983 je varovano tudi kot kulturni spomenik lokalnega pomena v okviru odloka o razglasitvi starega mestnega jedra Kranja za kulturni in zgodovinski spomenik.1

Prve najdbe z grobišča Lajh so znane od konca 19. stoletja. Do leta 1905 je tu izkopavalo več izkopaval-cev za različne institucije. Ob tem so bili objavljeni številni članki, ki so še danes temeljni za razumevanje pomena grobišča in jih bomo podrobneje navedli v nadaljevanju. Leto 1980 pomeni nekakšen preobrat, saj je bilo prvič objavljeno združeno gradivo, izkopano med letoma 1898 in 1905. Tedaj so objavili tudi najdbe, ki jih je izkopal Tomaž Pavšlar in jih je šele leta 1937 pridobil današnji Narodni muzej Slovenije. Po letu 1982 pa so se znova začela posamezna zavarovalna arheološka izkopavanja na območju poznoantičnega grobišča. Eno bolj odmevnih je bilo izkopavanje v letu 2004, ki bo v nadaljevanju še omenjeno. Poleti 2007 je Zavod prevzel izvedbo zavarovalnih arheoloških raziskav na zemljišču, za katero je bilo znano, da je bilo že prekopano. Vendar pa se je izkazalo, da posegi v preteklosti niso popolnoma uničili najdišča. To je bil tudi razlog za temeljitejše popravke do zdaj znanih rekonstrukcij grobišča, pri čemer so bili upoštevani vsi doslej znani viri.

Zgodovina raziskav

Prve naključne najdbe s poznoantičnega grobišča v Kranju so bile odkrite (po letu 1800) ob gradnji kleti ob Vidmarjevi hiši v vzhodnem delu parc. št. 407 (danes 407/1; slika 1). Predmeti, zlata zaponka (fibula?) in uhani, so bili že leta 1899 opredeljeni kot izgubljeni.2 V letih 1890 in 1891 je Tomaž Pavšlar, veleposestnik in lastnik mlina, na parc. št. 395 (danes 396/5) gradil nov mlin. Ni podatkov, da bi ob tem našel grobove. Vendar pa naj bi bile pred tem na tej parceli in v jugovzhodnem vogalu parc. št. 397 (danes 398/7) najdene človeške kosti. V istem času so na parc. št. 423/1 (danes 423/5) ob sajenju dreves naleteli na grobove z bronastimi pridatki.3 Nekaj let pozneje, leta 1896, so na Pavšlarjevem zemljišču,

Judita Lux, Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, Območna enota KranjJurij Ravnik, Kranj* Jurij Ravnik je sodeloval pri pisanju poglavja Problem dosedanjih rekonstrukcij načrtov grobišča.

23 Žabji grad lies in a zone of registered units of cultural heritage, entered in the Register of Immovable Cultural Heritage as Ljubljana – Cultural landscape of the Ljubljansko barje (EŠD 11819) and Kamnik pod Krimom – Archaeological area of Žabji grad (EŠD 11155). Right at the foot of Žabji grad runs the boundary of the Ljubljana – Archaeological area of Ljubljansko barje unit (EŠD 9368). The unit of Ljubljana – Cultural landscape of the Ljubljansko barje (EŠD 11819) is in the process of being declared a landscape park, and the Ljubljana – Archaeological area of Ljubljansko barje unit (EŠD 9368) is being declared a cultural monument.

24 Expert basis 2002; Guidelines 2007.25 Plestenjak 2007, 205.

LiteratureAIJ: Hoffiler, V., Saria, B., Antike Inschriften aus Jugoslawien, I (Norikum). 1938.ANSl: Arheološka najdišča Slovenije, Ljubljana 1975.BREGANT, T., JERMAN, M., SLABE, M., VUGA, D.: Varovanje arheoloških spomenikov Ljubljanskega barja. – Arheološka zaščitna razis-kovanja na Ljubljanskem barju v letu 1979 I. [Archaeological protective research in the Ljubljansko barje wetland in 1979], Ljubljana 1980.GASPARI, A., NADBATH, B. Želimlje – Stari grad, Falkenberg. – Varstvo spomenikov, reports 44, 2008.GASPARI, A., NADBATH, B.: Želimlje – Stari grad, Oklučje. – Varstvo spomenikov, reports 44, 2008.GRILC, V.: Podgrad pri Ljubljani, Kratka zgodovina. Kulturno društvo Podgrad, Ljubljana 2003.GRILC, V.: Prispevek k zgodovini gospostva Osterberg. – Kronika 53, 2005, 267–282.JAKIČ, I.: Vsi slovenski gradovi. Ljubljana 1997.KOBE, K.: Iz zgodovine Bistre. – Kronika 9, 1961, 165–173.KOMAC, A.: Od mejne grofije do dežele. Ulrik III. Spanheim in Kranjska v 13. stoletju. Thesaurus Memoriae Disertationes 5, Ljubljana 2006.KOS, D.: Med gradom in mestom. Ljubljana 1994.KOS, M.: Gradivo za historično topografijo Slovenije (Za Kranjsko do leta 1500) I. (A – M). Ljubljana 1975.KOS, M.: Srednjeveška kulturna, družbena in politična zgodovina Slovencev. Selected discussions, Ljubljana 1985.KRAJEVNI leksikon dravske banovine. Ljubljana 1937.MLINARIČ, J.: Kartuzija Bistra. Ljubljana 2001.MÜLLNER, A.: Emona. Laibach 1879.NADBATH, B., KLASINC, R., TICA, G., LEGHISSA, E., KUSETIČ, J., LAHARNAR, B., DRAKSLER, M.: Žabji grad, prazgodovina. – Varstvo spomenikov, reports 2008.NADBATH, B., RUTAR, G., DRAKSLER, M.: Žabji grad, srednji vek. – Varstvo spomenikov, reports 2008.SCHUMI, F.: Urkunden – und Regestenbuch des Herzogthums Krain II/2. Laibach 1884–1887.SMERNICE varstva kulturne dediščine za SPR Občine Brezovica. Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Ljubljana Regional Unit, Ljubljana 2007.STOPAR, I.: Grajske stavbe v osrednji Sloveniji. I. Gorenjska, Med Polhovim Gradcem in Smlednikom. Ljubljana 1998.STROKOVNE PODLAGE s področja varstva kulturne dediščine za spremembe in dopolnitve prostorskih sestavin dolgoročnega plana občine Brezovica. Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Ljubljana Regional Unit, Ljubljana 2002.PLESTENJAK, A.: Komunikacijski problemi med arheologijo in javnostjo. – Varstvo spomenikov 42–43, 198–214.RAJŠP, V., FICKO, M.: Slovenija na vojaškem zemljevidu 1763–1787. 2nd folder, Ljubljana 1996.REISP, B.: Grad Smlednik. Kulturni in naravni spomeniki Slovenije, Zbirka vodnikov 156, Ljubljana 1987.TRUHLAR, F.: Stara pot ter poskus rekonstrukcije nekdanje prometne mreže. – Arheološka najdišča Slovenije. Ljubljana 1975, 99–101.ŠTUKL, J.: Arheološke raziskave srednjeveške Škofje Loke. Exhibition catalogue, Škofja Loka 2004.

44


45


v vzhodnem delu parc. št. 407 (danes 407/1), odstranjevali korenine dreves in ob tem odkrili šestnajst grobov. Najden naj bi bil zlat prstan.4

Po pisanju Simona Rutarja je bilo 17. avgusta 1898 ob gradnji novega gospodarskega poslopja na parc. št. 407 (danes 407/1), pred nekdanjo Vidmarjevo kletjo v smeri proti Savi, najdenih nekaj človeških kosti.5 Vendar pa je nekaj let kasneje Josef Szombathy zapisal, da na zemljišču gospodarskega poslopja (danes 404) in zahodnem vogalu dvorišča, na parc. št. 406 (danes 406 in 407/1), po pričevanjih ni bilo več grobov.6

Najdbe, odkrite do leta 1898, so bile najverjetneje povod, da se je novembra istega leta T. Pavšlar odločil, da bo prekopal zahodni del parc. št. 407 (danes 406 in 407/1), v bližini okrajne ceste. Odkritih je bilo približno trideset grobov. V najglobljem grobu je bila pokopana ženska z zelo bogatimi pridatki. Pred-meti so bili tako izjemni, da sta jim bila še istega leta posvečena prispevek v reviji Izvestja Muzejskega društva za Kranjsko7 in krajša notica v tedniku Slovenski list.8 Manjše število grobov naj bi bilo izkopano tudi ob gradnji nove Pavšlarjeve hiše leta 1899 na severnem delu parc. št. 404 (danes 403) in v zahod-nem delu parc. št. 397 (danes 396/7 in osrednji del 398/7).9 Še istega leta, 23. oktobra, je Pavšlar začel izkopavati zahodno od nove hiše in južno od okrajne ceste, na parc. št. 406 (danes 407/1), kjer je nam-eraval zasaditi sadovnjak. Dela so bila končana leta 1900 in ob tem je bila površina zemljišča znižana za en meter. Odkritih naj bi bilo okoli 150 grobov,10 vendar pa po pisanju sodobnikov njihovo število niha celo od 100 do kar 500.11

Med letoma 1897 in 1900 je bil na Lajhu odkrit še en bogat grob. Predmete je njihov lastnik Ignac Wergles, Pavšlarjev višji mlinar, leta 1903 prodal dunajskemu dvornemu muzeju.12

Izjemne najdbe, odkrite na grobišču v Kranju, so privabile tudi znanega arheologa samouka Jerneja Pečnika. Šestindvajsetega julija 1900 je na zemljišču, ki je pripadalo mestu Kranju, z dovoljenjem mestne uprave izkopal dva poskusna jarka dolžine pet in širine enega metra. Odkril je tri grobove, dva sta bila brez pridatkov, v tretjem pa je bil pokopan vojščak. Priložen je imel železen meč, ob glavi je imel dva železna noža in 23 puščičnih osti.13 Zaradi pozitivnih rezultatov je bilo v letu 1901 zastavljeno izkopavanje Josepha Szombatyja, kustosa Naravoslovnega muzeja na Dunaju, z J. Pečnikom kot terenskim vodjem. Stroške raziskav je prevzelo Antropološko društvo na Dunaju. Od 12. junija do konca julija je bilo na površini okoli 415 m² (na parc. št. 409/1; danes 409/1, 409/2, 409/4 in 410/1) izkopanih 61 grobov. J. Szombathy in J. Pečnik sta, da bi ugotovila, ali se grobišče širi tudi severno od ceste, dala na južnem delu parc. št. 423/1 (danes 423/5 in 992) izkopati dva poskusna jarka velikosti 20 in 10 m². V večjem jarku sta našla tri, v manjšem pa dva skeletna grobova. Kot piše J. Szombathy, sta z J. Pečnikom odkrila skupno 66 grobov.14 Predhodni rezultati izkopavanj so bili objavljeni leta 1902. Vso dokumentacijo, skupaj z najdbami in kostnimi ostanki, danes hrani Naravoslovni muzej na Dunaju. J. Szombathy je že takrat izdelal načrt grobišča v merilu 1 : 200, ki pa je bil objavljen šele leta 2006.15 Vsi grobovi so orientirani in oštevilčeni, tloris grobišča je vstavljen v katastrski načrt z označenimi parcelami. Že pri prvih izkopih so dogajanju sledila javna občila; tako so bila Szombathyjeva in Pečnikova izkopavanja, kot tudi nadaljnja dela na grobišču, opisana v časnikih Gorenjec, Slovenec, Slovenski list in Slovenski narod.16 Od 15. julija do 25. oktobra 1901 je na Pavšlarjevem svetu (severno od novega gospodarskega poslopja na parc. št. 406; danes 407/1) začel izkopavati dr. Jakob Žmavc, gimnazijski profesor. Izkopanih je bilo deset grobov, ki jih je J. Žmavc natančno dokumentiral, vendar rezultatov izkopavanj ni nikoli objavil. Grobovi so bili vrisani na načrtu v merilu 1 : 300 in oštevilčeni, vendar niso bili usmerjeni. Natančno so bili opisani, z vključenimi merami grobnih jam, opisana je tudi lega pridatkov, nekateri predmeti pa so bili skicirani (slika 2). Predmete skupaj z nekaterimi izbranimi deli skeletov je obdržal T. Pavšlar. 17

Ob Pavšlarjevem izkopu poznoantičnih grobov se je nivo zemljišča (danes parc. št. 406 in 407/1), ki je mejilo na cesto, znižal za skoraj meter, zato je postala ureditev okrajne ceste nujna. Arheološko izkopa-vanje je prevzel tedanji Deželni muzej v Ljubljani pod vodstvom preparatorja Ferdinanda Schulza.18 Ok-tobra 1901 je bilo izkopanih 58 grobov (danes parc. št. 992 in 407/2). Od dokumentacije sta se ohranila kratek opis grobov in tloris grobov, ki so oštevilčeni, ne pa tudi orientirani.19 Tloris skupaj s pridatki iz grobov je bil prvič objavljen šele leta 1980 v monografiji o grobišču Lajh.20 Kratek seznam najdb je bil sicer predstavljen že leta 1901,21 izbrani predmeti pa so bili prvič objavljeni leta 1903 v besedilu Aloisa Riegla o kranjskih najdbah.22

Leta 1903 se je T. Pavšlar odločil, da bo iskanje grobov razširil tudi na parc. št. 398/2 (danes 398/4, 398/5, 398/6, 398/7, 992 in 994). To je bil vrt severno od dela, kjer je leta 1901 izkopaval F. Schulz. Dela pod vodstvom dr. J. Žmavca so se začela 4. julija 1903 v južnem delu vrta in zaključila 11. julija 1904. V tem času je bilo odkritih 112 grobov. Še istega leta so bili rezultati objavljeni v seriji Jahrbuch der k.k. Zentral-Kommission für Erforschung und Erhaltung der Kunst- und Historischen Denkmale. 23 Poleg tlorisa oštevilčenih grobov v merilu 1 : 200 je bil izdelan katalog grobov z opisanimi pridatki ter njihovo lego, lepši predmeti so bili izrisani ali fotografirani, nekateri grobovi tudi shematično izrisani skupaj z lego pridatkov. Predmeti so bili predani tedanjemu Deželnemu muzeju v Ljubljani. Leta 1947 je Jakob Žmavc rokopisno dokumentacijo,24 povezano z izkopavanji v letih 1903 in 1904, skupaj z zapisi o iz-kopavanju pred Pavšlarjevim gospodarskim poslopjem leta 1901 predal Narodnemu muzeju Slovenije v Ljubljani.25

Leta 1905 je bilo treba regulirati okrajno cesto. Ob tem so potekala tudi arheološka izkopavanja (danes parc. št. 407/2, 423/5 in 992), tokrat pod vodstvom dr. Walterja Schmida, kustosa Deželnega muzeja. Od 11. maja do 28. julija 1905 je bilo na 80 metrov dolgem in največ 20 metrov širokem pasu izko-panih kar 213 grobov, ki jih je W. Schmid prvič predstavil na antropološkem kongresu v Salzburgu še istega leta.26 Celovita objava je bila pripravljena leta 1907.27 Tloris grobišča z oštevilčenimi grobovi, ki so vsi enako usmerjeni, je bil izdelan v merilu 1 : 250. V katalogu grobov so podane mere grobnih jam, opisani sta lega skeletov in lega pridatkov. Izbrani, lepši predmeti so bili tudi fotografirani. Predmete je po zaključku izkopavanj prejel sedanji Narodni muzej Slovenije. To so bila zadnja večja izkopavanja poznoantičnega grobišča Lajh v 20. stoletju. Zbirko predmetov, ki jih je med letoma 1898 in 1904 pridobil T. Pavšlar, je šele leta 1937 odkupila kraljevska banska uprava Dravske banovine in jih podarila Narodnemu muzeju Slovenije.28

Minilo je skoraj 80 let do ponovne omembe grobov z Lajha. V kratki notici, objavljeni v seriji Varstvo spomenikov,29 je bilo navedeno, da naj bi v času obnove tovarne Standard, v sedemdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja, v notranjih prostorih našli ''precej dobro ohranjenih človeških kosti, tudi lobanje''. Šele leta 1982 so potekale nove arheološke raziskave na grobišču Lajh v Kranju. Zaradi predvidenega asfaltiranja na Sejmišču je bil predpisan arheološki nadzor, v okviru katerega so bile izkopane tri sonde prek ceste pred stavbo Sejmišče 4. Šele v tretji in najvišje ležeči sondi velikosti 4 × 4 metre sta bila na globini skoraj dveh metrov odkrita dva skeleta. Skelet odraslega je bil poškodovan v predelu trupa. Obloga iz večjih kamnov je obdajala lobanjo, ki je bila podložena s kamnom. Skelet je bil usmerjen Z–V (glava–noge) in ni imel pridatkov. Drugi, skoraj v celoti ohranjeni skelet je ležal več kot meter bolj severno in pol metra višje od prvega. Grobna jama je bila prav tako obdana s kamni. Skelet otroka je ležal vzporedno s prvim skeletom in je bil brez pridatkov. Oba skeleta sta ležala v prazgodovinski kulturni plasti. Na podlagi njune usmerjenosti in načina pokopa sta bila pripisana romaniziranim staroselcem iz 6. in 7. stoletja.30 Leta 2004 pa so odkritja na grobišču Lajh znova pritegnila pozornost širše javnosti. Ob arheološkem nadzoru nad strojnimi deli sta bili ugotovljeni dve grobni jami. S širitvijo izkopnega polja je bilo odkritih trinajst, od tega dvanajst izkopanih. Ker trinajsti grob ni bil ogrožen zaradi gradbenih posegov, je bil le dokumentiran in nato zasut. Skeleti so bili vsi, razen enega, ki je imel glavo usmerjeno na vzhod, usmer-jeni zahodno–vzhodno. Kar osem skeletov je imelo pridatke. Izjemno bogata sta bila dva ženska grobova, in na tem mestu bi omenili le nekaj predmetov. V prvem se je našlo nekaj zlatih okroglih fibul, okrašenih v tehniki cloisonné, nekaj ločnih pozlačenih srebrnih fibul, pozlačena srebrna zapestnica, zlat prstan in številne jagode z ogrlice, v drugem pa nekaj okroglih fibul, prav tako okrašenih v tehniki cloisonné, številne steklene jagode in velika jantarna jagoda. Kot je bilo že tedaj ugotovljeno, ta skupina grobov za-polnjuje vrzel v tlorisu grobišča, in sicer med Schmidovimi, Žmavčevimi in Schulzevimi raziskavami. 31 Že naslednja leta je znova potekal nadzor v tem delu Kranja, in sicer so bili jugovzhodno od stavbe na Sejmišče 4, ob Savski cesti, odkriti še trije grobovi. Ženski grob z dvema srebrnima pozlačenima S-fibu-lama in ogrlico je bil ohranjen v celoti, druga dva sta bila delno poškodovana.32 Dobro stoletje kasneje so na lokaciji poznoantičnega grobišča Lajh znova potekale arheološke raziskave v večjem obsegu. Zaradi predvidene izgradnje treh stanovanjskih blokov na območju grobišča, oziroma natančneje, na lokaciji stavb tovarne Sava, so bile po tedanji zakonodaji obvezne predhodne arheološke raziskave. Iz virov je znano, da so bili konec 19. in začetek 20. stoletja na tem delu že izkopani grobovi, ni pa bilo znano, koliko je bilo grobov, prav tako ni bilo znano, kolikšno je bilo uničenje grobišča ob

46


47


izgradnji tovarne. Zato je Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, Območna enota Kranj, v maju 2007 izvedel predhodna arheološka sondiranja. Rezultat je bil predstavljen v preliminarnem poročilu maja 2007.33 Zaradi pozitivnih rezultatov na parc. št. 404, 406 in 407/1 so bile od 19. junija do 4. septembra 2007 izvedene zaščitne arheološke raziskave. Kot se je izkazalo, je T. Pavšlar konec 19. in na začetku 20. stoletja prekopal okoli sto grobov. Iz ostankov grobov lahko tudi rekonstruiramo način dela. Takoj smo bili pozorni na dejstvo, da so bili kopani le grobovi, plast okoli njih običajno ni bila uničena. Skelet je bil odstranjen iz grobne jame, najdbe so bile pobrane. Izkopavalci so shranili le na videz bolj dragocene predmete, saj smo v zasutju jam dobili tako nekatere kovinske predmete kot tudi dele roženih glavnikov. Ob zasipanju grobne jame so bile vanje shranjene tudi kosti skeletov. Antropološka analiza še ni zaključena, vendar glede na količino kosti v posamezni jami predvidevamo, da skeleti niso bili pomešani, temveč so bili ostanki vrnjeni v prvotni grob. V tem času smo odkrili 145 grobov, od tega je bilo 49 neprekopanih (slika 3). Znotraj te skupine smo našteli sedem dvojnih pokopov (po dva skeleta v grobni jami) in en trojni pokop (trije skeleti znotraj grobne jame). Zanimivo pa je tudi dejstvo, da je le majhen odstotek grobov (če upoštevamo le neprekopane) brez pridatkov. Da bi ugotovili natančno število v preteklosti izkopanih grobov, bo treba antropološko ovrednotiti tudi tiste ostanke kosti, najdene v polnilu vkopov, ki jih ni bilo mogoče zanesljivo opredeliti kot grobne jame. Zaščitne arheološke raziskave na nekdanjem parkirišču tovarne Sava so nam prinesle nova spoznanja o poznoantičnem grobišču Lajh. Predvsem smo razjasnili marsikatero vprašanje, ki se je zastavljalo že vse od prvih izkopavanj konec 19. stoletja. Dodatno se je potrdila prisotnost Langobardov v Kranju v 6. stoletju n. š., bolj očitna je postala prisotnost Vzhodnih Gotov. Ponovno so se pojavili bizantinski elementi, ki porajajo domnevo o prisotnosti bizantinske posadke. Dokončno smo lahko določili južno mejo poznoantičnega grobišča, predvidevamo pa tudi njegovo vzhodno mejo. Seveda pa bi šele dodatna izkopavanja na Savski cesti (pred nekdanjo Pavšlarjevo hišo) pokazala, do kod natanko sega grobišče na vzhodni strani.

Problem dosedanjih rekonstrukcij načrtov grobišča

Zaradi izvedenih arheoloških izkopavanj v letu 2007 in nameravanih gradbenih del (sanacija Savske ceste) v letu 2008 je postalo vprašanje obsega grobišča ključnega pomena. Že med zaščitnimi arheološkimi raziskavami v letu 2007 smo preverjali načrte, da bi ugotovili velikost grobišča. Izkazalo se je, da eden zadnjih tlorisov, objavljen leta 2006, ni ustrezen, predvsem niso bila upoštevana izkopavanja Deželnega muzeja pod vodstvom Ferdinanda Schulza.34 Odločili smo se, da na podlagi obstoječih objav oziroma tlorisov poskusimo na novo rekonstruirati tloris grobišča (slika 4). Na današnji katastrski načrt smo v elektronski obliki položili načrt tega dela Kranja iz časa prvih izkopov na grobišču Lajh. Tloris je izdelal Simon Rutar in ga skupaj s poročilom35 leta 1899 poslal Centralni komisiji na Dunaju. S primerjavo tega načrta z današnjim katastrom smo želeli ugotoviti, v kolikšni meri so se spreminjale meje parcel, predvsem pa nas je zanimalo, ali se pojavljajo razlike med različnimi tlorisi s konca 19. in začetka 20. stoletja in kolikšne so. Z današnjim katastrom se ujemajo le nekatere parcelne meje, ki so se ohranile do danes. To je večina mej sadnega vrta, meja med Pavšlarjevo zemljo (danes parc. št. 406 in 407/1) ter zemljiščem, na katerem je bila pozneje zgrajena klavnica (danes parc. št. 409/1 in 410/1), nekatere linije okrajne ceste (danes parc. št. 992) in struga reke Save. Cerkev sv. Fabijana, Boštjana in Roka na Pungartu (nem. Baumgarten, tudi Pungert in Pungrat) je na tem načrtu vrisana napačno, vendar v tem kontekstu njena lokacija ni zelo pomembna. Glede na starejše najdbe in Pavšlarjeva prekopavanja ter njegove prve najdbe je S. Rutar vrisal predvideno mejo grobišča in tudi lo-kacijo bogatega ženskega groba, izkopanega leta 1898 (na njegovem načrtu označen s črko e). S. Rutar si je lokacijo groba ogledal, vendar potem, ko je bilo že vse prekopano. Označba mesta izkopa zato temelji le na pričevanju očividcev.36

Leta 1901 je J. Szombathy naročil izdelavo načrta, saj je ugotovil, da so obstoječi zastareli.37 Če ta načrt umestimo na sodobni kataster, lahko ugotovimo, da so se meje parcel bolj ali manj obdržale do danes, na primer “pomol” Pungarta, meja sadnega vrta, meje glavne in tudi stranskih cest, linije Pavšlarjeve hiše in gospodarskega poslopja, deloma breg reke Save (in precej manj reke Kokre). Na načrtu je sicer večkrat popravljena lega nove Pavšlarjeve hiše in gospodarskega poslopja ter tudi nekatere meje. Novi načrt je

bil Szombathyju podlaga za njegove nadaljnje skice in ga je pozneje uporabil tudi v svoji objavi iz leta 1902.38 Na tem načrtu je označil predvideno mejo grobišča, in sicer s skrajno severno točko, označeno s črko D, kjer naj bi po ustnih virih še našli grobove. J. Szombathy utemeljuje južno mejo s pričevanjem T. Pavšlarja, da pod gospodarskim poslopjem ni več našel grobov. Stara Vidmarjeva klet in hiša na Szom-bathyjevem katastrskem načrtu se ujemata z lego objektov na Rutarjevem načrtu. Kot je lahko sklepati, se oba načrta skoraj v celoti ujemata. Zaradi risanja na roko in nekaterih popravkov Szombathyja prihaja do le malenkostnih odstopanj. Ob primerjavi Rutarjevega načrta z načrtom J. Szombathyja, objavljenim leta 1902, ugotovimo, da je slednji natančnejši. Povsem se ujemata meja Mlinskega potoka (parc. št. 403; danes 407/1) in breg reke Save, prav tako pa tudi severna meja Pavšlarjevega sadnega vrta (parc. št. 398/2; danes 398/5) ter še nekatere druge meje parcel in meja okrajne ceste (parc. št. 992).J. Szombathy je bil kljub precej natančnim načrtom, ki jih je imel, glede parcelnih mej na skici, tlorisu grobišča, precej nedosleden (širina ceste ne ustreza, prav tako koti na stičišču cest, lokacija poslopij), zato umestitev tlorisa grobišča na današnji katastrski načrt ni popolnoma natančna. Kot glavne oporne točke za umestitev so bile izbrane meje parc. št. 992 (okrajna cesta), meja med današnjima parc. št. 409/1 in 410/1 (Szombathyjeva izkopavanja) ter parc. št. 406 oziroma 407/1 (Pavšlarjevo zemljišče), dodatno pa še oznaka arheološkega izkopa, ki jo je J. Szombathy označil na katastru, objavljenem leta 1902. Na načrtu so vrisane grobne jame, ki so usmerjene. Znotraj večine so vrisani skeleti. Kot piše J. Szombathy, naj bi sam izkopal na parc. št. 409/1 (danes 409/1, 409/2 in 410/1) 58 grobov, preostale tri je izkopal J. Pečnik.39 Na stičišču cest, na parc. št. 423/1 (danes 423/5 in 992), kjer sta izkopala dva poskusna jarka, pa je bilo še pet grobov. Ugotovimo lahko, da naj bi J. Szombathy in J. Pečnik izkopala 66 grobov, vendar pa je na načrtu vrisanih 68 grobnih jam, v katerih bi lahko bilo vsaj 70 skeletov. Dva pokopa sta bila namreč dvojna. Na načrtu so bili označeni skeleti in ne grobne jame s številkami 12 in 14 ter 23 in 24. En grob je bil označen kot 1a, devet skeletov nima označenih grobnih jam (grobovi št. 6–11, 14–16), medtem ko grobovi 56–58 nimajo vrisanih skeletov. Na parc. št. 409/1 so še trije grobovi (dva na vzhod-nem delu njegovega izkopa, označena kot grobova P-ja, "2 Graeber P's", ter grob na zahodni strani), ki niso oštevilčeni. Te tri grobove lahko na podlagi Szombathyjevega besedila pripišemo J. Pečniku, ki je leta 1900 tu izkopal dve sondi.40 Tri neoštevilčene grobne jame pa je J. Szombathy vrisal še v skrajnem SZ vogalu parc. št. 407 (danes 406, 407/1 in 992), na Pavšlarjevem zemljišču, za katere nimamo podat-kov, kdo in kdaj jih je izkopal. Leta 1901 je izkopaval tudi Deželni muzej pod nadzorom F. Schulza. Izrisan je bil načrt, iz katerega je razvidno v povezavi s pisanjem sodobnikov, da je F. Schulz izkopaval na cesti (danes parc. št. 407/2 in 992) in zaključil nekje pred novo Pavšlarjevo hišo.41 Grobovi so bili oštevilčeni, in glede na to je bilo mogoče prostorsko umestiti 58 grobov. O njihovi legi se da sklepati iz skiciranih skeletov na robu skice. Trije grobovi med obema cestama so bili vneseni bolj informativno, čeprav so vsi trije označeni le z eno številko 25. Ni pa jasno, ali pomeni številka število odkritih grobov na današnji parc. št. 423/5. Nimamo nobenih pisnih podatkov, da bi se kopalo tudi na tej parceli, razen izkopa poskusnih sond J. Szombathyja in J. Pečnika v letu 1901, ko je bilo odkritih le pet grobov. Na tlorisu so označene tudi lokacije izkopavanj J. Szombathyja in T. Pavšlarja s številom izkopanih grobov. Zaradi nenatančnega izrisa je ta tloris zelo težko umestiti tako na Szombathyjev kot na današnji kataster. Nekateri koti med cestami in rekami kažejo, da ne gre le za napake v merilu ali orientaciji, ampak je bila skica risana brez ustrezne podlage katastra, čeprav deluje natančno. Za oporne točke pri umeščanju Schulzevega tlorisa na današnji kataster so bile izbrane predvsem tiste točke, ki so najbližje izkopanim grobovom, saj so verjetnosti za napake manjše kot pri bolj oddaljenih točkah. Izbrane so bile tudi meje cest, za primerjavo pa smo uporabili še umestitev Schulzevih grobov v objavi grobišča Lajh iz leta 198042 in rekonstrukcijo grobišča iz leta 1995.43 Potrebno je opozorilo, da meje cest ne ustrezajo ne Rutarjevemu katastru niti ne Szombathyjevemu, ki je bil izdelan v istem letu, kot so potekala izkopavanja F. Schulza. Izkopani grobovi so bili zato umeščeni tako, da ležijo znotraj meje ceste, kakršne so na Szombathyjevem katastru. V letih 1903 in 1904 je na parc. št. 398/2 (danes 398/4, 398/5, 398/6, 398/7, 992 in 994) izkopaval J. Žmavc. V objavi izkopavanja iz leta 1904 je bil predstavljen tloris sotočja rek Save in Kokre s predviden-im obsegom grobišča.44 Načrt je močno podoben Szombathyjevemu oziroma gre najverjetneje za kom-binacijo obeh njegovih. V primerjavi s Szombathyjevim objavljenim načrtom prihaja pri Žmavčevem do manjših odstopanj, na primer pri linijah gospodarskega poslopja in še pri nekaterih zgradbah. Lepo se ujemajo parcele, ki se tičejo Žmavčevega izkopavanja, obe reki, Sava in Kokra, ter ceste. Moderni

48


49


kataster se s tem načrtom ujema v istih točkah kot pri Szombathyjevem načrtu, kar je dodatno potrdilo, da ga je J. Žmavc vzel za podlago. Tisti del katastrskega načrta oziroma parcele, kjer se je izkopavalo leta 1903 in 1904, je razmeroma natančno izrisan. Precej pomembne so linije in nekatere meje na sadnem vrtu, ki na drugih načrtih niso označene, so pa pomembne za umeščanje tlorisa grobov, ki jih je izkopal J. Žmavc, v načrt. Na načrtu sta zarisani tudi južna in vzhodna predvidena meja grobišča, ki pa sta najverjetneje povzeti po J. Szombathyu.V isti objavi je bil predstavljen tudi tloris izkopanih grobov.45 Gre za razmeroma natančno skico grobišča, ki pa ji manjkajo jasne oporne točke za umestitev. Vendar so na njej izrisane nekatere meje sadnega vrta, jarki in ograje, s pomočjo katerih jo je mogoče umestiti. V veliko pomoč pri tem je ravno Žmavčev kataster, na katerem je vrt najbolje razdelan. Na severu je mogoče skico umestiti s temi mejami. Na jugu poteka vrtni zid, “Gartenmauer”, po liniji parcele v današnjem katastru, drugi oziroma starejši vrtni zid, “frühere Gartenmauer”, pa po liniji ceste na Szombathyjevem (in seveda Žmavčevem) katastru. Na načrtu je vrisanih 115 oštevilčenih skeletov z usmeritvijo. Kot piše Žmavc, pa je v celoti izkopal 107 (+ 5) grobov. Trije grobovi imajo v seznamu poleg zaporedne številke še dodatne črkovne oznake a in b. To so grobovi 24a in 24b, 33a in 33b ter 36a in 36b. Iz opisa ni jasno, zakaj jim Žmavc ni dal zaporedne številke, temveč dodatno črkovno oznako. Leta 1905 so potekala še zadnja večja izkopavanja na grobišču Lajh pod vodstvom Walterja Schmida. V objavi iz leta 1907 sta bila predstavljena tako načrt grobišča v Kranju kot tudi tloris izkopanih grobov.46 Na načrt grobišča je W. Schmid vrisal tudi predvideno mejo grobišča. Severna meja poteka južneje, južna meja pa je približno enaka kot pri Szombathyju. Schmidov načrt se ujema s Szombathyevim katastrom in se v istih točkah kot slednji ujema tudi s sodobnim katastrom. Precej podobno potekajo linije rek Save in Kokre ter cest, stavb in parcel. Kot na vseh drugih načrtih tudi na tem cesta proti Čirčam rahlo zavija, to je ob meji med današnjima parc. št. 407/2 in 992. Vendar pa W. Schmid tega rahlega zavoja ni upošteval na svojem načrtu grobov. Na tem je potek ceste raven, zato ga je bilo težko umestiti tako v njegov načrt grobišča kot tudi v sodoben kataster. Drugi problem predstavlja dejstvo, da skica nima skorajda nobenih opornih točk, ki bi nam pomagale pri umeščanju v katastrski načrt. Tako smo si lahko pomagali samo s črko b označenim mejnim zidom Pavšlarjevega dvorišča (danes parc. št. 406 in 407/1), s črko a označenim vhodom na dvorišče ter vogalom zidu, ki je na načrtu označen s črko c (danes parc. št. 406 in 410/1). Če pa bi v tem delu cesto poravnali, potem grobišče v zahodnem delu ni več potekalo pod cestiščem, temveč precej bolj južno. Zato smo se odločili, da nekje na polovici tlorisa prelomimo načrt in ga tako prilagodimo poteku ceste. Na ta način smo dosegli, da grobovi niso nikjer ležali južneje od ceste, temveč so potekali ob južni meji cestišča. Pri tem smo se oprli na označeni sever ter na skice, na katerih sta W. Schmid in J. Szombathy označila obseg grobišča. Vseeno se na jugovzhodni strani nekaj grobov neizbežno preplete z grobovi, odkritimi leta 1901 pod nadzorom F. Schulza.Na tlorisu so grobovi oštevilčeni in tudi vsi, razen enega, enotno usmerjeni oziroma so brez usmeritve. Določenim grobovom smo lahko določili njihovo okvirno usmeritev na podlagi opisa groba v objavi. Grobovi z zaporednimi številkami 53, 98, 119, 134 in 135 naj bi bili usmerjeni vzhodno–jugovzhodno, grobovi številka 65, 70, 72, 77, 123, 141, 142/II, 166, 183 in 204 vzhodno–severovzhodno, grobova 81 in 142/I vzhodno, grob 202 pa naj bi bil celo usmerjen proti severu. Edini grob, ki ima posebno usmeritev tudi na Schmidovem tlorisu, je ravno grob 202. Glede na skico smo lahko tako gotovi, da njegov izraz usmeritev pomeni stran neba, v katero je imel skelet obrnjeno glavo. Vseeno pa ni logično, da bi imeli skeleti glave na V ali V–SV, saj bi to pomenilo preveliko odstopanje glede na znano situacijo pri grobišču Lajh, zato smo se odločili, da v teh primerih tega ne upoštevamo. Grobov, ki naj bi bili usmerjeni V–JV, nismo popravljali, saj so v to smer že usmerjeni.Glede na objavo naj bi bilo izkopanih 212 grobov.47 Dolžina grobne jame oziroma skeleta je na načrtu označena z dolžino oznake za grob. Na tlorisu je še šestnajst grobov s posebnimi oznakami, nekateri od njih so bili že prekopani in jih W. Schmid ni vključil v skupno število odkritih grobov, ter grobovi, v katerih je bilo več skeletov in so bili označeni s številko in črko ter šteti kot en grob. Z oznakami 11a, 11b in 11c je W. Schmid označil tri pokope v eni grobni jami, 79 in 79a predstavljata dva pokopa v eni grobni jami, kot tudi grobova 142 in 142a. Grobova 54a in 60a predstavljata v preteklosti prekopana grobova, za katera je W. Schmid domneval, da jih je prekopal J. Szombathy leta 1901. Grob 95b naj bi prekopal T. Pavšlar leta 1901, grob 64a pa naj bi bil prekopan v času uporabe grobišča, medtem ko za grobove 89a, 64a, 91a, 95a, 96a Šmid ni napisal, ne kdaj ne kdo jih je izkopal. Grobova 95c in 148a

se ne pojavljata v seznamu. Ob natančnem pregledu tlorisa izkopanih grobov smo tudi ugotovili, da se grobova, označena z zaporednima številkama 148 in 170, pojavljata dvakrat, obstaja tudi grob, označen s številko 215, čeprav Šmid v seznamu grobov omenja le 213 grobov, medtem ko ni bilo mogoče prostor-sko umestiti grobov s številkami 24, 25, 70, 144, 147, 163, 188 in 205. Pri zapisu groba 215 smo lahko skoraj prepričani, da je prišlo do napake in da je to dejansko grob 205. Dvakrat je označen grob 170, eden od njiju je najverjetneje grob 70,48 dvakrat je označen tudi grob 148, vendar ne moremo predvideti, pri kateri oznaki je prišlo do napake.V tako izdelan načrt smo dodali še grobove, odkrite v letih 1982, 2004 in 2005,49 ki nam tako omogočajo določiti okvirni obseg grobišča. Kot zadnjega smo pri rekonstrukciji tlorisa grobišča uporabili še načrt, ki je rezultat zaščitnih arheoloških raziskav v letu 2007. S temi izkopavanji smo ugotovili jugovzhodno mejo grobišča. Ob primerjavi de-janske meje s starejšimi načrti lahko ugotovimo, da je potek meje bolje predvidel S. Rutar50 kot J. Szombathy.51 Pri prekrivanju Szombathyjevega tlorisa s tlorisom grobov, izkopanih leta 2007, in ob upoštevanju, da so nekatere točke, ki so se Szombathyju zdele manj pomembne, relativno netočne, so trije neoštevilčeni grobovi znotraj izkopa iz 2007. V bližini tega mesta smo našli tri prekopane grobove. Ker nimamo znanih podatkov, kdo je kopal niti kaj je bilo v grobovih najdeno, je nemogoče trditi, da so to isti grobovi. Tudi podroben pregled vseh znanih arhivskih virov ni bil uspešen. Vendar se je ob tem pokazalo, da obstaja skica, ki do zdaj še ni bila objavljena.52 To je skica grobov, izkopanih leta 1901 severno od gospodarskega poslopja (danes parc. št. 407/1; slika 5). J. Žmavc, ki je tedaj izkopaval po naročilu T. Pavšlarja, je v terenskem dnevniku natančno opisal vse grobove in njihove pridatke z lego, nekatere predmete je celo skiciral. Kot je razvidno iz besedila, se je poskušal držati navodil o izkopavanju grobov, ki jih je priporočal W. A. Neumann in si jih je zapisal na prvo stran zvezka. Čeprav deluje skica razmeroma nenatančno, je vendar izrisana v merilu, in ko smo jo prekrili z načrtom grobov iz leta 2007, so se grobovi prekrivali. Na načrtu so narisane severna meja gospodarskega poslopja (danes parc. št. 404) in meje Pavšlarjevega dvorišča (danes parc. št. 406 in 407/1), ki smo jih tudi vzeli za oporne točke. Na zahodni, sosednji parceli je bila označena lipa, ki je najverjetneje ista lipa, ki jo je na svojem načrtu označil Szombathy, vidimo pa jo tudi na fotografiji53 Szombathyjevih raziskav. Skicirani grobovi so bili na tlorisu oštevilčeni od 1 do 9, grob vojščaka je bil označen kot 27. jul. Skupno je bilo jeseni 1901 izkopanih deset grobov. Grobovi niso usmerjeni, je pa J. Žmavc v dnevniku zapisal, da se njihova smer razlikuje le za nekaj stopinj. Glede na primerjavo načrtov in ob upoštevanju virov smo določili, kateri grobovi iz leta 1901 se najver-jetneje prekrivajo z našimi. Ker smo leta 2007 v večini prekopanih grobovih dobili kostne ostanke, ki so bili antropološko opredeljeni,54 smo lahko primerjali te elemente. Seveda je treba upoštevati, da je J. Žmavc skeletom sam določil spol, in še to ne v vseh grobovih, ter da se je pri določevanju spola po vsej verjetnosti opiral tudi na pridane predmete. Žmavc je v svojem dnevniku zapisal, 55 da je bila v grobu 1 najdena "močna črepinja z nizkim čelom", za skelet iz groba 2 in 3 ni določil spola, v grobu 4 je bil po njegovem mnenju pokopan "mož, ki je moral biti razmeroma še zelo mlad", v grobu 5 so bili, "ako se sodi po kosteh, najbrže pokopani otroci, najmanj dva", v grobu 6 "sta bila pokopana najmanj dva vštric, toda kosti so bile večinoma že sprhnele"; v grobu 7 "je bil pokopanec ženska, toda zelo močna", v grobu 8 so bile "kosti zelo sprhnete", grob 9 je bil "otroški grob" in v grobu, odkritem 27. julija 1901, je bilo "močno moško okostje".

50


51


J. Žmavc 1901 Spol, starost Lajh 2007 Spol, starost

grob 1 ?, odrasel grob 122 m., adultus

grob 2 / grob 13 ž., adultus (nad 15 let)

grob 3 / grob 121 ?, adultus

grob 4 m., odrasel grob 12 ž.?, adultus

grob 5 ?, otrok (2?) grob 14 ž., adultus (nad 15 let)

grob 6 ?, odrasel? (2?) ruševina Vidmarjeve hiše /

grob 7 ž., odrasel grob 123 ž., adultus56

grob 8 ?, ? grob 11 ž.?, adultus

grob 9 ?, otrok grob 10 m.?, juvenis (okoli 15 let)

27. jul. m., odrasel grob 129 ?, ?

Na tabeli je predstavljena primerjava desetih grobov, ki jih je izkopal J. Žmavc, z grobovi, izkopanimi leta 2007. Nekateri podatki se ujemajo in nam tako še dodatno potrjujejo naše prostorsko enačenje grobov iz leta 1901 s tistimi iz leta 2007. Ugotovimo lahko, da je bil Žmavc natančen izkopavalec in da se lahko z veliko gotovostjo opiramo tako na njegove načrte kot na njegove zapise.

Primerjava sestavljenih načrtov in predvideno število grobov

Predstavili smo že načrte posameznih izkopavalcev. V celoto pa so bili ti načrti povezani šele leta 1980 v monografiji Vide Stare.57 V objavi sta bila znova predstavljena tlorisa J. Žmavca iz leta 1904 in W. Schmida iz leta 1907, prvič pa je bil predstavljen načrt izkopavanja F. Schulza iz leta 1901. Grobovi na načrtih J. Žmavca in W. Schmida so bili na novo oštevilčeni in se tako ujemajo z zaporedjem v kataloškem delu. V tloris v merilu 1 : 500 je bila vrisana predvidena meja grobišča skupaj z mejami starejših izkopavanj, ni pa jasno, zakaj niso bile vrisane tudi meje izkopavanja J. Žmavca. Če naš načrt primerjamo s tistim iz leta 1980, ugotovimo, da se meje posameznih izkopavanj v grobem skladajo. Čeprav je V. Stare predvidevala, da je tudi J. Szombathy izdelal tloris grobov, pa njegova dokumentacija v tistem času še ni bila dostopna, zato so bile meje Szombathyjevih izkopavanj vrisane glede na tloris, objavljenem pri W. Schmidu leta 1907.Poldrugo desetletje kasneje se je ponovnega sestavljanja načrta grobišča lotil Boris Vičič.58 Ta načrt se v mejah posameznih izkopavanj še najbolj ujema z našo rekonstrukcijo. Do največje razlike je prišlo pri umeščanju izkopavanja W. Schmida, ki je v načrtu iz leta 1995 postavljen bolj severno. Na ta način se njegovi grobovi ne prepletajo s tistimi, ki jih je izkopal F. Schulz.Sestavljanja tlorisa grobišča se je lotila tudi Ursula Ibler.59 Kot prva je namesto meja posameznih izkopov v tlorisu upoštevala posamezne grobove. Velika pomanjkljivost tega načrta je bila neupoštevanje načrta F. Schulza, za katerega niti ni prostora, saj je bil tloris izkopavanja W. Schmida postavljen preveč proti jugu. Tudi Szombathyjev načrt je bil postavljen preveč proti jugu in tako leži že znotraj današnje parc. št. 406. Ni pa jasno, ali je U. Ibler vključila pet grobov, izkopanih v dveh sondah na parc. št. 423/1 (danes 423/5 in 992), saj so prekriti z grobovi, ki jih je izkopal W. Schmid. Zagotovo niso bili upoštevani trije neoštevilčeni grobovi, ki jih je J. Szombathy vrisal na parc. št. 407 (danes 406, 407/1 in 992). Tloris Žmavčevih izkopavanj je na sestavljenem tlorisu postavljen razmeroma natančno, vendar tudi ta neko-liko preveč proti jugu. Kot je bilo že omenjeno, je bil načrt U. Ibler podlaga za tloris, objavljen leta 2006. Dodani so bili le grobovi, izkopani v letih 1982 in 2004.60

Ob sestavljanju načrta grobišča se je neprestano pojavljalo vprašanje, koliko grobov je bilo pravzaprav izkopanih, saj se število grobov posameznih izkopavalcev v različnih objavah precej spreminja. Na tabeli

smo predstavili nekaj takih primerov, dodano je pa tudi naše štetje grobov, pri katerem smo se najbolj opirali na tlorise grobov (glej zgoraj).

OBJAVE IZKOPAVANJE Szombathy (1902) Šmid (1907) Stare Bona61 Knific Ibler l. 2007

Pavšlar 1898–1904? 100–500 250–300 200 / 150–200 96

Szombathy, Pečnik 1901 66 66 60 66 66 66 68

Schulz 1901 več kot 100 58 59 58 / 59 58

Žmavc 1903–1904 / 112 115 114 112 112 115

Šmid 1905 / 213 213 213 213 215 228

Po pričakovanju se predvideno število grobov najbolj razlikuje ravno pri T. Pavšlarju, saj morebitna dokumentacija ni znana, in različni avtorji so se lahko opirali bodisi le na pričevanja sodobnikov bodisi na svoja predvidevanja o predvidenem številu grobov. Šele z arheološkimi raziskavami leta 2007 smo lahko ugotovili, da je bilo na parc. št. 404, 406 in 407/1 izkopanih skoraj sto grobov. Še vedno pa ostaja vprašanje, koliko grobov je bilo izkopanih ob gradnji nove Pavšlarjeve hiše na današnji parc. št. 403 in zahodno od nekdanjega Pavšlarjevega mlina na parc. št. 398/7. Po vsej verjetnosti je bilo na njegovem zemljišču izkopanih najmanj 150 grobov. V nekaj več kot sto letih je bilo torej izkopanih vsaj 630 grobov, domnevamo pa lahko, da je njihovo število višje in po vsej verjetnosti dosega 700 grobov. S tem sodi grobišče Lajh med največja srednjeev-ropska grobišča pozne antike.

Zaključek

V prispevku smo predstavili poskus rekonstrukcije tlorisa grobišča Lajh na podlagi novih podatkov, pridobljenih ob zavarovalnih arheoloških raziskavah leta 2007, pa tudi s pomočjo prvih objav in celo rokopisnih virov. Ob tem se je pokazala južna meja grobišča, vzhodna, severna in zahodna meja pa se bodo lahko začrtale šele z novimi arheološkimi raziskavami. Ob primerjavi različnih objav in tlorisov grobišča so se pokazale nekatere neusklajenosti, na primer število izkopanih grobov ali prostorska umes-titev tlorisov posameznih izkopavanj. Grobišče Lajh tako uvrščamo med največja in najpomembnejša poznoantična grobišča Srednje Evrope, kar nam potrjujejo tudi arheološke raziskave Zavoda za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, Območna enota Kranj, v letih 2004, 2005 in 2007. Toda v prihodnosti bo morala biti ena izmed pomembnejših nalog arheološke stroke tudi revizija starejših izkopavanj.

Opombe1 Uradni vestnik Gorenjske, št. 19/83–195.2 Simon RUTAR, Ein Goldschmuck der fränkischen Zeit aus Krainburg, Mittheilungen der k.k. Central-Commission für Erforschung und

Erhaltung der Kunst- und Historischen Denkmale N.F. 25, Dunaj 1899, 143.3 Josef SZOMBATHY, Grabfunde der Völkerwanderungszeit vom Saveufer bei Krainburg, Mittheilungen der k.k. Central-Commission für

Erforschung und Erhaltung der Kunst- und Historischen Denkmale 3. Folge 1, Dunaj 1902, 231. Na tlorisu označeno s točko D.4 RUTAR 1899 (op. 2), 143.5 RUTAR 1899 (op. 2), 143.6 SZOMBATHY 1902 (op. 3), 227, 228.

52


53


7 Anton KOBLAR, Starinske najdbe pod mestom Kranjem, Izvestja Muzejskega društva za Kranjsko 8, Ljubljana 1898, 220, 221.8 Slovenski list III/62, Ljubljana, 10. 12. 1898, 367.9 SZOMBATHY 1902 (op. 3), 226, 227.10 Simon RUTAR, Notizen 45, Mittheilungen der k.k. Central-Commission für Erforschung und Erhaltung der Kunst- und Historischen Den-

kmale N.F. 26, Dunaj 1900, 106, 107.11 SZOMBATHY 1902 (op. 3), 226.12 Timotej KNIFIC, Vojščaki iz mesta Karnija, Kranjski zbornik, Kranj 1995, 25.13 Pismo J. Pečnika J. Szombathyju z dne 27. 7. 1900. Original hrani Arhiv Naravoslovnega muzeja na Dunaju. Podrobna obravnava groba:

Boštjan ODAR, The archer from Carnium, Arheološki vestnik 57, Ljubljana 2006, 243–275; prim. KNIFIC 1995 (op. 12), 27.14 SZOMBATHY 1902 (op. 3), 226–230.15 ODAR 2006 (op. 13), sl. 3. 16 KNIFIC 1995 (op. 12), 23–32.17 Rokopisni dnevnik J. Žmavca, prepis terenskega dnevnika iz leta 1905, v katerem je natančno dokumentiran potek izkopavanj na

Pavšlarjevem dvorišču od 15. julija do 25. oktobra 1901. Original hrani Arhiv Arheološkega oddelka Narodnega muzeja Slovenije v Ljubljani, zap. št. 83.

18 KNIFIC (op. 12) 1995, 30.19 Rokopis F. Schulza, seznam grobov, izkopanih jeseni 1901, in tloris grobov. Original hrani Arhiv Arheološkega oddelka Narodnega

muzeja Slovenije v Ljubljani, zap. št. 383.20 Vida STARE: Kranj, nekropola iz časa preseljevanja ljudstev, Katalogi in monografije 18, Ljubljana 1980. Za te grobove nimamo znanih

grobnih celot, saj so bili v tedanjem Deželnem muzeju razvrščeni tipološko. 21 Alfons MÜLLNER, Die "Frankengräber" bei Krainburg, Argo 9/1, Ljubljana 1901, 156.22 Alois RIEGL, Die Krainburger Funde, Jahrbuch der k.k. Zentral-Kommission für Erforschung und Erhaltung der Kunst- und Historischen

Denkmale N.F. 1, Dunaj 1903, 218–250.23 Jakob ŽMAVC, Das Gräberfeld im Lajh bei Krainburg, Jahrbuch der k.k. Zentral-Kommission für Erforschung und Erhaltung der Kunst-

und Historischen Denkmale N.F. 2, Dunaj 1904, 235–274.24 Terenski rokopisni dnevnik J. Žmavca, v katerem je natančno dokumentiran potek izkopavanj na parceli št. 398/2 v letih 1903 in 1904.

Original hrani Arhiv Arheološkega oddelka Narodnega muzeja Slovenije v Ljubljani, zap. št. 85–88.25 KNIFIC 1995 (op. 12), 31.26 Walter ŠMID, Das Gräberfeld von Krainburg, Mittheilungen des Musealvereines für Krain 18, Ljubljana 1905, 6–96.27 Walter ŠMID, Die Reihengräber von Krainburg, Jahrbuch für Altertumskunde 1, Dunaj 1907, 55–77.28 Podrobna zgodovina raziskav in potek odkupovanja predmetov, ki jih je pridobil T. Pavšlar, je predstavljena v delu: Helena BRAS

KERNEL: Ženski grob z zlatim nakitom iz Lajha v Kranju, diplomsko delo, tipkopis hrani Oddelek za arheologijo, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana 2002, 4–75.

29 Draško JOSIPOVIČ, Kranj, Varstvo spomenikov 24, Ljubljana 1982, 184, 185.30 Milan SAGADIN, Kranj, Lajh, Varstvo spomenikov 25, Ljubljana 1983, 252.31 Milan SAGADIN, Kranj – Grobišče Lajh, Varstvo spomenikov, Poročila 39–41 (2000–2004), Ljubljana 2006, 77, 78.32 Zlata doba Kranija, Arheološka raziskovanja ZVKDS OE Kranj v Lajhu leta 2004 in 2005, zloženka ob razstavi Gorenjskega muzeja in

Zavoda za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, Območna enota Kranj (brez navedbe avtorja in letnice izida).33 Judita Lux, Poročilo o sondiranju na najdišču Kranj – grobišče Lajh (EŠD 5145), Kranj 2007, tipkopis. Hrani Arhiv Zavoda za varstvo

kulturne dediščine Slovenije, Območna enota Kranj.34 SAGADIN 2006, (op. 31), 78. Rekonstrukcija tlorisa grobišča je najverjetneje povzeta po tlorisu, objavljenem leta 2001 pri Ursula

IBLER, Krainburg, Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 17, Berlin, New York 2001, Abb. 35. Tlorisu grobišča sta le dodana grobova, odkrita pri sondiranju leta 1982, in grobovi, odkriti pri zaščitnih arheoloških raziskavah leta 2004.

35 Rokopisno poročilo in načrt S. Rutarja. Original hrani Arhiv Naravoslovnega muzeja na Dunaju, fond Szombathy. Objava poročila pri RUTAR 1899 (op. 2), vendar brez načrta.

36 RUTAR 1899 (op. 2), 143.37 Tloris objavljen v: ODAR (op. 13) 2006, sl. 2.38 SZOMBATHY 1902 (op. 3), 226, 227.39 SZOMBATHY 1902 (op. 3), 229.40 Prim. ODAR 2006 (op. 13), 268.41 SCHULZ 1901 (op. 19).42 STARE 1980 (op. 20), sl. 5.43 KNIFIC, 1995 (op. 12), sl. 3.44 ŽMAVC 1904 (op. 23), Fig. 185.45 ŽMAVC 1904 (op. 23), 233–274, Fig. 186.46 ŠMID 1907 (op. 27), T. 2: 2, 3.47 ŠMID 1907 (op. 27).48 Grob s številko 170 je na načrtu grobov W. Schmida v ponatisu v objavi: STARE, 1980 (op. 20), sl. 4, že označen s številko 70.49 Tlorise hrani Arhiv Zavoda za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, Območna enota Kranj.50 RUTAR 1899 (op. 2), 143.51 Po pripovedovanju T. Pavšlarja pod gospodarskim poslopjem naj ne bi bilo več grobov, zato je bil potek predvidene južne meje grobišča

začrtan preveč proti severu; SZOMBATHY 1902 (op. 3), 227, 228.52 ŽMAVC 1905 (op. 17).

53 ODAR 2006 (op. 13), fig. 4 in 7.54 Antropološki pregled je opravila dr. Petra Leben Seljak, dne 25. februarja 2008, na sedežu ZVKDS, OE Kranj.55 ŽMAVC 1905 (op. 17).56 V polnilu je bil najden še odlomek otroške lobanje.57 STARE 1980 (op. 20), 8, 12, sl. 2–5.58 Načrt objavljen v KNIFIC, 1995 (op. 12), sl. 3.59 IBLER 2001 (op. 33), Abb. 35.60 SAGADIN 2006 (op. 31), 78.61 Istvan BÓNA, Vida Stare, Kranj, nekropola iz časa preseljevanja ljudstev, Archaeologiai értesitő 108, Budapest 1981, 294–299. Kritika

dela V. Stare iz leta 1980 je bila upoštevana zaradi drugačnega štetja grobov.62 SZOMBATHY 1902 (op. 3), 226, 227.

54


55


Slika 1: Katastrski načrt na območju grobišča Lajh v Kranju, začetek 20. stoletja62

Figure 1: Cadastral map of the area of the Lajh cemetery in Kranj, early 20th century62

Slika 2: Opis groba št. 9, ki ga je leta 1901 na današnji parc. št. 407/1 izkopal Jakob Žmavc (Arhiv Arheološkega oddelka Narodnega muzeja Slovenije, zap. št. 83)

Figure 2: Description of gravesite no 9, excavated by Jakob Žmavc on present-day parc. no 407/1 (Archive of the Archae-ology Department of the National Museum of Slovenia, no 83)

56


57


Slika 3: Tloris grobov, odkritih ob zavarovalnih arheoloških raziskavah leta 2007

Figure 3: Layout of gravesites discovered during the preventative archaeological research in 2007

Slika 4: Rekonstrukcija načrta grobišča Lajh v Kranju

Figure 4: Reconstruction of the map of the Lajh cemetery in Kranj

58


59


Slika 5: Skica grobov, odkritih leta 1901 na današnji parc. št. 407/1, avtor Jakob Žmavc (Arhiv Arheološkega oddelka Narodnega muzeja Slovenije, zap. št. 83)

Figure 5: Jakob Žmavc’s sketch of the gravesites discovered in 1901 on present-day parc. no 407/1 (Archive of the Archaeology Department of the National Museum of Slovenia, no 83)

Judita Lux, Jurij Ravnik*

An Attempt to Reconstruct the Size of the Lajh Late Antiquity Cemetery in Kranj Key words: archaeology, Late Antiquity, Kranj – Lajh, cemetery, research history, map of the cemetery

Introduction Due to the planned construction of three blocks of flats in the Sotočje area of Kranj (at the site of the buildings of the Sava tyre factory), in 2007 the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slove-nia, Kranj Regional Unit, carried out preservative archaeological research in the area of the well-known Lajh Late Antiquity cemetery in Kranj, led by Milan Sagadin and Judita Lux. The cemetery is entered in the register of cultural heritage kept by the Ministry of Culture under number EŠD 5145. Since 1983 it has also been protected as a locally significant cultural monument under the Decree on the proclamation of the old town core of Kranj as a cultural and historical monument.1 The first findings from the Lajh cemetery were discovered at the end of the 19th century. By 1905 exca-vations were being performed by several researchers from various institutions. Numerous articles were published which are now fundamental to the understanding of the significance of the cemetery and which will be cited in greater detail below. 1980 was a turning point, as the collected materials excavated between 1898 and 1905 were publicised for the first time. At that time they also publicised the findings excavated by Tomaž Pavšlar, which were acquired in 1937 by the present-day National Museum of Slo-venia. After 1982, individual preservative archaeological excavations were once again started in the area of the Late Antiquity cemetery. One of the more significant digs was the excavation conducted in 2004, which will be discussed further below. In the summer of 2007 the Institute took over the implementa-tion of preservative archaeological research on the parcel, which was known to have been excavated in the past. However, it turned out that the past excavations had not completely destroyed the site. This was also the reason for carrying out more thorough corrections to the known reconstructions of the cemetery, in which all of the available sources were taken into consideration.

Research history

The first accidental findings at the Late Antiquity cemetery in Kranj were discovered (after 1800) during the construction of the cellar of the Vidmar house in the eastern part of parc. no 407 (today no 407/1, Figure 1). The artefacts, a brooch (fibula?) and earrings, were defined as lost already in 1899.2 In 1890 and 1891, landholder and mill owner Tomaž Pavšlar built a new mill on parc. no 395 (today no 396/5). There is no data that any graves were found at that time. However, human bones are supposed to have been found before that in the south-eastern part of parcel no 397 (today parc. no 398/7). At the same time, graves with bronze accessories were found while planting trees on parcel no 423/1 (today 423/5).3 A few years later, in 1896, sixteen graves were found when removing tree roots from Pavšlar’s land on parc. no 407 (today 407/1). A gold ring was apparently found.4

Judita Lux, Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Kranj Regional UnitJurij Ravnik, Kranj, Slovenia* Jurij Ravnik assisted in the writing of the section The problem of past reconstructions of the maps of the cemetery.

60


61


According to the writings of Simon Rutar, various human bones were found on 17 August 1898, during the construction of a new barn on parc. no 407 (today 407/1) in front of Vidmar’s former cellar towards the Sava River.5 However, a few years later Jozef Szombathy wrote that according to witnesses there were no more graves on the land where the barn lay (today parc. no 404) and in the western corner of the yard, on parc. no 406 (today 406 and 407/1).˛6

The findings discovered before 1898 were probably the inducement for T. Pavšlar’s decision in Novem-ber of that year to excavate the western part of parc. no 407 (today 406 and 407/1). Approximately thirty gravesites were discovered. The deepest grave held a woman buried with very fine accessories. The objects were so exceptional that an article was written about them in the same year in the journal Izvestja Muzejskega društva za Kranjsko (Report of the Museum Society of Carniola),7 and a brief notice was published in the weekly Slovenski list (Slovenian Gazette).8 A smaller number of graves were also sup-posed to have been excavated during the construction of the new Pavšlar house in 1899 in the northern part of parc. no 404 (today 403) and the western part of parc. no 397 (today 396/7 and the central part of 398/7).9

Also in the same year, on 23 October, Pavšlar began to dig on the western side of the new house and south of the regional road, on parc. no 406 (today 407/1), where he intended to plant an orchard. The work was completed in the year 1900 and the surface of the land had been lowered by one metre. Some 150 gravesites are supposed to have been discovered,10 but according to contemporary accounts this figure fluctuated from as low as 100 to as high as 500.11 Another opulent gravesite was unearthed at Lajh between 1897 and 1900. The artefacts were sold to the Imperial Natural History Museum in Vienna in 1903 by their owner, Pavšlar’s chief miller Ignac Wergles.12

The exceptional finds found at the cemetery in Kranj aroused the interest of well-known self-taught ar-chaeologist Jernej Pečnik. On the twenty-sixth of June 1900, with the approval of the town council, two test trenches were dug, at a length of five metres and a width of one metre. Three gravesites were found, two without accessories, and the third containing the remains of a soldier. He had been buried with an iron sword, with two iron knives and 23 arrow points by his head.13 Owing to the positive results, in 1901 an excavation was begun by Joseph Szombathy, curator of the Museum of Natural History in Vienna, with J. Pečnik as the field director. The costs of the research were borne by the Anthropology Society in Vienna. From 12 June to the end of July, 61 gravesites were exca-vated on a surface area of around 415 m² (on parc. no 409/1; today 409/1, 409/2, 409/4 and 410/1). In order to determine whether the cemetery extended north of the road, Szombathy and Pečnik also dug two test trenches in the south part of parc. no 423/1 (today 423/5 and 992) measuring 20 and 10 m². In the larger trench they found three and in the smaller two gravesites with skeletal remains. As Szombathy writes, together with Pečnik they discovered a total of 66 graves.14 The preliminary results from the excavations were published in 1902. All of the documentation, together with the findings and skeletal remains, are today kept at the Museum of Natural History in Vienna. At that time, Szombathy drew a map of the cemetery at a scale of 1 : 200, which was published only in 2006.15 All of the gravesites were oriented and numbered, and the ground plan is set into a cadastral map with numbered parcels. During the first excavations the events were followed by the public media, and Szombathy and Pečnik’s digs, as well as further work at the cemetery, were described in the journals Gorenjec (The Upper Carniolan), Slovenec (The Slovenian), Slovenski list (Slovenian Gazette) and Slovenski narod (Slovenian Nation).16 From 15 July to 25 October 1901, Dr. Jakob Žmavc, a teacher at a gymnasium, began excavations on Pavšlar’s land (north of the new barn on parc. no 406, today 407/1). Ten gravesites were excavated, and precisely documented by Žmavc, but the results of the excavations were never published. The gravesites were drawn at a scale of 1 : 300 and numbered, but they were not oriented. They were described ac-curately, including measurements of the graves and the positions of the accessories, and sketches were made of some of the artefacts (Figure 2). The artefacts and selected parts of the skeletons were kept by T. Pavšlar.17

By the time of Pavšlar’s excavation of Late Antiquity gravesites, the level of the land (today parc. no 406 and 407/1) which bordered the road had dropped by nearly a metre, and it became urgently necessary to shore up the regional road. The archaeological excavations were taken over by the former Provincial Museum in Ljubljana under the leadership of preparator Ferdinand Schulz.18 In October of 1901, 58 gravesites were excavated (today parc. no 992 and 407/2). The preserved documentation includes a brief

description of the gravesites and a map of the gravesites, which are numbered but not oriented.19 The plan together with the accessories from the gravesites was first published only in 1980 in a monograph about the Lajh cemetery.20 A short list of the findings was issued as early as 1901,21 and selected artefacts were first published in 1903 in a text by Alois Riegl about the findings in Kranj.22

In 1903, Pavšlar decided to extend the search for gravesites to parc. no 398/2 (today 398/4, 398/5, 398/6, 398/7, 992 and 994). This was a garden to the north of the section excavated by F. Schulz in 1901. The work under the leadership of J. Žmavc was begun on 4 July 1903 in the southern part of the garden and completed on 11 July 1904. 112 gravesites were discovered during that time. In the same year the results were published in the series Jahrbuch der k.k. Zentral-Kommission für Erforschung und Erhaltung der Kunst- und Historischen Denkmale. 23 In addition to a map of numbered gravesites at a scale of 1 : 200, a catalogue of the gravesites was issued with descriptions of the accessories and their positions, and the more beautiful artefacts were drawn or photographed, and schematics were drawn of some of the gravesites, with the position of the accessories indicated. The artefacts were given to the former Provincial Museum in Ljubljana. In 1947, Jakob Žmavc gave his handwritten documentation24 connected with the excavations in 1903 and 1904, together with the records of the excavations in front of Pavšlar’s barn in 1901, to the National Museum of Slovenia in Ljubljana.25

In 1905 the regional road had to be repaired. Archaeological excavations were performed in parallel with the road repairs (today parc. no 407/2, 423/5 and 992), under the leadership of Dr Walter Schmid, curator of the Provincial Museum. From 11 May to 28 July 1905 some 213 gravesites were excavated in a strip 80 metres long and at most 20 metres wide, and were first presented by W. Schmid at an anthropology conference in Salzburg in the same year.26 A comprehensive publication was prepared in 1907.27 A map of the cemetery with numbered gravesites which are all oriented in the same direction was produced at a scale of 1 : 250. The catalogue of the gravesites gave the dimensions of the graves, and the positions of the skeletons and the accessories were described. Some of the more beautiful artefacts were also photographed. After the completion of the excavations the artefacts were received by the present-day National Museum of Slovenia. This was the last major excavation of the Lajh Late Antiquity cemetery in the 20th century. The collection of artefacts acquired by T. Pavšlar between 1898 and 1904 were purchased in 1937 by the royal provin-cial administration of the Drava Banovina and given to the National Museum of Slovenia.28

Nearly 80 years passed before the gravesites at Lajh were mentioned again in the literature. A short notice in the journal Varstvo spomenikov (Monument Conservation)29 stated that during the renovation of the Standard factory in the nineteen seventies, “quite well-preserved human bones, including skulls” were found in the interior. Not until 1982 was any new archaeological research performed at the Lajh cemetery. Owing to the planned asphalting at Sejmišče, archaeological monitoring was prescribed, as part of which three sound-ings were taken across the road in front of the building at Sejmišče 4. In the third and highest-lying sounding, measuring 4 × 4 metres, two skeletons were found at a depth of nearly two metres. The ab-dominal area of the adult skeleton was damaged. A lining of large stones surrounded the skull, which was lying on a stone. The skeleton was oriented W–E (head–feet) and had no accessories. The second, nearly perfectly preserved skeleton lay more than a metre to the north and half a metre higher than the first. The grave was also lined with stones. The skeleton of a child lay parallel to the first skeleton and was also without accessories. Both skeletons lay in the prehistorical cultural layer. Based on their orientation and the burial method they were ascribed to Romanised aborigines from the 6th and 7th centuries.30 In 2004 the discoveries at the Lajh cemetery once again attracted the attention of the general public. Two gravesites were discovered during archaeological monitoring of work with heavy machinery. Upon the extension of the excavation area thirteen gravesites were discovered, of which twelve were excavated. Since the thirteenth gravesite was not threatened by the construction work, it was documented and covered. All of the skeletons had their heads oriented towards the east, except one which was oriented west-east. Eight of the skeletons had accessories. Two of the women’s gravesites were exceptionally opu-lent, and we would like to mention just a few of these artefacts. In the first of the gravesites a few round golden fibulae were found, decorated using the cloisonné technique, a few separate gold-plated silver fibulae, a gold-plated silver bracelet, a gold ring and several necklace beads, and in the second a few round fibulae, also decorated in cloisonné, several glass beads and a large amber bead. As was established

62


63


at the time, this group of gravesites fills a gap in the layout of the cemetery, between the work of Schmid, Žmavc and Schulz. 31 In the next year, monitoring was once again performed in this area in Kranj, and three more gravesites were discovered to the southeast of the building at Sejmišče 4, along Sava street. A woman’s grave with two gold-plated silver S-fibulae and a necklace was preserved in its entirety, while the other two were partially damaged.32 Three years later, large-scale archaeological research was carried out once again at the Lajh Late Antiq-uity cemetery. Owing to the planned construction of three blocks of flats in the area of the cemetery, or more precisely at the location of the Sava tyre factory buildings, mandatory preliminary archaeological research was prescribed pursuant to the then-current legislation. From sources it is known that gravesites were excavated in this area at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, but we do not know how many gravesites there were and the extent of the damage to the gravesites during the construc-tion of the factory. Therefore in May 2007 the Kranj Regional Unit of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia took preliminary archaeological soundings. The results were presented in a preliminary report in May 2007.33 Owing to the positive results on parc. no 404, 406 and 407/1, preservative archaeological research was performed from 19 June to 4 September 2007. It was found that T. Pavšlar excavated around one hundred gravesites at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. His work methods could also be reconstructed from the remains of the gravesites. We imme-diately became aware of the fact that only the gravesites had been excavated, and the area around them had not been destroyed. The skeletons had been removed from the graves and the findings collected. The excavators had saved only the apparently more valuable artefacts, as we found various metal artefacts as well as horn combs in the grave fill. The grave fill also contained human bones. The anthropological analysis is not yet done, but in view of the number of bones per individual grave, we assume that the skeletons were not mixed, but the remains were thrown back into the original gravesites. During this time we discovered 145 gravesites, of which 49 had not been excavated (Figure 3). Among this group we counted seven double burials (two skeletons in a single grave) and one triple burial (three skeletons in a single grave). Also of interest is the fact that only a small percentage of the gravesites (counting only those that had not been excavated) were without accessories. In order to determine the precise number of gravesites excavated in the past, we also had to perform anthropological assessments of the bone remains found in the fill of trenches which could not to a high degree of certainty be defined as graves. The preservative archaeological research performed in the former parking lot of the Sava factory gave us new insights into the Lajh Late Antiquity cemetery. In particular we cleared up numerous questions which had arisen as early as during the first excavations at the end of the 19th century. The presence of the Longobards in Kranj in the 6th century CE was additionally confirmed, and the presence of the Eastern Goths became clearer. Once again Byzantine elements appeared, giving rise to speculation about the presence of a Byzantine encampment. We were finally able to establish the southern boundary of the Late Antiquity cemetery, and we are also inferring its eastern boundary. Further excavations on Sava street (in front of the former Pavšlar house) would of course show how far the cemetery extended to the east.

The problem of past reconstructions of the maps of the cemetery

Due to the archaeological excavations in 2007 and the planned construction work (repairing of Sava street) in 2008, the question of the cemetery,s extent became crucially important. During the preserva-tive archaeological research in 2007 were checked the maps in order to ascertain the size of the cemetery. It turned out that one of the maps, published in 2006, was incorrect; in particular it did not include the excavations performed by the Provincial Museum under the auspices of Ferdinand Schulz.34 We decided to make a new reconstruction of the layout of the cemetery based on the existing publications (Figure 4). We overlaid a map of that part of Kranj from the times of the first excavations at the Lajh cemetery in electronic form onto a modern cadastral map. The map was made by Simon Rutar and sent to the Central Commission in Vienna in 1899 together with a report.35 By comparing that map to the modern

cadastre we wanted to determine the extent to which the parcel boundaries had changed, and we were particularly interested in whether differences had appeared between the various maps made at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century and how many there were. Only a few of the parcel boundaries which have been preserved to the present day match those on the modern cadastre. This includes most of the boundaries of the orchard, the boundary between Pavšlar’s land (today parc. no 406 and 407/1) and the land on which a slaughterhouse was later built (today parc. no 409/1 and 410/1), certain contours of the regional road (today parc. no 992) and the bank of the Sava River. The Church of Sts. Fabian, Se-bastian and Rok in Pungart (Ger. Baumgarten, also Pungert and Pungrat) is marked incorrectly on this map, but in this context its location is not very important. In view of the older finds, Pavšlar’s excava-tions and his first finds, S. Rutar drew a hypothetical boundary of the cemetery as well as the location of an opulent woman’s grave excavated in 1898 (marked on his map with the letter e). Rutar examined the location of the grave, but only after it had already been dug up. The marking of the site of the excavation is thus based only on eyewitness accounts.36

In 1901, J. Szombathy ordered the production of a map, as he had established that the existing ones were obsolete.37 When we overlay that map onto the modern cadastre we can see that the parcel boundaries have remained more or less up to the present, for instance the Pungart panhandle, the boundary of the orchard, the boundaries of the main and also the side roads, the lines of Pavšlar’s house and the barn, and part of the bank of the Sava River (and considerably less of the Kokra River). The position of Pavšlar’s new house and the barn, as well as various boundary lines, was corrected several times on this map. The new map was Szombathy’s basis for his further sketches, and he also used it later in his publication in 1902.38 He marked the hypothetical boundary of the cemetery on the map, including the extreme northern point, marked with the letter D, where according to oral sources there were more gravesites to be found. The old Vidmar cellar and house on Szombathy’s cadastral map match the position of these structures on Rutar’s map. We can conclude that these two maps almost entirely match. Some minor differences appear due to Szombathy’s hand drawing and various corrections he made. In comparing Rutar’s map with the one Szombathy published in 1902, we find that the latter is more accurate. The boundaries of the Mlinski potok stream (parc. no 403, today 407/1) and the bank of the Sava are com-pletely accurate, as is the northern boundary of Pavšlar’s orchard (parc. no 398/2, today 398/5) and various other parcel boundaries and the boundary of the regional road (parc. no 992).Despite the fairly accurate map he had with respect to the parcel boundaries on the sketch of the layout of the cemetery, Szombathy was fairly inconsistent (the width of the road is not correct, nor is the angle at the crossroads, the locations of structures), and therefore the placement of the layout of the cemetery on the modern cadastral map is not completely accurate. The boundaries of parc. 992 (regional road), the boundary between parc. no 409/1 and 410/1 (Szombathy’s excavation), and parc. no 406 or 407/1 (Pavšlar’s land) were selected as the main points of dispute with regard to placement, as well as the marking of the archaeological dig which Szombathy marked on the map published in 1902. The graves drawn on the map are oriented. Skeletons are drawn into the majority of them. As Szombathy writes, he himself is supposed to have excavated 58 gravesites on parc. no 409/1 (today 409/1, 409/2 and 410/1), while the other three were excavated by J Pečnik.39 At the crossroads, on parc. no 423/1 (today 423/5 and 992), five more gravesites were found where they dug the two test trenches. We can thus conclude that J. Szombathy and J. Pečnik excavated 66 gravesites, but there are 68 graves drawn on the map, in which there could be at least 70 skeletons, since two of the graves were double. On the map, skeletons and not graves are marked with numbers 12 and 14 and 23 and 24. One grave is marked as 1a, and nine skeletons do not have marked graves (graves no 6-11 and 14-16), while graves 56-58 do not have skeletons drawn in them. On parc. no 409/1 there are three other graves (two on the eastern part of his excavation, marked as P (“2 Graeber P’s”), and a grave on the western side) which are not numbered. On the basis of Szombathy’s text we can ascribe these gravesites to Pečnik, who took two soundings at this location in 1900.40 Szombathy also drew three unnumbered graves in the extreme NW corner of parc. no 407 (today 406, 407/1 and 992), on Pavšlar’s land, for which we have no data on who excavated them and when. In 1901 excavations were also performed by the Provincial Museum under the leadership of F. Schulz. A map was drawn from which it can be deduced together with the writings of contemporaries that Schulz dug on the street (today parc. no 407/2 and 992) and finished somewhere in front of Pavšlar’s new

64


65


house.41 The graves were numbered, and owing to this it was possible to locate 58 gravesites. Their posi-tions can be inferred from the sketched skeletons at the edge of the sketch. The three graves between the two roads were inserted more for informative purposes, although all three are marked with one number, 25. It is not clear, however, whether the number refers to the number of gravesites discovered on pres-ent-day parc. no 423/5. There are no written data that excavations were performed on this parcel, except for the test sounding done by Szombathy and Pečnik in 1901, when only five gravesites were discovered. The locations of the excavations by Szombathy and Pavšlar are also marked on the map, with the num-bers of the excavated graves. Owing to the inaccurate drawing of the layout, it is very difficult to overlay it onto either Szombathy’s map or the modern cadastre. Certain angles between the roads and rivers indicate that they are not merely errors in scale or orientation, but that the sketch was drawn without a suitable cadastral basis, despite its accuracy. The points selected as disputed points for the placement of Schulz’s map onto the modern cadastre are mainly those closest to the excavated gravesites, since the probability of error is lower than that for more distant points. Also selected were the road boundaries, and for comparison we also used the placement of Schulz’s graves in the 198042 publication on the Lajh cemetery and the reconstruction of the cemetery from 1995.43 We have to point out, however, that the road boundaries do not correspond with Rutar’s cadastre, or with Szombathy’s, which was made in the same year as F. Schulz’s excavations. The excavated gravesites were therefore placed so that they lie within the road boundaries, as on Szombathy’s cadastre. In 1903 and 1904, J. Žmavc carried out excavations on parc. no 398/2 (today 398/4, 398/5, 398/6, 398/7, 992 and 994). In the publication on the excavations from 1904 a map of the confluence of the Sava and Kokra rivers was presented with the hypothetical size of the cemetery.44 The map is very simi-lar to Szombathy’s or is probably a combination of both of his maps. In comparison with Szombathy’s published map, Žmavc’s contains smaller errors, for example in the deviation of the lines of the barn and various other structures. The parcels on which Žmavc’s excavations were carried out, both rivers (the Sava and the Kokra) and the roads match well. The modern cadastre matches this map at the same points as Szombathy’s map, which is further evidence that Žmavc used Szombathy’s map as a starting point. The part of the cadastral map or parcel where the excavations were carried out in 1903 and 1904 is drawn relatively accurately. The lines and certain boundaries in the orchard, which are not marked on the other maps, are important for the placement onto the map of the layout of the gravesites which Žmavc excavated. The hypothetical southern and eastern boundaries of the cemetery are also drawn on the map, probably taken from Szombathy.A layout of the excavated gravesites is also presented in the same publication.45 It is a relatively accurate sketch of the cemetery which however lacks clear reference points for placing the overlay. It does however include some of the boundaries of the orchard, trenches and fences, with the help of which it is pos-sible to place it. Žmavc’s cadastre, on which the orchard is best defined, was in fact of great help here. The sketch can be overlaid on the north end using these boundaries. To the south runs a garden wall, marked “Gartenmauer”, along the line of the parcel in the modern cadastre, and a second or an older garden wall, “frühere Gartenmauer”, runs along the line of the road on Szombathy’s (and of course on Žmavc’s) cadastre. 115 oriented skeletons are drawn on the map. According to Žmavc, he excavated a total of 107 (+ 5) gravesites. In the list, three of the gravesites have additional letter designations a and b along with the numerical designations. These are gravesites 24a and 24b, 33a and 33b, and 36a and 36b. From the description it is not clear why Žmavc did not assign them sequential numbers but added the letter designations. The last major excavations at the Lajh cemetery under the leadership of Walter Schmid were conducted in 1905. In a publication in 1907 both a map of the cemetery in Kranj and a layout of the excavated gravesites were presented.46 Schmid also drew the hypothetical boundary of the cemetery on the map of the cemetery. The northern boundary runs further to the south, and the southern boundary is approxi-mately the same as in Szombathy’s map. Schmid’s map matches Szombathy’s cadastre and also matches the modern cadastre at the same points as it corresponds with Szombathy’s. The lines of the Sava and Kokra rivers and the roads, buildings and parcels are quite similar. As on all other maps also on this one the road towards Čirče winds slightly along the boundary of present-day parc. no 407/2 and 992. However, Schmid did not include the gentle curves in his layout of the gravesites. In that layout the

road is straight, so it was difficult to overlay it onto his map and also onto the modern cadastre. Another problem is the fact that the sketch includes almost no reference points which could assist us in overlaying it onto the cadastral map. Therefore we were only able to use the boundary wall to Pavšlar’s yard (today parc. no 406 and 407/1) marked with the letter b, the entrance to the yard marked with the letter a and the corner wall, which is marked on the map with the letter c (today parc. no 406 and 410/1). If the road was straightened in this section, then the western side of the cemetery would no longer run below the road, but considerably farther to the south. Therefore we decided to split the map about in the middle of the layout and thus adjust it to the course of the road. In this way we managed to make it so that none of the gravesites lay south of the road, but ran along the southern boundary of the roadbed. We based this on the north indicator and on the sketches on which Schmid and Szombathy marked the size of the cemetery. In any case, some of the gravesites on the southeast side unavoidably overlap with those discovered in 1901 under the supervision of F. Schulz.In the layout the gravesites are numbered, and all of them are oriented in the same direction except one or are not oriented. We were able to determine the general orientation of some of the gravesites on the basis of their descriptions in the publication. The gravesites numbered 53, 98, 119, 134 and 135 should be oriented east – southeast, gravesites 65, 70, 72, 77, 123, 141, 142/II, 166, 183 and 204 east – northeast, gravesites 81 and 142/I east, and gravesite 202 should be oriented towards the north. The only gravesite which has a unique orientation, also on Schmid’s layout, is gravesite 202. Taking the sketch into account we were able to conclude that his indication of the orientation means the cardinal direction towards which the skeleton’s head points. In any case it is not logical for the skeletons to have their heads toward the E or E-NE, as this would represent an excessive discrepancy with respect to the known situation at the Lajh cemetery, so we decided not to take this into account for these cases. The gravesites which were supposed to be oriented E-SE were not corrected, as they were already oriented in that direction.According to the publication, 212 gravesites were supposed to have been excavated.47 The length of the graves or skeletons is marked on the map by the length of the marking of the gravesite. The layout also includes sixteen gravesites with special markings, some of which had already been excavated by Schmid and not included in the total number of discovered gravesites, and gravesites which held multiple skel-etons, which were marked with a number and letter and counted as single graves. Schmid marked three burials in one grave as 11a, 11b and 11c, while 79 and 79a refer to two burials in one grave, as do gravesites 142 and 142a. Gravesites 54a and 60a are sites which were excavated in the past, which Schmid assumed had been excavated by Szombathy in 1901. Gravesite 95b is supposed to have been excavated by Pavšlar in 1901, and gravesite 64a is supposed to have been excavated during the time the cemetery was in use, while for gravesites 89a, 64a, 91a, 95a, and 96a, Šmid did not record who excavated them or when. Gravesites 95c and 148a do not appear on the list. From a detailed review of the layout of the excavated gravesites we also determined that gravesites marked with numbers 148 and 170 appear twice, and there is also a gravesite marked 215, although Šmid mentions only 213 gravesites in the list of gravesites. It was also not possible to determine the locations of gravesites 24, 25, 70, 144, 147, 163, 188 and 205. In the record of gravesite 215 we were able to determine with near certainty that this was a mistake and that it referred to gravesite 205. Gravesite 170 is marked twice, and one of them is prob-ably gravesite 70;48 gravesite 148 is also marked twice, but we were unable to determine which of them is erroneous.To this map we added the gravesites discovered in 1982, 2004 and 2005,49 which allows us to determine a framework size of the cemetery. The last item we used in the reconstruction of the layout of the cemetery was the result of the preventive archaeological research performed in 2007. Through these excavations we determined the south-eastern boundary of the cemetery. Through a comparison of the current boundaries with the older maps we were able to determine that the boundary line was envisaged better by Rutar50 than by Szombathy.51 By over-laying Szombathy’s layout with the layout of the gravesites excavated in 2007 and taking into account the fact that some of the points which seemed less important to Szombathy are somewhat inaccurate, there are three unnumbered gravesites within the excavation from 2007. We found three excavated gravesites close to this spot. Since we do not know of any data about who excavated them or what was found in the gravesites, it is impossible to ascertain whether these are the same gravesites. A detailed

66


67


review of all of the known archival resources was also unsuccessful. But it did produce the information that there is a sketch which to date has never been published.52 This is a sketch of the gravesites excavated in 1901 north of the barn (today parc. no 407/1, Figure 5). Žmavc, who at the time had been commis-sioned to perform excavations by Pavšlar, precisely described in his field journal all of the gravesites and their accessories, including their positions, and even sketched some of the artefacts. As can be seen from the text, he tried to follow the instructions for excavating gravesites recommended by W. A. Neumann, and wrote them down on the first page of his notebook. Although the sketch is somewhat inaccurate, it is drawn to scale, and when we overlaid it with the map of gravesites from 2007, the gravesites covered each other. The map includes the northern boundary of the barn (today parc. no 404) and the boundary of Pavšlar’s yard (today parc. no 406 and 407/1), which we used as reference points. A linden was marked on the western neighbouring parcel, which is probably the same linden indicated by Szombathy on his map, and we can also see it in the photograph53 from Szombathy’s research. The sketched gravesites were also marked from 1 to 9 on the layout, and the soldier’s grave was marked as 27 jul. A total of ten gravesites were excavated in the autumn of 1901. The sites were not oriented, but Žmavc wrote in his journal that their orientations differed by only a few degrees. Taking into account the map comparison and the sources we determined which gravesites from 1901 most likely correspond with ours. Since we found bone remains in the majority of the gravesites ex-cavated in 2007 which were anthropologically defined,54 we were able to compare these elements. Of course we have to take into account the fact that Žmavc had sexed the skeletons himself, and not in all of the gravesites, and furthermore he had in all likelihood also relied on the accompanying artefacts in order to determine the sex. Žmavc wrote in his journal55 that a “robust skull with a low brow” had been found in gravesite 1, he did not assign a sex to the skeletons from gravesites 2 and 3, in gravesite 4 in his opinion they had excavated “a man who must have still been relatively young”, in gravesite 5 “judging from the bones, [they had] probably buried children, at least two”, in gravesite 6 “at least two had been buried side by side, but the bones were mostly already decomposed”, in gravesite 7 “ the interred was a woman, but very robust”, gravesite 8 contained “highly decomposed bones”, gravesite 9 was a “child’s grave” and the gravesite excavated on 27 July 1901 contained “robust male bones”.

J. Žmavc 1901 Sex, age Lajh 2007 Sex, age

Gravesite 1 ?, adult Gravesite 122 m., adultus

Gravesite 2 / Gravesite 13 f., adultus (over 15)

Gravesite 3 / Gravesite 121 ?, adultus

Gravesite 4 m., adult Gravesite 12 f.?, adultus

Gravesite 5 ?, child (2?) Gravesite 14 f., adultus (over 15)

Gravesite 6 ?, adult? (2?) Ruins of Vidmar house /

Gravesite 7 f., adult Gravesite 123 f., adultus56

Gravesite 8 ?, ? Gravesite 11 f.?, adultus

Gravesite 9 ?, child Gravesite 10 m.?, juvenis (around 15)

27. Jul. m., adult Gravesite 129 ?, ?

The table presents a comparison of the ten gravesites excavated by J. Žmavc with the gravesites excavated in 2007. Some of the data match and further confirm our spatial equating of the gravesites from 1901 with those from 2007. We can thus deduce that Žmavc was a precise excavator and that we can also rely on both his maps and his records with a high degree of certainty.

Comparison of combined maps and hypothetical number of gravesites

We have presented above the maps of the individual excavators. These maps were presented together only in 1980 in a monograph by Vida Stare.57 The publication included reprints of Žmavc’s layout from 1904 and Schmid’s from 1907, and the map of Schulz’s excavations from 1901 were published for the first time. The gravesites on Žmavc’s and Schmid’s maps were renumbered and thus correspond to the numbering in the catalogue. The hypothetical boundary of the cemetery together with the boundar-ies of the older excavations were drawn in a map in a scale of 1 : 500; it is not however clear why the boundaries of Žmavc’s excavations were not included. When we compare our map with the one from 1980, we find that the boundaries of the individual excavations match. Although Stare had predicted that Szombathy had also made a map of the gravesites, his documentation was not available at the time, so the boundaries of Szombathy’s excavations were drawn according to the map published by Schmid in 1907.A decade and a half later, Boris Vičič made a further attempt at creating a combined map.58 This map matches our reconstruction closest of all with regard to the boundaries of the individual excavations. The greatest discrepancies appeared in overlaying the excavations of W. Schmid, which appear farther to the north in the 1995 map. His gravesites thus overlap with those excavated by F. Schulz.An attempt at composing a combined map of the burial site was made by Ursula Ibler.59 First of all, instead of taking into account the boundaries of the individual excavations, she used the individual gravesites. One major deficiency of this map was not taking Schulz’s map into account, for which there wasn’t any room, since the layout of Schmid’s excavations is set too far to the south. Szombathy’s map was also set too far south, and thus lies within present-day parc. no 406. It is not clear whether Ibler included the five gravesites excavated in the two soundings on parc. no 423/1 (today 423/5 and 992), since they are covered by the gravesites excavated by Schmid. It certainly does not include the three un-numbered gravesites which Szombathy drew into parc. no 407 (today 406, 407/1 and 992). The layout of Žmavc’s excavations is located relatively accurately on the combined map, but is also slightly too far to the south. As mentioned above, Ibler’s map was used as a basis for the layout published in 2006. The only added items are the gravesites excavated in 1982 and 2004.60

In reconstructing the map of the cemetery the question constantly arises of how many gravesites were actually excavated, since the number of gravesites by the individual excavators varies significantly in the various publications. The table below includes a few such examples, to which we have added our count of the gravesites, for which we relied mainly on the layouts of the gravesites (see above).

PUBLICATIONS EXCAVATION Szombathy (1902) Šmid (1907) Stare Bona61 Knific Ibler 2007

Pavšlar 1898–1904? 100–500 250–300 200 / 150–200 96

Szombathy, Pečnik 1901 66 66 60 66 66 66 68

Schulz 1901 over 100 58 59 58 / 59 58

Žmavc 1903–1904 / 112 115 114 112 112 115

Šmid 1905 / 213 213 213 213 215 228

According to our expectations the forecast number of gravesites differs the most in comparison with Pavšlar, since no documentation is available, and various authors have relied either solely on contem-porary accounts or on their own hypotheses about the number of gravesites. It was only through the

68


69


archaeological research conducted in 2007 that we were able to determine that nearly one hundred gravesites had been excavated on parc. no 404, 406 and 407/1. The question still remains of how many gravesites were excavated during the construction of the new Pavšlar house on present-day parc. no 403 and to the west of the former Pavšlar’s Mill on parc. no 398/7. In all likelihood at least 150 gravesites were excavated on his land. Thus in a little over one hundred years at least 630 gravesites were excavated, and we can surmise that the actual number is greater and probably exceeds 700. With this the Lajh cemetery ranks among the largest Late Antiquity cemetery in central Europe.

Conclusion

In this paper we have presented an attempt to reconstruct the layout of the Lajh cemetery on the basis of new data acquired through the preventative archaeological research conducted in 2007, and also using the initial publications and even handwritten sources. Through this we were able to ascertain the loca-tion of the cemetery’s southern boundary, while the pinpointing of the eastern, northern and western boundaries will require further archaeological research. Through a comparison of various publications and maps, various inconsistencies were revealed, for example the number of excavated gravesites or the spatial placement of the layouts of the individual excavations. The Lajh cemetery thus ranks as one of the largest and most important Late Antiquity cemetery in central Europe, which has been confirmed by the research performed by the Kranj Regional Unit of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural heritage of Slovenia in 2004, 2005 and 2007. However, in the future a review of the older excavations will have to be a priority task for the archaeological profession.

Notes1 Official Journal of Gorenjska No 19/83–195.2 Simon RUTAR, Ein Goldschmuck der fränkischen Zeit aus Krainburg, Mittheilungen der k.k. Central-Commission für Erforschung

und Erhaltung der Kunst- und Historischen Denkmale N.F. 25, Vienna 1899, 143.3 Josef SZOMBATHY, Grabfunde der Völkerwanderungszeit vom Saveufer bei Krainburg, Mittheilungen der k.k. Central-Commission für

Erforschung und Erhaltung der Kunst- und Historischen Denkmale 3. Vol. 1, Vienna 1902, 231. Marked as point D on the ground plan.4 RUTAR 1899 (note 2), 143.5 RUTAR 1899 (note 2), 143.6 SZOMBATHY 1902 (note 3), 227, 228.7 Anton KOBLAR, Starinske najdbe pod mestom Kranjem (Ancient findings below the town of Kranj), Izvestja Muzejskega društva za

Kranjsko 8, Ljubljana 1898, 220, 221.8 Slovenski list III/62, Ljubljana, 10 Dec. 1898, 367.9 SZOMBATHY 1902 (note 3), 226, 227.10 Simon RUTAR, Notizen 45, Mittheilungen der k.k. Central-Commission für Erforschung und Erhaltung der Kunst- und Historischen

Denkmale N.F. 26, Vienna 1900, 106, 107.11 SZOMBATHY 1902 (note 3), 226.12 Timotej KNIFIC, Vojščaki iz mesta Karnija (Soldiers from the town of Carnium), Kranjski zbornik, Kranj 1995, 25.13 Letter from J. Pečnik to J. Szombathy of 27 July 1900. Original kept in the Archives of the Museum of Natural History in Vienna. For

a detailed treatment of the gravesite: Boštjan ODAR, The archer from Carnium, Arheološki vestnik 57, Ljubljana 2006, 243–275; cf. KNIFIC 1995 (note 12), 27.

14 SZOMBATHY 1902 (note 3), 226–230.15 ODAR 2006 (note 13), Fig. 3. 16 KNIFIC 1995 (note 12), 23–32.17 Handwritten journal of J. Žmavc, record of fieldwork from 1905, in which the progress of the excavations in Pavšlar’s yard from 15 July

to 25 October 1901 is precisely documented. Original kept in the Archive of the Archaeology Department of the National Museum of Slovenia in Ljubljana.

18 KNIFIC (note 12) 1995, 30.19 Manuscript of F. Schulz, list of gravesites excavated in autumn 1901 and plan of gravesites. Original kept in the Archive of the Archaeol-

ogy Department of the National Museum of Slovenia, no 383.20 Vida STARE: Kranj, nekropola iz èasa preseljevanja ljudstev (Necropolis from the times of the migration of peoples), Katalogi in mono-

grafije 18, Ljubljana 1980. We have no complete graves from these gravesites, so a representative sample was exhibited at the former Provincial Museum in Ljubljana.

21 Alfons MÜLLNER, Die "Frankengräber" bei Krainburg, Argo 9/1, Ljubljana 1901, 156.22 Alois RIEGL, Die Krainburger Funde, Jahrbuch der k.k. Zentral-Kommission für Erforschung und Erhaltung der Kunst- und Histo-

rischen Denkmale N.F. 1, Vienna 1903, 218–250.23 Jakob ŽMAVC, Das Gräberfeld im Lajh bei Krainburg, Jahrbuch der k.k. Zentral-Kommission für Erforschung und Erhaltung der

Kunst- und Historischen Denkmale N.F. 2, Vienna 1904, 235–274.24 Handwritten field journal of J. Žmavc, which contains precise documentation of the progress of the excavations on parcel no 398/2 in

1903 and 1904. The original is kept in the Archive of the Archaeology Department of the National Museum of Slovenia in Ljubljana, no 85–88.

25 KNIFIC 1995 (note 12), 31.26 Walter ŠMID, Das Gräberfeld von Krainburg, Mittheilungen des Musealvereines für Krain 18, Ljubljana 1905, 6–96.27 Walter ŠMID, Die Reihengräber von Krainburg, Jahrbuch für Altertumskunde 1, Vienna 1907, 55–77.28 A detailed history of the research and the history of the purchasing of the artefacts acquired by T. Pavšlar is given in: Helena BRAS

KERNEL: Ženski grob z zlatim nakitom iz Lajha v Kranju (Woman’s Grave with Golden Jewellery from Lajh in Kranj), diploma thesis, typewritten manuscript kept by the Archaeology Department, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana 2002, 4–75.

29 Draško JOSIPOVIČ, Kranj, Varstvo spomenikov 24, Ljubljana 1982, 184, 185.30 Milan SAGADIN, Kranj, Lajh, Varstvo spomenikov 25, Ljubljana 1983, 252.31 Milan SAGADIN, Kranj – Grobišče Lajh (The Lajh Burial Ground), Varstvo spomenikov, Poročila 39–41 (2000–2004), Ljubljana 2006,

77, 78.32 Zlata doba Kranija (The Golden Age of Carnium), Arheološka raziskovanja ZVKDS OE Kranj v Lajhu leta 2004 in 2005 (Archaeological

Research by the IPCHS, Kranj RU in Lajh in 2004 and 2005), pamphlet published for an exhibition by the Gorenjska Museum and the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Kranj Regional Unit (no listing of author or year published).

33 Judita Lux, Poročilo o sondiranju na najdišču Kranj – grobišče Lajh (EŠD 5145) (Report on soundings at the Lajh cemetry in Kranj), Kranj 2007, typed manuscript. Kept in the Archive of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Kranj Regional Unit.

34 SAGADIN 2006 (note 31), 78. This reconstruction of the layout of the cemetery was probably taken from the layout published in 2001 by Ursula IBLER, Krainburg, Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 17, Berlin, New York 2001, Abb. 35. The map of the cemetery additionally includes only the gravesites discovered through the soundings taken in 1982 and the gravesites discovered during the archaeological research conducted in 2004.

35 Handwritten report and map by S. Rutar. Original kept in the Szombathy Collection in the Archive of the Museum of National History in Vienna. Report published by RUTAR 1899 (note 2), but without the map.

36 RUTAR 1899 (note 2), 143.37 Map published in: ODAR (note 13), Fig. 2.38 SZOMBATHY 1902 (note 3), 226, 227.39 SZOMBATHY 1902 (note 3), 229.40 Cf. ODAR 2006 (note 13), 268.41 SCHULZ 1901 (note 19).42 STARE 1980 (note 20), Fig. 5.43 KNIFIC 1995 (note 12), Fig. 3.44 ŽMAVC 1904 (note 23), Fig. 185.45 ŽMAVC 1904 (note 23), Fig. 186.46 ŠMID 1907 (note 27), M. 2: 2, 3.47 ŠMID 1907 (note 27).48 One of the graves marked 170 appears on Schmid’s map of gravesites which was reprinted in STARE 1980 (note 20), Fig. 4, already

marked with the number 70.49 Maps kept in the Archive of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Kranj Regional Unit.50 RUTAR 1899 (note 2), 143.51 According to the account of T. Pavšlar there should not be any more gravesites beneath the barn, so the line of the hypothetical southern

boundary was drawn too far to the north; SZOMBATHY 1902 (note 3), 227, 228.52 ŽMAVC 1905 (note 17).53 ODAR 2006 (note 13), Fig. 4 and 7.54 The anthropological study was performed by Dr Petra Leben Seljak, 25 February 2008, at the headquarters of the IPCHS, Kranj RU.55 ŽMAVC 1905 (note 17).56 A fragment of a child’s skull was also found in the fill.57 STARE 1980 (note 20), 8, 12, Fig. 2–5.58 Map published in KNIFIC, 1995 (note 12), Fig. 3.59 IBLER 2001 (note 33), Abb. 35.60 SAGADIN 2006 (note 31), 78.61 Istvan BÓNA, Vida Stare, Kranj, nekropola iz časa preseljevanja ljudstev (Kranj, necropolis from the time of the migrations of peoples),

Archaeologiai értesitõ 108, Budapest 1981, 294–299. This critique of the work of V. Stare from 1980 was used due to the different count-ing of the gravesites.

62 SZOMBATHY 1902 (note 3), 226, 227.

70


71


Katarina Udovč, Danilo Breščak

Poznogotske in renesančne pečnice iz Novega mestaUDK 904:738.8(497.4Novo mesto)UDK 738.8.03(497.4)

Ključne besede: mestno jedro predela kare II in kare I, arheološko sondiranje, poznogotske in renesančne pečnice

Uvod

Na okljuku reke Krke je Rudolf IV. Habsburški zgradil naselbino, ki jo je poimenoval Ruedolfswerd. Leta 1365 ji je podelil mestne privilegije. Naselbina je bila zgrajena na še neposeljenem območju, »na zeleni trati«, zato so predel okoliški prebivalci že od ustanovitve naprej imenovali Novo mesto. S treh strani mesto varuje reka Krka, na zahodni strani pa dostop s kopnega v mesto zapirata dve vzpetini.1 Na nižji vzpetini Kapitlju je bila v 15. stoletju zgrajena Kapiteljska cerkev (cerkev sv. Nikolaja), na višjem Marofu pa se nahajajo prazgodovinsko gradišče in grobišči Kapiteljska in Klemenčičeva njiva. Na Kapitlju so bile pri arheoloških raziskavah najdene prazgodovinske (poznobronastodobne in poznolaten-skodobne), rimskodobne ter zgodnjesrednjeveške ostaline. V novomeškem mestnem jedru od leta 2000 postopoma poteka prenova komunalne infrastrukture, zato so bila v posameznih mestnih predelih pod okriljem ZVKDS, OE Novo mesto, opravljena arheološka sondiranja. Z arheološko metodo so bile v letu 2005 v predelu kareja II raziskane tri 4 x 4 m velike sonde. Sonde so bile locirane na Društveni trg (med Jakčev in Sindikalni dom) ter na izteka Cvelbarjeve in Muzejske ulice proti Sokolski ulici. Na iztekih ulic sta bili izkopani sondi 2 in 3, ki sta bili prekopani z recentnimi vkopi: kanalizacijo, vodovodom in telefonskim kablom, vendar je bilo kljub temu v sondi 2 najdenih nekaj fragmentov lončenine, v sondi 3 pa prstan in igla.Najmanj je bila z recentnimi vodi poškodovana sonda 1, izkopana na Društvenem trgu. Lokacija Društvenega trga je bila kot trg vrisana že v franciscejski kataster. V sondi 1 smo odkrili del temelja objekta, ki so ga ob robovih deloma poškodovali recentni infrastrukturni vodi. Na zahodni strani ga je poškodoval električni kabel. Od severozahodnega roba proti jugovzhodu izkopnega polja pa je po-tekala kanalizacija, zgrajena iz apnenca, pokrita s ploščami in tlakovana z opeko. Osrednji prostor sonde oziroma objekta je bil zapolnjen z rdečerjavo ruševinsko plastjo. V ruševinski plasti je bilo najdeno srednjeveško gradivo iz 15. in 16. stoletja, med katerim prevladujejo različni tipi neglaziranih pečnic, lončenina (lonci, čaše »celjskega« tipa, trinožniki, pokrovke) in nekaj kovinskih najdb ter srebrn novec. Zaradi številnih in redkih najdb smo sondo podaljšali za 8 m. V podaljšku sonde smo pod asfaltom in tamponom odkrili ploščat in zglajen tlak, na katerem je bil najden novec iz leta 1851 (slika 1). V mestnem predelu kareja I je bilo zaradi prenove komunalne infrastrukture izkopanih 9 sond, ki pa so bile večinoma že močno poškodovane z recentnimi vodi. V sondi 4 med glasbeno šolo in frančiškansko

cerkvijo so bili leta 2000 izkopani temelji kleti srednjeveške hiše. Klet je bila zapolnjena z lončenino in ruševino. Med najdbami izstopajo engobirana lončenina, koščeni gumbi in zelenoglazirane pečnice.

Poznogotske pečnice iz kareja II

Med gradivom izstopajo predvsem neglazirane pečnice, ki jim med gradivom, izkopanim v Sloveniji, nismo našli primerjave. Prvi poskusi okraševanja pečnic so se po mnenju R. Franz začeli že v 13. stoletju, vendar pa so najstarejše časovno zanesljivo umeščene pečnice iz 14. stoletja. Peči iz tega obdobja so stale na kamnitem podstavku. Imele so močno kockasto kurišče, prislonjeno na steno, ki je bilo kurjeno od zunaj ter zgrajeno iz oploščenih neglaziranih pečnic. Peč je bila členjena na podstavek in nastavek. Sledn-ji se je zaključil z okroglim, koničnim ali prizmatičnim stolpom, v katerega so bile vgrajene konkavne ali konveksne pečnice. Na pečnicah 14. stoletja so zelo priljubljene upodobitve profanega dvornega okolja, prizori iz viteškega življenja, lova, ljubezenski prizori in upodobitve pravljičnih živali. Prav tako se poja-vijo tudi že prvi biblijski prizori, ki so značilni predvsem za naslednje stoletje. V 15. stoletju je postala peč razčlenjena na spodnji ali kurilni del, zgornji ali grelni del in zaključni ali »kronski« del. Členitev peči je povzročila tudi nastanek venčnih, vogalnih in kronskih oziroma zaključnih pečnic. Venčne pečnice so obrobljale kurilni in grelni del na dnu in na vrhu. Grelni del peči se je najpogosteje zaključil v obliki okroglega stolpa z nazobčanim zaključkom ali pa se je stopničasto ožil proti vrhu. Stopničasto zoževanje je značilno za obdobje gotike, ko je moderno posnemanje visoke, vitke in na videz krhke gradnje katedral in cerkva. Novomeške pečnice iz mestnega predela kare II časovno sodijo v 15. stoletje, v čas, ko peč ni bila več zgolj grelna naprava, ampak je postala tudi notranji dekorativni element in prostor, okrog katerega je v zimskem času potekalo družabno in družinsko življenje. Kljub razcvetu pečarske obrti v 14. in 15. stoletju so izdelovalci tako okrasnih matric kot samih pečnic ostali anonimni. Usodo anonimnosti delijo z večino srednjeveških umetnikov.2

Med najdenimi pečnicami po številčnosti prevladujejo neglazirane lončaste pečnice s kvadratnim ustjem in ravnim dnom (slika 2). Kvadratno ustje se je oblikovalo hkrati z izdelavo ostenja na lončarskem vretenu. Namenoma puščene sledi lončarskega vretena, vidne kot koncentrični krogi, pa predstavljajo svojstven okras. Oblika ustja je omogočala, da pri vgradnji med njimi ni bilo praznega prostora, zato je bila tudi izguba toplote čim manjša. Zaradi enostavne in poceni izdelave so bile pečnice dostopne širšim množicam in so jih večinoma vgrajevali v preproste peči. Najstarejše so datirane na prehod iz 14. v 15. stoletje, v uporabi pa so ostale vse do 20. stoletja. Glede na kontekst, v katerem so bile najdene, verjetno sodijo v 15. stoletje. Na začetku 15. stoletja je bila izdelana tudi lončasta pečnica s predrto kvadratno prednjo ploščo. Okras-no ploščo predstavlja v predrti tehniki oblikovana šesterolistna rozeta, katere slikovitost polnih listov je poudarjena še z nežno profilacijo (slika 3). Najbližja analogija, vendar slabše izdelave, je bila najdena pri izkopavanjih pečarske delavnice v Novi Vesi v Zagrebu in je datirana na začetek 15. stoletja oziroma v prvo polovico 15. stoletja.3

Pod vplivom gotskega »višinskega« stila so se začele razvijati pravokotne polcilindrične pečnice. Posodo cilindrične oblike so izdelali na vretenu in jo prepolovili. Pravokotno odprtino so lahko pustili odprto kot nišo, jo deloma zaprli z okvirjem in vanj postavili figuro ali pa jo zaprli s prednjo predrto ploščo. Okras v predrti tehniki je posnemal lahnost in krhkost ter skeletni videz gotske arhitekture, zlasti je bilo priljubljeno posnemanje cerkvenega okenskega krogovičja. Te pečnice so uporabljali za gradnjo in okras grelnega dela peči, po navadi v kombinaciji z oploščenimi pečnicami pravokotne oblike. Umetelno izdelane in glazirane pečnice s krogovičjem ali rozeto najdemo na kraljevih dvorih v Budi in Višegradu, neglazirane pa na čeških gradovih Točnik, Žebrák, Valdek, Lichnice in Melice, kjer so umeščene na konec 14. in začetek 15. stoletja.4 »Češke« pečnice so najbolj kakovosten primer posne-manja gotskega arhitekturnega stila, zato Michna meni, da se izdelava tako vizualno učinkovitih in lepih ter tehnološko zahtevnih pečnic ni mogla razcveteti nikjer drugje.5 Predrta rozeta krasi zgornji del neglazirane novomeške pečnice. Novomeške pečnice so bile v primerjavi z omenjenimi na videz bolj grobe, manj elegantne in bolj preproste ter po vsej verjetnosti lokalne izdelave. Na plitvem ostenju so vidne koncentrične sledi, ki so posledica izdelave na lončarskem vretenu. V predrti tehniki sta na dveh celih in eni polovični pečnici v zgornjem delu upodobljeni šesterolistni rozeti, ki ju podpirata dve s ste-

Katarina Udovč, Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, Območna enota Novo mestoDanilo Breščak, Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, Območna enota Novo mesto

72


73


brom ločeni segmentni arkadi (slika 4). Slikovitost polnega dela rozet in stebrov je tudi v tem primeru poudarjena še s plitkim profiliranjem. Od tretje pečnice tega tipa je ohranjena le njena leva stran. Tako obliko je narekovala lega pečnice, saj se domneva, da je bila nameščena na stik peči in stene. Pozneje je bila še sekundarno uporabljena, kar nakazuje z ometom zadelana arkada. Rokodelskim sposobnostim lokalnih mojstrov je bil prilagojen spodnji del pečnice z arkadami, saj na čeških spodnji del pečnice posnema čipkasto zaveso. Iz tovrstnih pečnic sta bili narejeni tudi dve rekonstrukciji lončenih peči, in sicer iz kraljevske palače v Višegradu (Madžarska) in z gradu Melice (Češka). Drugi dve pečnici se od opisanih razlikujeta po tem, da so nad segmentnima arkadama upodobljene tri vrste ali nadstropja različno širokih in visokih ter šilasto zaključenih odprtin. Prehod arkad v nadstropje popestri niz po vsej širini upodobljenih pokončnih pravokotnikov. Pravokotniki se na prehodu iz drugega v tretje nadstropje zmanjšajo in spremenijo v kvadrate.6 Za obdobje pozne gotike sta značilna motiv rozete, ki zapolnjuje celo prednjo stran in obok v obliki oslovskega hrbta.7

Nadaljnji tehnološki razvoj gradnje lončenih peči je povzročil, da je ostenje pečnic postajalo vse plitvejše. Iz lončaste oblike se je globina zadnjega dela najprej zmanjšala na skledasto in nato omejila le še na ostenje sklede. Postopoma so se razvile lončaste ali skledaste in latvičaste oploščene pečnice. Plošča je postala nosilka raznovrstnega reliefnega okrasa, ki je bil izdelan oziroma odtisnjen hkrati z oblikovanjem plošče v matrici ali modelu.8 Pogosto najdemo oploščene pečnice z upodobljenim levom, ki je bil glede na število najdenih odlomkov z različnimi izpeljankami priljubljen okras v sredini 15. stoletja. Posebnost novomeške neglazirane pečnice je dvojni okvir, ožji zunanji in širši notranji (slika 5). Notranji okvir z viticami uokvirja močno pomanjšano sredinsko polje s podobo leva. Drža leva in kakovost izdelave sta sorodni pečnici s celjskega Starega gradu,9 kjer pa lev zavzema ves osrednji prostor. Leva sta upodobljena zelo stilizirano, saj se je mogočna griva spremenila v kratke pramene, ki v treh vrstah pokrivajo vrat in oprsje. Prav tako sta poenostavljeni upodobitvi glave z odprtim gobcem in telesa, ki je gladko in usločeno. Opisane pečnice so bile sestavni deli lončenih peči, katerih izgradnjo so si v 15. stoletju lahko privoščili le zelo premožni meščani in plemiči. Razvoj trgovine in obrti ter razcvet in bogatenje meščanstva so povzročili, da so začeli meščani pri opremi bivalnih prostorov tekmovati s posvetno in cerkveno aris-tokracijo. To je čas, ko je Ruedolfswerd doživel gospodarski razcvet, kar sta mu omogočila privilegij »prisilne« poti in bližina dobro utečenih trgovskih poti. Zaradi privilegija ni smel noben trgovec mimo mesta, ampak je moral potovati skozenj in je bil obvezan blago v mestu tudi ponuditi na prodaj. Po doli-nah Krke in Temenice pa so že od nekdaj potekale pomembne prometne in gospodarske poti z Italijo ter ogrskimi in hrvaškimi deželami. Po teh utečenih trgovskih poteh so verjetno prispele tudi predloge ozi-roma matrice, če ne, pa vsaj ideje za izdelavo dekoracije pečnic. Na meščanski okus kaže tudi dekorativni izbor, saj ni nikjer upodobljenih vitezov, vitezov na konju ali pa najbolj priljubljenega svetnika, sv. Jurija, ki ubija zmaja. Pečnice z rozetami so krasile lončene peči na ogrskih in čeških gradovih. Zelo razširjen pa je tudi motiv leva, ki ga najdemo na gradovih celjskega območja in v nemških deželah. Po obdobju blagostanja v 15. stoletju in gospodarskega razcveta so v drugi polovici 16. stoletja nasto-pili težki časi za prebivalce Ruedolfswerda, in ti so se množično izseljevali. Prebivalce so ogrožali vpadi Turkov, boj za celjsko zapuščino, uničujoče divjanje požarov in kuga. V renesansi se je spremenil motivni svet upodobitev na pečnicah, ki je ponovno odkril antične mitološke in zgodovinske teme ter se navdušil nad njimi. Gotske motive so nadomestili rastlinske, geometrijske, heraldične in alegorične upodobitve, pasijonski prizori, vse pogostejše so tudi upodobitve vladarjev. Peč je razčlenjena le na podstavek in nas-tavek, kar ustreza kurilnemu in grelnemu delu. Večjo okrasno vlogo je dobil okvir, ki je prej predstavljal le nekakšno obrobo glavnega motiva, v tem času pa je postal nosilec zgodbe ali vsaj njen sodelavec.

Renesančne pečnice iz kareja I

V času 16. stoletja je dokončno prevladalo glaziranje pečnic, kar je v drugi polovici 16. stoletja povzročilo izginjanje neglaziranih pečnic. Zeleni odtenki so prevladovali do sredine 16. stoletja, nato so se začeli uveljavljati tudi drugi toni.10 Uveljavitev rjavih, modrih, turkiznih, belih … tonov in engobo glazure je pripeljala do razvoja polihromnih glazur in s tem do še večje slikovitosti pečnic ter do popolnoma drugačnega videza peči. Čeprav so se v 16. stoletju poleg zelenega uveljavili tudi drugi barvni odtenki,

na primer rjavi, so vse v nadaljevanju opisane novomeške pečnice zelene barve. Med njimi so najstarejše in po najdenih odlomkih najštevilnejše oploščene pečnice z motivom uokvirjenih hrastovih listov. Na največjem ohranjenem odlomku zeleno glazirane in pravokotne pečnice je v osrednjem delu v plitvem reliefu upodobljen romb (karo), ki uokvirja hrastov list (slika 6). Iz osrednjega lika proti vogalom rastejo veje s tremi hrastovimi listi. Notranjost je puncirana, kar daje pečnici bradavičast videz. Na ostalih treh robnih zeleno glaziranih odlomkih kvadratnih pečnic sta vidni le veja z listi in stranica, ki nakazuje romb. Ozadje je tudi tu puncirano. Sredinski uokvirjen hrastov list je zamenjal upodobitve rozet na gotskih pečnicah. Pečnice s hrastovim listom so pogoste tako v Sloveniji (Slovenske Konjice, Šalek, Celje) kot na Hrvaškem in avstrijskem Štajerskem.11

Predstavnice pečnic s tapetnim vzorcem so se pojavile kmalu po letu 1500. Tovrstne pečnice so bile priljubljena dekoracija peči v jugovzhodni Evropi in na Hrvaškem. Vzorec tapetnih12 pečnic je bil zasno-van tako, da je prehajal iz enega v drugega in se ponavljal v neskončnost. Geometrijski in rastlinski vzorci so posnemali tekstilne in stenske slikarje 16. stoletja. V drugo polovico 16. stoletja so umeščene tapetne pečnice s profiliranim okvirjem. Izmed njih je delno ohranjena in delno rekonstruirana oploščena ta-petna pečnica z nežno profiliranim ozadjem. Osrednji motiv predstavlja zašiljen podolgovat oval ali zrcalno preslikan oslovski hrbet. Osrednji oval se prezrcali tudi na levo in desno stran, kjer pa je upodo-bljena le njegova polovica. V osrednjem delu je šesterolistna rozeta, ki jo v dveh vencih radialno obdajajo trilisti. V vogalih pečnice se znotraj oslovskih hrbtov prav tako nahajajo krogi s sredinsko križno rozeto, ki jo obdaja večja zunanja križna rozeta, dopolnjena s podolgovatimi ovalnimi trilisti. V podolžno/ver-tikalno prezrcaljenih podolgovatih ovalih je na sredini upodobljena rozeta sestavljena iz šestih trikotno oblikovanih listov (slika 7). Zadnji obravnavani tip pa predstavljajo pečnice z notranjim ovalnim okvirjem, ki obdaja osrednjo up-odobitev. Za ovalni notranji okvir se je uveljavilo poimenovanje medaljon, zato je tudi ta tip poimeno-van pečnice z medaljoni (»Medaillonkacheln«).13 Izdelovati so jih začeli v drugi polovici 16. stoletja in večinoma so temnozeleno glazirane. Notranjost medaljona je najpogosteje okrašena z vse bolj stilizirano upodobljenimi rozetami, aristokratskimi portreti in heraldičnimi motivi. Najdeni sta bili dve pečnici, ki se uvrščata k temu tipu in imata upodobljena človeška lika. Od prve je ohranjena spodnja polovica pečnice, ki ima v okroglem medaljonu upodobljenega bosonogega in v dolgo tuniko oblečenega človeka pri verjetno gospodinjskem opravilu. Nad karirasto površino, mogoče mizo, sta vidni dve roki. Iz osred-njega medaljona proti vogalom segata veji s tremi hrastovimi listi. Osrednji motiv pa je lahko omejen tudi z arhitekturnimi elementi, na primer arkadami, stebri. Arhitekturni elementi se zlijejo z okvirjem in mu dodajo izrazno moč, ki se na ta način vključi v pripoved zgodbe. Delno ohranjen je le en primer pečnice tega tipa. V zgornjem kotu se nad arhitekturno in okrasno razčlenjeno arkado nahaja angel s krilci. Angeli s krilci so lahko bili povezani z zgodbo ali pa so zgolj zapolnili prazen prostor. Kadar so bili povezani z zgodbo, so bili pogosto upodobljeni pasijonski prizori oziroma prizori Kristusovega trpljenja.14

Sklep

Pred tridesetimi leti je Ivan Stopar (1976 in 1977) obdelal poznogotske in renesančne pečnice z gra-dov na celjskem območju, sledile so še objave pečnic z ljubljanskega gradu, podsredškega gradu, gradu Šalek, ormoškega gradu, trdnjave Kostanjevica … Poleg grajskih pečnic so bile objavljene le še pečnice s srednjeveškega, freisinškega trga Gutenwerth. V pomanjkanju objav srednjeveškega gradiva zunaj gra-jskih poslopij se verjetno odraža tudi pomanjkanje arheoloških raziskav, kar pa se spreminja, saj poteka čedalje več raziskav v mestnih središčih, s srednjeveško osnovo, na primer v Novem mestu, Brežicah, Črnomlju …

74


75


Opombe1 Jarc 1990, str. 30.2 Franz 1981, str. 38, 39.3 Mašić 2002, str. 22, 50.4 Michna 1984, str. 91.5 Michna 1984, str. 94.6 Udovč 2007, str. 150, 151.7 Brych 2004, str. 20, 21.8 Franz 1981, str. 26.9 Stopar 1976, str. 284.10 Stephan 1991, str. 35, 36.11 Stopar 1977, str. 70.12 Včasih tudi mozaičnih pečnic (Brych 2004, str. 30).13 Stephan 1991, str. 57.14 Stopar 1977, str. 67.

LiteraturaBrych, V. 2004, Kachle doby gotické, renesanční a raně barokní. - Výběrový katalog Národního muzea v Praze. Praga.Franz, R. 1981, Der Kachelofen. – Gradec.Jarc, J. 1990, Iz preteklih stoletjih Novega mesta. Novo mesto skozi čas. Novo mesto, str. 20--72Mašić, B. 2002, Kasnogotički pećnjaci s Nove Vesi/Spätgotische Kacheln aus Nova Ves. – Muzej grada Zagreba. Zagreb.Michna, P. J. 1984, Gotische Kacheln aus Burg Melice in Mähren. – Budapest Régiségei XXVI. Budimpešta.Stopar, I. 1976, Poznogotske pečnice s Celjskega območja. – Varstvo spomenikov 20, Ljubljana, str. 275–306. Stopar, I. 1977, Renesančne pečnice s Celjskega območja. – Varstvo spomenikov 21, Ljubljana, str. 63–100.Udovč, K. 2007, Kare II, Novo mesto – mestno jedro. – Varstvo spomenikov 42–43, Ljubljana, str. 150–151.Stephan, H.G. 1991, Kacheln aus dem Werraland. – Schriften des Werratalvereins Witzenhausen 23. Witzenhausen.

Slika 1: Fotografija sonde 1 na Društvenem trgu (foto: F. Aš)

Figure 1: Photograph of probe 1 in Društveni Trg (photograph: F. Aš)

76


77


Slika 2: Fotografija lončaste pečnice s kvadratnim ustjem (foto: F. Aš)

Figure 2: Photograph of pot tile with square lip (photograph: F. Aš)

Slika 3: Lončasta pečnica s predrto prednjo ploščo v obliki rozete (foto: F. Aš)

Figure 3: Pot tile with perforated front plate in the form of a rosette (photograph: F. Aš)

Slika 4: Polcilindrična pečnica z okrasom rozete, naslonjene na arkadi (risala: A. Fortuna Saje)

Figure 4: Semi-cylindrical tile decorated with a rosette resting on an arcade (drawing: A. Fortuna Saje)

78


79


Slika 5: Pečnica z dvojnim okvirjem in upodobljenim levom (risala: A. Fortuna Saje)

Figure 5: Tile with double frame and depiction of lion (drawing: A. Fortuna Saje)

Slika 6: Pečnica z uokvirjenim hrastovim listom (risala A. Fortuna Saje)

Figure 6: Tile with framed oak leaf (drawing: A. Fortuna Saje)

80


81


Slika 7: Pečnica s tapetnim vzorcem (risala A. Fortuna Saje)

Figure 7: Tile with “wallpaper” pattern (drawing: A. Fortuna Saje)

Katarina Udovč, Danilo Breščak

Late Gothic and Renaissance Tiles from Novo MestoKey words: town centre District II and District I, archaeological probes, Late Gothic and Renaissance tiles

Introduction

On a bend of the river Krka, Rudolph IV von Habsburg built a settlement which he called Ruedolf-swerd. In 1365 he granted it town privileges. The settlement was built in a previously uninhabited area, “on the green sward”, and was therefore immediately dubbed Novo Mesto or New Town by the inhabit-ants of the surrounding area. The town is protected on three sides by the river Krka, while access to the town from the land – in the west – is closed by two hills.1 On the lower of these, Kapitelj, the Chapter Church (the Church of St Nicholas) was built in the fifteenth century; the higher hill, Marof, is the site of a prehistoric fort and the Capitular Field and Klemenčič Field burial grounds. Archaeological research on Kapitelj has uncovered prehistoric (Late Bronze Age and Late La Tène), Roman and early medieval remains. Gradual renovation of municipal infrastructure has been taking place in the centre of Novo Mesto since 2000, and therefore archaeological probes have been carried out in individual districts of the town un-der the aegis of the Novo Mesto Regional Unit of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage. In 2005, in District II, three 4 x 4 metre probes were researched using the archaeological method. The probes were located in Društveni Trg (between the Jakac House and the Union Hall) and at the ends of Cvelbarjeva Ulica and Muzejska Ulica in the direction of Sokolska Ulica. Probes 2 and 3, at the ends of the streets, have been dug up by recent diggings (for sewers, water mains and telephone cables) but de-spite this some fragments of pottery were found in probe 2, while probe 3 yielded a ring and a needle.Probe 1, in Društveni Trg, has been least damaged by recent laying of cables and pipes. The location of Društveni Trg was inscribed as a square in the land register from the reign of Emperor Franz II. In probe 1 we discovered part of the foundation of a building which has been partially damaged at the edges by recent infrastructure ducts. On the western side it has been damaged by an electrical cable. From the north-western edge towards the south-east of the excavation area ran a sewer built of limestone, covered with slabs and paved with brick. The central area of the probe or building was filled with a red-brown rubble layer. Medieval material from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was found in the rubble layer – predominantly various types of unglazed tiles, pottery (pots, goblets of the “Celje” type, tripods, lids), some metal finds and a silver coin. Owing to the number and rarity of the finds, we extended the probe by 8 metres. In the extension of the probe we discovered beneath the asphalt and the gravel base a flat, smooth pavement on which a coin dating from 1851 was found (Figure 1). In District I 9 probes were sunk as a result of the renovation of municipal infrastructure, although in most cases they have already been badly damaged by recent cables and pipes. In 2000 the foundations of the cellar of a medieval house were unearthed in probe 4, between the music school and the Franciscan

Katarina Udovč, Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Novo mesto Regional UnitDanilo Breščak, Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Novo mesto Regional Unit

82


83


church. The cellar was full of pottery and rubble. Notable among the finds are slipware, bone buttons and green-glazed tiles.

Late Gothic tiles from District II

Particularly notable among the material are unglazed tiles, which are unlike anything else previously unearthed in Slovenia. In the opinion of R. Franz, the first attempts at decorating tiles began in the thirteenth century, although the oldest reliably dated tiles are from the fourteenth century. Stoves from this period stood on a stone base. They had a cube-shaped firebox leaning against a wall, which was heated from the outside and built of panel-like unglazed tiles. The stove was divided into a base and up-per section. The latter ended with a round, conical or prismatic tower into which concave or convex tiles were built. Very popular on fourteenth-century tiles were depictions of the profane court environment, scenes from chivalry, hunting, love scenes and depictions of mythical creatures. The first Bible scenes also appear at this time, although they are chiefly characteristic of the next century. In the fifteenth century the stove was divided into a lower, combustion section and an upper, heating section and topped by a “crown” section. The division of stoves also gave rise to cornice, angle and crown tiles. Cornice tiles were placed along the bottom and top edges of the combustion and heating sections. The heating section of the stove most often ended in the shape of a round tower with a serrated top, or narrowed in a step-like progression towards the top. This step-like narrowing is characteristic of the Gothic period, when imita-tion of the lofty, slender and apparently fragile structure of cathedrals and churches was the fashion. The Novo Mesto tiles from District II date from the fifteenth century, from a time when the stove was no longer merely a heating device but had also become an element of interior decoration around which, in winter time, social and family life centred. Despite the flowering of the stovemaking craft in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the makers both of the decorative matrices and the tiles themselves remained anonymous. They shared the fate of anonymity with the majority of medieval artists.2

Numerically predominant among the tiles found are unglazed pot tiles with a square lip and flat bottom (Fig. 2). The square lip was formed at the same time as the walls on a potter’s wheel. The traces of the pot-ter’s wheel, visible as concentric circles, were left deliberately and represent a unique form of decoration. The shape of the lip meant that when fitting the tiles there were no gaps between them, and thus the loss of heat was kept to a minimum. Owing to their simple and cheap production, the tiles were accessible to the masses and were for the most part built into simple stoves. The oldest of them date from the period around the end of the fourteenth century and the beginning of the fifteenth, although they remained in use right up until the twentieth century. In view of the context in which they were found, they probably come from the fifteenth century. The pot tile with a perforated square front panel was also made in the early fifteenth century. The deco-rative panel is represented by a six-lobed rosette made using the perforated technique. The beauty of its full lobes is further emphasised by gentle profiling (Fig. 3). The nearest analogy, although of poorer manufacture, was found during the excavations of the stovemaking workshop in Nova Ves in Zagreb and is dated to the beginning or the first half of the fifteenth century.3

Under the influence of the Gothic “lofty” style, semi-cylindrical tiles began to develop. A cylindrical pot was made on a wheel and cut in half. The rectangular aperture could be left open as a niche, partially closed with a frame, with a figure placed in it, or closed with a perforated front plate. Perforated decora-tion imitated the delicacy, fragility and skeletal appearance of Gothic architecture. Imitations of church-window tracery were particularly popular. These tiles were used to construct and decorate the heating section of the stove, usually in combination with square panel-type tiles. Skilfully made glazed tiles with tracery or a rosette are found at the royal courts of Buda and Visegrád, while unglazed tiles are found in the Czech castles of Točnik, Žebrák, Valdek, Lichnice and Melice, where they were installed in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century.4 The “Czech” tiles are the finest quality example of the imitation of the Gothic architectural style, and Michna therefore believes that the manufacture of such visually ef-fective, beautiful and technologically demanding tiles could not have flourished anywhere else.5 A perfo-rated rosette adorns the upper part of the unglazed Novo Mesto tile. The Novo Mesto tiles were cruder in appearance than those mentioned: less elegant and simpler, and in all probability manufactured locally.

Concentric traces, the result of working on a potter’s wheel, are visible on the shallow walls. Depicted on two whole tiles and the upper part of one half tile are six-lobed rosettes, made using the perforated technique, supported by two segmental arcades separated by a column (Fig. 4). The beauty of the full section of the rosettes and the columns is emphasised, in this case too, by shallow profiling. Of the third tile of this type, only the left side survives. Its shape was dictated by the position of the tile, since it is assumed that it was placed at the join of the stove and the wall. Later it also had a secondary use, as is indicated by the arcade blocked with plaster. The lower part of the tile with arcades was adapted to the skills of local craftsmen, since in the Czech examples the lower part of the tile imitates a lace curtain. Tiles of this type have been used to make reconstructions of two ceramic stoves – from the royal palace in Visegrád (Hungary) and from Melice Castle (Czech Republic). Two other tiles differ from those de-scribed in that three orders or storeys of openings of different widths and heights and ending in points are depicted above the segmental arcades. The transition of the arcades into the first storey is variegated by a series of upright rectangles across the entire width. At the transition from the second storey to the third storey the rectangles change into squares.6 Typical of the Late Gothic period are a rosette motif filling the entire front and the ogee arch.7

Subsequent technological development in the building of ceramic stoves had the effect of making the walls of the tiles ever shallower. From the pot shape, the depth of the end section was first reduced to a bowl shape and then limited to merely the walls of the bowl. Gradually pot tiles or bowl tiles and dish-shaped panel-type tiles developed. The panel became the support for a variety of decorative relief-work which was made or printed simultaneously with the shaping of the panel in a matrix or mould.8 We frequently find panel-type tiles with a lion depicted on them. Judging from the number of fragments found with various derivations of this motif, this was a popular decoration in the mid-fifteenth century. A special feature of the Novo Mesto unglazed tile is its double frame – a narrower external frame and a broader internal frame (Fig. 5). The former frames with tendrils a very reduced central field with an image of a lion. The attitude of the lion and the quality of the workmanship are similar to a tile from the Old Castle in Celje, where the lion takes up the whole of the central space.9 The lions are both depicted in an extremely stylised manner, with the great mane converted into three rows of short locks covering the neck and breast. Also simplified are the depictions of the head, with its open mouth, and the body, which is smooth and arching. The tiles described here were constituent elements of ceramic stoves which in the fifteenth century only very wealthy burghers and nobles could afford to have built. The development of trade and crafts and the flourishing and increasingly wealthy burgher class meant that burghers began to compete with the secular and ecclesiastical aristocracy in the furnishings of their accommodations. This was a period in which Ruedolfswerd enjoyed an economic boom, facilitated by the privilege of being a “compulsory” route and the proximity of well established trade routes. This privilege meant that no merchant was al-lowed to bypass the town and instead had to travel through it and was obliged to offer his goods for sale in the town. Since time immemorial important trade routes linking Italy and Hungarian and Croatian lands had run through the valleys of the Krka and the Temenica. It is likely that models or matrices or at least ideas for the decoration of tiles also arrived along these established routes. Middle-class taste is also reflected in the choice of decoration, since nowhere do we find depictions of knights, horsemen or the most popular saint, St George, killing the dragon. Tiles with rosettes adorned ceramic stoves in the Hungarian and Bohemian castles. The lion motif was also very widespread and we find it in the castles of the Celje area and in the German lands. Following a period of prosperity and economic growth in the fifteenth century, hard times arrived for the inhabitants of Ruedolfswerd in the second half of the sixteenth century and they began to emigrate en masse. The threats to the townspeople included Turkish raids, the struggle for the legacy of the Counts of Cilli, devastating fires and plague. During the Renaissance the range of motifs on tiles changed. Ancient mythological and historical themes were rediscovered and enthusiastically employed. The Gothic motifs were replaced by vegetable, geometrical, heraldic and allegorical designs or by Passion scenes. Depictions of rulers also became increasingly common. The stove was now divided merely into a base and an upper part, corresponding to the combustion and heating sections. The frame, which had previously repre-sented merely a kind of border for the main subject, gained a bigger decorative role, and in this period became the supporting element of the story, or at least a partner in it.

84


85


Renaissance tiles from District I

During the sixteenth century the glazing of tiles finally prevailed. In the second half of the century this caused the disappearance of unglazed tiles. Green shades prevailed until the middle of the sixteenth century, after which other tones also began to establish themselves.10 The introduction of brown, blue, turquoise and white tones and engobe (slip) glazes led to the development of polychrome glazes and thus to even more picturesque tiles and a completely different appearance for stoves. Although other colour shades such as brown emerged alongside green in the sixteenth century, all the Novo Mesto tiles described below are green. The oldest among them, and the most numerous in terms of the fragments found, are panel-type tiles with a motif of framed oak leaves. On the largest surviving fragment of a green glazed and rectangular tile, a rhombus (diamond) framing oak leaves is depicted in shallow relief in the central section (Fig. 6). Branches with three oak leaves grow from the central figure towards the corners. The interior is punched, which gives the tile a knobbly appearance. On the other three green glazed edge fragments of square tiles only a branch with leaves and a side, indicating a rhombus, are visible. Here, too, the background is punched. The central framed oak leaf has replaced the depictions of rosettes on the Gothic tiles. Tiles with oak leaves are common both in Slovenia (Slovenske Konjice, Šalek, Celje) and in Croatia and Austrian Carinthia.11

Examples of tiles with a “wallpaper” pattern appeared soon after 1500. Tiles of this type were a popular decoration for stoves in south-eastern Europe and Croatia. The pattern of wallpaper12 tiles was designed in such a way as to continue from one tile to another and to repeat itself infinitely. Geometrical and veg-etable patterns imitated the textile and mural painters of the sixteenth century. In the second half of the sixteenth century wallpaper tiles with a profiled frame were used. An example of this is a partly surviving, partly reconstructed panel-type wallpaper tile with a gently profiled background. The central motif is a pointed oblong oval or mirror-image ogee. The central oval is also reflected on the left and right, where only half of it is depicted. The central section contains a six-leafed rosette surrounded radially by trefoils in two wreaths. In the corners of the tile, within the ogees, are circles with a central cruciform rosette surrounded by a larger external cruciform rosette complemented by oblong oval trefoils. In centre of the longitudinally/vertically reflected oblong ovals is a rosette consisting of six triangular lobes (Fig. 7). The last type covered here consists of tiles with an internal oval frame surrounding the central image. This oval internal frame has become known as a medallion, and thus tiles of this type are called medal-lion tiles (Medaillonkacheln).13 They began to be made in the second half of the sixteenth century and for the most part have a dark green glaze. The internal of the medallion is usually decorated with increas-ingly stylised rosettes, aristocratic portraits and heraldic devices. Two tiles belonging to this type have been found. Both of them contain depictions of human figures. Of the first, the lower half of the tile sur-vives. Depicted in the round medallion is a barefoot man dressed in a long tunic apparently performing some household chore. Two hands are visible above a chequered surface, perhaps a table. Two branches with three oak leaves grow from the central medallion towards the corners. The central motif may also be limited by architectural elements such as arcades or columns. The architectural elements merge with the frame and add expressive power which in this way is included in the narrative. Only one example of a tile of this type partially survives. In the upper corner a winged angel is situated above an architecturally and decoratively detailed arcade. Winged angels could be connected to the story or merely used to fill up empty space. When they related to the story, scenes from Christ’s Passion were frequently depicted.14

ConclusionThirty years ago (in 1976 and 1977), Ivan Stopar dealt with Late Gothic and Renaissance tiles from castles in the Celje area. These were followed by publications of tiles from Ljubljana Castle, Podsreda Castle, Šalek Castle, Ormož Castle, Kostanjevica and so on. Besides castle tiles, the only tiles to have been published are those from the medieval market town of Gutenwerth (Otok), belonging to the bishops of Freising. The lack of publications of non-castle material from the Middle Ages is probably a reflection of the lack of archaeological research. This situation is changing, however, and an increasing amount of research is taking places in town centres with a medieval basis, for example Novo Mesto, Brežice, Črnomelj and so on.

Notes1 Jarc 1990, p. 30.2 Franz 1981, pp. 38, 39.3 Mašić 2002, pp. 22, 50.4 Michna 1984, p. 91.5 Michna 1984, p. 94.6 Udovč 2007, pp. 150, 151.7 Brych 2004, pp. 20, 21.8 Franz 1981, p. 26.9 Stopar 1976, p. 284.10 Stephan 1991, pp. 35, 36.11 Stopar 1977, p. 70.12 Sometimes also "mosaic tiles" (Brych 2004, p. 30).13 Stephan 1991, p. 57.14 Stopar 1977, p. 67.

LiteratureBrych, V. 2004, Kachle doby gotické, renesanční a raně barokní. – Výběrový katalog Národního muzea v Praze. Praha.Franz, R. 1981, Der Kachelofen. – Graz.Jarc, J. 1990, Iz preteklih stoletjih Novega mesta. In: Novo mesto skozi čas. Novo mesto, pp. 20–72.Mašić, B. 2002, Kasnogotički pećnjaci s Nove Vesi / Spätgotische Kacheln aus Nova Ves. – Muzej grada Zagreba. Zagreb.Michna, P. J. 1984, Gotische Kacheln aus Burg Melice in Mähren. – Budapest Régiségei XXVI. Budapest.Stopar, I. 1976, Poznogotske pečnice s Celjskega območja. – Varstvo spomenikov 20, Ljubljana, pp. 275–306.Stopar, I. 1977, Renesančne pečnice s Celjskega območja. – Varstvo spomenikov 21, Ljubljana, pp. 63–100.Udovč, K. 2007, Kare II, Novo mesto – mestno jedro. – Varstvo spomenikov 42–43, Ljubljana, pp. 150–151.Stephan, H.G. 1991, Kacheln aus dem Werraland. – Schriften des Werratalvereins Witzenhausen 23. Witzenhausen.

86


87


Mateja Neža Sitar

Edini Quagliev (avto)portret in posledice obnovUDK 75(450):929Quaglio G.UDK 726:27-523.42(497.4Ljubljana):929Quaglio G.UDK 75.052:726:27-523.42(497.4Ljubljana) UDK 75.041.53:929Quaglio G.UDK 75.025.3/.4:726:27-523.42(497.4Ljubljana)

Ključne besede: ljubljanska stolnica, Giulio Quaglio, avtoportret, spomeniškovarstvena služba, konser-vatorsko-restavratorski posegi, baročna slikarska tehnika, odstranjevanje nečistoč, retuša

Povzetek

V začetku 18. stoletja je v zanosu razcveta baročne umetnosti v Ljubljani dekan in graditelj nove ljubljan-ske stolnice Janez Anton Dolničar pri severnoitalijanskem slikarju Giuliu Quagliu (1668–1751) naročil celostno poslikavo stolne cerkve sv. Nikolaja. Lombardski baročni slikar, doma iz Laina pri Comskem jezeru, ki se je kot freskant uveljavil v Furlaniji in Gorici, je tako ravno v Ljubljani izkazal vrhunec svoje virtuoznosti in umetniške kariere z iluzionistično poslikavo stolne notranjščine in zunanjščine (1703–1706). Pozneje se je vrnil in skupaj s sinom v letih 1721–1723 dopolnil še slikarski okras kapel v ladji. Poslikava ljubljanske stolnice predstavlja enega takratnih najobsežnejših freskantskih ciklov pri nas, ki je obenem tudi slikarjevo najpomembnejše umetniško naročilo, zato ga je, po dosedanjih raziskavah sodeč, v vsem svojem opusu po Italiji, Avstriji in Sloveniji, prvič in poslednjič samozavestno opremil s svojo podobo.

Leta 2002 je ekipa Restavratorskega centra na okrog 532 m² poslikave ladijskega oboka in zahodne stene začela izvajati enega najkompleksnejših in najzahtevnejših konservatorsko-restavratorskih projek-tov. Zahtevnost projekta se odraža predvsem v metodologiji in organiziranosti štiriletnega procesa dela, v katerega so bila ob konkretnih restavratorskih posegih na sami poslikavi z različnih strokovnih gledišč zajeta sprotno raziskovanje, analiziranje, preverjanje, preučevanje, dokumentiranje. Izrazito interdisci-plinarno delo je združevalo mnoga znanja in izkušnje najrazličnejših strok iz Slovenije in tujine.1 V raziskovalno delo je bilo na samem platoju hkratno ob procesu restavriranja vključeno tudi razis-kovanje poslikave z vidika umetnostnozgodovinske in konservatorske stroke ob upoštevanju širšega kul-turnozgodovinskega ozadja. V ta namen je bilo po različnih metodah dela zaradi pomanjkljivih podat-kov in slabo ohranjene dokumentacije raziskanih mnogo različnih virov (pisnih, fotografskih, grafičnih, literarnih, časopisnih, video, ustnih in drugih) iz ohranjene dokumentacije javnih in zasebnih fondov, planotek, fotografskih zbirk, knjižnic, arhivov. Naš namen je bil spremljati in natančno raziskati kakršne koli obnovitvene posege na poslikavah, seveda če so nam to omogočali podatki iz ohranjene dokumen-tacije, različnih virov in literature. Zanimali so nas podatki o vrsti posegov, o materialih, ki so bili pri

tem uporabljeni, o tem, kdaj je obnova potekala, kdo jo je naročil, kdo izvajal itd. Raziskovanje obnov oziroma restavratorskih posegov na poslikavah, pa naj je šlo le za »čiščenje« – odstranjevanje nečistoče2 oziroma umazanije (umivanje, izmivanje) ali za druge »obnovitvene« oziroma konservatorsko-restavra-torske posege, nam lahko osvetli problematiko današnjega stanja poslikav, pomaga pri ugotavljanju vz-rokov za nekatere poškodbe in pri definiranju posledic, ki so jih posamezne obnove pustile na poslikani površini. Končno pa rezultati raziskave lahko prispevajo k širšemu poznavanju narave poslikave ter k iskanju pravilnega, najprimernejšega in najučinkovitejšega pristopa pri obnovi, zaščiti in ohranjanju umetnine za prihodnost. Temeljnega pomena pri preučevanju slikarske tehnike – v našem primeru Qua-glieve baročne – je raziskovanje in poznavanje strukture poslikave tako v materialnem kot v vsebinskem smislu. Na podlagi tega znanja je namreč mogoče razlikovati originalno prvotno poslikavo od naknadnih preslikav, retuš in drugih tako ali drugače povzročenih sprememb na barvni plasti, od katerih je med drugimi odvisna tudi umetnostnozgodovinska interpretacija.V zgodovini ljubljanske stolnice je v posameznih obdobjih zaradi različnih vzrokov (sprememb umetniškega okusa, poškodb zaradi potresov, onesnaženosti zraka, vdora vlage, temperaturnih nihanj, dotrajanosti, umazanije in drugih dejavnikov) prišlo do več bolj ali manj ustreznih obnov, ki so odločilno spremenile tudi samo naravo stavbe in, kot bomo v prispevku razbrali, tudi Quaglieve poslikave. V okviru preučevanja različnih obnovitvenih posegov na stolnici se ne moremo izogniti dejstvu, da je že sama baročna stolnica nastala kot posledica spremenjenega umetniškega okusa in kot nov estetski ideal takratnih pobudnikov gradnje. V Historii je bila »dotrajanost stare gotske stavbe« leta 1701 navedena kot glavni vzrok za rušenje.3 Od stare srednjeveške cerkve so ostali redki ohranjeni spomeniki, ki jih je Janez Gregor Dolničar obvaroval pred uničenjem; to priča o tedanji dvoumni zavesti ohranjanja kul-turne dediščine, čeprav so se v svojih nazorih in idealih v iskanju identitete in domovinskih korenin vračali v čas stare Emone. Vendar moramo pri tem upoštevati tudi takratno zgodovinsko situacijo in drugačen duh časa, ki z »novim«, sodobnim vendarle prinaša tudi kvalitetne umetnine. Kot enega velikih in najodločilnejših gradbenih posegov v samo strukturo baročne stavbe in celostne poslikave štejemo gradnjo nove visoke kupole v letih 1841–1843, zaradi katere je bila, razen treh fragmentov, popolnoma uničena Quaglieva iluzionistična kupolna poslikava. Preostale poslikave lombardskega mojstra so bile deležne večkratnih obnov, od katerih so kot večje ter bolj ali manj natančno in uradno dokumentirane in v stroki poznane tri: obnova Matevža Langusa v letih 1846–1853, obnova Antona Jebačina v letih 1905 in 1906, ter obnova Petra Železnika v letih 1944–1947. Četrta, neuradna ter do zdaj splošno nepoznana in nedokumentirana je Železnikova obnova v letih 1959–1961.4 Zadnjo, peto obnovo, v sklopu katere je nastala omenjena raziskava, je izvajal Restavratorski center pod okriljem Zavoda za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije v letih 2002–2006. Ob tem moramo omeniti mnoge manj obsežne, običajno pogostejše in slabše dokumentirane obnove na bolj izpostavljenih in lažje dostopnih poslikanih predelih, denimo na stenah prezbiterija, transepta, kapel v ladji, zunanjščine, ki so jih na željo naročnika izvajali bolj ali manj vešči »obnovitelji« (dekorativni slikarji, slikarji, restavratorji …) samostojno ali pa v okviru spomeniškovarstvene službe prejšnjega in tega stoletja. Prispevek predstavlja izsek iz raziskave historiata preteklih obnov na Quaglievih stolniških poslikavah, ki najbolj reprezentativno prikazuje ključno spomeniškovarstveno problematiko na primeru stenskih poslikav. To je problematika varovanja, reševanja, ohranjanja, vzdrževanja, konserviranja-restavriranja tistih stenskih poslikav, ki so do danes zaradi najrazličnejših obnovitvenih posegov skozi zgodovino, po njihovi pojavnosti sodeč, bolj ali manj izgubile svojo prvotnost in avtentičnost. Tak izstopajoč primer najdemo na desnem prizoru na južni steni prezbiterija ljubljanske stolnice, kamor je Quaglio naslikal svoj edini avtoportret, opremljen z datacijo in signaturo. Ravno za poslikave v prezbiteriju smo namreč glede na dejansko stanje na primeru Quaglievega avtoportreta dokazali, da je bilo izvedenih več obnov, kot jih je danes uradno poznanih.Quaglio je v letih 1703 in 1704 na obe stranski steni prezbiterija naslikal po dva prizora iz čudežev stolnega zavetnika sv. Nikolaja,5 ki so vsebinsko povzeti po znameniti hagiografiji Pedra Ribadeneira Flos Sanctorum.6 V izzvenevanju tradicionalne zgodnjebaročne slikarske manire, ko so poslikani prizori po navadi obdani s štukaturnimi okvirji ali štukaturnimi dekorativnimi polji, je Quaglio poslikal prezbiterij tako kot – razen nekaterih izjem – mnoga slikarska naročila po Lombardiji, Furlaniji, Benečiji, Goriškem do tedaj.7

Mateja Neža Sitar, Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, Restavratorski center

88


89


Vsak od štirih prizorov meri 440 x 310 cm in je zamejen v plastično profiliran pozlačen štukaturni okvir s konkavno prirezanimi vogali.8 Trenutno bi bilo nekorektno in zaradi izredno slabega stanja poslikav, od katerih je ostalo le malo »quaglievskega«, težko na prvi pogled imenovati vrsto baročne slikarske tehnike, ki jo je Quaglio uporabil na teh prizorih. Vendar pa tudi posplošeno in pavšalno poimenovanje prizorov kot freske ni najbolj pravilno, saj ni nujno, da gre za pravo ali samo za pravo fresko. Bolj oprijemljive informacije bi zagotovo podale naravoslovne preiskave ometov in barvne plasti (pigmenti, vezivo) in izkušeno restavratorsko oko.9 Po dosedanjih raziskavah in vedenju iz literature vemo, da je bila baročna tehnologija slikanja zaradi svojih novih karakteristik, ki slikarju omogočajo časovno neobvezujoč tempo slikanja, večje, intenzivnejše, drznejše, mogočnejše učinke, ki jih zahtevata naročnik in nov duh časa velikih razbohotenih baročnih scenografij po profanih in cerkvenih stenah in stropih, precej prilju-bljena, vendar pa kot taka poslikava ni bila več tako zelo obstojna kot prava freska. Če se za hip pomu-dimo ob spoznanjih v letu 2006 zaključene obnove poslikav na ladijskem oboku in zahodni steni, smo ob natančnejšem opazovanju in primerjalnem raziskovanju barvne površine z drugimi poslikavami iz slikarjevega časovno najbližjega opusa ugotovili, da je v našem primeru barvna plast precej osiromašena, močno »točkovno« oluščena10 (sliki 1, 1a). Izginile so svetline11 in barvna intenzivnost, kot tisti najbolj prepoznavni značilnosti Quaglievih videmskih poslikav, na primer v Monte di Pieta (1694), v Palazzu Antonini (1697/98), v S. Chiari (1699). Učinkovite mehke pastozne svetline na draperijah, figurah, ki dajo poslikavam živ, kontrasten, voluminozno plastičen izraz, opazimo tudi na Snemanju s križa v grajski kapeli v Puštalu, ki je nastala celo takoj po dokončanju poslikave v ljubljanski stolnici ob slikarjevem postanku na poti proti Lainu (1706). Poslikava puštalske kapele bi lahko bila vodilo, da gre pri stolniški poslikavi bolj za posledice preteklih obnov, ki so občutno vplivale na njen vizualni vtis (barve delujejo bolj pusto in hladno), in ne toliko za spremembo umetnikovega stila, kot to navajajo nekateri raziskoval-ci. Perusinijevi na primer zapišeta, da je za Quaglieva furlanska dela značilna prepoznavna kromatičnost njegovih del, v ljubljanski stolnici se barvna paleta ohladi, pozneje pa postane že rokokojska.12 Današnja obnovljena stropna poslikava kaže prej reminiscence na barvno živost, kromatičnost kot pa nasprotno. Morda se torej tudi v sami izbiri slikarske tehnologije in tehnike skriva vzrok za slabšo ohranjenost in posledično mnoge obnove prizorov v prezbiteriju. Opozoriti je namreč treba (tako kot v drugih primer-ih, na primer pri poslikavah v Palazzu Antonini), da ni nujno, da je Quaglio vse prizore naslikal z enako slikarsko tehnologijo in tehniko, ampak se je prilagodil glede na tematsko pomembnost in lokacijo ozi-roma nahajališče prizora (ali gre za prizor, ki ga gledalec opazuje z enega ali dvajsetih metrov), glede na finančna sredstva (dražji kvalitetnejši materiali, na primer pigmenti), na željo naročnika itd.13 Vendar če na eni strani za ljubljansko stolnico, po dosedanjem preučevanju sodeč, nimamo – tudi sicer v zelo redkih primerih – znanih podatkov o vrsti pigmentov, veziv in drugih uporabljenih materialih, o orodju in o tem, kje so jih nabavljali, o postopkih prenašanja risbe na omet in procesu slikanja, o načinu osvetlitve, o imenu zidarja, ki je mojstru pripravljal in nanašal malto, o konkretnejšem slikarskem deležu pomočnikov in učencev, o pripravljalnih risbah, kartonih, skicah in modelih …, pa imamo na drugi strani zelo izčrpno zapisano zgodovino ljubljanske stolnice s celotnim procesom gradnje nove in opisi stare cerkve ter vsebinske opise poslikav, notranje opreme itd. izpod peresa zvestega kronista in dekanovega brata Janeza Gregorja Dolničarja. Za leto 1704 je zapisal: »Prvega junija, ko na praznik v svetišču niso delali, se je Giulio Quaglio vanj zaprl in se v koru ob strani s pomočjo zrcala z vso svojo spretnostjo tako upodobil, da je videti, kakor da na sliki živi in diha. Ko so ga vprašali, zakaj si je izbral prostor na tej od štirih velikih slik, je odgovoril, da se je zato postavil tja, kjer ubogim razdeljujejo kruh, ker je tudi sam prejel zadosti dober delež od zavetnika te cerkve, sv. čudodelnika Miklavža.«14 Na spodnji desni strani omenjenega prizora Sv. Miklavž reši meščane Mire pred lakoto (slika 2) se je slikar upodobil kot doprsni avtoportret v tričetrtinskem profilu v baročni opravi, sede za kamnitim kvadrom,15 na katerega je naslonjen z levo roko in na katerem najdemo zabeležen njegov podpis, rojstni kraj in letnico nastanka podobe. V levici drži rahlo razgrnjen svitek, ki namiguje na njegovo soudeležbo pri načrtovanju vsebine poslikav, v desnici, položeni čez levico, pa atribut njegovega poklica – šop slikarskih čopičev. Zaradi različnih obnovitvenih posegov, ki so odločilno zaznamovali vizualni vtis stolnice in konkretno tudi slikarjeve podobe, se je v zadnjih tristo letih avtoportret s spodnjim zapisom vred precej spreminjal. Iz arhivskih pisnih virov in najdb ključnih fotografij je bilo mogoče ugotoviti, da je bilo na prizoru s Quaglievim avtoportretom izvedenih najmanj šest obnov. V veliki vsesplošni obnovi v 19. stoletju je Matevž Langus leta 1847 med drugim restavriral tudi štiri Nikolajeve legende v prezbiteriju.16 Naslednji

je prizore obnavljal Anton Jebačin leta 1905.17 Posegi Petra Železnika so v prezbiteriju dokumentirani za leto 1935 in ponovno v večji obnovi stolniških prizorov pod glavnim zidnim vencem v letih 1944–1948, ki je zajemalo tudi poslikave ob glavnem oltarju.18 Železnik je v svojem poročilu zapisal, da je v letih 1946 in 1947 čistil in restavriral korne stene.19 V navezavi s slednjo obnovo sta v arhivu Indok centra ohranjeni dve osebni pismi Marije Železnik, žene omenjenega »obnovitelja«, iz leta 1935. Najverjetneje sta namenjeni konservatorju Steletu s prošnjo, da bi obnovo Quaglievih fresk zaupali prav njenemu možu Petru, ki se je izkazal v ravnokar obnovljeni Jelovškovi poslikavi v cerkvi sv. Petra v Ljubljani.20 Danes vemo, da je Železnik to delo tudi dobil, saj je obnova prizorov v prezbiteriju izpričana z računi in s tremi pobotnicami za leto 193521 ter s Steletovim poročilom iz leta 1938. Stele je zapisal, da je leta 1935 Peter Železnik Quaglieve freske v prezbiteriju »očistil preslikav iz povojne dobe« in jih pravilno restavriral. O stanju poslikav že takrat ugotavlja, da so bili poškodovani deli grobo preslikani in je »stanje deloma kar obupno«. Meni, da so s previdnim »punktiranjem« manjkajočih delov dosegli prav zadovoljiv rezultat in da po obnovi »poslikave kažejo v podrobnostih sicer poškodovan in pokrpan, a v celoti barvno zelo živ prvotni značaj«.22 Za naslednje obdobje ni bilo moč najti ohranjene uradne dokumentacije, zato smo preverjali tudi druge alternativne vire raziskovanja. Eden redkih konkretnih indicev je bila razglednica z ljubljansko stolnico (sliki 3, 4).23 Ob pogledu v prezbiterij takoj opazimo, da je ob celotni južni steni, torej tudi ob prizoru s Quaglievim avtoportretom, postavljen oder, ki morebiti nakazuje na ravnokar potekajoče obnovitvene posege na tem predelu. Nato smo prek ustnega vira – po pripovedovanju in novo najdenih dokumentih iz stolnega župnišča – prišli do omembe akademskega slikarja specialista Miloša Lavrenčiča,24 ki naj bi poslikave v prezbiteriju neuradno obnavljal leta 1979; to smo po najdbi zasebne fotodokumentacije25 tudi dokazali. Kot bomo pozneje na primeru ugotovili, je šlo za zelo neus-trezno in neuspelo neuradno obnovo, ki je bila uradno prekinjena in katere hude posledice je nato reševal in saniral restavrator Tomaž Kvas leta 1985.26 Kvasova naj bi bila zadnja, šesta obnova prizora s Quaglievo podobo, kakršna se je ohranila do danes.Ob pomanjkanju pisnih virov nam tako preostane izredno zanimiva primerjava redkih najdenih foto-grafij iz različnih obdobij, ki zaenkrat najočitneje pričajo o posledicah restavratorskih posegov. Primer-java današnjega neizrazitega »moža v zrelih letih« (sliki 2, 10) je v primerjavi s podobo z najzgodnejše najdene reprodukcije prav neverjetna. Najzgodnejša najdena reprodukcija s Quaglievim avtoportretom je objavljena v reviji Dom in svet, kjer Viktor Steska leta 1903 ob svojem članku o Giuliu Quagliu objavi tudi fotografije J. Kotarja.27 Na re-produkciji prizora Nikolajeve legende s Quaglievim avtoportretom (sliki 5, 5a) opazimo, da se podoba slikarja precej razlikuje od današnje. Obraz izdaja mlajšega moškega z bujnimi, kvalitetno naslikanimi valovitimi lasmi. Njegove oči so resno in zamišljeno zazrte v gledalca. Jasno so razvidni ozek, visoko pod brado zapet svetel pas ovratnika in spodnje temno oblačilo ter speta ovratna ruta v ospredju. Črtasta slikarska halja se organsko prilega telesu in daje vtis plastičnosti. Čeprav opazujemo črno-belo reproduk-cijo, se da razbrati, da je slikar vtis plastičnosti in naravnosti dosegel s prepričljivo svetlobno oziroma ton-sko in barvno modelacijo, o čemer se lahko prepričamo ob opazovanju inkarnata obraza in dlani, nato baročne bujne pričeske, čopičev itd. Stopnjo Quaglieve izmojstrenosti in kvaliteto slikarske sposobnosti lahko jasno razbiramo v mladeničevem pogledu, ki z virtuozno natančnostjo razkriva upodobljenčev karakter in hipne misli, ali pa v črtastem vzorcu in prefinjenem senčenju gub na halji. Na rahlo razgrnje-nem delu svitka je še dobro vidna skicozna upodobitev domnevno ženske glave oziroma doprsja z naka-zanim ozadjem, ki lahko simbolično predstavlja načrt za poslikavo ali celo primer pripravljalne študije, ki so jo slikarji po navadi zase ali pa na naročnikovo željo pripravili pred vsakih začetkom slikanja. Pod avtoportretom je še pravilno izpisan napis.28 Z reprodukcije Kotarjeve fotografije iz leta 1903 razberemo naslednji zapis (vidno stanje): »IVLIVS QVALEVS DE LAYNO COMENSI INVEN: ET PINX (PINX:T) ANNO MDCCIIII« ,29 ki ga Kopriva prevede: »Julij Quaglio iz Laina pri Komu (Como) je izumil in naslikal l. 1704.«30

Naslednja znana in prejšnji podobna je reprodukcija s Quaglievim avtoportretom, objavljena v Ilustriranem Slovencu 27. novembra 1927 (slika 6).31 Kvalitetna in natančna reprodukcija ovalnega izreza slikarjeve doprsne podobe deluje rahlo polepšano (morda retuša fotografije za tisk), obenem pa lahko natančneje raz-biramo prej naštete značilnosti (plastična modelacija draperije, ovratne rute, pričeske, obrazne poteze ...) s Kotarjeve fotografije, ki domnevno prikazuje še najbolj originalno Quaglievo podobo; ta bo v nadaljevanju z restavriranji doživela dodatne spremembe. Signatura in datacija na tej podobi nista vidni.

90


91


Pomembno odkritje predstavljata v fototeki Indok centra najdeni fotografiji iz let 1952 in 1958. Prva reprodukcija fotografije iz leta 1952 (slika 7)32 prikazuje še vedno zelo mladega, tokrat izrazito čednega moža, ki pa je dokončno izgubil mrki zamišljeni pogled, znan z najzgodnejše reprodukcije. Spet bi lahko trdili, da je v obrazu in pričeski rahlo olepšan, a še vedno podoben reprodukciji iz leta 1927. Če nam ohranjene črno-bele reprodukcije omogočajo pravilno interpretacijo, bi lahko zapisali, da je rahle spre-membe oziroma polepšanje opaziti v oblikovanju obrvi, oči, ki so bolj podolgovate, v rahlo spremenjeni liniji še vedno polnih ustnic, v senčenju, itd. Napis pod podobo je identičen napisu na reprodukciji iz leta 1903, le da na tem večjem izrezu jasneje razločimo nadpisane črke SI nad COMENSI in T nad PINX:T. Druga, nekoliko kvalitetno šibkejša, a še vedno dovolj izpovedna reprodukcija iz leta 1967, ki je bila narejena po fotografiji, posneti leta 1958 (slika 8),33 že predstavlja precej spremenjeno podobo. Na tokratnem večjem izrezu, ki zajema še obraz spodnje moške alegorične figure, otroka s kruhom na levi in del Nikolajeve draperije zgoraj, opazimo močno poškodovano barvno plast. Ob tej priložnosti lahko primerjamo obraza otroka in spodnje moške figure iz leta 1958 z današnjim stanjem. Ugotovimo, da je otroški obraz iz leta 1958 še tipični prepoznavni Quaglievski tip, ki ga je umetnik standardno uporabljal za slikanje otroških obrazov, na današnji reprodukciji pa ima otrok popolnoma drugačen izrazito trdi izraz. Obraz moške figure pa že leta 1958 kaže močne poškodbe, najverjetneje zaradi obnov, ki so tudi na današnjem stanju pustile spet novo spremenjeno različico davno izginulega prvotnega izraza. Površina poslikave je močno spraskana in izmita, slikarjev obraz, še posebej njegovi lasje, ženska figura na svitku in spodnji napis so v primerjavi s Kotarjevo fotografijo slabše vidni. Lasje so izgubili svojo prvotno bujnost, z obraza sta izginili prejšnja mladeniška galantnost in prefinjenost obraznih potez in senc. Sklepati je, da je bila tudi olepšava morda posledica restavriranja v 19. ali začetku 20. stoletja ali pa je bila fotografija retuširana. Sicer še vedno mlad mož ima zdaj manj podolgovat in bolj čokato oblikovan nos, spet bolj okroglasto linijo oči in ustnic, na katerih je zaznati močnejšo retušo, ki je razvidna tudi na s senco poudarjeni ličnici.34 Spodnjega temnega oblačila z ozkim svetlim ovratnikom ni več opaziti. Zdaj je vidna samo bujna spredaj zapeta ovratna ruta, ki sili izpod vrhnjega ogrinjala, ki že izgublja svojo voluminoznost. Na posameznih delih je opaziti zarisane ostre robove gub, ki jih lahko prepoznavamo kot posledico retuše ali pa zaradi uničene barvne plasti vidno predrisbo, kar izničuje vtis plastičnosti. Napis je še vedno pravilno izpisan in identičen tistemu iz leta 1903, le da je slabše viden. Ob tem moramo poudariti, da je preciznejša interpretacija podobe na podlagi edinega ohranjenega medija črno-belih reprodukcij različnih kvalitet otežena in morebiti tudi nezanesljiva. Zagotovo pa naslednja fotografija Quaglieve podobe iz leta 1985 (slika 9)35 izpričuje izrazito neustrezne obnovitvene posege. Fotografija dovolj razvidno kaže, kaj se je zgodilo z nekoč v originalu odlično por-tretno zaznamovano in z baročno virtuoznostjo naslikano slikarjevo samopodobo. Očitno je po po-sledicah vseh preteklih izmivanj in čiščenj z vodo, milnico in kruhom (kot najdemo zapisano v virih) obnovitelj skušal zelo nerodno in nestrokovno reševati poslikavo. Sicer ne vemo, kakšno je bilo stanje poslikave, tik preden se je lotil dela, a končne posledice so bile hude. Ponesrečene, trde, monokromatične in zaprte retuše so ubile pogled v očeh, uničile naravnost polti, telesa, oblačil, atributov. Retuša oziroma dobesedno prepleskane partije delujejo kot barvne ploskve, ki poslikavi ne pustijo dihati, izničujejo živost, tridimenzionalnost in občutek gibanja v slikarskem prostoru, niti ne podajajo ustreznih barvnih tonov, kontrastov, senc, svetlin, mehčanj. Na tej fotografiji tako gledamo v topo, mrtvo, okorno plos-kovito dvodimenzionalno podobo lutke, ki bolšči s stene. Kot smo že omenili, je leta 1985 restavrator Kvas poskušal z najnujnejšimi restavratorskimi posegi prizor rešiti, kolikor je bilo mogoče, in doseženi rezultat je portret, ki ga gledamo danes.Tako se je torej Quaglieva mladostna podoba iz prve polovice 20. stoletja drastično spremenila v današnjo podobo starejšega moža (slika 10),36 ki se je precej oddaljila od slikarja na vrhuncu umetniške ustvarjal-nosti pri svojih šestintridesetih letih. V primerjavi s prejšnjimi deluje precej osiromašeno. Zaradi temne retuše na očesnem zrklu je iz slikarjevih oči izginila jasna, izrazita zazrtost v gledalca, nadomestil ga je prazen pogled, nedefinirano usmerjen na levo. Posledica močne in neustrezne retuše, ki pokriva od večkratnega mehanskega čiščenja poškodovano originalno površino poslikave, je izginula voluminoznost in plastičnost prvotne kvalitetno izvedene tonske modelacije. To opazimo tako v obrazu in pričeski kot na slikarjevi halji, dlaneh … Ženska figura na razgrnjenem svitku je izginila, spremenil pa se je tudi napis: »IVLIVS QALIVS DE LAYNO CON INVEN BT PINX ANNO MDCCIIII«. Ob primerjavi

naših reprodukcij ugotovimo, da so tri besede spremenjene: QALIVS, CON in BT. Na možnost, da gre za napako pri izpisu QALIVS namesto QVALEVS, je opomnil že Kopriva,37 ki tako kot Bergamini38 sklepa, da gre za posledico neustreznih restavratorskih posegov. Na spremembo v zapisu CON namesto COM je poleg Koprive opozorila tudi Lavričeva, ki je popravek objavila in ob tem opomnila še na napačen zapis BT namesto ET.39 Zaradi nepravilno rekonstruiranih besed (podob figur, detajlov, atribu-tov …) je lahko pomen napačno interpretiran, zato velja še posebej opozoriti na vzajemno sodelovanje restavratorja, umetnostnega zgodovinarja, zgodovinarja, paleografa …, ki morajo biti posebej previdni in dosledni pri razbiranju originalnih sledi podob in zapisov.Ker je napis na reprodukciji iz leta 1958 še pravilno izpisan in ker smo nazadnje našli tudi fotografske dokaze, lahko sklenemo, da gre za odločilne spremembe – tako v zapisu kot v Quaglievi podobi –, nastale po letu 1958 v eni od naslednjih obnov – torej pri Lavrenčičevi neuradni obnovi leta 1979. Kakšen je bil videti prvotni, resničnemu Quagliu še najpodobnejši portret, ostaja odprto vprašanje, na katero morda še najdosledneje odgovarja Kotarjeva fotografija. Po že omenjenih kvalitetah sodeč, prefinjeni individu-alizirani portretni zaznamovanosti obraza, ki so je bili sposobni naslikati le dovolj vešči in spretni slikarji, naravnosti, živosti in prepričljivosti naslikanega prostora in podob, smemo trditi, da je prvotnemu še najbližji portret s fotografije, objavljene leta 1903. Tudi portreti s prizora Izvolitev sv. Nikolaja za škofa v Miri (slika 11) za srednjo orgelsko omaro na zahodni steni pričajo o Quaglievih slikarskih sposobnostih, ki se že običajno najjasneje izkažejo na raznih portretnih upodobitvah, ko ne gre za stilizirane šablonske tipe obrazov. Izredno preprosto, naravno, perspektivično pravilno naslikan portret stolnega dekana J. Antona Dolničarja (slika 12) je prepoznaven in v podobnosti primerljiv s Puttijevim kipom portretnega poprsja v transeptu.40 Najoriginalnejši mladostni obraz iz leta 1903 se je tako drastično spremenil v današnjo okrnjeno, osiromašeno in baročne lepote oropano podobo. Različne variante portreta lahko označimo kot bolj ali manj ponesrečene posledice in interpretacije posameznih prenoviteljev in restavratorjev. Ob nasledn-jem konservatorsko-restavratorskem projektu obnove prizorov v prezbiteriju in konkretno Quaglievega avtoportreta bi bilo treba ob skrajni previdnosti ugotoviti, kolikšen je delež preslikav in koliko je še dejansko ohranjene originalne barvne plasti, ki bi se jo dalo ohraniti, ter po virih ponovno vzpostaviti zadovoljivejše stanje. Kot smo že omenili, je po do zdaj preverjenem gradivu iz umetnikovega opusa pri nas, v Italiji in Avstriji Quagliev avtoportret v ljubljanski stolnici tudi edini primer, ko se je slikar, ki je svoja dela vedno opremil s podpisom in datacijo, tokrat samozavestno upodobil in s tem še bolj izpostav-il pomembnost tega slikarskega naročila. Z ustreznejšo in bolj strokovno obnovo bi v baročnem času pri nas gostujočemu in priljubljenemu ter vplivnemu italijanskemu freskantu Giuliu Quagliu vrnili vsaj delček prvotnega in dostojnejšega videza, da ga bodo v kolikor se da neokrnjeni pojavi lahko občudovali tudi zanamci. Danes zaradi spoznavanja poteka različnih obnov sicer lažje definiramo originalno poslikavo in nekat-ere poškodbe, toda hkrati ob pomanjkanju dokumentacije (na primer za obnovo v letih 1959–1961) ponovno ugotavljamo, kako zelo pomembno vlogo pri obnovitvenih delih predstavlja kvalitetno doku-mentiranje vseh izvedenih posegov. Dokumentarno gradivo pomeni vir informacij in »bazo življenjskih podatkov« umetnine, s tem pa postane njen sestavni del. Na primeru Quaglievega avtoportreta so foto-grafije na srečo tiste dosledne pričevalke preteklosti, ki nam v konservatorsko-restavratorski praksi ali pa vsaj v domišljiji lahko pomagajo rekonstruirati resnično prvotnost mnogih, danes že skoraj popolnoma uničenih ali pa do nerazpoznavnosti poškodovanih umetnin iz obsežne slovenske kulturne dediščine, za katero smo danes odgovorni le mi sami. Prek zanimivega in ponekod prvič objavljenega fotografskega in pisnega gradiva smo sledili spreminjajoči se slikarjevi podobi, na kateri se danes odražajo neusmiljeni zob časa ter sledi in posledice različnih, tudi zelo neustreznih obnov.Ponovno ugotavljamo pomembno dejstvo, ki se ga včasih premalo zavedamo, da je treba pri vrednotenju in ohranjanju umetniškega dela enakovredno upoštevati obe temeljni razsežnosti spomenika, tako nje-govo materialno kot duhovno (ali drugače, simbolno, estetsko, umetnostnozgodovinsko …) vrednost. To pa je mogoče doseči le z vzajemnim interdisciplinarnim sodelovanjem različnih strok na točki, kjer se področja naravoslovnih in humanističnih strok tesno prepletajo.

92


93


Opombe1 O problematiki interdisciplinarnega, medinstitucionalnega in timskega dela, o katerem je v današnjem času veliko govora in brez kat-

erega ravno v naši stroki ne gre, bi se dalo marsikaj zapisati v zvezi z dejanskimi razmerami in dejansko zmožnostjo posameznikov iz različnih strok in institucij za timsko delo. Ob znanju in izkušnjah timsko delo od posameznika zahteva tudi določeno stopnjo strokovne in osebne zrelosti, profesionalnosti in komunikativnosti ter določen interes tudi za druga vključena področja, kakor seveda za skupni rezultat, ki ga želimo doseči s projektom. To je v slovenskem prostoru včasih precej težko doseči. Na primeru našega projekta je bil ravno zaradi obsega dela in mnogih sodelujočih to velik izziv in preizkušnja in zelo dobra izkušnja za v prihodnje.

2 Na tem mestu naj opozorimo na, po mnenju prof. mag. Bogovčiča, strokovno pravilnejše poimenovanje »odstranjevanje nečistoč«, vendar-le pa v razpravi uporabljamo večinoma navedbe iz starejših dokumentov, zato bomo obdržali izraz čiščenje.

3 Janez Gregor Dolničar, Zgodovina ljubljanske stolne cerkve (ur. Ana Lavrič), Ljubljana 2003, str. 222; v izvirniku: Ioannes Gregorius Thalnitscher, Historia Cathedralis Ecclesiae Labacensis, Labaci 1701–1714 (1882 – tisk), Semeniška knjižnica rkp. 5 (rokopisni prepis v NŠAL, ŽA/Zg. zap., fasc. 2). Lavričeva v opombi 27 opozarja: »Tovrstne formulacije je potrebno sprejeti s pridržkom, saj so se v preteklosti kaj radi sklicevali na dotrajanost starih stavb (čeprav so bile te še večkrat dovolj trdne), da bi opravičili gradnjo novih /…/«.

4 Najnovejše gradivo je predstavljeno v okviru raziskovalne naloge: Mateja Sitar, Stolna cerkev sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani – Raziskovanje histo-riata s poudarkom na obnovah Quaglievih poslikav, ZVKDS, RC Ljubljana 2004–2006.

5 Za leto 1703: DOLNIČAR 2003 (op. 3), str. 298 (Historia, str. 130), za leto 1704, in str. 302 (Historia str. 135/136); za opis posameznih prizorov: DOLNIČAR 2003 (op. 3), str. 321–323 (Historia, str. 158–161).

6 Knjiga Flos Sanctorum jezuita Pedra Ribadeneira (1526–1611) je izšla v Madridu leta 1599 z več ponatisi; stolnični prizori so najbrž nastali po naslonu na kölnsko izdajo iz leta 1630, ki jo hranijo v Semeniški knjižnici: Ana Lavrič v op. 627 v: DOLNIČAR 2003 (op. 3), str. 322. Gre za »/…/ likovno najbolj dramatične čudeže sv. Miklavža /…/« zapiše: Ana Lavrič, Janez Gregor Dolničar in njegova zgo-dovina ljubljanske stolne cerkve, v: DOLNIČAR 2003 (op. 3), str. 59. Za enega od prizorov, ko Nikolaj rešuje romarje iz pobesnelega morja, imamo znano predlogo; posnema grafiko Jeana Couvaya, ki je bila vrezana po kompoziciji Simona Voueta: Marjana Lipoglavšek, Baročno stropno slikarstvo na Slovenskem, Ljubljana 1996, str. 65 v op. 50.

7 V ladijskem delu poslikava že dobiva popolno avtonomijo in zajema celotno notranjščino; že govorimo o enotnejšem iluzionističnem pristopu, na primer na kupolnem in ladijskem svodu je upodobil manj zahtevno, ohlapnejšo in bolj dekorativno verzijo baročnega iluzi-onizma; prim.: LAVRIČ 2003 (op. 6), str. 57, LIPOGLAVŠEK 1996 (op. 6), str. 67–68, Emilijan Cevc, Jezuiti in likovna umetnost, Jezuiti na Slovenskem. Zbornik simpozija, Ljubljana 1992, str. 90, oz.: Barbara Murovec, Raziskovanje baročnega stropnega slikarstva na Slovenskem, Vis imaginis. Baročno slikarstvo in grafika. Jubilejni zbornik za Anico Cevc (ur. Barbara Murovec), Ljubljana 2006, str. 109–110 z najnovejšo kritično prevetritvijo navajanj drugih avtorjev in virov.

8 Štukaturo (sprva nepozlačeno) v prezbiteriju je izvedel Milančan Tomasso Ferrata s tremi učenci v letu 1703 (DOLNIČAR 2003 (op. 3), str. 293), pozlato pa trije dunajski pozlatarji v času Zupanove obnove v 19. stoletju (od novembra 1859 do julija 1860): Ana Lavrič, Goldensteinova kritika obnove ljubljanske stolnice, Kronika za slovensko krajevno zgodovino, 2–3, št. 44, Ljubljana 1996, str. 31. Mere poslikav – po zapiskih iz zasebne dokumentacije restavratorja Tomaža Kvasa.

9 Na tem mestu pa kot zanimivost omenimo v 17. in 18. stoletju močno priljubljeno in razširjeno slikarsko tehniko »mezzo fresco«, imenovano tudi »pittura a calce« ali »pittura a bianco di calce«, ki so jo uporabljali že konec 16. stoletja. Pigmente so mešali s kalcijevim hidratom in so se uporabljali tako na suhem kot mokrem ometu, kar je omogočalo mnoge praktične novosti. Pomembna navodila za slikanje freske najdemo v znamenitem traktatu (uporabili smo izdajo iz Narodne in univerzitetne knjižnice v Ljubljani – II. del, Nella Stamperia di Gio: Giacomo Komarek Boëmo alla Fontana di Trevi): Andrea Pozzo, Breve instruttione. Per dipingere a fresco, v: Prospet-tiva de pittori e architetti, I–II, Rim 1693 in 1700; pred tem najdemo še druge teoretične zapise o freskotehniki: Cennino Cennini, Il libro dell` arte, 1437 (ur. F. Brunello), Vicenza 1982; Giorgio Vasari, Intruduzioni alle arti del disegno, 1568 (ur. P. Mora – L. Mora – P. Philippot), Bologna 1977, str. 432–442; prim.: Elenora Dudine, Albarita Fiorino, Morena Maresia, Chiara Marini, Tamara Zambon, L'intervento di restauro di una fascia decorata con affreschi di Giulio Quaglio e stucchi attribuiti a Lorenzo Retti e Giovanni Battista Bareglio nella chiesa di Santa Chiara a Udine (Tesi di diploma), Villa Manin di Passariano, Videm 1999, kjer so avtorice natančno raziskale Quaglievo slikarsko tehniko na primeru poslikave cerkve sv. Chiare v Vidmu. Avtoricam in restavratorki Marti Bensa ter kons.-rest. svet. Radu Zoubku se iskreno zahvaljujem za pomoč in nasvete.

10 Na primer zrnca peska zaradi različnih vzrokov, predvsem mehanskega čiščenja, odpadajo s tipične hrapave baročne slikarske površine, ki je poškodovana še bolj izpostavljena umazaniji in različnim klimatskim dejavnikom ter kemičnim procesom; pa tudi gosti nanosi barve, ki se včasih že ob nastanku ne sprimejo dovolj dobro s podlago, se lahko začnejo s stoletji zaradi različnih vzrokov luščiti; prim.: DU-DINE, FIORINO, MARESIA, MARINI, ZAMBON 1999 (op. 9) ter Manfred Koller, Wandmalerei der Neuzeit, Reclams Handbuch der künstlerischen Techniken Band 2 (Wandmalerei, Mosaik), Philipp Reclam jun. Stuttgart 1990, str. 213–346.

11 Slikar se z zadnjimi barvnimi nanosi, ki so vidni kot pastozne sledi čopiča, precej oddalji od osnovne forme vgravirane predrisbe s kar-tona in svetlobno modelira: KOLLER 1990 (op. 10), str. 333. Po drugi strani je treba upoštevati druge dejavnike, ki so lahko povzročili vizualne spremembe poslikave, na primer kemijske procese v ometu in na površini itd.

12 Teresa e Giuseppina PERUSINI, Gli afreschi di Giulio Quaglio nel Palazzo Antonini di Udine: storia, technica e restauro, Barockberichte 34/35, Salzburg 2003, str. 386. Pri tem moramo upoštevati dejstvo, da gre v primeru cerkvenega prostora za kompleksnejši in širši spekter poškodb že zaradi neustreznih klimatskih razmer, katerim so poslikave bolj izpostavljene kot v zasebnih palačah in zasebnih kapelah.

13 Mojstrovo slikarsko tehniko pri različnih prizorih v Palazzo Antonini prim.: PERUSINI 2003 (op. 12), str. 380–392.14 DOLNIČAR 2003 (op. 3), str. 302 (Historia, str. 136).15 Kopriva zapiše, da slikar stoji za nizkim marmornatim kvadrom: Silvester Kopriva, Ljubljana skozi čas. Ob latinskih in slovenskih napisih

in zapisih, Ljubljana 1989, str. 19.16 Po arhivskih virih: Ana LAVRIČ, Goldensteinova kritika obnove ljubljanske stolnice, Kronika. Časopis za slovensko krajevno zgodovino,

2–3, 44, Ljubljana 1996, str. 22–29.17 Od junija do 16. decembra 1905 je očistil freske v prezbiteriju, prečni ladji in pod kupolo; po arhivskih virih: Viktor Steska, Obnova

ljubljanske stolnice ob dvestoletnici leta 1907, Zbornik za umetnostno zgodovino IV, Ljubljana 1924, str. 39.

18 In v stranskih kapelah: Inventar imovine stolne cerkve sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani … (III. Notranji okras): NŠAL, ŽA, Ljubljana, sv. Nikolaj – stolnica, fasc. 22, leta 1951.

19 In preostalih pet kapel: Peter Železnik, Poročilo o čiščenju in restavriranju Quaglievih fresk in toniranju ostalih ploskev stolnice sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani, 15. 2. 1948; NŠAL, ŽA, Ljubljana – sv. Nikolaj, fasc. 26, spisi – razno in Franc Kimovec, Kronika stolnice sv. Nikolaja, začeta 6. 12. 1944, NŠAL, ŽA, Ljubljana – sv. Nikolaj, fasc. 28, spisi.

20 V nenaslovljenem prvem pismu 11. aprila 1935 Marija Železnik priporoča svojega moža, da bi izvedel obnovo Quaglievih fresk v stolnici, v drugem pismu (Steletu in škofijskemu ordinariatu) 29. oktobra 1935 pa piše o Železnikovi obnovi Jelovškovih fresk v Sv. Petru in pojasnjuje težko življenjsko situacijo, zaradi katere bi mož zelo potreboval delo v stolnici. Zaradi 41. člena Zakona o uporabi arhivskega gradiva (Uradni list Republike Slovenije, št. 20–10. IV. 1997, str. 1622) pismi le omenjamo: Ministrstvo za kulturo, Indok center, arhiv spisov. Za neutrudljivo pomoč se zahvaljujem ge. Metki Košir iz Indok centra.

21 Računi Petra Železnika za stolnico, 1935 (od uprave stolnice sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani sem prejel za čiščenje slik v prezbiteriju na račun 4000 din, Ljubljana, 19. april 1935; za snaženje fresk sem od uprave stolne cerkve na račun prejel 1000 din, Ljubljana, 25. maj 1935; od stolnice sem za čiščenje fresk v prezbiteriju in na zunanjih stenah prejel ostanek do pogojene vsote 3500 din, Ljubljana 1935, 18. junij 1935): NŠAL, ŽA, Ljubljana – sv. Nikolaj, f. 19, stolnica – cerkveni računi. Tri pobotnice za leto 1935: NŠAL, ŽA, Ljubljana – sv. Nikolaj, fasc. 27, spisi – stolnica – razno. Osebju iz Nadškofijskega arhiva v Ljubljani se iskreno zahvaljujem za vso dosedanjo pomoč.

22 France Stele, Varstvo spomenikov od 1. 1. 1935 do 10. 10. 1938, Zbornik za umetnostno zgodovino, 15, Ljubljana 1938, str. 98.23 Razglednica (ad 1987/1661–9) s pogledom v notranjščino z odrom ob prizorih na desni strani prezbiterija; na hrbtni strani je zapisano,

da je reprodukcija vzeta iz knjige Orgle na Slovenskem iz leta 1985 (Edo Škulj, Oskar Dolenc, Orgle na Slovenskem, Ljubljana 1985, str. 25, kjer je objavljen manjši in manj pregleden izrez) in shranjena leta 1987 v fototeki Narodne in univerzitetne knjižnice v Ljubljani. Peter Fister, Umetnost stavbarstva na Slovenskem, Ljubljana 1986, str. 247, slika 393.

24 Na informacijo so me prijazno opozorili dr. Ana Lavrič, Jadranka Šumi, prof. mag. Ivan Bogovčič, dr. Ksenija Rozman, Majda Frelih Ribič (v obdelavi še novejše najdbe: gradivo iz NŠAL, Škofijske palače in stolnega župnišča).

25 Vir: fotodokumentacija dr. Josipa Korošca in restavratorja Tomaža Kvasa (foto: Tomaž Kvas, Marjan Smerke). Vsem trem se najlepše zahvaljujem za pomoč in razpoložljivo dokumentacijo.

26 Stanje je bilo pred posegi in po njih pisno in fotografsko dokumentirano. Obnova je potekala v letih 1985–1987 na poslikavah v ka-pelah prečne in glavne ladje, začela pa se je na stranskih poslikavah v prezbiteriju: Predračun za restavriranje stenske slike na desni strani prezbiterija S. Miklavž kroti nevihto na morju, 440 x 310 cm, Ljubljana, 15. april 1985; Račun za restavriranje freske na levi strani prez-biterija S. Miklavž rešuje obsojence, 440 x 310 cm, Ljubljana, 15. november 1985; Račun za restavriranje freske na levi strani prezbiterija S. Miklavž rešuje mornarje, 440 x 310 cm, Ljubljana, 15. november 1985; za prizor Sv. Miklavž reši meščane Mire pred lakoto imamo na hrbtni strani fotografij posameznih detajlov Kvasov komentar (junija leta 1985), da gre za pastozne preslikave restavriranja M. Lavrenčiča leta 1979, ki naj bi po dosedanjih podatkih sodeč bilo izvedeno na zadnjih dveh omenjenih prizorih.

27 Viktor STESKA, Slikar Julij Quaglio, Dom in svet 16, 1903, str. 488. Objavi tri prizore Nikolajevih legend v prezbiteriju (str. 488, 489, 529) ter reprodukciji s pogledom v notranjščino proti vzhodu (str. 486) in s stropom Semeniške knjižnice. Nekatere od Kotarjevih fotografij hrani: NŠAL, ŽA, Stolnica, fasc. 14 (notranjščina pogled proti vzhodu, Sv. Nikolaj reši meščane Mire pred lakoto s Quaglievim avtoportretom, Sv. Nikolaj reši romarje pred hudičevo zvijačo, Sv. Nikolaj reši na smrt obsojene, Langusova oltarna slika sv. Nikolaja, Lan-gusova kopija Quaglieve poslikave navidezne kupole).

28 Sklepati je, da se je Steska ob objavi zapisa zmotil v priimku, ker se je Quaglio po večini vedno podpisoval QVALEVS (kar ugotavlja tudi: Giuseppe Bergamini, Giulio Quaglio, Videm 1994, str. 180): IVLIVS QVALAEVS DE LAINO COMEN INVENIT ET PINXIT ANNO MDCCIIII: STESKA 1903 (op. 28), str. 489.

29 Glede na reprodukcijo iz leta 1952 vidimo, da je bilo prvotno zapisano COMEN, a je zaradi slabe kvalitete reprodukcij -EN slabše viden, pozneje pa je zaradi restavriranj popolnoma izginil.

30 KOPRIVA 1989 (op. 15), str. 19.31 Ilustrirani Slovenec, l. III., 27. november 1927, št. 270 (št. 48), str. 393.32 Quagliev avtoportret, repro. Gorjup 1996 po fotografiji iz leta 1952 – last g. Bogataja: Ministrstvo za kulturo, Indok center, fototeka.33 Quagliev avtoportret, repro. iz leta 1967 po fotografiji iz leta 1958: Ministrstvo za kulturo, Indok center, fototeka. V fototeki Umetnost-

nozgodovinskega inštituta F. Steleta na ZRC SAZU sem naletela na še eno Quaglievo podobo na negativu št. 1680 s prizorom Nikolajeve legende. Podoba je identična reprodukciji iz leta 1958 iz fototeke Indok centra. Žal ob negativu ni znanega podatka, ki bi razkril avtorja in čas nastanka.

34 Podobo bi lahko primerjali (izstopajoča retuša lic in ustnic na poslikavi in ne naknadna obdelava fotografije) z detajlom Quaglievega avtoportreta s Steletove fotografije – foto: pogled v prezbiterij (neg. št. 12829 S), neznan čas nastanka: Ministrstvo za kulturo, Indok center, fototeka.

35 Foto: M. Smerke, junij 1985: fotodokumentacija dr. Josipa Korošca.36 Foto: Tine Benedik, arhiv ZVKDS, RC. Reprodukcijo z »današnjo podobo« umetnika je objavil tudi BERGAMINI 1994 (op. 29), str.

12.37 Napis objavi in zapiše, da gre v napačnem izpisu priimka za pomoto, ter pripomni, da je Quaglio ob svojem imenu praviloma dodal še

COM (ensis) – prebivalec v kraju Como, tako da je CON skoraj zagotovo napaka in zapisan namesto COM; to smo ugotovili tudi ob primerjavi fotografij; črko M je restavrator zaradi nečitljivosti napačno spremenil v N: KOPRIVA 1989 (op. 15), str. 19.

38 Bergamini sklepa, da gre za posledice restavratorskih posegov v 18. stoletju: BERGAMINI 1994 (op. 23), str. 180.39 CON namesto COM(ensis) in BT namesto ET, kot opozori Lavričeva v op. 537: DOLNIČAR 2003 (op. 3), str. 302.40 Domnevno upodobitve še drugih glavnih pobudnikov gradnje: prošta Janeza Krstnika Prešerna, škofa Ferdinanda Küenburga: LAVRIČ

2003 (op. 6), str. 59, 60, 450, 494; Ana Lavrič, Ljubljanska stolnica. Umetnostni vodnik, Ljubljana 2007, str. 80–82 ter str. 121–122 za dekanovo portretno poprsje iz leta 1715 kiparja Angela Puttija; danes pri Dizmovem oltarju.

94


95


LiteraturaGiuseppe Bergamini, Giulio Quaglio, Videm 1994.Izidor Cankar, Giulio Quaglio. Prispevek k razvoju baročnega slikarstva, Dom in svet, let. 33, (doktorska disertacija), Ljubljana 1920, str. 77–84, 131–137, 186–192, 240–245.Emilijan Cevc, Jezuiti in likovna umetnost, Jezuiti na Slovenskem. Zbornik simpozija, Ljubljana 1992.Janez Gregor Dolničar, Zgodovina ljubljanske stolne cerkve (ur. Ana Lavrič), Ljubljana 2003; v izvirniku: Ioannes Gregorius Thalnitscher, Historia Cathedralis Ecclesiae Labacensis, Labaci 1701–1714 (1882 – tisk), Semeniška knjižnica rkp. 5 (rokopisni prepis v NŠAL, ŽA/Zg. zap., fasc. 2).Elenora Dudine, Albarita Fiorino, Morena Maresia, Chiara Marini, Tamara Zambon, L'intervento di restauro di una fascia decorata con affreschi di Giulio Quaglio e stucchi attribuiti a Lorenzo Retti e Giovanni Battista Bareglio nella chiesa di Santa Chiara a Udine (Tesi di diploma), Villa Manin di Passariano, Videm 1999.Peter Fister, Umetnost stavbarstva na Slovenskem, Ljubljana 1986.Manfred Koller, Wandmalerei der Neuzeit, Reclams Handbuch der künstlerischen Techniken Band 2 (Wandmalerei, Mosaik), Philipp Reclam jun. Stuttgart 1990, str. 213–346.Silvester Kopriva, Ljubljana skozi čas. Ob latinskih in slovenskih napisih in zapisih, Ljubljana 1989.Ana Lavrič, Goldensteinova kritika obnove ljubljanske stolnice, Kronika. Časopis za slovensko krajevno zgodovino, 2–3, 44, Ljubljana 1996.Ana Lavrič, Ljubljanska stolnica, Umetnostni vodnik, Ljubljana 2007.Marjana Lipoglavšek, Baročno stropno slikarstvo na Slovenskem, Ljubljana 1996.Barbara Murovec, Raziskovanje baročnega stropnega slikarstva na Slovenskem, Vis imaginis. Baročno slikarstvo in grafika. Jubilejni zbornik za Anico Cevc (ur. Barbara Murovec), Ljubljana 2006.Teresa e Giuseppina Perusini, Gli afreschi di Giulio Quaglio nel Palazzo Antonini di Udine: storia, technica e restauro, Barockberichte 34/35, Salzburg 2003.Andrea Pozzo, Breve instruttione. Per dipingere a fresco, v: Prospettiva de pittori e architetti, II, Rim 1700 (Nella Stamperia di Gio: Giacomo Komarek Boëmo alla Fontana di Trevi).Mateja Sitar, Stolna cerkev sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani – Raziskovanje historiata s poudarkov na obnovah Quaglievih poslikav, ZVKDS, Restavrator-ski center (tipkopis raziskovalne naloge), Ljubljana 2004–2006.Mateja Sitar, Povzetek poteka restavratorskih del na poslikavi oboka glavne ladje v stolni cerkvi sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani, Ljubljana julij 2004 (poročilo za ekspertno komisijo), ZVKDS, RC.France Stele, Varstvo spomenikov od 1. 1. 1935 do 10. 10. 1938, Zbornik za umetnostno zgodovino, 15, Ljubljana 1938.Viktor Steska, Slikar Julij Quaglio, Dom in svet 16, 1903, str. 486–490, 527–533.Viktor Steska, Obnova ljubljanske stolnice ob dvestoletnici leta 1907, Zbornik za umetnostno zgodovino IV, Ljubljana 1924.Edo Škulj, Oskar Dolenc, Orgle na Slovenskem, Ljubljana 1985.

Viri iz: NŠAL; NUK; Ministrstvo za kulturo, Indok center; Umetnostnozgodovinski inštitut Franceta Steleta, ZRC SAZU; ZAL; ZVKDS, Restavratorski center; Škofijska palača; Župnišče sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani; zasebna dokumentacija dr. Josipa Korošca, restavratorja Tomaža Kvasa in fotografa Marjana Smerketa.

Sliki 1, 1a: »Točkovna oluščenost« na glavi prestrašenega mornarja pred restavriranjem in po njem junija 1985; detajl s pri-zora Sv. Nikolaj rešuje romarje pred hudičevo zvijačo na južni strani prezbiterija (foto: Tomaž Kvas, junij 1985, dokumentacija Tomaža Kvasa)

Figures 1, 1a: Flaking on the head of a terrified sailor before and after the restoration in June 1985; detail of the scene St Nicholas Saving Pilgrims from the Devil’s Trick on the southern wall of the presbytery (photo: Tomaž Kvas, June 1985, documentation of Tomaž Kvas)

96


97


Slika 3: Pogled v notranjščino z odrom ob prizorih na desni strani prezbiterija; reprodukcija iz knjige Orgle na Slovenskem iz leta 1985 (foto: Marjan Smerke)

Figure 3: View of the interior with scaffolding next to the scenes on the right wall of the presbytery; reproduction from the book Organs in Slovenia from 1985 (photo: Marjan Smerke)

Slika 4: Pogled v notranjščino z odri ob severni in vzhodni steni prezbiterija; reprodukcija iz knjige Petra Fistra Umetnost stavbarstva na Slovenskem iz leta 1986

Figure 4: View of the interior with scaffolding next to the north and east wall of the presbytery; reproduction from the book Umetnost stavbarstva na Slovenskem, Peter Fister, 1986.

Slika 2: Prizor Sv. Nikolaj reši meščane Mire pred lakoto s Quaglievim avtoportretom (foto: Tine Benedik, arhiv ZVKDS, RC)

Figure 2: The scene St Nicholas Saving the People of Myra from Famine with Quaglio’s self-portrait (photo: Tine Benedik, archive of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Restoration Centre)

98


99


Slika 5: Kotarjeva fotografija prizora Sv. Nikolaj reši meščane Mire pred lakoto s Quaglievim avtoportretom, ki jo je objavil Steska leta 1903: NŠAL (foto: Tine Benedik, arhiv ZVKDS RC)

Figures 5: Kotar’s photograph of the scene St Nicholas Saving the People of Myra from Famine and Quaglio’s self-portrait, published by Steska in 1903: Ljubljana Archbishop’s Archives (NŠAL) (photo: Tine Benedik, archive of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Restoration Centre)

Slika 5a: Detajl iz Kotarjeve fotografije (sl. 5)

Figure 5a: Detail of Kotar’s photography (Fig. 5)

100


101


Slika 6: Quagliev avtoportret iz Ilustriranega Slovenca, 27. 11. 1927 (foto: Tine Benedik, arhiv ZVKDS RC)

Figure 6: Quaglio’s self-portrait in Ilustrirani Slovenec, 27 Nov. 1927 (photo: Tine Benedik, archive of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Restoration Centre)

Slika 7: Gorjupova reprodukcija Quaglievega avtoportreta po fotografiji iz leta 1952 (Ministrstvo za kulturo, Indok center, fototeka)

Figure 7: Gorjup’s reproduction of Quaglio’s self-portrait based on a photograph from 1952 (Ministry of Culture, Indok Centre, photo archive)

102


103


Slika 8: Reprodukcija Quaglievega avtoportreta po fotografiji iz leta 1958 (Ministrstvo za kulturo, Indok center, fototeka)

Figure 8: Reproduction of Quaglio’s self-portrait after a photograph from 1958, (Ministry of Culture, Indok Centre, photo archive)

Slika 9: Quagliev avtoportret pred Kvasovim restavriranjem; foto: Marjan Smerke, junij 1985 (fotodokumentacija dr. Josipa Korošca)

Figure 9: Quaglio’s self-portrait before Kvas’ restoration procedure; photo: Marjan Smerke, June 1985 (photo documenta-tion by Dr Josip Korošec)

104


105


Slika 10: Avtoportret Giulia Quaglia, današnje stanje (foto: Tine Benedik, 2006, arhiv ZVKDS, RC)

Figure 10: Self-portrait of Giulio Quaglio, the present-day condition (photo: Tine Benedik, 2006, archive of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Restoration Centre)

Slika 11: Prizor Izvolitev sv. Nikolaja za škofa v Miri za srednjo orgelsko omaro na zahodni steni (foto: Rado Zoubek, 2004, arhiv ZVKDS, RC)

Figure 11: The scene Appointment of St Nicholas as the Bishop of Myra for the central organ case on the west wall (photo: Rado Zoubek, 2004, archive of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Restoration Centre)

Slika 12: Portret dekana J. Antona Dolničarja s prizora Izvolitev sv. Nikolaja za škofa v Miri (foto: Rado Zoubek, 2004 arhiv ZVKDS, RC)

Figure 12: Portrait of the dean J. Anton Dolničar from the scene Appointment of St Nicholas as the Bishop of Myra (photo: Rado Zoubek, 2004, archive of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Restoration Centre)

106


107


Slika 13: Kolaž kot primerjava izrezov z različnih reprodukcij iz let 1903, 1927, 1952, 1958, 1985, 2006

Figure 13: Collage as a comparison of sections in different reproductions from 1903, 1927, 1952, 1958, 1985, 2006.

1903 1927 1952

1958 1985 2006

Mateja Neža Sitar

The Only (Self )Portrait of Quaglio and the Consequences of its RenovationKey words: Ljubljana cathedral, Giulio Quaglio, self-portrait, monument preservation service, conser-vation and restoration procedures, Baroque painting technique, removal of impurities, retouching

Abstract

In the early 18th century, in the heyday of Baroque art in Ljubljana, the dean and patron of the construc-tion of the new Ljubljana cathedral, Janez Anton Dolničar, commissioned the northern Italian painter Giulio Quaglio (1668–1751) to adorn the cathedral of St Nicholas with frescoes. The Lombard Baroque painter, who was born in Laino on Lake Como, was a distinguished mural painter in Friuli and Gorizia, and he created his greatest masterpiece of his virtuoso artistic career in the illusionist murals in the inte-rior and on the exterior of the Ljubljana cathedral (1703–1706). Later, in 1721–1723, he returned with his son and completed the murals in the chapels of the nave. At that time the frescoes in the Ljubljana cathedral represented one of the largest cycles in Slovenia, and moreover, they were the most important commission of the artist. Because of this, he added his self-portrait to the images, which, according to research, is the only such example in his oeuvre in Italy, Austria and Slovenia.In 2002 a team from the Restoration Centre initiated one of its most complex and demanding conserva-tion and restoration projects on approximately 532 square metres of murals on the vault and western wall of the Ljubljana cathedral. The difficulty level of the project is evident from the methodology and organisation of the four-year work process, which in addition to concrete restoration procedures on the murals also entailed ongoing research, analysis, verification, study and documentation from various ex-pert points of view. The explicitly interdisciplinary approach combined many different areas of expertise, as well as Slovenian and international experiences from a broad range of scientific disciplines.1 Alongside the restoration process, the research at the site included the investigation of the murals from the point of view of art history and conservation and in the light of the broader cultural/historical context. For this reason and due to the scarce data and poorly preserved documentation, many different sources (written, photographic, graphic, literary, journalistic, video, oral and other) from public and private collections of documentation, plans and photographs, as well as from libraries and archives, were explored. Our objec-tive was to monitor and carefully search for any type of renovation procedures done to the murals as would be evident from information in the preserved documentation, various sources and literature. We were interested in information about the type of procedures, materials employed, the time of the renova-tion, who commissioned and implemented it, etc. Research on renovation and restoration procedures on the murals – regardless if these entailed only “cleaning” or removal of impurities2 or dirt (washing, rinsing) or other “renovation” and conservation/restoration procedures – can shed light on the problems connected with the present-day condition of the murals; it also helps uncover the causes of certain in-juries and define the consequences of individual procedures on the surface of the murals. Last but not least, the results of the research can contribute to a broader knowledge of the characteristics of the murals and help select the correct, most suitable and most efficient approach to the renovation, protection and

Mateja Neža Sitar, Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Restoration Centre

108


109


preservation of works of art for the future. The most important aspect of the study of a painting tech-nique – in our example, Quaglio’s Baroque technique – is the research and knowledge of the structure of the murals both in terms of the materials employed and their subject matter. Based on this knowledge, it is possible to distinguish the original, first layer from subsequent layers, retouchings and other various changes to the surface of the paint, which influence the art-historical interpretation of the work.In individual periods of the history of the Ljubljana cathedral, various more or less suitable renovations took place for different reasons (changes of artistic taste, injuries caused by earthquakes, air pollution, moisture, differences in temperature, dirt, etc.), which effectively changed the appearance of the build-ing and Quaglio’s murals, as is evident from the article. When speaking about different renovation pro-cedures in the cathedral, we cannot ignore the fact that the Baroque building was constructed because of changes in artistic tastes, to be a new aesthetic ideal for the initiators of its construction. According to Historia (1701), the “bad shape of the old Gothic building” was given as the main reason for its de-molition.3 Only a handful of artefacts have remained of the old medieval church; they were saved from destruction by Janez Gregor Dolničar. This clearly speaks about the low awareness of the significance of preserving cultural heritage at that time, although the general thinking and ideals that were part of the identity and national roots called for a return back to the time of ancient Emona. Nevertheless, we must take into consideration the historical situation at that time and the spirit of the age, which through the “new” and “modern” nevertheless yielded admirable works of art. One of the largest and most daring architectural changes in the structure of the Baroque building and comprehensive mural decoration was the construction of a new, high dome in 1841–1843, which with the exception of three fragments completely destroyed Quaglio’s trompe-l’oeil frescoes in the previous dome. Other murals by this painter from Lombardy were subjected to several renovations, three of which are relatively well and officially documented as major ones and are in general known to experts: the renovation carried out by Matevž Langus in 1846–1853, the renovation by Anton Jebačin in 1905–1906 and the renovation by Peter Železnik in 1944–1947. The fourth, unofficial and so far generally unknown and undocumented, is Železnik’s renovation in 1959–1961.4 The final, fifth renovation, part of which was the aforementioned research, was carried out by the Restoration Centre under the auspices of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia in 2002–2006. Several other minor, usually more frequent and poorly documented renovation procedures were carried out on more exposed and more accessible parts of the murals, for example on the walls of the presbytery, transept and chapels in the nave and on the exterior, for which more or less skilful “renovators” were commissioned (decorators, painters, restorers, etc.), who implemented these renovations independently or under the auspices of the monument protection service of the 20th and 21st century.The article focuses on the part of the research into the history of the previous renovation procedures on Quaglio’s murals at the Ljubljana cathedral which best presents relevant key monument protection is-sues. These are the protection, salvage, preservation, maintenance and conservation/restoration of those murals that have lost their original appearance and authenticity due to various renovation procedures in the past. One such example is Quaglio’s only self-portrait, which he himself painted, complete with a signature and date, in the scene to the right on the southern wall of the presbytery of the Ljubljana cathedral. Because of the condition of Quaglio’s self-portrait, it has been proven that the murals in the presbytery have undergone more renovation procedures than is officially acknowledged.In 1703 and 1704, Quaglio painted two scenes of the miracles of the cathedral’s patron saint, Nicho-las, on the two side walls of the presbytery5; the motifs are based on the well-known hagiography Flos Sanctorum by Pedro de Ribadeneira.6 At a time when the traditional early Baroque style, according to which the painted scenes were usually placed in stuccowork frames or decorative sections, was waning, Quaglio painted the murals in the presbytery in the same fashion as many of his previous commissions in Lombardy, Friuli, Veneto and Gorizia (with some exceptions).7

Each of the four scenes measures 440 x 310 cm and is placed in a protruding, ornate, gilded stucco-work frame with concavely trimmed corners.8 Due to the poor condition of the murals, which hardly resemble Quaglio’s work, at the moment it would be unwise and difficult to define the Baroque paint-ing technique that Quaglio employed for these scenes. Moreover, the generic usage of the word frescoes is not completely correct, because the technique might not be true or exclusively true fresco. More accurate data could be obtained by scientific investigation of the plasters and colour layers (pigments,

binding agents) and an examination performed by an experienced restorer.9 According to the research and information in literature to date, it is evident that the Baroque painting technique was very popular because of new features that allowed the artist a more relaxed timing of the painting and facilitated more intense, daring and majestic effects demanded by the client, and because of the new spirit of the age that called for lush Baroque backdrops on the walls and ceilings of secular and church buildings; however, the technique was not as durable as true fresco. If we turn our attention to the results of the renovation of the murals on the vault and western wall of the nave, which was completed in 2006, we find out that detailed inspection and comparison of the top colour layer with other murals created by Quaglio in approximately the same period showed that the colour layer in Ljubljana is much poorer and flaking10 (Figures 1, 1a). The bright areas11 and colour intensity have disappeared, although they are the most recognisable features of Quaglio’s murals in Udine, for example at Monte di Pieta (1694), Palazzo Anto-nini (1697/98) and S. Chiara (1699). Effective, soft, thickly applied bright patches that give the murals a certain vivid, contrasting, voluminously plastic expression can also be noticed in Descent from the Cross at the Puštal castle chapel; the scene was painted immediately after the painter completed his work at the Ljubljana cathedral and stopped at Puštal on his way to Laino (1706). Murals at the Puštal chapel show that the condition of the murals at the Ljubljana cathedral is a result of the previous renovations, which greatly impaired their visual impression (colours seem to be duller, colder), and was not brought about by a change in the artist’s style, as some researchers believe. According to Perusini, Quaglio’s works in Friuli are characterised by recognisable colourfulness; in Ljubljana his colours became more moderate, whereas later they turned Rococo.12 Today, the renovated murals on the ceiling are above all vivid and colourful.Maybe the choice of painting technology and technique is the reason for the more deteriorated condi-tion of the murals in the presbytery and consequently the frequent restoration of individual scenes. It must be pointed out that (like in other examples, such as the murals at Palazzo Antonini) Quaglio did not necessarily use the same painting technology and technique for all scenes; it is probable that he adjusted them to the thematic significance and location of the scene in question (whether the scene is observed from a distance of one or twenty metres), funding (better materials, e.g. pigments, are more expensive), the demands of the client, etc.13

In the case of the Ljubljana cathedral, so far no information has been uncovered about the type of pig-ments, binding agents and other materials or tools and where these were purchased, about the procedures of tracing drawings on the plaster and the process of painting, about lighting methods, the name of the builder who prepared mortar for the painter and applied it to the walls, about the contribution of assis-tants and apprentices, preparatory drawings, cartoons, sketches and models (this information is known anyway only in a handful of examples). Nevertheless, there is a very detailed history of the Ljubljana cathedral with a description of the entire building process of the new church, as well as a description of its predecessor and a detailed account of the motifs of the murals and the furnishings. The history was written by the faithful chronicler and dean’s brother, Janez Gregor Dolničar. For the year 1704, he wrote: “On the first of June, when all work at the sanctuary was stopped because of the feast day, Giulio Quaglio retired to the church and with the help of a mirror painted his likeness on the wall in the choir with such skill that he seems to be alive and breathing in the picture. When they asked him why he chose to paint the portrait on that particular one of the four large paintings, he replied that he placed himself where bread is handed out to the poor because he had received a sufficient share from the patron of the church, the miracle-maker Nicho-las.”14 At the bottom right of the scene, in which St Nicholas rescues the people of Myra from famine (Figure 2), Quaglio painted himself to his waist, in three-quarter profile and in Baroque clothing, sitting behind a stone block15 on which he leans with his left arm and on which we find his signature, place of birth and the year of the making of this image. In the left hand, he holds a partially unravelled scroll as a hint to his participation in planning the content of the murals, whereas in his right hand, which is placed across his left, he holds the attribute of his profession – a bunch of brushes.Because of various renovation procedures that decisively changed the visual appearance of the cathedral, as well as the painter’s image, the self-portrait and the signature underneath have changed considerably over the last three hundred years. Written sources and findings of key photographs reveal that at least six renovations were carried out on the scene with Quaglio’s self-portrait. As part of the large, overall renovation in the 19th century, Matevž Langus restored the four scenes from the legend of St Nicholas in

110


111


the presbytery in 1847.16 The next to renovate the scenes was Anton Jebačin in 1905.17 The work done in the presbytery by Peter Železnik is documented in 1935 and again during the large renovation of the cathedral murals below the main cornice in 1944–1948, which encompassed the murals next to the high altar.18 Železnik reported that he cleaned and restored the walls in the choir in 1946 and 1947.19 In connection with this last renovation, the archive of Indok Centre keeps two personal letters of Marija Železnik, the wife of the aforementioned “renovator”, from 1935. Both of them were probably intended for conservator Stele and contain a request that the renovation of Quaglio’s murals would be entrusted to her husband Peter, who had just done an excellent job with Jelovšek’s murals in the Church of St Peter in Ljubljana.20 Today we know that Železnik received the commission, because the renovation of the scenes in the presbytery is documented with bills and three receipts from 1935,21 as well as Stele’s report from 1938. According to Stele, in 1935 Peter Železnik “removed all over-painting from after the war” from Quaglio’s frescoes in the presbytery and correctly restored them. He also stated that the damaged areas were crudely painted over and that “the condition of certain areas was hopeless”. He maintains that the careful “tapping” of the missing parts gave satisfying results, and that after the renovation “the murals, albeit injured and patched up in parts, display a very colourful, authentic character”.22 For the next period, no preserved official documentation can be found, so alternative sources of research were examined. One of the few concrete clues is a postcard depicting the Ljubljana cathedral (figs. 3, 4).23 The view of the presbytery clearly shows scaffolding erected along the entire south wall, including Quaglio’s self-portrait, which might be a sign of renovation taking place in that part of the church. An oral source – an oral account and newly discovered documents from the cathedral’s rectory – revealed that the painter and specialist Miloš Lavrenčič24 unofficially renovated the paintings in the presbytery in 1979; this was later confirmed after the discovery of a private photo archive.25 As will be shown later, the procedure was highly unsuitable and a complete failure. It was officially stopped and its grave consequences were later remedied by the restorer Tomaž Kvas in 1985.26 The procedure carried out by Kvas was the sixth and last renovation of the scene with Quaglio’s image as it has been preserved until today.Due to the lack of written sources, we must do with a very interesting comparison of a handful of photographs discovered from various periods, which for now are the best record of the consequences of restoration procedures. The comparison of the present-day indistinct “middle-aged man” (figs. 2, 10) with the image of the earliest known reproduction is simply unbelievable.The earliest known reproduction of Quaglio’s self-portrait was published in Dom in svet magazine, where the photographs taken by J. Kotar accompanied an article on Giulio Quaglio, which was written by Vik-tor Steska in 1903.27 In the reproduction of the scene depicting the legend of St Nicholas and featuring Quaglio’s self-portrait (figs. 5, 5a) the painter’s likeness differs greatly from the one we know today. The face belongs to a young man with well-painted, long, wavy hair. His thoughtful eyes gaze seriously at the observer. A narrow, bright collar, buttoned up below the chin, a dark undergarment and a necktie fastened in front are clearly visible in the image. The striped painting robe organically covers the body and gives the impression of plasticity. Although the reproduction is black and white, it is evident that the painter achieved the impression of plasticity and naturalness with convincing modelling by means of light and different colour nuances; this is particularly obvious in the tonality of the face and hands, the large Baroque hairstyle, brushes, etc. A certain degree of Quaglio’s mastery and the quality of his painterly skills are revealed in the young man’s gaze, which because of its virtuoso accuracy discloses the character and thoughts of the man portrayed, as well as in the striped pattern and refined shading of the folds in the robe. The slightly unravelled upper part of the scroll features a clearly visible sketch of a woman’s head or a bust with an outlined background that could symbolically represent a plan for a mu-ral or even the preparatory study that painters usually prepared before the beginning of each project for themselves or at the request of a patron. There is a correctly written inscription below the portrait.28 On the reproduction of Kotar’s photograph from 1903, the following inscription can be read (visible state): “IVLVS QVALEVS DE LAYNO COMENSI INVEN: ET PINX (PINX:T) ANNO MDCCIIII.”29 Ko-priva translated it as follows: “Invented and painted by Giulio Quaglio of Laino near Como in the year 1704.”30

The next known reproduction of Quaglio’s self-portrait, which is similar to the first, was published in Ilustrirani Slovenec on 27 November 1927 (Figure 6).31 The high-quality, accurate reproduction of the painter’s bust image has an oval format and appears to be slightly corrected (possibly the photograph was

retouched for printing), but at the same time it clearly displays the characteristics listed before (plastic modelling of the drapery, necktie, hairstyle and facial features) from Kotar’s photograph, which is prob-ably a more faithful rendering of Quaglio’s original likeness. In subsequent restoration procedures the image was changed even more. The signature and date are not visible in this reproduction. An important discovery made in the photo archives of Indok Centre consists of two photographs from 1952 and 1958. The reproduction of the 1952 photograph (Figure 7)32 depicts the painter as a very young and very handsome man, but without the solemn, thoughtful gaze that is evident in the earliest reproduc-tion. The face and the hairstyle are again slightly beautified, but still similar to the reproduction from 1927. If the preserved black-and-white reproductions can be relied upon for correct interpretation, we can say that slight changes or beautification can be detected in the shape of the eyebrows, eyes which are slightly more elongated, the slightly changed line of the otherwise still full lips, and in the shading. The inscription below the image is identical to the inscription in the reproduction from 1903, except that due to the larger format of the reproduction, we can clearly read the superscript letters SI in COMENSI and T in PINXT.The next reproduction from 1967 is of lesser quality, but still clear enough; it was based on a photograph taken in 1958 (Figure 8),33 and shows a greatly altered image. In a larger format that includes the face of the male allegorical figure below, a child with bread to the left and part of the drapery of St Nicholas, a heavily damaged colour layer is visible. If we compare the faces of the child and the male figure below from 1958 with the present-day state, we notice that the child’s face from 1958 is still characteristic of the type that Quaglio in general used for painting children’s faces, whereas in the present-day reproduc-tion, the child has a completely different, distinctly hard expression. The face of the male figure was already heavily damaged in 1958, most probably during renovations, the result of which is the present-day, new, altered version of the long-gone original expression. The surface of the mural is abraded and washed; the painter’s face, particularly his hair, the female figure on the scroll and the inscription below are less visible than in Kotar’s photograph. The hair is not so thick, and the previous youthful gallantry and refined facial features and shading have disappeared from the face.The beautification is most probably the consequence of a restoration procedure in the 19th or early 20th century, or maybe the photograph was retouched. The otherwise young man has a shorter, broader nose and rounder eyes and lips that are heavily retouched, whereas his cheekbones are emphasised with shading.34 The dark undergarment with the narrow bright collar is no longer visible. We can only see that the luxurious necktie fastened in front and protruding from the top garment has lost its voluminos-ity. The individual parts display sharp edges of folds that can be the result of retouching or the visible under-drawing due to the destroyed colour layer; the final effect is lesser plasticity. The inscription is still correct and identical to the one from 1903, but it is less visible. It must be pointed out that a more precise interpretation of the image based on the only preserved medium of black-and-white photographs of varying quality is difficult and probably also unreliable.Nevertheless, the next photograph of Quaglio’s image from 1985 (Figure 9)35 shows the consequences of highly unsuitable renovation procedures. It is clear proof of what happened to the originally excellent self-portrait that the painter created with distinct Baroque virtuosity. Obviously the renovator tried to save the mural in a very clumsy and unprofessional way after it suffered considerable damage from the past washing and cleaning with water, soap and bread (according to the sources). Although the condition of the murals immediately before he set to work is not known, the final result was disastrous. The clumsy, rigid, monochromatic and hermetic retouching killed the gaze in the eyes and destroyed the natural colour of the complexion, body, clothes and attributes. The retouched or literally painted-over areas appear as planes of paint that do not allow the mural to breathe; they kill its vividness, three-dimension-ality and sense of movement in the space of the painting. In addition, they do not display appropriate colour nuances, contrasts, shades, light and softness. The photograph shows a numb, dead, clumsy, flat two-dimensional image of a puppet staring from the wall. As we said before, in 1985 the restorer Kvas attempted to save the scene with the most urgent restoration procedures, but the final result is the self-portrait as seen today.In this way Quaglio’s youthful likeness drastically changed from the first half of the 20th century to the present, resulting in the image of an older man (fig 10)36 which is very different from the painter at the peak of his artistic creativity at the age of 36. In comparison with earlier images, it seems to be very

112


113


impoverished. Because of the dark retouching of the eyeball, the painter’s eyes have lost the clear, distinct gaze directed at the observer, which was replaced by a blank stare directed at nothing in particular to the left. As a result of the thick and unsuitable retouching that covers the original surface of the mural, which was damaged during mechanical cleaning several times, the voluminosity and plasticity of the original high-quality tonal modelling has disappeared. This is visible on the painter’s face and hair, as well as on his robe, hands and elsewhere. The female figure on the unravelled scroll disappeared, and the inscription is different: “IVLIVS QALIVS DE LAYNO CON INVEN BT PINX ANNO MDCCIIII.” If we compare the reproduction, we discover that three words have been changed: QALIVS, CON and BT. Kopriva has already pointed out there might be a mistake in the word QALIVS, which should be written QVALEVS.37 Like Bergamini,38 he maintained that this was the result of unsuitable restoration procedures. The change of COM into CON was also pointed out by Lavrič, who published a correct version and stressed that there should also be ET instead of BT.39 Because of incorrectly reconstructed words (images of figures, details, attributes), the meaning can be incorrectly interpreted; therefore it is very important that the restorer closely cooperates with art historians, historians, palaeographers and other experts, all of whom must pay special attention to and be very consistent in the reading of the original traces of images and inscriptions.Because the inscription in the reproduction from 1958 is still correctly written and because later ad-ditional photographic evidence has been discovered, it can be concluded that these important changes – both in the inscription and Quaglio’s image – date from after 1958 and originate from one of the subsequent renovation procedures: Lavrenčič’s unofficial renovation in 1979. The appearance of the original portrait that most resembled Quaglio remains unknown, and the most approximate answer can probably be found in Kotar’s photograph. In view of the aforementioned quality, the refined individu-alised faces of true portraits of the kind that are painted only by the most skilful and talented painters, the naturalistic effect, the vivid and effectively painted space and images, we can say that the portrait in the photograph published in 1903 is the closest to the original likeness. Quaglio’s skill as a painter is also evident from the portraits in the scene Appointment of St Nicholas as the Bishop of Myra (Figure 11) behind the organ case on the west wall; it is most clearly apparent in portraits that are not based on con-ventional face types. The exceptional, simply and naturalistically painted portrait of the cathedral’s dean, J. Anton Drobnič (Figure 12), which is also placed in correct perspective, is recognisable and comparable with Putti’s sculptural bust portrait of the dean in the transept.40

The highly authentic, youthful face from 1903 was drastically transformed into the present-day reduced, impoverished image bereft of its Baroque charm. The various versions of the portrait can be understood as more or less failed consequences and interpretations by various renovators and restorers. During the next conservation/restoration project of the images in the presbytery, including Quaglio’s self-portrait, it should be correctly ascertained which portions of the murals have been painted over and how much of the original colour layer is still preserved and could be saved. Consequently, a more satisfactory ap-pearance of the murals should be created with the help of various sources. As we have said, according to verified material from the artist’s oeuvre in Slovenia, Italy and Austria, Quaglio’s likeness at the Ljubljana cathedral is the only example of a confident self-portrait of the artist, who always signed and dated his works, with which he put an additional emphasis on the significance of his commission. A more suitable and expert renovation would restore at least a part of the original image and give a more decent appear-ance to the self-portrait of Giulio Quaglio, a popular and influential Italian fresco painter who was a guest in Slovenia during the Baroque period, so that future generations will be able to admire it in as authentic a form as possible.Because of the research into the course of various renovations, it is easier to define the original paint-ing and some injuries, but due to the lack of documentation (for example, regarding the renovation of 1959–1961), it is once again evident that careful documentation of all implemented procedures plays an important role in renovation. Documentary material is a source of information and a collection of “bio-graphical data” about a work of art, thereby becoming a constituent part of it. As in the case of Quaglio’s self-portrait, in the practice of conservation and restoration – or at least in imagination – fortunately photographs faithfully depict the past and help reconstruct the true authenticity of many today almost destroyed or unrecognisably damaged artefacts from the Slovene cultural heritage, which is our respon-sibility. With the help of interesting photographic and written material, part of which was published for

the first time, we followed the changes in the painter’s image, which is heavily worn by the passage of time and the traces and consequences of various renovations, some of which were highly unsuitable.Once again we have learnt a very important fact that sometimes we do not take into consideration: in the assessment and preservation of a work of art, both fundamental aspects of a monument must be taken into account – its material and its spiritual (or symbolic, aesthetic, art-historical) value. But this can be achieved only through joint, interdisciplinary cooperation of various professions at the point where natural science and the arts closely intertwine.

Notes1 Much could be written about the issues of interdisciplinary and inter-institutional cooperation and teamwork, which are so widely dis-

cussed and which are absolutely necessary in our profession, in light of the actual conditions and openness to teamwork of individuals from different professions and institutions. Apart from knowledge and experience, teamwork demands a certain level of professional and personal maturity, professionalism and communication, as well as a certain interest in other professions involved in the same project and its joint aim. In Slovenia this can sometimes be difficult to attain. Because of its extent and the high number of experts involved, our project was a big challenge and a test, as well as a good experience for the future.

2 Here, it is necessary to point out that according to Prof Bogovčič, the expression “removal of impurities” is the most appropriate, but since quotations from earlier documents have been used for the article, I decided to keep the expression “cleaning”.

3 Janez Gregor Dolničar, Zgodovina ljubljanske stolne cerkve (ed. Ana Lavrič), Ljubljana 2003, p. 222; original title: Ioannes Gregorius Thalnitscher, Historia Cathedralis Ecclesiae Labacensis, Labaci 1701–1714 (printed in 1882), Seminary Library Man. 5 (manuscript copy kept at the Archdiocesan Archive in Ljubljana (NŠAL), ŽA/Zg. zap. (Parish Archive/Historical Notes), file 2). In note 27 Lavrič points out: “These formulations are not completely reliable, because in the past, the construction of new buildings was often justified by the derelict state of their predecessors (although they were still solid).”

4 The latest material is presented in the research paper: Mateja Sitar, Stolna cerkev sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani – Raziskovanje historiata s poudarkom na obnovah Quaglievih poslikav, Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Restoration Centre, Ljubljana 2004–2006.

5 For the year 1703: DOLNIČAR 2003 (n. 3), p. 298 (Historia, str. 130), for the year 1704, and p. 302 (Historia pp. 135/136); for the description of individual scenes: DOLNIČAR 2003 (n. 3), pp. 321–323 (Historia, pp. 158–161).

6 The book Flos Sanctorum by the Jesuit Pedro de Ribadeneira (1526–1611) was published in Madrid in 1599 and was reprinted several times; the scenes at the Ljubljana cathedral are most probably based on the Cologne edition from 1630, a copy of which is kept at the Seminary Library: Ana Lavrič, n. 627 in: DOLNIČAR 2003 (n. 3), p. 322. Accordingly, they depict likovno najbolj dramatične čudeže sv. Miklavža (“artistically the most dramatic miracles of St Nicholas”): Ana Lavrič, Janez Gregor Dolničar in njegova zgodovina ljubljanske stolne cerkve, in: DOLNIČAR 2003 (n. 3), p. 59. One of the scenes in which St Nicholas saves the pilgrims from the stormy sea is based on the engraving by Jean Couvay, which in turn follows a composition by Simon Vouet: Marjana Lipoglavšek, Baročno stropno slikarstvo na Slovenskem, Ljubljana 1996, p. 65, n. 50.

7 In the nave the murals appear autonomous and embrace the entire interior; here we can speak about a uniform trompe-l'oeil approach, for example in the dome and on the vault of the nave, where the painter used a less demanding, looser and more decorative variety of Baroque trompe-l'oeil painting; cf.: LAVRIČ 2003 (n. 6), p. 57, LIPOGLAVŠEK 1996 (n. 6), pp. 67–68, Emilijan Cevc, Jezuiti in likovna umetnost, Jezuiti na Slovenskem. Zbornik simpozija, Ljubljana 1992, p. 90, or: Barbara Murovec, Raziskovanje baročnega stropnega slikarstva na Slovenskem, Vis imaginis. Baročno slikarstvo in grafika. Jubilejni zbornik za Anico Cevc (ed. Barbara Murovec), Ljubljana 2006, pp. 109–110, including the most recent critical evaluation of other authors and sources on this topic.

8 Stuccowork in the presbytery (which initially was not gilded) was carried out by Tomasso Ferrata of Milan with three of his students in 1703 (DOLNIČAR 2003 [n. 3], p. 293), whereas the gilding is the work of three gilders from Vienna and dates from the time of Zupan’s restoration in the 19th century (from November 1859 to July 1860): Ana Lavrič, Goldensteinova kritika obnove ljubljanske stolnice, Kronika za slovensko krajevno zgodovino, 2–3, no. 44, Ljubljana 1996, p. 31. The dimensions of the murals are taken from the notes of the private documentation of restorer Tomaž Kvas.

9 Here, the “mezzo fresco” painting technique, also known as pittura a calce or pittura a bianco di calce must be mentioned. It was very popular and widespread in the 17th and 18th century and was used as early as the late 16th century. The pigments were mixed with calcium hydrate and applied to dry or wet plaster, which facilitated many practical innovations. Important instructions for this type of fresco painting can be found in the famous treatise (an edition kept at the National and University Library in Ljubljana was used – Vol. II, Nella Stamperia di Gio: Giacomo Komarek Boëmo alla Fontana di Trevi): Andrea Pozzo, Breve instruttione. Per dipingere a fresco, in: Prospettiva de pittori e architetti, I–II, Rome 1693 and 1700; earlier theoretical writings about this fresco technique can be found in: Cennino Cennini, Il libro dell` arte, 1437 (ed. F. Brunello), Vicenza 1982; Giorgio Vasari, Intruduzioni alle arti del disegno, 1568 (ed. P. Mora – L. Mora – P. Philippot), Bologna 1977, pp. 432–442; cf.: Elenora Dudine, Albarita Fiorino, Morena Maresia, Chiara Marini, Tamara Zambon, L'intervento di restauro di una fascia decorata con affreschi di Giulio Quaglio e stucchi attribuiti a Lorenzo Retti e Giovanni Battista Bareglio nella chiesa di Santa Chiara a Udine (Tesi di diploma), Villa Manin di Passariano, Udine 1999, where the authors closely explored Quaglio’s painting technique in the murals at the church of S. Chiara in Udine. I express my sincere gratitude to the authors, to the restorer Marta Bensa and conservation/restoration consultant Rado Zoubek for their assistance and advice.

10 Grains of sand fall off from the typically rough surface of a Baroque mural for various reasons, particularly mechanical cleaning, exposing the surface to dirt and various climatic as well as chemical processes; moreover, layers of paint of varied thickness that even originally do not stick to the base well enough begin to flake over centuries for various reasons; cf.: DUDINE, FIORINO, MARESIA, MARINI, ZAMBON 1999 (n. 9) and Manfred Koller, Wandmalerei der Neuzeit, Reclams Handbuch der künstlerischen Techniken Band 2 (Wand-malerei, Mosaik), Philipp Reclam jun. Stuttgart 1990, pp. 213–346.

114


115


11 When the painter applied the final strokes of paint, which are visible as thick brushwork, he moved away considerably from the basic form of the engraved drawing on the cartoon and resorted to modelling by means of light: KOLLER 1990 (n. 10), p. 333. On the other hand, other reasons that could cause visual changes in the murals must be taken into account, such as chemical processes in the plaster and on the surface, etc.

12 Teresa e Giuseppina PERUSINI, Gli afreschi di Giulio Quaglio nel Palazzo Antonini di Udine: storia, technica e restauro, Barockberichte 34/35, Salzburg 2003, p. 386. Here it must be taken into account that the range of damage in a church interior is more complex and broader because murals there are more exposed to unsuitable climatic conditions than in private palaces and private chapels.

13 For the master’s painting technique in various scenes at Palazzo Antonini cf.: PERUSINI 2003 (n. 12), pp. 380–392.14 DOLNIČAR 2003 (n. 3), p. 302 (Historia, p. 136).15 According to Kopriva, the painter stands behind a low marble block: Silvester Kopriva, Ljubljana skozi čas. Ob latinskih in slovenskih

napisih in zapisih, Ljubljana 1989, p. 19.16 According to archival sources: Ana LAVRIČ, Goldensteinova kritika obnove ljubljanske stolnice, Kronika. Časopis za slovensko krajevno

zgodovino, 2–3, 44, Ljubljana 1996, pp. 22–29.17 Between June and 16 December 1905 he cleaned the frescoes in the presbytery, the transept and below the dome; according to archival

sources: Viktor Steska, Obnova ljubljanske stolnice ob dvestoletnici leta 1907, Zbornik za umetnostno zgodovino IV, Ljubljana 1924, p. 39.

18 In the side chapels: Inventar imovine stolne cerkve sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani … (III. Notranji okras): NŠAL, ŽA, Ljubljana – St Nicholas, file 22, year 1951.

19 The remaining five chapels: Peter Železnik, Poročilo o čiščenju in restavriranju Quaglievih fresk in toniranju ostalih ploskev stolnice sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani, 15 Feb. 1948; NŠAL, ŽA, Ljubljana – St Nicholas, file 26, essays – misc. and Franc Kimovec, Kronika stolnice sv. Nikolaja, začeta 6. 12. 1944, NŠAL, ŽA, Ljubljana – St Nicholas, file 28, essays.

20 In the unaddressed first letter, written on 11 April 1935, Marija Železnik recommends her husband for the renovation of Quaglio’s frescoes in the cathedral, whereas in the second letter (to Stele and the diocese) dated 29 October 1935, she writes about Železnik’s renovation of Jelovšek’s frescoes at St Peter’s and their financial problems, because of which her husband would greatly appreciate if he were hired to perform the work in the cathedral. Because of Article 41 of the Archives and Archives Material Act (Uradni list Republike Slovenije, No. 20–10. IV. 1997, p. 1622) the letters are only mentioned: Ministry of Culture, Indok Centre, text archive. For her untir-ing help, I thank Ms Metka Košir of Indok Centre.

21 Invoices issued by Peter Železnik for his work in the cathedral, 1935 (4,000 dinars paid to my account for cleaning the paintings in the presbytery by the management of the Cathedral of St Nicholas in Ljubljana, Ljubljana, 19 April 1935; 1,000 dinars paid to my account for cleaning the frescoes by the management of the cathedral, Ljubljana, 25 May 1935; I have received the rest of the total sum of 3,500 dinars for cleaning the frescoes in the presbytery and on the exterior walls, Ljubljana 1935, 18 June 1935): NŠAL, ŽA, Ljubljana – St Nicholas, file 19, cathedral – church bills. Three invoices for 1935: NŠAL, ŽA, Ljubljana – St Nicholas, file 27, essays – cathedral – misc. I sincerely thank the personnel of the Ljubljana Archbishop’s Archive for their help thus far.

22 France Stele, Varstvo spomenikov od 1.1.1935 do 10.10.1938, Zbornik za umetnostno zgodovino, 15, Ljubljana 1938, p. 98.23 The postcard (ad 1987/1661–9) depicts the interior with scaffolding next to the scenes to the right of the presbytery; on the back it says

that the reproduction was taken from the book Orgle na Slovenskem from 1985 (Edo Škulj, Oskar Dolenc, Orgle na Slovenskem, Lju-bljana 1985, p. 25, where a smaller and less visible reproduction was printed); in 1987 it was stored in the photo archive of the National and University Library in Ljubljana. Peter Fister, Umetnost stavbarstva na Slovenskem, Ljubljana 1986, p. 247, fig. 393.

24 This information was kindly brought to my attention by Dr Ana Lavrič, Jadranka Šumi, Prof Ivan Bogovčič, Dr Ksenija Rozman, Majda Frelih Ribič (new discoveries are currently under scrutiny: material from NŠAL, Diocesan Palace and the rectory of the cathedral).

25 Source: photo documentation of Dr Josip Korošec and restorer Tomaž Kvas (photo: Tomaž Kvas, Marjan Smerke). I sincerely thank all three of them for their help and for making the documentation available to me.

26 The condition before and after the procedures was documented in written form and photographed. In 1985–1987 the murals in the chapels of the transept and the nave were renovated and the renovation of the side murals in the presbytery began: Assessment of costs for the restoration of the mural on the right wall of the presbytery, St Nicholas Calming the Storm at Sea, 440 x 310 cm, Ljubljana, 15 April 1985; Bill for the restoration of the fresco on the left wall of the presbytery, St Nicholas Saving the Condemned, 440 x 310 cm, Ljubljana, 15 November 1985; Bill for the restoration of the fresco on the left side of the presbytery, St Nicholas Saving the Sailors, 440 x 310 cm, Ljubljana, 15 November 1985; on the back of the details from the scene St Nicholas Saving the People of Myra from Famine, Kvas wrote (in June 1985) that thick layers of over-paint were applied by M. Lavrenčič in 1979, who according to currently known information worked on the last two of the scenes.

27 Viktor STESKA, Slikar Julij Quaglio, Dom in svet 16, 1903, p. 488. Three scenes from the legend of St Nicholas in the presbytery (pp. 488, 489, 529) and two reproductions of the view of the interior towards the east (p. 486) and the ceiling in the Seminary Library were published. Some of Kotar’s photographs are kept at: NŠAL, ŽA, Cathedral, file 14 (the interior – view towards the east, St Nicholas Saving the People of Myra from Famine with Quaglio’s self-portrait, St Nicholas Saving Pilgrims from the Devil’s Trick, St Nicholas Saving the Condemned, Langus’ altarpiece of St Nicholas, Langus’ copy of Quaglio’s paintings in the false dome).

28 Steska probably made a mistake in the spelling of the surname, because Quaglio usually signed his name as QVALEVS (cf: Giuseppe Bergamini, Giulio Quaglio, Udine 1994, p. 180): IVLIVS QVALAEVS DE LAINO COMEN INVENIT ET PINXIT ANNO MDC-CIIII: STESKA 1903 (n. 28), p. 489.

29 According to the reproduction from 1952, the original inscription contained the word COMEN, but the syllable -EN is less visible because of poor quality, and it completely disappeared during subsequent restoration procedures.

30 KOPRIVA 1989 (n. 15), p. 19.31 Ilustrirani Slovenec, l. III., 27 Nov. 1927, No. 270 (No. 48), p. 393.32 Quaglio’s self-portrait, reproduction Gorjup 1996 after a photograph from 1952 – courtesy of Mr Bogataj: Ministry of Culture, Indok

Centre, photo archive.

33 Quaglio’s self-portrait, reproduction from 1967 after a photograph from 1958: Ministry of Culture, Indok Centre, photo archive. At the photo archive of France Stele Art History Institute of the Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, I discovered another image of Quaglio in negative No. 1680 of a scene from the legend of St Nicholas. The image is identical to the reproduction from 1958 kept at the photo archive of Indok Centre. Unfortunately, there is no information about who took the shot and when.

34 The image (raised retouching on the cheeks and lips in the mural and not a subsequent retouching of the photograph) can be compared with a detail of Quaglio’s self-portrait in Stele’s photograph – photo: view of the presbytery (neg. No. 12829 S), date of origin unknown: Ministry of Culture, Indok Centre, photo archive.

35 Photo: M. Smerke, June 1985: photo documentation of Dr Josip Korošec.36 Photo: Tine Benedik, archive of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Restoration Centre. A reproduction

depicting the “present-day image” of the artist was also published by BERGAMINI 1994 (n. 29), p. 12.37 He published the inscription with a note that the surname is incorrectly written by mistake and that Quaglio usually added the word

COM(ensis) to his name – a native of Como – which means that Con is definitely a mistake and should read COM; this was also ascertained during the comparison of the photographs: a restorer changed the letter M to N because of its illegibility: KOPRIVA 1989 (n. 15), p. 19.

38 According to Bergamini, this is a consequence of 18th century restoration procedures: BERGAMINI 1994 (n. 23), p. 180.39 CON instead of COM(ensis) and BT instead of ET, as Lavrič points out in n. 537: DOLNIČAR 2003 (n. 3), p. 302.40 These are supposedly images of other initiators of the cathedral’s construction: Provost Janez Krstnik Prešeren, Bishop Ferdinand Küen-

burg: LAVRIČ 2003 (n. 6), pp. 59, 60, 450, 494; for the dean’s portrait bust by Angelo Putti (1715) cf. Ana Lavrič, Ljubljanska stolnica. Umetnostni vodnik, Ljubljana 2007, pp. 80–82 and pp. 121–122; today next to the altar of St Dismas.

LiteratureGiuseppe Bergamini, Giulio Quaglio, Udine 1994.Izidor Cankar, Giulio Quaglio. Prispevek k razvoju baročnega slikarstva, Dom in svet, Vol. 33 (doctoral dissertation), Ljubljana 1920, pp. 77–84, 131–137, 186–192, 240–245.Emilijan Cevc, Jezuiti in likovna umetnost, Jezuiti na Slovenskem. Zbornik simpozija, Ljubljana 1992.Janez Gregor Dolničar, Zgodovina ljubljanske stolne cerkve (ur. Ana Lavrič), Ljubljana 2003; original title: Ioannes Gregorius Thalnitscher, His-toria Cathedralis Ecclesiae Labacensis, Labaci 1701–1714 (printed in 1882), Seminary Library Man. 5 (manuscript copy at the Archdiocesan Archive in Ljubljana (NŠAL), ŽA/Zg. zap. (Parish Archive/Historical Notes), file 2).Elenora Dudine, Albarita Fiorino, Morena Maresia, Chiara Marini, Tamara Zambon, L'intervento di restauro di una fascia decorata con affreschi di Giulio Quaglio e stucchi attribuiti a Lorenzo Retti e Giovanni Battista Bareglio nella chiesa di Santa Chiara a Udine (Tesi di diploma), Villa Manin di Passariano, Udine 1999.Peter Fister, Umetnost stavbarstva na Slovenskem, Ljubljana 1986.Manfred Koller, Wandmalerei der Neuzeit, Reclams Handbuch der künstlerischen Techniken Band 2 (Wandmalerei, Mosaik), Philipp Reclam jun. Stuttgart 1990, pp. 213–346.Silvester Kopriva, Ljubljana skozi čas. Ob latinskih in slovenskih napisih in zapisih, Ljubljana 1989.Ana Lavrič, Goldensteinova kritika obnove ljubljanske stolnice, Kronika. Časopis za slovensko krajevno zgodovino, pp. 2–3, 44, Ljubljana 1996.Ana Lavrič, Ljubljanska stolnica, Umetnostni vodnik, Ljubljana 2007.Marjana Lipoglavšek, Baročno stropno slikarstvo na Slovenskem, Ljubljana 1996.Barbara Murovec, Raziskovanje baročnega stropnega slikarstva na Slovenskem, Vis imaginis. Baročno slikarstvo in grafika. Jubilejni zbornik za Anico Cevc (ed. Barbara Murovec), Ljubljana 2006.Teresa e Giuseppina Perusini, Gli afreschi di Giulio Quaglio nel Palazzo Antonini di Udine: storia, technica e restauro, Barockberichte 34/35, Salzburg 2003.Andrea Pozzo, Breve instruttione. Per dipingere a fresco, in: Prospettiva de pittori e architetti, II, Rim 1700 (Nella Stamperia di Gio: Giacomo Komarek Boëmo alla Fontana di Trevi).Mateja Sitar, Stolna cerkev sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani – Raziskovanje historiata s poudarkov na obnovah Quaglievih poslikav, Institute for the Protec-tion of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Restoration Centre (typescript of a research paper), Ljubljana 2004–2006.Mateja Sitar, Povzetek poteka restavratorskih del na poslikavi oboka glavne ladje v stolni cerkvi sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani, Ljubljana July 2004 (report for expert committee), Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Restoration Centre.France Stele, Varstvo spomenikov od 1.1.1935 do 10.10.1938, Zbornik za umetnostno zgodovino, 15, Ljubljana 1938.Viktor Steska, Slikar Julij Quaglio, Dom in svet 16, 1903, pp. 486–490, 527–533.Viktor Steska, Obnova ljubljanske stolnice ob dvestoletnici leta 1907, Zbornik za umetnostno zgodovino IV, Ljubljana 1924.Edo Škulj, Oskar Dolenc, Orgle na Slovenskem, Ljubljana 1985.

Sources: Archdiocesan Archive in Ljubljana; National and University Library; Ministry of Culture, Indok Centre; France Stele Art History Institute, Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Historical Archives of Ljubljana; Institute for the Protec-tion of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Restoration Centre; Diocesan Palace; Rectory of St Nicholas in Ljubljana; private documentation of Dr Josip Korošec, restorer Tomaž Kvas and photographer Marjan Smerke.

116


117


Bogdan Badovinac

Sporočilnost malo znane vedute Zgornjega samostana Žičke kartuzijeUDK 75.047:726:2-523.6(497.4Žiče)UDK 726:2-523.6(497.4Žiče):75.047

Ključne besede: Stare Slemene, Zgornji samostan Žičke kartuzije, barvna veduta, grafični list, nova datacija, poimenovanje stavb in prostorov, serija vedut, samostan v Klosterneuburgu

Najobširnejši pregled upodobitev Zgornjega samostana Žičke kartuzije je objavil najboljši poznavalec arhitekture kartuzijanov na Slovenskem Marijan Zadnikar.1 Že znanim vedutnim upodobitvam je Jože Mlinarič dodal do takrat slovenskim raziskovalcem kartuzijanske arhitekture in umetnosti neznano veduto Zgornjega samostana.2 Reproducirana slika je obrezana in nejasno natisnjena, brez navedbe nahajališča, naslovljena kot “Pogled na žičko kartuzijo v 18. stoletju (olje na platno)”. Več o upodobitvi in njenem nahajališču izvemo iz kataloga spodnještajerske deželne razstave Avstrija v času cesarja Jožefa II.3 S kolegico Alenko Kolšek sva si veduto leta 1998 v samostanu avguštinskih korarjev v Klosterneu-burgu pri Dunaju ogledala, saj sva ocenila, da je slika z oštevilčenimi stavbami in pojasnjevalnim tekstom o namembnosti stavb pomemben vir pri razbiranju stavbne zgodovine in pomoč pri nadaljnji obnovi stavb in prostorov v zgornji hiši samostana.4 Pri pripravah na razstavo o srednjeveških rokopisih iz Žičke kartuzije sem na veduto opozoril avtorico Natašo Golob, in ta jo je z veseljem vključila na razstavo in v katalog.5

Ni znano, kdaj in za kakšen namen so naročili in izdelali serijo vedut kartuzij, ki so bile prvotno v lasti kartuzije Mauerbach. Serija obsega 35 slik. Po navedbah Friederike Klos so vedute nastale v času od leta 1740 do leta 1760.6 Serija je pomembna zaradi njene topografske vrednosti, saj obstaja skladnost naslikanih pogledov s še danes obstoječimi kompleksi. Ta oznaka velja tudi za upodobitev stavb v kom-pleksu Zgornjega samostana Žičke kartuzije, ne pa za samo datacijo slike, kar bom skušal prikazati v nadaljevanju prispevka.Kakor vse slike iz serije vedut kartuzij, ki jih hrani muzej samostana Klosterneuburg, tudi slika Zgornje hiše Žičke kartuzije v aksonometričnem pogledu iz jugovzhodne smeri prikazuje celotno območje zno-traj obzidja in ožjo neposredno okolico z oštevilčenimi stavbami in prostori, ki so poimenovani po namembnosti v spodnjem sredinskem delu medaljona poleg opisa legende o ustanovitvi samostana. Poleg stavb je ilustrirana legenda o ustanovitvi kartuzije. V levem spodnjem delu slike poleg konja sedi Otokar III. z zajcem v naročju in gleda diagonalno v desni zgornji kot na podobo sv. Janeza Krstnika. Pod svetnikom v kartuzijanskem škapulirju, ki je Otokarju naročil, naj na tem mestu postavi kartuzi-janski samostan, je prizor lova na belo košuto. Za Otokarjem na konju in za psom je v ozadju podoba večjega mesta, ki namiguje na drugo različico legende, ko naj bi Otokar začel graditi samostan v Konji-cah.7 Pred vhodom v samostan je upodobljen konjenik s tremi psi goniči, loveč zajca, ki se je že zatekel k Otokarju po zaščito. Levo od konjenika je naslikana brv in popotnik s culo na rami na poti do zunanje kapele v obrambnem stolpu (slika 1).

Bogdan Badovinac, Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, Območna enota Celje

V sredini v zgornjem robu je trak z napisom: CARTUSIA SEITZENSIS IN STYRIA:8 (Zajčja) Žička kartuzija na Štajerskem. V desnem kotu zgoraj je podoba sv. Janeza Krstnika, zaščitnika kartuzije. Pod njim je napis v latinščini: 1. APPARITIO S: (SANCTI) IOANNIS BAPT:(ISTAE) IN SCAPULARI CARTUSIANO: Prikazanje sv. Janeza Krstnika v kartuzijanskem škapulirju. Na levi spod-nji strani je naslikan sedeči Otokar z zajcem v naročju. Pod njim je napis: 2. SOMNUS OTTOCHARI FUNDATORIS: (Spanje) Sanje ustanovitelja Otokarja. Na spodnjem delu je kartuša z napisi, v sredini ovalni grb s krono. Grb Žičke kartuzije je razdeljen na polovici. V desni je velika rdeča črka S. Leva polovica grba je razdeljena na segmente, s sredinskim v beli barvi, spodnjim in zgornjim pa v rdeči barvi. V levem in desnem delu kartuše je v latinščini opis legende o dogodku, ki je botroval nastanku Žičke kartuzije. Ob grbu samostana Žičke kartuzije je v poljih levo in desno pojasnilo namembnosti oštevilčenih stavb in prostorov. Tekst legende na levi strani: A(NNO) DOMINI.1151. OTTOCHARUS STYRIAE MARCHIO VENA˝TUM EGRESS(US), VIDIT PRAESTANTE(M) ALBA CERVA(M) CUR˝RENTE(M), QUAE AD LOCU(M) FUTURAE CARTUSIAE PERVENIENS STETIT, ET DIS-PARUIT, OBSTUPEFACT(US), PRIN˝CEPS EX EQUO DESCENDIT, COGITABUND(US), SUB ARBORE QUIE˝VIT, ET SUAVITER OBDORMIVIT ET ECCE VIDET VENIENTE(M) AD SE HOMINE(M) AUGUSTU(M) LUCIDU(M) NIVEO HABITU INDUTU(M). QUIS CARTUSIA(M) ET HISCE 3--LLO -- IEN -- OT ------SAINE!(SALVE) EGO IOA(N)E(S) BAPT(ISTA), FILI(US) ZAC/CARIAE/ EX: Leta Gospodovega 1151, ko se je štajerski mejni grof Otokar vračal z lova, je videl pred seboj stoječega belega jelena, ki se je ustavil na mestu bodoče kartuzije in izginil; začudeni knez je razjahal, legel pod drevo in sladko zaspal. Zagledal je častitljivega človek, oblečenega v snežno belo obleko (habit). Ta kartuzija in ... Jaz, Janez Krstnik, sin Zaharijev … Nadaljevanje teksta legende na desni strani: VOLUNTATE DEI TIBI NUNTIO, UT IN MEMORIA(M) MEI CEDIFICES HOC IN LOCO CARTUSIA(M), DIXIT, ET IN COELU(UM) GLORIOS(US ali E), REDIIT. VENA-TORES IN TER(R)I(S) CORNIB(US), O(MN)IA VENTILABANT QUORU(M) CLAMORIB(US) EXCIT(IT) E LATIBULO / LEP(US), IN SINU(M) MARCHIONIS CONFUGIT, QUI EVIGI-LANS EUN˝DE(M) MOX APPREHENDIT ET SCLAVONICE EXCLAMAVIT SEITZ. SEITZ. UNDE IBIDE(M) CARTU(SI)A(M) FUNDAVIT---- ET AC NOME(N) IMPOSUIT SEITZ QUAE PLENE EXSTRUCTA EST A(NNO) 1165 … ti po Božji volji sporočam, da v moj spomin odstopiš ta kraj za kartuzijo. To je rekel in se slavno vrnil v nebesa. Lovci na zemlji so trobili z vsemi rogovi. Zajec se je zaradi njihovega hrupa prebudil in iz skrivališča zbežal h grofu. Zbudil se je, in zaklical po slovensko: zajc, zajc. Prav tam je ustanovil kartuzijo ... jo poimenoval zajc (žiče), ki je bila popolnoma zgrajena leta 1165. V kartuši levo ob grbu so s številkami označene naslednje stavbe: 3. ECCLESIA. 4. CELLU(M) B(EATAE) V(IRGINIS) M(ARIAE) LAU˝RET(TANENSIS). 5. SACELL(UM) S(ANCTI) ANTO-NII. 6. PARVU(M) CLAUSTRU(M). 7. MAIUS CLAUS˝TRU(M). 8. PRAELATURA. 9. BIBLIO-THECA. 10. REFECTOR(IUM). 11. CELEAE FRATRU(M). 12. PROCURA(T)URA. (13). CELLA COADIUTOR(IS). V kartuši desno od grba so v nadaljevanju s številkami označene naslednje stavbe: 14. CUBIC(ULA) HOSPIT(UM). 15. CELLARIA. 16. CULINA CONVENT(UI). 17. CULINA FAMILIAE. 18. PHARMACOPOL(A)-? 19. GR(AN)ARIA. 20. OFFICINAE OPIFICU(M). 21 HORTUS COLLOQ(IUM) AESTIVAL(IS). 22. TURRES ANG(UL)AR(UM). (23. H)ORTUS CONVENT(UI). 24. HOR(TUS) COM(M)UNIS. 25 …: 3. cerkev, 4. Lavretanska kapela blažene device Marije, 5. kapela sv. Antona, 6. malo samostansko dvorišče, 7. veliko samostansko dvorišče, 8. prelatura, 9. knjižnica, 10. refektorij – obednica, 11. meniške celice – sobe bratov, 12. prokuratura, 13. soba pomočnika, 14. sobe za goste, 15. vinske kleti, 16. samostanska kuhinja, 17. skupna (družinska) kuhinja, 18. apoteka,19. žitnica – kašča, 20. delavnice mojstrov, 21. poletni vrt za pogovore in sprehode, 22. vogalni stolpi, 23. samostanski vrt, 24. skupni vrt, 25. mlin.Barvna veduta ima velik pomen za poznavanje stavbne zgodovine kartuzije. Označene in poimenovane stavbe so nam v pomoč pri strokovnem delu, kjer smo vpeljali sistem istovrstnega poimenovanja stavb in prostorov9 (slika 2). Veduto iz Klosterneuburga primerjam z grafično veduto, ki jo je Marijan Zadnikar ovrednotil kot doslej najbolj točno upodobitev kompleksa stavb v Zgornjem samostanu in bi lahko bila predloga tudi oljni sliki. Gre za grafiko, objavljeno v Maisons de l´Odre des Chartreux, IV, Parkminster 191910 (slika 3).

118


119


Obe upodobitvi dokumentirata stanje po zadnjih večjih baročnih pozidavah po letu 1682, ko se je zaključil šeststoletni stavbni in gradbeni razvoj Zgornjega samostana, ki je po letu 1782 z ukinitvijo začel nezadržno propadati.11 Celotno samostansko naselbino obe veduti kažeta iz južne smeri iz istega močno dvignjenega očišča. Grafika anonimnega avtorja prikazuje naselbino trikotne tlorisne zasnove v bolj natančnem medseboj-nem razmerju v prostorski razporeditvi stavb. Samostan je na grafičnem listu postavljen v pokrajino, ki je z vseh strani obdana s hribi, tako da tudi z visokega stojišča ni mogoče videti bližnjega naselja. Tudi posamezne stavbe na obeh upodobitvah se razlikujejo po natančnosti zapisa. Ko primerjamo upodo-bitev najimenitnejše stavbe v Žički kartuziji,12 opazimo, da je cerkev (3) na grafičnem listu, v nasprutju z barvnimi vedutami, v proporcih in v prostoru pravilneje podana. Na južni strani ima upodobljene opornike, streha Otokarjeve kapele je vpeta v streho ladje in kornega zaključka. Na obeh upodobitvah sta naslikani južni stranski baročni kapeli s pultasto streho, zgrajeni leta 1640, v času priorja Janeza Ser-pentina (1639–1663). Takrat sta bila v baročni kapeli iz dvonadstropne Otokarjeve kapele prenesena in posvečena oltarja sv. Ane in vseh svetnikov.13 Obe upodobitvi imata cerkveni strešni stolpič s čebulasto streho s podstavkom iz leta 1633, ki je bil ponovno krit s pločevino leta 1682.14 Znano je, da je bil leta 1733 na cerkvi na novo zgrajen strešni stolpič s pločevinasto čebulasto laternasto streho,15 kakršnega kaže akvarel Georgiusa Schwengla iz leta 175116 (slika 4). Tudi pokopališka kapela (4), (letnica 1469 na sončni uri), poimenovana Lavretanska kapela Blažene device Marije, v kateri je bil 1758 vnovič posvečen oltar Loretanske Matere božje,17 ima na grafiki bolj verodostojno upodobljena gotska okna, medtem ko ima streha na obeh vedutah podobno obliko stožčaste strehe s polnimi čopi. Na grafiki je k vhodu kapele prislonjena pravokotno postavljena stavba, ki se stika s poslopjem apoteke. Tudi dozidek na vzhodni strani kapele, dobro viden na barvni veduti, bo treba arheološko raziskati. Označena lokacija kapele sv. Antona (5) v severnem delu malega križnega hodnika,18 glede na ohran-jene nečlenjene obodne zidove podolžnega pravokotnega prostora, ustreza namembnosti bolniške kapele – infirmariuma, v kateri je bil leta 1651 posvečen oltar Brezmadežnega spočetja Device Marije.19 Prostori s prehodi iz bolniške kapele v stari refektorij in nato v samostansko kuhinjo so kakor ves cenobični del zgornje hiše ohranjeni v obodnih zidovih, ki zdaj rapidno propadajo. Leta 1717 so blizu bolniške kapele opremili nov refektorij (10).20 Na obravnavanih vedutah ni bistvenih razlik v upodabljanju malega križnega hodnika (6), katerega vzhodni trakt se nadaljuje s pokritim hodnikom do velikega križnega hodnika. Severni trakt sestavljata arkadni hodnik in bolniška kapela sv. Antona, zahodnega pa stari refektorij in samostanska kuhinja. Do-kumenti baročnih nadzidav so ohranjeni le v nastavkih opečnih obokov v kleteh – nekdanjih pritličjih romanskih in kasnejših, adaptiranih gotskih prostorov. Tudi stavbe v velikem križnem hodniku (7) so zdaj, razen pokopališke kapele, v ruševinah. Izstopajoče hišice, ki so pravokotno vkomponirane v arkadni hodnik, verjetno predstavljajo dvojne celice. Večja, v dvorišče izstopajoča stavba v jugovzhodnem vogalu arkadnega hodnika, ob povezovalnem hodniku z malim križnim hodnikom in obednico, bi lahko bil lavatorium, saj so si morali menihi pred jedjo in po njej obvezno umiti roke (slika 5). Domnevo, da je bila tu kapela z vodnjakom umivalnikom, bodo potrdila ali ovrgla arheološka izkopavanja. Na obeh upodobitvah je razporeditev stavb podobna, s tem da barvna veduta prikazuje parkovno ureditev v obzidanih vrtovih in prehode med njimi. Zdaj podrta stavba prelature (8)21 je skupaj s knjižnico (9) (skriptorijem?) sestavljala južni trakt velikega križnega hodnika. Stavba je na obeh vedutah upodobljena podobno, le da je na grafiki nadstrešni stolpič postavljen na sleme, na barvni sliki pa na južno strešino. Strešni stolpič s pločevinasto čebulasto streho s podstavkom je podobne oblike kot streha strešnega stolpiča na cerkvi. Podolžna pravokotna okna so na barvni veduti bolj poudarjena in shematizirana kot vsa druga naslikana okna. Staro romansko in v gotiki preurejeno vrhkletno stavbo22 so leta 1717 preuredili v novi refektorij (10).23 Ob tem so verjetno opremili tudi sosednje sobe za brate – konverze (11). Vprašanje je, ali so bratje kon-verzi tu stanovali že ob prihodu iz spodnje hiše konec 15. stoletja. Od te stavbe, ki je bila vidna še do leta 1835,24 je ostal le del južne stene, prizidane k zahodni steni cerkve, s fasadnim opornikom, podhodom, v baroku predelanim gotskim oknom, sredinskim kletnim gotskim obokom in gotskimi portali v obeh vinskih kleteh (15) (slika 6).

Obe veduti pravilno nakazujeta povezavo stavbe s stolpom nad vodo, desno od glavnega vhoda (26), in zalom stavbe z vhodom v arkadni hodnik prokurature. Grafična upodobitev je tudi v segmentu stika južne fasadne stene obednice z zahodno steno cerkve verodostojnejša. Nasproti vhoda v samostan stoji stavba prokurature (12), kjer je bila pisarna oskrbnika kartuzije, ki je skrbel za zunanje zadeve in gospo-darstvo samostana.25 Grafika, ki bolj natančno podaja podobo ohranjenega gotskega visokopritličnega poslopja, nakazuje večji pomolni okni nad vhodom in desno od njega. To se je potrdilo pri sondiranju fasadnih ometov leta 2002, ko so bile na teh mestih odkrite sledi konzol, ki nakazujejo večji izzidek nad portalom in desno od njega. Stavba, kjer je bila v nadstropju soba za pomočnika (13), ki je skrbel za goste samostana,26 in v pritličju skupna (družinska) kuhinja (14), danes ni ohranjena. Tu je bilo še leta 1810 začasno župnišče za špitalskega župnika,27 ki je že leta 1812 stanoval v stavbi prokurature.28 Stavbi se razlikujeta le v upodobitvi južnega dela in strešnega stolpiča. Na grafiki je strešni stolpiček enake oblike kot na strehi cerkve in kapele sv. Antona. Zatrepna fasada se ne navezuje na rondel. Na barvni veduti je v tlorisu kvadratni strešni stolpič naslikan s piramidasto streho, med stavbo in rondelom je v obrambnem obzidju pokrit povezovalni hodnik. Na barvni veduti so kot sobe za goste (14) označene vse stanovanjske stavbe v južnem delu samostana ob potoku Soješka voda. Tu so konec 17. stoletja gostje že spali v novih poslopjih.29 Velika baročna stavba, med rondelom in glavnim vhodom, je bila leta 1682 na novo postavljena ob obzidje.30 Glavni vhod s portalom, kamnitim mostom in kipi Franca Krištofa Reissa na njem (26) je bil preob-likovan med letoma 1684 in 1687.31 Vhod v samostan obe veduti prikazujeta kot posebno stavbo s pomolnim stolpičem nad rustikalno oblikovanim portalom in lesenim mostom. Ker na nobeni od vedut ni upodobljen monumentalni vhod, sklepam, da je grafika nastala kmalu po letu 1682, a že pred letom 1687. Barvna veduta pa je nastala po predlogi zgoraj omenjene grafike. Rondel, velika baročna stavba z vhodom in stolp nad vodo so zdaj podrti. Desno od vhoda do stolpa nad vodo so neraziskani ostanki zidov v strokovni literaturi neomenjene gotske stavbe. Od stolpa nad vodo do južnega polkrožnega obrambnega stolpa je bil le povezovalni arkadni hodnik, prislonjen ob obrambno obzidje s strelnimi linami. Ta segment je pravilno povzet na grafiki. Na barvni veduti so v obzidju namesto lin narisana pravokotna okna v pritličju in nadstropju. Levo in desno sta na obeh up-odobitvah vidna izzidka stranišč na štrbunk. Tudi spodnje baročno poslopje32 je v osemdesetih letih 17. stoletja doživelo ponovno predelavo.33 Tudi tukaj je grafika natančnejša od barvne vedute. Na južni fasadi manjka le eno od osmih oken.34 Spodnje baročno poslopje ima na barvni sliki preveliko število oken, ki v resnici niso v osi s spodnjimi manjšimi petimi kletnimi okni. V pritličju sta dve obokani vinski kleti (15). Nižje in kratko sleme stavbe med t. i. “gotsko hišo” in južnim polkrožnim obrambnim stolpom bi lahko na obeh upodobitvah predstavljal nadstrešek nad vhodom v stolp. Na barvni veduti je samostanska kuhinja (16) označena kot dolg objekt zahodnega trakta malega križnega hodnika in dvorišča, omejenega s stavbo bolniške kapele na jugu, povezovalnega hodnika na vzhodu in prelaturo s knjižnico na severu. Tudi na grafiki je desni del trakta višji in širši, saj pod svojo streho krije še prostor refektorija, ki so ga v 17. stoletju nadzidali nad starim, predelanim v klet.35 Barvna veduta nam prvič pokaže točno lokacijo apoteke (18), za katero ohranjeni podatki sporočajo, da je za priorja Janeza Serpentina (1639–1663) ...“menih Klavdij Guijot … v kartuziji uredil lekarno, za katero je rečeno, da samostan podobne še ni imel”.36 Leta 1774 je lekarna v samostanu ohranila pravico javnosti in jo v uradnem seznamu javnih lekarn na Štajerskem najdemo tudi še v letu 1775.37 Na veduti iz Klosterneuburga je poslopje lekarne upodobljeno kot visokopritlična, na grafiki kot enonadstropna stavba. Iz časa priorja Serpentina je verjetno tudi renesančni skledasti vodnjak na dvorišču.38 Prav tako je na grafiki bolj natančno upodobljena ohranjena stavba žitnice (19), ki se omenja v popisu leta 1572.39 Južna fasada kašče kaže skoraj nespremenjen raster manjših nadstropnih oken in vhode v pritlične prostore delavnic (20). Barvna veduta prikazuje preveliko število manjših oken v nadstropju in neobstoječa kletna okna v pritličju. Med lekarno in velikim severnim stolpom je označen poletni vrt za pogovore in sprehode (21), s shojeno potjo. Na dvorišču z lekarno in vodnjakom je upodobljen kartuzijanski menih, ki je verjetno namenjen proti temu vrtu. Drugi menih je upodobljen pri sprehodu po samostanskem vrtu (23) znotraj velikega

120


121


križnega hodnika, v katerem je pokopališka kapela. Na vrtu ni označenih grobov. Tretji menih ureja vrtni nasad v dvorišču svoje celice. Upodobljeni menihi pri svojih vsakdanjih opravilih, v nasprotju z grafiko, ponazarjajo življenje v naseljeni kartuziji. Razmerje med velikostjo in obliko vogalnih stolpov (22) na grafičnem listu bolj ustreza dejanskemu stanju v naravi. Izjema je Ribji stolp ob Otokarjevi kapeli, ki je v primerjavi z jugovzhodnim stolpom nesorazmerno pomanjšan. Obe upodobitvi v jugovzhodnem stolpu prikazujeta vhod v zunanjo kapelo Kristusovega trpljenja iz prve polovice 17. stoletja.40 Ta in Ribji stolp, ki sta najstarejša po nastanku, imata na grafiki upodobljeni pomolni nadstropji, ki sta se ohranili vsaj do leta 1840.41 Na južni fasadi stolpa nad vodo je na grafiki narisana letnica 1165. Domnevam, da je pod njo naslikan prizor z ležečim Otokarjem III. in ob njem stoječim Janezom Krstnikom, kar lahko razberemo s Schwenglovega akva-rela42 (slika 4). Na barvni veduti sta na tem mestu naslikani dve slepi okni. Veliki severni okrogli stolp, datiran z letnico 1538 na prekladi pomolnega okna,43 je na grafiki nesorazmerno povečan, na barvni veduti pa je ustrezen in ima šablonsko razporejena okna in line. Strelne line v vzhodnem obzidju so na grafiki prikazane kot manjša pravokotna okenca, na barvni sliki pa kot polkrožno zaključena okna. Na nobeni od vedut ni upodobljenega lesenega obrambnega hodnika, ki je v času nastanka obeh slik verjetno v celoti propadel.44 Obrambni hodnik na Stegenškovi risbi je verjetno rekonstruiran na podlagi razporeditev tramovnic v zidovih.45 Zanimiv je prikaz skupnega vrta (24) na vhodnem platoju pred obzidjem. Na barvni veduti sta prikazana dva obzidana vrtova s parkovno ureditvijo, ki je oblikovno drugačna kot na vrtovih meniških celic. Od zidov, s katerim so bili leta 1735 ograjeni vrtovi, je zdaj ohranjen le zunanji zid ob levem bregu potoka Žičnice. Na nobeni od upodobitev ni rastlinjaka (Glashaus), ki je bil z velikimi stroški postavljen leta 1735.46 Na grafični upodobitvi je skupni vrt narisan le kot manjši vrt z nizko ograjo in brez rastlin. Rastlin tudi ni na vrtovih meniških celic. Najnatančneje pa vrt s pravokotnimi gredicami prikazuje Schwenglov akvarel.47 Preprosto pravokotniško razmestitev vrta smo našli ob geofizikalnih raziskavah in preverili z arheološkim izkopom.48 Upodobitev mlina (25) z višjim slemenom od velikega baročnega je na obeh vedutah skoraj identična. Na grafiki sta prikazani dve mlinski kolesi, na barvni veduti je naslikan le eden. Obe upodobitvi sta neprecenljiva dokumenta o podobi samostanskih stavb in njihovih medsebojnih razmerjih z odprtimi prostori v kompleksu Zgornje hiše pred usodnim letom 1782. Vedutni podobi se med seboj dopolnjujeta. Grafična veduta je natančnejša, saj ji to omogoča sama tehnika, barvna veduta pa je pomembna zaradi deskripcije stavb in prostorov. V razstavnem katalogu Avstrija v času cesarja Jožefa II. je barvna upodobitev žičkega samostana datirana okoli leta 1785, torej tri leta po njegovem razpustu .49 To je malo verjetno, saj bi bil v tem primeru ob Otokarjevi kapeli upodobljen južni prizidek nove zakristije, ki je bil zgrajen po ukinitvi samostana, ko so samostanske cerkve postale župne in so jih priredili za potrebe novega bogoslužja.50 Samostan je po letu 1782 postal politično-vojaški okraj in gospodarskoupravno središče nekdanjega kartuzijanskega zemljišča. Spremenila se je namembnost prostorov in s tem tudi poimenovanje stavb.51 Celice menihov so že bile v ruševinah, ker so po požaru leta 1786 v Konjicah njihovo stavbno gradivo uporabili za ob-novo hiš.52

Na podlagi primerjav med obema upodobitvama in dostopnih virov lahko zaključimo, da grafična ve-duta prikazuje podobo samostana po večjih obnovitvenih gradbenih delih po letu 1682, a pred prenovo vhodnega dela v letu 1687. Domnevam, da je barvna veduta nastala po zgoraj omenjeni grafični predlogi med letoma 1717 in 1733. Starejša letnica nastanka barvne vedute je opredeljena z označitvijo stavbe na novo opremljenega refektorija, mlajša pa s podatkom o novo zgrajenem strešnem stolpiču cerkve.53

Namen članka je bil predstaviti kompleks samostana z vsemi poimenovanji stavb in prostorov ob prim-erjavi dveh baročnih upodobitev in vzporedno z novimi odkritji v času prenove kartuzije. Na podlagi arhivskih podatkov v literaturi sem upodobitvi tudi na novo datiral.

Opombe 1 Marijan Zadnikar, Srednjeveška arhitektura kartuzijanov in slovenske kartuzije, Ljubljana 1972, str. 156–170.2 Jože Mlinarič, Kartuzija Pleterje, 1403–1595, Pleterje 1982, barvna priloga 4.3 Karl Gutkas, v: Ősterreich zur Zeit Kaisers Josephs II., Mitregent Kaiserin Maria Theresias, Kaiser und Landesfürst, Niederöster-

reichische Landesausstellung, Stift Melk 1980, št. kat. 989, slika str. 535. Veduta je datirana okoli leta 1785. Menim, da je nastala med letoma 1717 in 1733.

4 Po posredovanju Gorazda Živkoviča nam je ogled originala v samostanu Klosterneuburg ter dovoljenje za fotografiranje in objavo slike omogočil ddr. Floridus Röhring Can. Reg. Avtorica fotografije je Inge Kitlitschka.

5 Nataša Golob, Srednjeveški rokopisi iz Žičke kartuzije (1160–1560), Narodna galerija, Ljubljana 2006.6 Friederike Klos, v: Kunst des Heilens, Aus der Geschichte der Medizin und Pharmazie, rk. Niederösterreichische Landesausstellung,

Karthause Gaming 1991, kat. št. 1. 07, str. 126, slika str. 126. Datacija upodobitve Kartuzije Žiče med letoma 1740 in 1760 je po mojem mnenju napačna. Datiram jo v čas med letoma 1717 in 1733.

7 Jože Mlinarič, Kartuziji Žiče in Jurklošter, Žička kartuzija ok. 1160–1782, Jurkloštrska kartuzija ok. 1170–1595, Maribor 1991, str. 42–43. Beremund je s svojimi tovariši vodil gradnjo samostana iz župnišča v Konjicah (prim. Zadnikar 1972 (op. 1), str. 142.

8 Zahvaljujem se patru Marjanu Vogrinu iz minoritskega samostana v Piranu za razbiranje teksta in slovenski prevod iz latinščine.9 Pod št. 1 je opredeljeno Območje Žičke kartuzije (EŠD 7929), pod št. 2 Zgornji samostan Žičke kartuzije v Starih Slemenah (EŠD 692),

pod št. 3 cerkev sv. Janeza Krstnika itd. …10 Zadnikar 1972 (op. 1), str. 159–160.11 Avguštin Stegenšek, Umetniški spomeniki lavantinske škofije, 2, Konjiška dekanija, Maribor, samozaložba 1909, str. 199; Mlinarič 1991

(op. 7), str. 400–401.12 Z besedo Žička kartuzija opredeljujemo območje z ohranjeno prvotno prostorsko zasnovo kartuzijanskega samostana z Zgornjo hišo v

Starih Slemenah, nepozidano Dolino Sv. Janeza Krstnika z ribniki in Spodnjo hišo v Špitaliču pri Slovenskih Konjicah.13 Stegenšek 1909 (op. 11), str. 189, 194.14 Mlinarič 1991 (op. 7), str. 417. Zgolj na grafiki je vidna še nova stolpna ura iz leta 1726.15 Mlinarič 1991 (op. 7), str. 427.16 Mlinarič 1991 (op. 7), str. 427; Zadnikar 1972 (op. 1), str. 161.17 Stegenšek 1909 (op. 11), str. 198; Sergej Vrišer, Baročno kiparstvo na slovenskem Štajerskem, Ljubljana 1992, str. 163–164. Leta 1485

je bil tukaj že oltar Vseh svetnikov. Zadnikar 1972 (op. 1), str. 155; Stegenšek 1909 (op. 11), str. 200.18 Puščavnik in oče menihov Anton Veliki je med drugim zavetnik proti boleznim, še posebej proti kugi in drugim kužnim boleznim. Vera

Schauber, Svetniki in godovni zavetniki, Ljubljana 1995, str. 23, 25.19 Stegenšek 1909 (op. 11), str. 196; Mlinarič 1991 (op. 7), str. 417.20 Stegenšek 1909 (op. 11), str. 196; Mlinarič 1991 (op. 7), str. 417.21 Celica priorja, ki je imel v Žički kartuziji tudi naziv prelata – predstojnika. Za posredovani podatek se zahvaljujem pleterskemu priorju

Jožefu Mariji Davidu.22 Na ohranjeni severni fasadi, h kateri je bila kasneje prislonjena stavba prokurature (12), so bili pri delnih raziskavah leta 2001 odkriti ro-

manski ometi s horizontalnimi včrtanimi fugami in vrhnji glajeni gotski ometi. Robert Peskar ugotavlja, da gre za kontinuirano obdobje gradnje. Robert Peskar, Arhitektura in arhitekturna plastika okoli leta 1400 v Sloveniji, doktorska disertacija, Ljubljana 2005, str. 382. Podobni ometi so ohranjeni na zahodni steni v kleti iste stavbe.

23 Stegenšek 1909 (op. 11), str. 196; Mlinarič 1991 (op. 7), str. 417.24 Stegenšek 1909 (op. 11), str. 196.25 Podatek o vlogi prokuratorja v kartuziji je posredoval pleterski prior Jožef Marija David.26 Podatek o vlogi koadjutorja v kartuziji je posredoval pleterski prior Jožef Marija David.27 Stegenšek 1909 (op. 11), str. 207.28 Ivan Zelko, Žička kartuzija, Ljubljana 1984, str. 40; Peskar 2005 (op. 22), str. 282.29 Mlinarič 1991 (op. 7), str. 409.30 Stegenšek 1909 (op. 11), str. 199.31 Stegenšek 1909 (op. 11), str. 200–201; Mlinarič 1991 (op. 7), str. 400–401; Vrišer 1992 (op. 17), str. 227.32 V nadstropju vzhodnega trakta je od 23. junija 2007 stalna razstava “Kulturna dediščina Žičke kartuzije” avtorice Nataše Golob.33 Ta se na zunanjščini kaže z novimi kamnitimi okenskimi okvirji z mrežami, za katere je leta 1692 priorju Schillerju za izdelavo izdal račun

graški meščan in ključar Baltazar Gründtler. Mlinarič 1991 (op. 7), str. 402.34 Starejše in manjše okno shrambe je imelo le narisan okvir velikega baročnega okna, kar je bilo spregledano. To okno je ob zalomu stavbe,

katere izluščeno gotsko osnovo delovno poimenujemo “gotska hiša”.35 Zadnikar 1972 (op. 1), str. 214.36 Mlinarič 1991 (op. 7), str. 390–391; Zelko 1984 (op. 28), str. 33.37 Zelko 1984 (op. 28), str. 34.38 Stegenšek 1909 (op. 10), str. 199–200.39 Mlinarič 1991 (op. 7), str. 295.40 Zelko 1984 (op. 28), str. 37.41 Zadnikar 1972 (op. 1), slika na str. 162.42 Zadnikar 1972 (op. 1), slika na str. 161.43 Bogdan Badovinac, Stare Slemene, Varstvo spomenikov, 34, Poročila, Ljubljana 1992, str. 303.44 Mlinarič 1991 (op. 7), str. 290, 300.

122


123


45 Stegenšek 1909 (op. 11), str. 203.46 Stegenšek 1909 (op. 11), str. 203; Mlinarič 1991 (op. 7), str. 427.47 Zadnikar 1972 (op. 1), slika str. 161.48 Branko Mušič, Poročilo o geofizikalnih raziskavah na lokaciji Žički samostan, Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za

arheologijo, 2000. Alenka Kolšek, Konservatorska izhodišča s pogoji za ureditev zeliščnega vrta na kompleksu Žičke kartuzije, Zavod za varstvo naravne in kulturne dediščine Celje, 2001.

49 Gutkas 1980 (op. 3), str. 353.50 Peskar 2005 (op. 22), str. 278.51 Zelko 1984 (op. 28), str. 39–45.52 Zelko 1984 (op. 28), str. 45.53 Mlinarič 1991 (op. 7), str. 427; Stegenšek 1909 (op. 11), str. 196.

1. Neznan avtor, Zgornji samostan Žičke kartuzije, 1717–1733, Nr. GM 466, Stift Klosterneuburg

1. Unknown artist, Upper Monastery of Žiče Charterhouse, oil on canvas, 1717–1733, No. GM 466, Stift Klosterneuburg

124


125


2. Poimenovanje stavb in prostorov v zgornjem samostanu: 3 cerkev sv. Janeza Krstnika, 4 pokopališka kapela, 5 kapela sv. Antona, 6 mali križni hodnik, 7 veliki križni hodnik, 8 prelatura, 9 knjižnica, 10 refektorij, 11 celice za brate, 12 prokuratura, 13 soba pomočnika, 14 sobe za goste, 15 vinske kleti, 16 samostanska kuhinja, 17 skupna družinska kuhinja, 18 apoteka, 19 kašča, 20 delavnice, 21 poletni vrt za sprehode in pogovore, 22 obrambni stolpi in obzidje, 23 samostanski vrt, 24 skupni vrt, 25 mlin, 26 vhod v samostan, 27 zahodna gospodarska objekta, 28 rastlinjak, 29 Gastuž, 30 pristava, 31 spomenik NOB (načrt: Ivo Gričar, ZVKDS OE Celje)

2. Naming of buildings and spaces in the Upper Monastery: 3 the Church of St. John the Baptist, 4 cemetery chapel, 5 Chapel of St. Anthony, 6 small cloister, 7 large cloister, 8 prelature, 9 library, 10 refectory, 11 monks’ cells, 12 procura-tor’s office, 13 assistant’s room, 14 guest rooms, 15 wine cellars, 16 monastery kitchen, 17 common family kitchen, 18 apothecary, 19 granary, 20 workshops, 21 summer garden for conversation and walks, 22 defensive towers and walls, 23 monastery garden, 24 common garden, 25 mill, 26 monastery entrance, 27 western commercial building, 28 greenhouse, 29 Gastuž restaurant, 30 farm, 31 NOB monument (plan: Ivo Gričar, Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Celje Regional Unit)

3. Neznan avtor, Zgornji samostan Žičke kartuzije, bakrorez, 1682–1687, Maisons de l’ Ordre des Chartreux, IV, MS 17086, Parkminster, 1919

3. Unknown artist, Upper Monastery of Žiče Charterhouse, copper engraving, 1682–1687, Maisons de l’ Ordre des Chartreux, IV, MS 17086, Parkminster, 1919

126


127


4. Georgius Schwengel, Zgornji samostan Žičke kartuzije, akvarel, 1751, MS 17086, Britanski muzej, London

4. Georgius Schwengel, Upper Monastery of Žiče Charterhouse, water colour, 1751, MS 17086, British Museum, London

5. Označena lokacija kapele z umivalnikom (po “Maisons” IV, MS 17086)

5. Indicated location of chapel with washbasin (after “Maisons” IV, MS 17086)

128


129


6. Carl Haas, Južna stran stavbe novega refektorija in prostorov bratov konverzov, risba, 1852, LAG

6. Carl Haas, Southern side of the building of the new refectory and rooms for the lay brothers, drawing, 1852, LAG Bogdan Badovinac, Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Celje Regional Unit

Bogdan Badovinac

The Communicative Quality of a Little-Known Veduta of the Upper Monastery of the Žiče CharterhouseKey words: Stare Slemene, Upper Monastery of Žiče Charterhouse, colour veduta, print, new dating, naming of buildings and spaces, series of vedutas, Klosterneuburg monastery

The most comprehensive review of depictions of the Upper Monastery of Žiče Charterhouse was pub-lished by the leading expert on the architecture of the Carthusians in Slovenia, Marijan Zadnikar.1 To those landscape depictions already known Jože Mlinarič added a veduta of the Upper Monastery, which was until that time unknown to Slovenian researchers of Carthusian architecture and art.2 The repro-duced painting has been trimmed and unclearly printed, without an indication of where it is located, and is entitled “View of the Žiče Charterhouse in the 18th century (oil on canvas)”. More regarding the depiction and its location can be gleaned from the catalogue of the Lower Styrian provincial exhibition Austria during the time of Emperor Joseph II.3 My colleague Ms. Alenka Kolšek and I viewed the veduta in 1998 in the monastery of the Augustinian canons at Klosterneuburg near Vienna, since we took the view that the painting, with its numbered buildings and explanatory text on the purpose of the buildings represented an important source in understanding the construction history and an aid in the further restoration of buildings and spaces in the upper house of the monastery.4 During the preparations for the exhibition on medieval manuscripts from the Žiče Charterhouse, I brought the attention of author Nataša Golob to the veduta, and she gladly included it in the exhibition and catalogue.5

We do not know the date or purpose of the commissioning and production of the series of Charterhouse vedutas, which were originally owned by the Charterhouse of Mauerbach. The series comprises 35 paintings. Friederike Klos asserts that the vedutas were produced between 1740 and 1760.6 The series is important owing to its topographical value, since the depicted views accord with the complexes that still stand today. This designation also applies to the depiction of buildings in the complex of the Žiče Charterhouse Upper Monastery, but not to the actual dating of the painting, which I shall attempt to present below.Like all the paintings in the series of Charterhouse vedutas kept at the museum of Klosterneuburg Mon-astery, the painting of the Upper Monastery of the Žiče Charterhouse shows in axonometric projection from the southeast the entire area within the walls and the immediate surroundings, with numbered buildings and spaces named by purpose in the lower middle part of the title panel alongside a description of the legend relating the founding of the monastery. Next to the buildings is an illustrated caption on the founding of the Charterhouse. In the lower left part of the painting, next to a horse sits Otokar III with a hare in his lap, looking diagonally to the upper right corner at the image of St. John the Baptist. Beneath the saint clothed in a Carthusian scapular, who ordered Otokar to build a Carthusian monas-tery at this location, is the scene of hunting a white hind. Behind Otokar on a horse and behind a dog, the background shows a large city, hinting at another variation on the legend, where Otokar supposedly started building a monastery in Konjice.7 In front of the monastery entrance there is a horseman with

130


131


three hunting hounds pursuing the hare, which has already sought protection with Otokar. To the left of the horseman is a footbridge and a wayfarer with a bundle on his shoulder heading to the outer chapel in the defensive tower (Figure 1).The upper margin in the middle bears a band inscribed: CARTUSIA SEITZENSIS IN STYRIA:8 (Zajčja) Žiče Charterhouse in Styria [transl. note: Zajčja = ‘of a hare’]. The upper right corner bears the image of St. John the Baptist, protector of the Charterhouse. Beneath him there is a Latin inscription: 1. APPARITIO S: (SANCTI) IOANNIS BAPT:(ISTAE) IN SCAPULARI CARTUSIANO: Presenta-tion of St. John the Baptist in a Carthusian scapular. Otokar is depicted in the lower left section seated with a hare in his lap. Beneath him there is the inscription: 2. SOMNUS OTTOCHARI FUNDA-TORIS: (Sleep) Dream of founder Otokar. In the lower section there is a cartouche with inscriptions, and in the middle an oval arm with a crown. The arm of the Žiče Charterhouse is split in half. On the right there is a large red letter S. The left half of the arm is divided into sections, with the middle in white and the lower and upper sections in red. In the left and right sections of the cartouche there is a description in Latin of the legend of the event that led to the founding of the Žiče Charterhouse. By the arm of the Žiče Charterhouse monastery, in the left and right fields there is an explanation of the purpose of the numbered buildings and spaces. On the left the legend reads: A(NNO) DOMINI.1151. OTTOCHARUS STYRIAE MARCHIO VENA˝TUM EGRESS(US), VIDIT PRAESTANTE(M) ALBA CERVA(M) CUR˝RENTE(M), QUAE AD LOCU(M) FUTURAE CARTUSIAE PERVE-NIENS STETIT, ET DISPARUIT, OBSTUPEFACT(US), PRIN˝CEPS EX EQUO DESCENDIT, COGITABUND(US), SUB ARBORE QUIE˝VIT, ET SUAVITER OBDORMIVIT ET ECCE VIDET VENIENTE(M) AD SE HOMINE(M) AUGUSTU(M) LUCIDU(M) NIVEO HABITU INDUTU(M). QUIS CARTUSIA(M) ET HISCE 3--LLO -- IEN -- OT ------SAINE!(SALVE) EGO IOA(N)E(S) BAPT(ISTA), FILI(US) ZAC/CARIAE/ EX: In the year of Our Lord 1151, when the Styrian Margrave Otokar returned from hunting, he saw standing before him a white deer, which halted at the location of the future Charterhouse and disappeared; the prince in wonder dismounted, lay beneath a tree and fell into a sweet sleep. He saw a venerable man dressed in a snow-white habit. This Charterhouse and … I, John the Baptist, son of Zachariah … The text of the legend continues on the right side: VOLUNTATE DEI TIBI NUNTIO, UT IN MEMORIA(M) MEI CEDIFICES HOC IN LOCO CARTUSIA(M), DIXIT, ET IN COELU(UM) GLORIOS(US or E), REDIIT. VENA-TORES IN TER(R)I(S) CORNIB(US), O(MN)IA VENTILABANT QUORU(M) CLAMORIB(US) EXCIT(IT) E LATIBULO / LEP(US), IN SINU(M) MARCHIONIS CONFUGIT, QUI EVIGI-LANS EUN˝DE(M) MOX APPREHENDIT ET SCLAVONICE EXCLAMAVIT SEITZ. SEITZ. UNDE IBIDE(M) CARTU(SI)A(M) FUNDAVIT---- ET AC NOME(N) IMPOSUIT SEITZ QUAE PLENE EXSTRUCTA EST A(NNO) 1165 … I tell you by God’s will to give over this place to a Charterhouse in my memory. This he said and returned in glory to the heavens. The hunters in the land trumpeted with all their horns. Owing to the noise the hare awoke and fled from his hiding place to the Margrave. He awoke and exclaimed in Slovene: zajc, zajc [hare, hare]. In that very place he founded a Charterhouse … he called it zajc (žiče), and it was completed in 1165. In the cartouche on the left by the arm the following buildings are indicated by numbers: 3. ECCLESIA. 4. CELLU(M) B(EATAE) V(IRGINIS) M(ARIAE) LAU˝RET(TANENSIS). 5. SACELL(UM) S(ANCTI) ANTO-NII. 6. PARVU(M) CLAUSTRU(M). 7. MAIUS CLAUS˝TRU(M). 8. PRAELATURA. 9. BIBLIO-THECA. 10. REFECTOR(IUM). 11. CELEAE FRATRU(M). 12. PROCURA(T)URA. (13). CELLA COADIUTOR(IS). In the cartouche to the right of the arm the numbering of buildings continues as follows: 14. CUBIC(ULA) HOSPIT(UM). 15. CELLARIA. 16. CULINA CONVENT(UI). 17. CU-LINA FAMILIAE. 18. PHARMACOPOL(A)-? 19. GR(AN)ARIA. 20. OFFICINAE OPIFICU(M). 21 HORTUS COLLOQ(IUM) AESTIVAL(IS). 22. TURRES ANG(UL)AR(UM). (23. H)ORTUS CONVENT(UI). 24. HOR(TUS) COM(M)UNIS. 25 …: 3. church, 4. Chapel of Our Blessed Lady of Loreto, 5. Chapel of St. Anthony, 6. small cloister, 7. large cloister, 8. prelature, 9. library, 10. refec-tory, 11. monks’ cells, 12. procurator’s office, 13. assistant’s room, 14. guest rooms, 15. wine cellar, 16. monastery kitchen, 17. common (family) kitchen, 18. apothecary, 19. granary, 20. master workshops, 21. summer garden for conversation and walks, 22. corner towers, 23. monastery garden, 24. common garden, 25. mill.This colour veduta has great importance for a familiarisation with the building history of the Char-

terhouse. The marked and named buildings help us in our expert work where we have introduced the system of the same type of naming of buildings and spaces9 (Figure 2). I have compared the veduta from Klosterneuburg with the veduta print assessed by Marijan Zadnikar as thus far the most accurate depiction of the complex of buildings in the Upper Monastery, which could also be the model for the oil painting. This is a print published in Maisons de l´Ordre des Chartreux, IV, Parkminster 191910 (Figure 3).Both depictions document the state of affairs following the last major Baroque constructions after 1682, when the six centuries of constructional development were concluded on the Upper Monastery, which started inexorably to deteriorate after the dissolution in 1782.11 The two vedutas both show the entire monastic settlement from the south, and from the same highly elevated viewpoint. The print by the anonymous artist shows the settlement with a triangular ground plan with more precise proportions in the spatial placement of buildings. In the print the monastery is set in a landscape which is surrounded on all sides by hills, such that even from the high viewing point it is not possible to see the nearby village. Even individual buildings in the two depictions differ in the accuracy of what is recorded. When we compare the depictions of the most prominent buildings at the Žiče Charterhouse,12 we may observe that the church (3) in the print, in contrast to the colour vedutas, is set out more correctly in its propor-tions and spatial setting. On the southern side the support pillars are depicted, and the roof of Otokar’s chapel runs into the roof of the nave and end of the choir. Both depictions show the Baroque southern chapels with single-pitch roofs, built in 1640, during the time of Prior Janez Serpentin (1639–1663). At that time the altars of St. Anne and All Saints were moved from the two-storey Otokar chapel to the Baroque chapels and dedicated.13 Both depictions show the church ridge turret with its onion dome and pedestal from 1633, which was recovered in sheet metal in 1682.14 It is known that in 1733 the ridge turret on the church was rebuilt with a sheet metal onion-dome lantern roof,15 as depicted in the water colour by Georgius Schwengel of 175116 (Figure 4). As for the cemetery chapel (4), (with the year 1469 on the sundial), named the Chapel of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Loreto, in which the altar of Our Lady of Loreto was re-dedicated in 1758,17 the print has much more credibly depicted Gothic windows, while the roof in both vedutas has the similar design of a conical roof with full sloped ends. In the print there is a lean-to rectangular building set against the entrance to the chapel and making contact with the apothecary building. The extension on the eastern side of the chapel, clearly visible in the colour veduta, will also need to be archaeologically researched. The indicated location of the Chapel of St. Anthony (5) in the northern part of the small cloister,18 in view of the preserved non-segmented peripheral walls of the lengthwise rectan-gular space, corresponds with the purpose of the infirmary chapel – infirmarium, in which the altar of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was dedicated in 1651.19 The spaces with passages from the infirmary chapel to the old refectory and then to the monastery kitchen are, like all the coenobitic part of the upper house, preserved in the peripheral walls, which are now rapidly collapsing. In 1717 a new refectory was furnished close to the infirmary chapel (10).20 In the vedutas in question there are no major differences in the depiction of the small cloister (6), the eastern section of which extends along a covered passage to the large cloister. The northern section comprises an arcade and the infirmary Chapel of St. Anthony, and the western side comprises the old refectory and monastery kitchen. Evidence of the Baroque additions are preserved only in the supple-mentary brick arches in the cellars – the former ground floors of the Romanesque and later adapted Gothic rooms. The buildings in the large cloister (7), apart from the cemetery chapel, are now also in ruins. The promi-nent little houses that are set at right angles into the arcade are probably double cells. The larger build-ing jutting out into the courtyard in the south-eastern corner of the arcade, by the connecting passage to the small cloister and refectory, could have been the lavatorium, since before and after eating it was compulsory for the monks to wash their hands (Figure 5). The speculation that there was a chapel with a well for washing here will be confirmed or rejected by archaeological excavations. The layout of the buildings in both depictions is similar, but the colour veduta shows a park arrangement in the walled gardens and the passages between them. The now collapsed building of the prelature (8)21 along with the library (9) (scriptorium?) comprise the southern side of the large cloister. In both vedutas

132


133


the building is similarly depicted, except that the print shows the ridge turret set on the ridge, while the colour veduta shows it on the southern pitch. The ridge turret comprising a metal onion dome with pedestal is similar in shape to the roof tower on the church. The lengthwise rectangular windows in the colour veduta are more emphasised and schematicised than all the other depicted windows. The old Romanesque above-cellar building, rearranged in the Gothic period22, was converted in 1717 into the new refectory (10).23 At the same time the neighbouring rooms were probably furnished for the lay brothers (11). The question is, whether the lay brothers were already residing here on their arrival from the lower house at the end of the 15th century. Of this building, which was still visible up until 1835,24 there remains only part of the southern wall joined to the western wall of the church, with façade pillar, subway, Gothic window reworked in the Baroque period, central Gothic cellar arch and gothic portal in the two wine cellars (15) (Figure 6). Both vedutas correctly indicate the connection of the building to the tower over the water, right of the main entrance (26), and the break of the building with the entrance to the arcade of the procurature. The print depiction also has greater verisimilitude in the segment where the southern façade of the refectory wall touches the western wall of the church. Opposite the entrance to the monastery stands the procura-ture building (12), housing the office of the Charterhouse administrator, who attended to external affairs and the economy of the monastery.25 The print, which more accurately sets out the appearance of the preserved Gothic high single-storey building, shows two large oriel windows above the entrance and to the right of it. This was confirmed by probing the façade render in 2002, when this location yielded traces of consoles indicating a major projecting construction above the portal and to the right of it. The building where there was a room in the upper storey for an assistant (13), who attended to monastery guests,26 and where the ground floor housed a common (family) kitchen (14), is not preserved today. In 1810 this still served as the tempo-rary presbytery for the parish priest of Špitalič,27 who was already residing in the procurature building by 1812.28 The buildings differ only in the depiction of the southern part and the ridge turret. In the print, the little ridge turret has exactly the same design as that on the roof of the church and Chapel of St. Anthony. The gable façade is not linked to the circular tower. In the colour veduta, the ground plan shows the quadrangular ridge turret with a pyramid roof, and between the building and the tower there is a covered wallwalk as a connecting passage in the defensive walls. In the colour veduta all the residential buildings in the southern part of the monastery by the stream of Soješka voda are marked as guest rooms (14). Here at the end of the 17th century guests were already sleeping in new buildings.29 The large Baroque building, between the circular tower and the main entrance, was re-erected by the walls in 1682.30 The main entrance with its portal and stone bridge bearing statues by Franc Krištof Reiss (26) was redesigned between 1684 and 1687.31 Both vedutas show the entrance to the monastery as a separate building with a look out tower or bartizan above the rustically designed portal and wooden bridge. Since neither veduta shows a monumental entrance, I conclude that the print was created a little after 1682, but before 1687. The colour veduta was executed using the aforementioned print as a model. The circular tower and the large Baroque building with its entrance and tower over the water are now in ruins. To the right of the entrance to the tower over the water are the unexplored remnants of the walls of the Gothic building not mentioned in professional literature. From the tower over the water to the southern semicircular defensive tower there was only a connecting arcade set up against the defensive walls with embrasures. This section is depicted correctly in the print. In the colour veduta, instead of embrasures the walls have rectangular windows in the ground and upper storey. To the left and right in both depictions we can see the projecting drop toilets. In the 1780s the lower Baroque building32 also underwent another conversion.33 Here, too, the print is more accurate than the colour veduta. On the southern façade there is just one of the eight windows missing.34 In the colour painting the lower Baroque building has an excessive number of windows, which are in reality not in axis with the lower, smaller, five cellar windows. On the ground floor there are two vaulted wine cellars (15). The lower, short ridge of the building between what is called the “Gothic house” and the southern semicircular defensive tower could in both depictions represent a projecting roof over the entrance to the tower. In the colour veduta the monastery kitchen (16) is indicated as a long struc-ture in the western section of the small cloister and courtyard, bounded by the building of the infirmary

chapel on the south, the linking passage on the east and the prelature and library on the north. In the print, too, the right part of this section is higher and wider, and under its roof it also houses the refectory room, which was built in the 17th century over the old one, which in turn was converted into a cellar.35 The colour veduta shows us for the first time the exact location of the apothecary (18), regarding which preserved data indicate that for the Prior Janez Serpentin (1639–1663) ...“the monk Klavdij Guijot … arranged in the Charterhouse a pharmacy, for which it was said that the monastery had not yet had one like it”.36 In 1774 the monastery pharmacy retained the right of a public institution, and it can be found in the official list of public pharmacies in Styria in 1775.37 In the veduta from Klosterneuburg the phar-macy is depicted as being a high single-storey building, and in the print as a two-storey building. The Renaissance dish-shaped well in the courtyard is also probably from the time of Prior Serpentin.38 The print also depicts more accurately the preserved building of the granary (19), which is mentioned in the census of 1572.39 The southern façade of the granary shows an almost unchanged grid of small upper storey windows and entrances into the ground floor workshops (20). The colour veduta shows an excessive number of small windows in the upper storey and non-existent cellar windows on the ground floor. Between the pharmacy and large northern tower the summer garden for conversation and walks is indicated (21), along with a trodden path. Depicted in the courtyard with the pharmacy and well is a Carthusian monk, who is probably headed to this garden. Another monk is depicted walking around the monastery garden (23) within the large cloister, in which there is the cemetery chapel. There are no marked graves in the garden. A third monk is tending to his garden in the courtyard of his cell. In con-trast to the print, the monks depicted going about their everyday chores illustrate life in the inhabited Charterhouse. The relationship between size and design of the corner towers (22) in the print correspond more truly to the actual situation. An exception to this is the Fish Tower by Otokar’s chapel, which in comparison with the south-eastern tower is disproportionately reduced. Both depictions of the south-eastern tower show the entrance to the external Chapel of Christ’s Passion from the first half of the 17th century.40 This and the Fish Tower, which are the oldest in terms of execution, have projecting upper storeys in the print, and these were retained right up until 1840.41 The southern façade of the tower over the water in the print bears the date 1165. I suspect that beneath this is painted the scene of the recumbent Otokar III and John the Baptist standing next to him, as may be gleaned from Schwengel’s water colour42 (Figure 4). Two blind windows are depicted here in the colour veduta. The large northern circular tower, dated 1538 on the lintel of the bay window,43 is disproportionately enlarged in the print, but is accurate in the colour veduta and has stencil-spaced windows and embrasures. The embrasures in the eastern walls are shown in the print as small rectangular apertures, and in the colour painting as semicircular complete windows. Neither of the vedutas depict the wooden defensive walkway, which at the time the two paintings were produced had probably entirely collapsed.44 The defensive walkway in Stegenšek’s drawing is probably reconstructed based on the spacing of the support beam sockets in the walls.45 There is an interesting presentation of the common garden (24) on the eastern flat surface in front of the walls. The colour veduta shows two walled gardens arranged as a park, and this is different in design from the gardens of the monks’ cells. Of the walls which contained the gardens in 1735, only the external wall by the left bank of the Žičnica is preserved. Neither of the depictions show the glass-house, which was erected at great cost in 1735.46 The print depiction shows the common garden as a small garden with a low fence and without plants. Neither are there any plants in the gardens of the monks’ cells. The garden with its rectangular beds is shown most accurately by Schwengel’s water colour.47 The simple rectangular layout of the garden was found by geophysical research and verified through archaeological excavation.48 The depiction of the mill (25) with its ridge higher than the large Baroque building is almost identical in both vedutas. The print shows two mill wheels, while the colour veduta shows just one. Both vedutas are priceless documents of the appearance of the monastery buildings and their relative proportions with open spaces in the complex of the Upper House prior to the fateful year of 1782. The veduta images complement each other. The print veduta is more accurate, since this is enabled by the technique itself, while the colour veduta is important for its description of buildings and spaces.

134


135


In the exhibition catalogue Austria during the time of Emperior Joseph II there is a colour depiction of the Žiče Charterhouse dated around 1785, in other words three years after it was dissolved.49 This is highly improbable, since in this case next to the Otokar chapel it would depict the southern annex of the new sacristy, which was built following the closure of the monastery, when the monastery churches became parish churches and were converted for the requirements of the new worship.50 After 1782 the monastery became a political and military district and the economic and administrative centre of the former Carthusian land. The purpose of the premises changed, and along with this the naming of the buildings.51 The monks’ cells were already in ruins, since after the fire of 1786 in Konjice their building material was used to repair houses.52

Based on comparisons of the two depictions and available sources, we may conclude that the print veduta shows the appearance of the monastery following major renovation construction works after 1682, but prior to the renovation of the eastern section in 1687. I suspect that the colour veduta was executed after the aforementioned print draft between 1717 and 1733. The earlier year is defined by the marking of the building of the newly equipped refectory, and the later year by the newly constructed ridge turret of the church.53

The purpose of this article has been to present the monastery complex with all the names of the build-ings and spaces, while comparing two Baroque depictions and parallel with new discoveries during the renovation of the Charterhouse. Based on archival information in literature I have also provided new dates for the depictions.

Notes 1 Marijan Zadnikar, Srednjeveška arhitektura kartuzijanov in slovenske kartuzije, Ljubljana 1972, pp. 156–170.2 Jože Mlinarič, Kartuzija Pleterje, 1403–1595, Pleterje 1982, colour supplement 4.3 Karl Gutkas, in: Ősterreich zur Zeit Kaisers Josephs II., Mitregent Kaiserin Maria Theresias, Kaiser und Landesfürst, Niederöster-

reichische Landesausstellung, Stift Melk 1980, cat. No. 989, figure p. 535. The veduta is dated around 1785. I believe it was created between 1717 and 1733.

4 Through the mediation of Gorazd Živkovič, our viewing of the original in the monastery of Klosterneuburg and permission to photo-graph and publish the painting were enabled by Dr. Floridus Röhring Can. Reg. The photograph was taken by Inge Kitlitschka.

5 Nataša Golob, Srednjeveški rokopisi iz Žičke kartuzije (1160–1560), National Gallery, Ljubljana 2006.6 Friederike Klos, in: Kunst des Heilens, Aus der Geschichte der Medizin und Pharmazie, rk. Niederösterreichische Landesausstellung,

Karthause Gaming 1991, cat. No. 1. 07, p. 126, figure p. 126. The dating of the depiction of the Žiče Charterhouse between 1740 and 1760 is in my opinion erroneous. I date it between 1717 and 1733.

7 Jože Mlinarič, Kartuziji Žiče in Jurklošter, Žička kartuzija ok. 1160–1782, Jurkloštrska kartuzija ok. 1170–1595, Maribor 1991, pp. 42–43. Beremund and his comrades headed the building of the monastery from the presbytery in Konjice (compare Zadnikar 1972 (note. 1), p. 142.

8 I am grateful to Father Marjan Vogrin of the Minorite Monastery in Piran for perusing the text and for the Slovenian translation from Latin.

9 The number 1 defines the Area of the Žiče Charterhouse (EŠD 7929), number 2 the Upper Monastery of Žiče Charterhouse in Stare Slemene (EŠD 692), number 3 the Church of St. John the Baptist and so forth. …

10 Zadnikar 1972 (note 1), pp. 159–160.11 Avguštin Stegenšek, Umetniški spomeniki lavantinske škofije, 2, Konjiška dekanija, Maribor, self-published 1909, pp. 199; Mlinarič

1991 (note 7), pp. 400–401.12 The term Žiče Charterhouse is used to denote the area with the preserved original layout of the Carthusian monastery and its Upper

House in Stare Slemene, the undeveloped Valley of St. John the Baptist with fishponds and the Lower House in Špitalič near Slovenske Konjice.

13 Stegenšek 1909 (note 11), pp. 189, 194.14 Mlinarič 1991 (note 7), p. 417. The new tower clock from 1726 is only visible in the print.15 Mlinarič 1991 (note 7), p. 427.16 Mlinarič 1991 (note 7), p. 427; Zadnikar 1972 (note 1), p. 161.17 Stegenšek 1909 (note 11), p. 198; Sergej Vrišer, Baročno kiparstvo na slovenskem Štajerskem, Ljubljana 1992, pp. 163–164. In 1485

the altar of All Saints was already here. Zadnikar 1972 (note 1), p. 155; Stegenšek 1909 (note 11), p. 200.18 The hermit and father of the monks Anthony the Great is a protector against disease, especially against plague and other infectious

diseases. Vera Schauber, Svetniki in godovni zavetniki, Ljubljana 1995, pp. 23, 25.19 Stegenšek 1909 (note 11), p. 196; Mlinarič 1991 (note 7), p. 417.20 Stegenšek 1909 (note 11), p. 196; Mlinarič 1991 (note 7), p. 417.

21 The cell of the prior, who at the Žiče Charterhouse also held the title of prelate – superior. For the information provided I am grateful to the Prior of Pleterje Jožef Marija David.

22 On the preserved northern façade, against which was later added the building of the procurature (12), partial investigations in 2001 re-vealed Romanesque render with horizontal incised joints and a smooth surface of Gothic render. Robert Peskar has determined that this involved a continuous period of construction. Robert Peskar, Arhitektura in arhitekturna plastika okoli leta 1400 v Sloveniji, doctoral dissertation, Ljubljana 2005, p. 382. Similar render is preserved on the western wall in the cellar of the same building.

23 Stegenšek 1909 (note 11), p. 196; Mlinarič 1991 (note 7), p. 417.24 Stegenšek 1909 (note 11), p. 196.25 Information on the role of the procurator at the Charterhouse was supplied by the Pleterje Prior Jožef Marija David.26 Information on the role of the assistant (coadjutor) at the Charterhouse was supplied by the Pleterje Prior Jožef Marija David.27 Stegenšek 1909 (note 11), p. 207.28 Ivan Zelko, Žička kartuzija, Ljubljana 1984, p. 40; Peskar 2005 (note 22), p. 282.29 Mlinarič 1991 (note 7), p. 409.30 Stegenšek 1909 (note 11), p. 199.31 Stegenšek 1909 (note 11), p. 200–201; Mlinarič 1991 (note 7), p. 400–401; Vrišer 1992 (note 17), p. 227.32 Since 23 June 2007 the upper storey of the eastern wing has housed the permanent exhibition “Cultural Heritage of Žiče Charterhouse”

designed by Nataša Golob.33 This can be seen on the exterior with new stone window frames with grills, for which Prior Schiller was issued with a bill in 1692 by the

Graz burgher and church administrator Baltazar Gründtler. Mlinarič 1991 (note 7), p. 402.34 The older and smaller window of the pantry had merely the outlined frame of the large Baroque window, which was overlooked. This

window is at the join of the building whose bare Gothic shell has the working title “Gothic house”.35 Zadnikar 1972 (note 1), p. 214.36 Mlinarič 1991 (note 7), p. 390–391; Zelko 1984 (note 28), p. 33.37 Zelko 1984 (note 28), p. 34.38 Stegenšek 1909 (note 10), p. 199–200.39 Mlinarič 1991 (note 7), p. 295.40 Zelko 1984 (note 28), p. 37.41 Zadnikar 1972 (note 1), figure on p. 162.42 Zadnikar 1972 (note 1), figure on p. 161.43 Bogdan Badovinac, Stare Slemene, Varstvo spomenikov, 34, Reports, Ljubljana 1992, p. 303.44 Mlinarič 1991 (note 7), p. 290, 300.45 Stegenšek 1909 (note 11), p. 203.46 Stegenšek 1909 (note 11), p. 203; Mlinarič 1991 (note 7), p. 427.47 Zadnikar 1972 (note 1), figure p. 161.48 Branko Mušič, Poročilo o geofizikalnih raziskavah na lokaciji Žički samostan, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department of

Archaeology, 2000. Alenka Kolšek, Konservatorska izhodišča s pogoji za ureditev zeliščnega vrta na kompleksu Žičke kartuzije, Celje Institute for the Protection of Natural and Cultural Heritage, 2001.

49 Gutkas 1980 (note 3), p. 353.50 Peskar 2005 (note 22), p. 278.51 Zelko 1984 (note 28), p. 39–45.52 Zelko 1984 (note 28), p. 45. 53 Mlinarič 1991 (note 7), p. 427; Stegenšek 1909 (note 11), p. 196.

136


137


Vanja Prohinar

Stolna cerkev Marijinega vnebovzetja v Kopru:stavbna zgodovina in pregled obnove južne steneUDK 726:27-523.42(497.4Koper)(091)UDK 726.03:27-523.42(497.4Koper)UDK 719:726:27-523.42(497.4Koper)UDK 7.025.4:726:27-523.42(497.4Koper)

Ključne besede: koprska stolnica, cerkev Marijinega vnebovzetja, južna stena, romanika, romanska bazilika, barok, Giorgio Massari, sanacija temeljev

Uvod

V prispevku je predstavljen razvoj stavbne zgodovine cerkve s poudarkom na glavnih gradbenih fazah arhitekture, ki temelji predvsem na dosedanjih arhivskih raziskavah ter primerjalnih študijah umetnost-nih zgodovinarjev. Stavbni zgodovini objekta sledi pregled obnovitvenih posegov na južni steni stolne cerkve od osemdesetih let 20. stoletja, ko so bile opravljene prve konservatorsko-restavratorske raziskave na zunanjščini južne stene, oprte na dokumentacijo, ki jo hrani pristojni ZVKDS, OE Piran.

Oris stavbne zgodovine koprske stolnice

Najstarejše omembe Marijine cerkve v Kopru datirajo v konec 11. stoletja, ko jo objavljeni arhivski viri označujejo kot glavno cerkev, ki je imela Marijin oltar, verjetno glavni, in (odprt) atrij oziroma lopo.1 Pomemben mejnik v zgodovini stolne cerkve pomeni leto 1380, ko so Genovčani oropali in opustošili mesto, odnesli relikvije mestnih zaščitnikov sv. Nazarija in sv. Aleksandra ter zažgali tudi atrij pred pročeljem stare bazilike, ki je meril 23 beneških korakov, kot poroča Nicolò del Bello.2 Kmalu zatem se je rodila želja, da bi cerkev, ki je bila od takrat prostostoječega zvonika oddaljena približno osem metrov,3 podaljšali proti zahodu. V dokumentu z dne 27. junija 1385 je namreč beneški dož Antonio Vene-rio koprskemu škofu Lodovicu Morosiniju (16. oktober 1364–21. november 1391) potrdil lastništvo ozemlja pred omenjenim portikom ali atrijem romanske cerkve.4 Po Naldinijevem poročanju so v času škofa Francesca Biondija (23. februar 1428–29. marec 1448) na mestu starega (romanskega) atrija, ki so ga v stoletju poprej zažgali Genovčani, dogradili tri očarljive loke – arkade, ki so povezovale cerkev z zvonikom.5

Leta 1422, v času škofa Geremie Pola (2. december 1420–1424), so ukradene relikvije mestnih zaščitnikov sv. Nazarija in sv. Aleksandra iz Genove prenesli nazaj v Koper, nato je 7. novembra 1445 koprski škof Francesco Biondi, Florentinec po rodu, posvetil cerkev in oltar sv. Nazarija.6

Koprski zgodovinar Nicolò Manzuoli, doktor prava, je leta 1611 koprskemu podestatu Nicolòju Dan-dolu posvetil svoje delo Nova descrittione della provincia dell’Istria, v katerem je koprski stolnici namenil naslednje besede: “... La Chiesa Cathedrale intitolata S. Maria maggiore è la più bella che sia nella Città.

Hà la facciata tutta di pietre bianche, & entro è diuisa in tre parti. Le muraglie che fanno questa separa-tione stano à volto sopra 18. colonne di bellissimi marmi. In essa sono tre Corpi Santi di S. Alessandro Papa, del beato Nazario, & del B. Elio ...”7 Stolna cerkev, posvečena Mariji, je bila v začetku drugega desetletja 17. stoletja najlepša cerkev v mestu, imela je fasado iz belega kamna, kot jo vidimo še danes, tedaj še romanska bazilikalna notranjščina je bila deljena v tri dele, glavno in stranski ladji. Arkadni steni, ki sta ladje ločevali med seboj, sta sloneli na osemnajstih marmornih stebrih. Poleg opisa same stolne cerkve Manzuoli navede tudi nekatere podatke, ki so piscem o osrednjem sakralnem spomeniku Kopra predstavljali ključne oporne točke za rekonstrukcijo gradbene zgodovine cerkve: “... 1480. si finì il campanile del Domo principiato 1418. et 1490. si allungò esso Domo vnendolo con detto campanile che prima era in isola, come e quello di S. Marco a Venetia, et 1498. si fece la facciata di esso Domo.”8

Osem let pozneje, 25. maja 1619, je koprski podestat in kapitan Bernardo Malipiero prejel naročilo iz Benetk, naj poskrbi za obnovo obzidja, zato je inženirju Giacomu Finu naročil izdelavo načrta;9 Fino ga je izdelal prvega avgusta istega leta.10 Risbi je poleg koprskega obzidnega pasu dodal tudi mestni tloris, v katerega je med stavbno tkivo shematično vrisal glavni komunikacijski žili ter tedaj obstoječe sakralne objekte v mestu. Osrednje mesto na načrtu zavzema stolnica (Domo), ta je v tlorisni zasnovi označena kot enotni vzdolžno pravokotni cerkveni prostor brez prečne ladje, ki se na vzhodu zaključuje s tremi apsi-dami, od katerih je glavna nekoliko poudarjena in sega globlje v tržni prostor današnjega trga Brolo. Na zahodni strani je v stavbno telo že vključen zvonik (Campanile),11 nato so na skici označene še tri vhodne odprtine, portal na glavni zahodni fasadi ter po en vhod na sredini severne in južne cerkvene stene.V letu 1661 je koprsko stolnico, posvečeno Marijinemu Vnebovzetju, vizitiral škof Francesco Zeno in nam v svojem opisu ohranil tedanjo podobo cerkve; zapisal je, da je to lepa, veličastna ter starinska stav-ba.12 Vizitacijski zapis je prvo poročilo o dejanskih, čeprav le približnih merah stolne cerkve iz obdobja pred barokizacijo in predstavlja dragoceno izhodišče za najnovejšo rekonstrukcijo romanske bazilike, ki jo je objavila Helena Seražin.13

Znamenita Corografia ecclesiastica14 koprskega škofa Paola Naldinija (1632–1713), ki je leta 1700 izšla v Benetkah, je na pragu korenitih posegov barokizacije v srednjeveško telo cerkve še ohranila nedot-aknjeno podobo predbaročne stolne cerkve, kot so jo ustvarila slogovna obdobja romanike, gotike ter renesanse. Škof je v obsežen zapis o nastanku in ustroju koprske stolnice vključil opis obstoječega stanja, ki služi kot dragocen vir za rekonstrukcijo predbaročne cerkve.15 Stolnica, ki je bila tudi na prelomu 17. in 18. stoletja najodličnejša (sakralna) stavba v mestu, situirana med dvema osrednjima mestnima trgoma, je bila torej po stavbnem tipu triladijska bazilika usklajenih razmerij. Srednja ladja je bila višja od stranskih, njen vzhodni del je zavzemal prezbiterij. Tlak je bil iz marmorina, ostrešje je bilo leseno in rezljano. Stranski ladji sta bili kriti z ravnim lesenim stropom, glavna ladja pa je imela leseno ostrešje ločno oblikovano, verjetno v smislu odprtega lesenega ostrešja. Predelne stene med ladjami so se z de-vetimi arkadami opirale na osemnajst stebrov iz finega marmorja. Na koncu glavne ladje (pred prez-biterijem) je stala marmorna tribuna – baldahin oziroma ciborij s klesanim in pozlačenim listovjem –, pod katero je v funkciji oltarne menze počival dragoceni sarkofag sv. Nazarija. Na obeh straneh, že skoraj pod arkadami, sta stali manjši marmorni prižnici – ambona, s katerih so v starih časih ob svetih mašah ljudstvu oznanjali evangelij. Med ambonoma in oltarjem sv. Nazarija sta dve prostorni marmornati stopnišči povezovali cerkveno ladjo z višjim prezbiterijem, obdanim z obeh strani s kornimi klopmi, v glavni apsidi je stal glavni oltar. Pod prezbiterijem je bila obokana stebrna kripta, v katero so vodile stopnice iz obeh stranskih ladij.

Obdobje romanike: vprašanje rekonstrukcije tlorisa romanske bazilike iz druge polovice 12. stoletja

Iz strokovne literature poznamo tri poskuse rekonstrukcije stare romanske stebrne bazilikalne stavbe ko-prske stolnice s stebrno kripto in lesenim (verjetno) odprtim ostrešjem. Za rekonstrukcijo stare bazilike so ob upoštevanju ohranjenih delov stavbe pomembni predvsem sekundarni viri, ki smo jih predstavili zgoraj in jih vključujejo vse umetnostnozgodovinske monografske obravnave spomenika.16

Tloris stare romanske bazilike je prvi poskušal rekonstruirati Marijan Zadnikar v svojem obsežnem delu o romanski arhitekturi Romanika v Sloveniji;17 ponudil je razmišljanje o eni najstarejših faz stavbne zgo-Vanja Prohinar, Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, Območna enota Piran

138


139


dovine glavne cerkve v mestu. Prispevek je temeljil predvsem na upoštevanju starejše objavljene literature in virov ter na le skromnih ostankih romanske faze na samem spomeniku, ki jih je bilo moč izluščiti izpod baročne preobleke. Po temeljitih prezidavah barokizacije stavbe v prvi polovici 18. stoletja sta se od prvotne romanske bazilike ohranili le del severne ladijske stene in predvsem južna stena prvotne južne stranske ladje z zazidanimi romanskimi okni ter fragmenti portala, hranjenimi v Pokrajinskem muzeju Koper, ki so domnevno pripadali južnemu stranskemu vhodu v cerkev, škofovskemu portalu. Na podlagi tedaj vidnih arhitekturnih ostalin, ki so se ohranile v gotizirani ter predvsem barokizirani cerkvi, zlasti pa s pomočjo vizitacijskih poročil in Naldinijevega opisa stare stolnice je avtor rekonstruiral podobo roman-ske bazilike v njenih bistvenih značilnostih, saj je z gotovostjo lahko določil le širino cerkve, medtem ko dolžine zaradi baročnih posegov na vzhodnem delu stolnice takrat še ni mogel določiti.Zahodna fasada romanske bazilike je bila verjetno oblikovana v skladu s prostorsko triladijsko bazi-likalno zasnovo cerkve. V pergamentnem kodeksu iz okoli leta 1425, hranjenem v Kapiteljskem arhivu v Kopru, je na foliju 88v iluminirana figuralna inicialka, na kateri je upodobljen mestni patron in prvi koprski škof sv. Nazarij nad modelom cerkve, ki stari stolnici ustreza verjetno le po osnovnem stavbnem tipu.18 V južni steni južne stranske ladje je cerkev imela vrsto romanskih pokončnih, polkrožno sklen-jenih oken z lijakastim ostenjem, ki so se v istih oseh verjetno ponovila na bazilikalni steni glavne ladje. Severna stranska ladja je bila po vsej verjetnosti brez oken, s severne strani so cerkev osvetljevala okna v bazilikalnem nadstropju glavne ladje. Približno na sredini severne stene je bil vhod, ki je bil kasneje zazidan, pendant na južni steni pa so bila škofova vrata, ki so povezovala stolnico s škofijo.V predlogu rekonstrukcije tlorisa stare koprske stolnice je avtorja presenetilo veliko število marmornih stebrov glede na mere cerkve. Gostoto stebrov, ki se ujemajo z razmikom osi romanskih oken na južni steni, je Zadnikar interpretiral kot hoteno željo po bogastvu notranjščine in poiskal smiselne primerjave z nekaterimi starokrščanskimi cerkvami v bližnji soseščini, npr. Evfrazijevo baziliko v Poreču in cerkvama S. Maria delle Grazie ter stolnico sv. Evfemije v Gradežu, saj so na gosto razporejeni stebri na splošno značilni za zgodnjesrednjeveško arhitekturo.19

Po osnovnem stavbnem tipu je Marijan Zadnikar staro koprsko stolnico uvrstil v skupino triladijskih romanskih bazilik brez prečne ladje s tremi polkrožnimi apsidami v ravni vrsti na vzhodu, od katerih je srednja apsida širša in globlja od stranskih dveh. Marmorne stebre, ki nosijo delilne stene med ladjami, ter romansko stebrno kripto, značilno za zgodnjo in zrelo romaniko, je opredelil kot individualno poseb-nost ter staro koprsko baziliko kot variacijo tega stavbnega tipa.Nova rekonstrukcija tlorisa romanske bazilike, ki jo je prispeval arhelog Pokrajinskega muzeja Koper Matej Župančič, je temeljila na rezultatih arheoloških izkopavanj pod njegovim strokovnim vodstvom v letih 1986 in 1991. Leta 1986 je bil odkopan jugozahodni vogal stare romanske bazilike in tako je arheolog dobil podatek, da je bilo stavbno telo cerkve od zvonika oddaljeno 8,1 m, ter predvideno lego romanske fasade. S pomočjo termoluminiscence20 so romanska okna v južni stranski ladji časovno opre-delili v leto 1137 (±28). Med izkopavanji v prezbiteriju leta 1991 so odkrili temelje polkrožne apside, ki je Mateja Župančiča sprva zavedla do prenagljenih zaključkov o legi pvotne romanske apside: za izhodišče nove rekonstrukcije je vzel leta 1986 izkopani jugozahodni vogal romanske cerkve in od nje odmeril 155 beneških čevljev (53,89 m), ki jih kot dolžino bazilike navaja škof Francesco Zeno v vizit-acijskem poročilu.21 Na podlagi tako dobljenih opornih točk pa ni uspel odkopati temeljev južne apside; ta je bila odkrita šele ob izkopavanjih leta 1994 v zakristiji in je tako Župančičevo rekonstrukcijo tlorisa romanske bazilike pomaknila za osem metrov proti zahodu.Zadnjo rekonstrukcijo tlorisa romanske stolnice je objavila Helena Seražin v jubilejni izdaji ob osemde-setletnici akademika Marijana Zadnikarja, ko je na podlagi prejšnjih dveh poskusov in novih dragocenih dognanj v zvezi z baročno prenovo stolne cerkve našla novo rešitev.22 Za osnovno izhodišče je avtorica prispevka vzela reprodukcijo originalnega načrta za novi kor iz leta 1690,23 na katerem je poleg nove rešitve vzhodne partije stolne cerkve dosledno izrisan tloris obstoječega stanja ladijskega prostora, torej romanske oziroma gotske notranjščine, ki se ujema z opisom Nicolòja Manzuolija ter škofov Francesca Zena in Paola Naldinija.24 V ladijskem delu je jasno čitljivih 18 stebrov, ki delijo ladje bazilike med seboj in jih navajata oba škofa, medtem ko je na mestu novo načrtovanega kora viden prvotni potek romanske glavne apside, ki je na načrtu narisana bolj na rahlo. Na tlorisu so označeni trije vhodi v cerkev: glavni portal v osi glavne fasade in po en stranski portal, ki sta postavljena natanko na sredini vzdolžnih stranic stranskih ladij. Helena Seražin meni, da so bili vsi trije portali najverjetneje izdelani okoli leta 1498, ko

je bila cerkev na zahodu podaljšana do zvonika in je dobila novo fasado.25 Glavni portal še danes stoji in situ, medtem ko naj bi stranska portala ob prezidavah stolnice v 18. stoletju prestavili na vzdolžno steno severne stranske ladje.26 Dolžina cerkve od zahodne fasade do rahlo vrisane romanske apside na načrtu iz leta 1690 ustreza dolžini 155 beneških korakov, ki jih je v svojem opisu navedel škof Zeno.27 Pred staro romansko apsido je vrisan prezbiterij z označenimi štirimi stebri, za katere je Gabriella Serdi28 menila, da ponazarjajo ciborij nad sarkofagom sv. Nazarija, medtem ko Helena Seražin meni, da je v načrt vri-san tloris kripte s štirimi stebri;29 to se vsekakor zdi verjetneje, saj je ciborij nad sarkofagom mestnega zaščitnika po zapisih škofa Naldinija stal pred višjim prezbiterijem.30

O vprašanju gostote in razporeditve osemnajstih stebrov vzdolž romanske bazilike, ki ga že Marijan Zadnikar ni znal zadovoljivo podpreti s tehtnimi argumenti, menim, da tudi Helena Seražin ni našla zadovoljivega odgovora. Vsi trije zgoraj navedeni pisci so videli gotsko-renesančno (predbaročno) cerkev, ki je bila na zahodu že podaljšana do zvonika, torej bi bilo pri rekonstrukciji treba upoštevati dejstvo, da je bilo osemnajst marmornih stebrov razporejenih vzdolž celotne dolžine predbaročne cerkve in ne le v okviru oboda romanske bazilike; na načrtu iz leta 1690 je namreč osemnajst stebrov razporejenih vzdolž celotne dolžine ladijskega dela predbaročne cerkve, vključno s podaljškom do zvonika na zahodu. Zato menim, da bi bilo zadnji poskus rekonstrukcije romanske bazilike glede vprašanja razporeditve osem-najstih marmornih stebrov treba dodelati.

Baročna prenova koprske stolnice v prvi polovici 18. stoletja

Arhitekturno prenovo koprske stolnice v prvi polovici 18. stoletja in njene posamezne faze, ki so v ok-viru stavbne zgodovine obravnavane cerkve najbolje dokumentirane, je z izčrpnimi raziskavami ohran-jenega arhivskega gradiva ter primerjavo ohranjenih originalnih načrtov z obstoječim stanjem arhitek-ture strokovni javnosti predstavila Helena Seražin.31 Poleg odprtega vprašanja stolnične glavne fasade s pritličnim delom v beneškem stilu gotico fiorito in nadstropjem renesančnih form brez vrhnjega zaključka so bila nerešena številna vprašanja v zvezi z baročno prenovo stolnice v prvi polovici 18. stoletja. Nova spoznanja so potrdila dognanja Antonia Massarija,32 da je temeljita baročna prenova, ki je spomeniku vtisnila najvidnejši pečat, potekala v treh zaključenih in med seboj ločenih gradbenih fazah; zadnji dve izmed teh pripisujemo vodilnemu beneškemu arhitektu prve polovice 18. stoletja Giorgiu Massariju (1687–1766), avtorju pomembnih beneških arhitekturnih spomenikov, kot so palača Grassi ter cerkvi Gesuati in Pietà.Začetki nameravane baročne prenove segajo v čas škofa Paola Naldinija. Leta 1690 je bil naročen načrt za povečanje cerkve na vzhodu, kar potrjuje ohranjeni vpis v stolnični računski knjigi; na foliju 28 je zapisano, da je bilo 25. aprila 1690 protu Francescu iz Benekt za posnetek cerkve in načrt za gradnjo novega dela ter risbo oziroma načrt oltarja Najsvetejšega s kapelo in oltarja sv. Nazarija izplačanih 121 lir.33 Opisu načrta iz omenjene računske knjige v temeljnih potezah ustreza načrt s konca 17. stoletja, hranjen v Semeniški knjižnici v Trstu.34 Čitljiv je tloris stare stebrne bazilike s kripto, torej obstoječe stanje stolnice ob koncu 17. stoletja, kot sta jo opisala škofa Francesco Zeno in Paolo Naldini,35 ter na novo načrtovana vzhodna partija na mestu starega romanskega kora z vpisanim transeptom ter prez-biterijem z apsido. Zaradi posnetka obstoječega stanja je načrt ključnega pomena za rekonstrukcijo stare romanske bazilike.Helena Seražin na podlagi ohranjenih fragmentov močno poškodovanega levega zgornjega dela načrta stolnice prota Francesca sklepa, da so že od vsega začetka razmišljali o prenovi celotne stavbe, torej tudi ladijskega dela, in ne le vzhodne partije. Na manjkajočem delu načrta je bil na rahlo skiciran prerez ladijskega dela arhitekture, ki pa se ne ujema s tlorisom stebrne bazilike na načrtu, temveč predstavlja novo rešitev ladijskega dela, in sicer ritmiziranje stene glavne ladje po renesančnem principu antičnega slavoloka, ki bi bila po mnenju avtorice primerljiva z beneško cerkvijo Andrea Palladia (1508–1580) Il Redentore.36

Kljub izdelanim načrtom so z gradnjo nove vzhodne partije z vrisanim transeptom in prezbiterijem odlašali več kot dve desetletji, ko se je leta 1713 zrušil vzhodni del južne stranske ladje, verjetno zaradi neustrezne razporeditve teže ob obnovi ostrešja nekaj let prej.37 Dogodek je verjetno pogojeval odločitev o posodobitvi stolničnega vzhodnega dela, ki so jo sprejeli 31. decembra 1715, in dva dneva zatem z

140


141


dovoljenjem škofa Antonia Marie Borromeia in podestata Nicolòja Contarinija začeli rušenje starega (romanskega) prezbiterija ter zidavo velikih pilastrov (vrisanega) transepta.38

Drugega maja 1716 je rezbar fra Vicenzo delle Scuole Pie dobil plačilo za izdelavo lesenega modela stolnice, septembra 1720 pa je prota Bernardino Martinuzzi (1669–1735) začel gradnjo novega kora v sodelovanju z mojstrom Carlom Milanesejem. Zakristijo ob južni strani prezbiterija so začeli graditi julija naslednje leto,39 s tem pa je bila končana prva faza baročne prenove v prvi polovici 18. stoletja.Po gradnji novega prezbiterija s transeptom je prišlo do statičnih težav na mestu stika nove vzhodne partije in starega ladijskega dela cerkve (morda na stiku transepta s stranskimi ladjami), zato so arhitektu Giorgiu Massariju 23. avgusta 1737 v Benetke poslali lesen model cerkve, nato je Massari načrte (tloris, vzdolžni in prečni prerez) z obrazložitvijo poslal v Koper 5. februarja naslednje leto.40 Iz ohranjenih pisem in zapisov v stolničnih računskih knjigah ni mogoče razbrati, ali je arhitekt kdaj obiskal Koper, verjetno je potek gradnje spremljal z dopisovanjem, gradnjo pa je za kratko obdobje vodil Lorenzo Mar-tinuzzi (1704–1779), sin zgoraj omenjenega Bernardina Martinuzzija.Od zgoraj navedenih načrtov, ki jih je Massari poslal v Koper, je ohranjen le tloris z oznako A, ki sta ga stolnična oskrbnika Francesco Barbabianca in Alvise Tarsia 10. avgusta 1748 poslala Giovanniju Pole-niju, da bi jim svetoval v zvezi z gradnjo novega kora.41 Ohranjeno pismo je dragocen dokument, saj lahko na podlagi Massarijevega pojasnila k načrtom Spiegazione delli Disegni fatti per la Continuazione del Duomo di Capod:a adatandosi all’Idea gia principiata v celoti rekonstruiramo zasnovo arhitekture.Massarijevi načrti so bili v Kopru sprejeti. Poleti 1738 so že začeli podirati stari ladijski del in 23. julija istega leta so izkopali temelje za štiri pilastrske slope v glavni ladji in čez dober mesec (koprskim) klari-sam prodali dvanajst stebrov in šest kapitelov stare (romanske) bazilike.42 Obstoječe stanje stolnice kaže, da so se v temeljnih potezah držali načrtov Giorgia Massarija. Iz primerjave Francescovega načrta tlorisa koprske stolnice iz leta 169043 in Massarijevega iz leta 1738 lahko ugotovimo, da je arhitekt ohranil vpisan transept in kor iz let 1720–1722 ter mu dodal triladijsko dvorano, slonečo na pilastrskih slopih.44 Dvoranska rešitev ladijskega prostora, v katerem sta stranski ladji enako visoki kot glavna ladja, je v Mas-sarijevem opusu nenavadna in je bila gotovo pogojena z dejstvom, da se je arhitekt prilagodil razmerjem že obstoječega transepta iz prve faze prenove stolnice v 18. stoletju, saj so veliki vogalni slopi transepta že vnaprej določili razmerja drugih delov arhitekturne zasnove stolnice. V Massarijevem opusu sicer prev-laduje značilen tip sakralne arhitekture: enoladijska cerkev s stranskimi kapelami brez transepta, ki je na vzhodu zaključena z ravnim korom, kot je cerkev Gesuati v Benetkah, v kateri so vzdolž enoladijskega dvoranskega prostora na obeh straneh razvrščene po tri kapele z oltarji.45

Kljub novi rešitvi cerkvenega prostora je Massari v primeru koprske stolnice pravzaprav sledil svojemu ustaljenemu kanonu, saj je z zazidavo vzdolžnih lokov prve in zadnje traveje, ki sta ožji od srednjih treh, premišljeno uravnal svetlobo v glavni ladji in tako pridobil učinek enoladijske dvorane s po tremi stranskimi kapelami in hkrati ohranil vtis enotnega ladijskega prostora. Okna je načrtoval tik pod obo-kom stranskih ladij z namenom, da se svetloba odbije od oboka ter se enakomerno in mehko razprši po prostoru, dvoranski prostor pa tako učinkuje enotno. Velika pokončna baročna okna, zaključena z rahlim lokom, ki osvetljujejo ladijski prostor, so identična načrtovanemu oknu v transeptu na načrtu iz leta 1690, medtem ko lahko veliko okroglo fasadno okno na zahodni ladijski steni primerjamo z motivom okroglega okvirja v lunetnem polju na zahodni steni Massarijeve beneške cerkve Gesuati, renesančnim motivom okulusa v lunetnem polju, ki ga je arhitekt pogosto uporabil.46 Ladijski prostor je tako oblikoval s polkrožnim banjastim obokom in arkadami, ki izhajajo iz nastavka, izpeljanega iz bogato profiliranega venčnega zidca, ki obdaja posamezni pilastrski slop. Prostor s tako zasnovanimi arkadami deluje zračno, pilastri pa z vzgonom v višino učinkujejo elegantno in hkrati monumentalno. Helena Seražin meni, da je arhitekt problem pilastrskih slopov verjetno rešil s polihromacijo pilastrov; na ta način bi pridobil učinek vzgona v višino in monumentalnosti, vendar je zaradi dvakratnega beljenja stolnice v 19. stoletju ta učinek izgubljen.47

Massari je pri načrtovanju predvidel tudi novo pročelje s kolosalnimi stebri ter tremi portali, katerega za-snova bi po vsej verjetnosti temeljila na modelu palladijevskih tempeljskih fasad, kot je na primer fasada beneške cerkve S. Pantalon arhitekta Francesca Comina.48 Za Massarijev predlog se verjetno niso odločili zaradi radikalnega posega v tržni prostor, pri čemer bi morali zaradi simetrične razporeditve posameznih arhitekturnih elementov pročelja poleg stare fasade podreti tudi zvonik. Stara fasada je ostala nedot-aknjena razen manjkajočega ornamenta, ki je bil na vrhu dodan zaradi nove višine cerkve; tako zgornji

“renesančni” del pročelja ustreza novi triladijski dvoranski zasnovi cerkvenega prostora iz prve polovice 18. stoletja in ga je po dognanjih Helene Seražin treba datirati v čas po letu 1745.49

Gradbena dela na stavbnem plašču v letu 1738 so potekala pod vodstvom lokalnih gradbenih mojstrov; Helena Seražin jih je v svojem izčrpnem prispevku podprla z raziskanimi arhivskimi dokumenti, obse-gala pa so naslednje posege: porušili so oboke stranskih ladij in bazilikalni steni glavne ladje ter fasado do višine velikega okula. Zunanji steni stranskih ladij so nato nadzidali in vanje vključili (po štiri) velika baročna okna. V stolnični računski knjigi je dokumentirano izplačilo kamnosekoma Giacomu Toffo-lettiju in Alessiu Guziju za delo na stranskih portalih na severni steni; ta dva stranska portala Helena Seražin identificira s stranskima portaloma stare bazilike, ki sta na načrtu iz leta 1690 označena v sredini stranic stranskih ladij.50 Kot dokazujejo vpisi v računskih knjigah,51 je tudi stranska portala na južni steni, katerih vprašanje provenience podbojev zaenkrat v strokovni literaturi še ni povsem jasno, postavil mojster Giacomo Toffoletti. Massari je leta 1738 poleg načrtov za nov ladijski del narisal tudi načrt52 za nov, prostornejši kor. Od starega kora (iz let 1720–1722) je ohranil le prezbiterij in ga podaljšal za ozko travejo s prehodoma v za-kristijo in kapelo Najsvetejšega, korni zaključek pa je zasnoval v obliki “apside” s tlorisom krožne oblike, ki predstavlja ponovitev arhitektove le nekaj let starejše lastne rešitve problema v videmski samostanski cerkvi Žalostne Matere Božje.53 Predlagani novi kor bi tako v dolžino meril 55 beneških čevljev (19 m) in predhodnega presegel za 27 beneških čevljev (12,5 m). Temelje za novonačrtovani kor so začeli kopati leta 1742, ko so se gradbena dela v ladijskem delu zaključila, vendar je mestni svet z Odločbo o ustavitvi gradnje novega kora,54 datirano z 18. aprilom 1744, zaradi izčrpanih finančnih sredstev gradnjo ustavil. Gradnjo sta vneto zagovarjala le stolnična oskrbnika Alvise Tarsia in Francesco Barbabianca, katerima se je zdelo obstoječe oblikovno neskladje med ladijskim delom in korno partijo nesprejemljivo; v svoji vne-mi sta se zato s pismom,55 datiranim z 10. avgustom 1748, obrnila na Giovannija Polenija (1683–1761), profesorja padovske univerze, in ga zaprosila za strokovno mnenje.Poleni je ugotovil, da bi bila arhitektura stolnice z novo korno partijo v razmerju do širine ladijskega dela predolga in tako proporcionalno neskladna, zato je predlagal rešitev s postavitvijo optične ovire, ki bi na videz skrajšala dolžino cerkve; kot vzorčna primera predlagane rešitve je navedel padonsko cerkev S. Giustina ter Palladijevo beneško cerkev S. Giorgio Maggiore. Massari Polenijevih nasvetov ni upošteval v celoti.56 Na željo naročnikov je načrt za nov korni del popravil: prezbiteriju skoraj kvadratne oblike je dodal pravilno polkrožno apsido, s tem pa je kor zožal in skrajšal za dva metra. Petega julija 1749 je gradnja novega kora končno stekla pod vodstvom furlanskega gradbenega mojstra Domenica Schiavija (1718–1795); njegova delavnica je, kot je razvidno iz stolničnih računskih knjig, kor koprske stolnice zgradila le v štirih mesecih, nato pa je Domenicov brat Francesco Schiavi (1721–1798) vodil dekorativno obdelavo obokov v koru in transeptu s štukaturami, ki so bile prvotno tudi pozlačene.57

Giorgio Massari velja za arhitekta celostnih umetnin, ki so poleg stavbnega plašča načrtovali tudi oltarno opremo ter kiparski in slikarski okras notranjščine, s tem pa so arhitektura in njeni posamezni deli učinkovali kot ubrana celota. Z realizacijo novega kora koprske stolnice je bila končana tretja gradbena faza baročne prenove v prvi polovici 18. stoletja, uspešna rešitev prenove stare bazilike in mojstrska rešitev problema svetlobe ter prostorskih razmerij pa je arhitektu prinesla ugled in nova naročila.

Problem stavbne zgodovine koprske stolne cerkve v 19. in 20. stoletju

Vprašanje stavbne zgodovine arhitekture v 19. in 20. stoletju ostaja zaenkrat odprto in predstavlja velik izziv bodočim raziskovalcem, saj iz starejše lokalne literature izvemo nemalo dragocenih podat-kov, ki kažejo na živahno dejavnost in posege v arhitekturo stolne cerkve v tesni povezavi s tedanjimi družbenimi in političnimi dogodki. Na tem mestu želim izpostaviti predvsem problem ohranjene (in tudi neohranjene) oltarne opreme, ki skupaj z nezadostno raziskanim stavbnozgodovinskim razvojem arhitekture v dobrih dveh stoletjih po postavitvi nove baročne stolnice čaka na sistematično obdelavo, podprto z raziskavo ohranjenih arhivskih dokumentov.

142


143


V letu 1806, v času francoske uprave v Kopru s prefektom Angelom Calafatijem na čelu, so bile v Ko-pru uresničene velike spremembe; med njimi naj opozorim le na dve temeljni, ki sta tako ali drugače tesno povezani z arhitekturo stolnice in njenim osrednjim mestom v okviru urbanistične zasnove mesta. Poleg radikalnega posega v urbanistično (še srednjeveško) organsko zasnovo nekdanjega otoka, katerega posledica je bila nova napeljava današnje Cankarjeve ulice od trga Brolo do skrajnega vzhodnega dela mestnega jedra,58 je za zgodovinsko rekonstrukcijo posegov na arhitekturi stolne cerkve pomembno de-jstvo, da so tega leta francoske oblasti v Kopru razpustile (ukinile) vse samostane, razen frančiškanskega samostana sv. Ane v severovzhodnem mestnem predelu, imenovanem Bošadraga. Tako je bogata oltarna oprema skupaj s številnimi umetnostnimi predmeti (slikarska in kiparska ter rezbarska dela, umetnoo-brtni predmeti ter knjižnično gradivo) prešla v trajno hrambo neukinjenih koprskih cerkva, predvsem v stolnico in frančiškansko cerkev ter samostan sv. Ane, bila prodana ali porazgubljena. V okviru nave-denih zgodovinskih dogodkov so na novo opremili notranjščino koprske stolne cerkve in tako tudi ob južno ladijsko steno prislonili tri kamnite baročne oltarje, ki so danes ohranjeni in situ.O različnih (obnovitvenih in preventivnih) posegih na spomeniški arhitekturi v dvajsetem stoletju iz-vemo le nekaj dragocenih podatkov v prispevku Daniele Milotti Bertoni,59 konservatorke ZVKDS, OE Piran, ki je v okviru raziskovanj zastavljene naloge z naslovom Delovanje tržaške Soprintendenze v Slovens-ki Istri v letih 1918–1945. Evidentiranje in obdelava arhivskega gradiva skrbno pregledala, evidentirala ter uredila “stari” arhiv tržaškega Nadzorništva (Soprintendenze), ki danes ni več dostopen. Razprava, ki je bila časovno in geografsko omejena na obdobje med obema vojnama ter območje treh obalnih občin, je bila zasnovana na podlagi konkretnih potreb takratnega MZVNKD Piran, nujnosti zbiranja in raziskave potrebne dokumentacije, ki bi omogočila vpogled v preteklosti izvedene obnovitvene in restavratorske posege na spomenikih ter ambientih na območju pristojnosti piranskega medobčinskega zavoda.V obdobju med obema vojnama, ko je bila za varstvo kulturnih spomenikov v Kopru pristojna tržaška Soprintendenza, ustanovljena leta 1923, sledimo prve posege na stolni cerkvi pod vodstvom beneškega arhitekta Ferdinanda Forlatija.60 Restavriral je okno na (glavni) fasadi, z marmorjem (marmorinom) prekril ostenje kapele Najsvetejšega (Cappella del SS. Sacramento/Cappella del Santissimo),61 obnovil arkadne (katere?) loke ter slikarju Cesariniju naročil fresko za kupolo (kapele Najsvetejšega) z upodobit-vijo Poveličanja sv. Evharistije.62

Po Forlatijevem odhodu s tržaškega Nadzorništva je bil po dveh zamenjavah vodstva leta 1939 za vodjo imenovan arhitekt Fausto Franco, pod čigar vodstvom je bila med letoma 1939 in 1943 obnovljena ko-prska stolnica. V “starem” arhivu tržaške Soprintendenze je ohranjeno Francovo poročilo o posegih med majem 1939 in majem 1949, iz katerega izvemo, da je bila obnovljena streha, utrjeni so bili temelji glavne apside, urejen je bil trikotni zaključek pročelja, obnovljeni so bili orgle, oboki ter stene notranjščine, restavriran je bil glavni oltar in opravljena so bila še druga dela.63

V okviru dejavnosti Soprintendenze, ki je na območju treh obalnih občin delovala še nekaj let, so bili na spomenikih v Kopru v letih 1947/1948 in delno v letih 1948/1949 predvideni obnovitveni posegi, med katerimi je bilo za dokončanje obnovitvenih del na stolnici, začetih pred letom 1940, namenjenih šest milijonov lir.64

Prenovitveni posegi na južni steni stolne cerkve Marijinega vnebovzetja v Kopru

V zvezi z arhitekturnimi raziskavami, obnovo ter prezentacijo romanskih elementov južne stene sem v arhivu ZVKDS, OE Piran, našla le elaborat restavratorja mag. Jureta Bernika, ki je novembra 1985 sondiral južno fasado. Z dokumentirano problematiko obnovitvenih posegov na južni steni stolnice se srečamo šele februarja 1994, ko je takratni ravnatelj Pokrajinskega muzeja Koper, g. Salvator Žitko, obvestil Komisijo za izkopavanja republiškega Zavoda za varstvo naravne in kulturne dediščine o nam-eravani izvedbi (dveh) arheoloških sond ob južni steni koprske stolnice na podlagi pogovora z dne 4. 2. 1994 v župnišču v Kopru ob prisotnosti predstavnika takratnega piranskega Medobčinskega zavoda za varstvo naravne in kulturne dediščine, ki v dopisu ni imenovan poimensko.65 Aprila istega leta je inž. Stojan Ribnikar izdelal projekt66 za sanacijo – podbetoniranje temeljev južne stene –, ki je temeljil na geotehničnem poročilu67 o vzrokih poškodb na objektu stolne cerkve v Kopru s predlogom sanacije, ki ga je pripravil GLZ – Inštitut za geologijo, geotehniko in geofiziko iz Ljubljane. Slednji je na pobudo

naročnika, Škofijskega ordinariata Koper, 7. 3. 1994 opravil ogled poškodb na južni ladijski steni kopr-ske stolne cerkve in na podlagi rezultatov štirih arheoloških sond ob južni steni pripravil poročilo; v njem je nazorno opredelil geotehnične ugotovitve in stanje objekta (sestava temeljnih tal in način temeljenja objekta) ter podal strokovno mnenje o vzrokih nastanka poškodb in sanacijske ukrepe. V vseh štirih son-dah je bila ugotovljena globina temelja in sestava tal pod temeljem do flišne osnove. Iz poročila izvemo, da je južna (obodna) stena zidana iz blokov peščenjaka debeline približno 75 cm, globina pasovnega temelja stene, zidanega iz blokov peščenjaka v apneni malti, se postopoma veča od cerkvenega zvonika na zahodu do zakristije na vzhodu. Temelj stoji na trdni flišni osnovi z dvema vmesnima slojema gline ter glinaste preperine laporja. Ugotovljene so bile močne (primarne) poševne razpoke na zunanjščini južne stene ter poškodbe na notranji strani stene – sekundarne razpoke oboka ter tlaka. Temeljno zidovje je bilo zaradi posedanja južne stene oslabljeno, z večjimi prazninami med bloki peščenjaka, vezivo (malta) je mestoma odpadlo. Na ta način izvedeni temelji so močno občutljivi za diferenčno gibanje – premi-kanje –, ki je posledica dodatne obremenitve stisljive glinaste plasti nad trdno flišno osnovo, zato je inštitut ob upoštevanju dejstva, da so se poškodbe pojavile na južnem delu objekta (na južni steni in na zakristiji), podal mnenje, da so poškodbe posledica dodatne obremenitve stisljive podlage pod temelji zakristije, ki je vzrok naknadne dozidave zakristije k ladijskemu telesu. Poleg tega je ob zamenjavi origi-nalnega lesenega stropa zakristije z armiranobetonsko ploščo68 prišlo do dodatne obremenitve tal pod zakristijo, ki je povzročila posedke glinastega sloja. Vpliv posedanja temeljnih tal zakristije se po mnenju strokovnjakov prenaša na temelje južne stene cerkvene ladje in posledično povzroča poškodbe južne stene v obliki močnih razpok. Delni vzrok za poškodbe je bilo tudi neurejeno odvajanje strešne meteorne vode, ki vteka neposredno v območje temeljnih tal, jih razmaka in verjetno tudi izpira. Ob upoštevanju ugotovljenega stanja ter mnenja o vzrokih poškodb na objektu so strokovnjaki za njegovo temeljito san-acijo predlagali podbetoniranje pasovnih temeljev (do flišne osnove) južne stene in zakristije, injektiranje obodnih kamnitih zidov – južne ladijske stene in zakristije, predvsem v območju razpok – ter ureditev odtoka strešne meteorne vode prek žlebov. Projekt za sanacijo – podbetoniranje temeljev južne stene inž. Stojana Ribnikarja – je obsegal podbetoniranje temeljev južne stene na območju od jugovzhodnega stranskega portala do zakristije, vključno z izstopajočo zahodno steno zakristije.Avgusta 1994 je nato Pokrajinski muzej Koper prevzel izkop arheoloških sond v zakristiji in ob južni steni.69 Dokumentacije o poteku ter obsegu podbetoniranja temeljev južne stene in zakristije v arhivu pristojne spomeniškovarstvene službe ni.Novembra 2003 sta konservatorja ZVKDS, OE Piran, na podlagi vloge investitorja (Župnijski urad Koper) za sanacijo temeljev pri stolni cerkvi in sanacijo južne stene – statično utrditev – izdala kulturn-ovarstvene pogoje za sanacijo in statično utrditev temeljev in južne stene cerkve Marijinega vnebovzetja /EŠD 239/ v Kopru (parc. št. 643, k.o. Koper). V obrazložitvi potrebe po ponovni sanaciji in utrditvi temeljev in južne stene koprske stolnice je navedeno, da so se poškodbe (razpoke) na južni steni po-kazale, čeprav so bili leta 1994, torej slabo desetletje prej, delno statično utrjeni temelji v delu južne stene stolnice. Konservatorka je poudarila pomen južne stene, v kateri je v okviru baročne nadzidave ohranjena prezentirana južna stena romanske bazilike, torej dragocena priča romanske faze osrednjega koprskega sakralnega spomenika.Kulturnovarstveno soglasje za sanacijo temeljev in statično utrditev južne stene stolnice Marijinega vnebovzetja /EŠD 239/ v Kopru (parc. št. 642, k.o. Koper) je bilo izdano 21. 11. 2003 na predloženi projekt (PGD – projekt za rekonstrukcijo) Sanacija južne stene koprske stolnice, št. 21-03, odg. pro-jektant Mojmir Sajinčič, univ. dipl. inž. gradb. Ob sanacijskih posegih v letu 1994 – podbetoniranje temeljev južne stene ter zakristije po projektu inž. Stojana Ribnikarja – južna stena ni bila sanirana v celoti. Podbetoniranje temeljev je bilo izvedeno v dolžini približno 13,5 m na predelu od jugovzhodnega portala do zakristije. Ostali del južne stene v dolžini približno 35 m pa tedaj ni bil saniran, zato je bil predmet obdelave navedenega projekta (št. 21/03) iz leta 2003, ki je predvideval statično sanacijo – pod-betoniranje (tako da se vzpostavi kontaktni tlak med obstoječimi temelji in trdno flišno podlago) in in-jektiranje južne stene v dolžini 35 m od zvonika do jugovzhodnega portala ter uvrtanje štirih vertikalnih “perfo” sider z namenom izboljšanja povezave med ohranjeno romansko ter nadvišano baročno steno.Urejanje potrebne dokumentacije ter priprave za sanacijska dela na južni steni koprske stolnice so se začeli 30. 5. 2006, ko je Župnijski urad Koper pristojnemu ZVKDS, OE Piran, priglasil sanacijska dela na stolni cerkvi v Kopru s priloženima prilogama: Ugotovitve pregleda konstrukcije Stolnice Marijinega

144


145


vnebovzetja v Kopru, št. inž. KOS/DOP/PC, z dne 28. 12. 2005, ter Ponudba za izvedbo sanacijskih del na konstrukciji Stolnice Marijinega vnebovzetja v Kopru z oznako GRAS-BER-90/2006, z dne 15. 5. 2006, izbranega izvajalca GRAS, d. o. o. Dopis je bil obravnavan kot vloga za izdajo kulturnovarst-venih pogojev za navedeni poseg, zato je zavod zaprosil za dopolnitev vloge s kopijo projekta, ki je bil podlaga za priloženi popis del. Kulturnovarstveni pogoji za sanacijo južne stene stolne cerkve Marijinega Vnebovzetja v Kopru /EŠD 239/ (P/V-1488-06, z dne 28. 6. 2006) so bili izdani na podlagi projekta št. 21/03, PGD – projekt za rekonstrukcijo, odg. projektant Mojmir Sajinčič (ki je služil kot osnova za izdajo kulturnovarstvenega soglasja že leta 2003), zgoraj navedenih Ugotovitev pregleda konstrukcije ter Ponudbe za izvedbo sanacijskih del izvajalca Gras, d. o. o., ki v segmentu ojačitve južne stene z jeklenimi prečnimi protipotresnimi vezmi bistveno odstopa od projekta št. 21/03, ki predvideva utrditev južne stene s štirimi vertikalnimi jeklenimi “perfo” sidri. Na podlagi kulturnovarstvenih pogojev je ZVKDS, OE Piran, izdal kulturnovarstveno soglasje za sanacijo južne stene stolne cerkve Marijinega Vnebovzetja v Kopru /EŠD 239/ (S/III-1816-06, z dne 10. 7. 2006).Po končanih arheoloških raziskavah na zunanji strani južne stene jeseni 2006 se je 25. 10. 2006 v Kopru sestala posvetovalna in konservatorska skupina za sanacijo južne stene cerkve Marijinega vnebovzetja v Kopru. Na podlagi predstavitve opravljenih del vodje arheoloških raziskovanj, muzejskega arheologa Mateja Župančiča in g. Branka Hlače, odgovornega vodja del investitorja (Škofije Koper), je omenjena skupina ugotovila in izpostavila dva sklopa problemov pri sanaciji južne stene: statično sanacijo južne stene na zunanji strani ter statično sanacijo južne stene in oltarja sv. Petra in Pavla v notranjosti cerkve. Skupina je izpostavila vprašanje močno poškodovanega kamnitega oltarja sv. Petra in Pavla in predlagala ustrezne rešitve problema.Sanacijska gradbena dela na koprski stolni cerkvi, ki so stekla poleti 2006, so dokumentirana v projektu Strokovno mnenje o ustreznosti pristopa k utrditvi južne fasadne stene Stolnice Marijinega vnebovzetja v Kopru s predlogom za izvedbo dodatnih ojačitvenih del v območju dveh globinskih sond ob notranjih oltarjih, z dne 20. 2. 2007, ki ga je po naročilu investitorja pripravil Gradbeni inštitut ZRMK, d. o. o.: “Sanacija se je pričela poleti 2006. Izvedlo se je povezovanje objekta v prečni smeri s sistemom jeklenih nateznih vezi, celotna stena in temelji so se utrdili s sistematičnim injektiranjem s cementom. Nazadnje pa se je opravilo tudi podbetoniranje temeljev do globine nosilnih tal.” V strokovnem mnenju je omenjeno ods-topanje od projekta 21/03, na podlagi katerega je ZVKDS, OE Piran, izdal kulturnovarstveno soglasje – spremenjen sistem povezovanja objekta z (vidnimi) jeklenimi vezmi, projektna rešitev ojačitve južne stene s štirimi vertikalnimi “perfo” sidri pa je opredeljena kot neustrezna.Januarja 2007 so potekala po naročilu ZVKDS, OE Piran, zaščitna arheološka raziskovanja, ki jih je pod vodstvom arheologa Mateja Župančiča izvajal Pokrajinski muzej Koper ob južni steni ob močno poškodovanem stranskem baročnem kamnitem oltarju sv. Petra in Pavla (dve sondi). ZVKDS je imenoval strokovno komisijo za opredelitev in oceno izvedenih raziskav ter posegov na objektu Koper – Stolnica (EŠD 239), in ta se je sestala 25. 1. 2007 v stolni cerkvi; po ogledu dejanske situacije je sprejela sklepe o nadaljevanju strokovnega reševanja vprašanja statične sanacije južne stene in oltarja sv. Petra in Pavla. Pod točko 5 je bil sprejet sklep, da bo ZVKDS poskrbel za statično presojo neodvisnega statika, ki bo ocenil do tedaj izvedena dela statične sanacije južne stene ter predložil smernice za nadaljnjo primerno rešitev statične sanacije južne stene cerkve in po potrebi tudi oltarja. Izbrani neodvisni statik prof. dr. Jože Kušar, predstojnik Katedre za konstrukcije Fakultete za arhitekturo Univerze v Ljubljani, je na podlagi ogleda izvedenih del sanacije južne stene in arheoloških zaščitnih raziskav ter pregleda projektne dokumentacije podal strokovno oceno, da je statično sanacijo južne stene treba nadaljevati ter zaključiti po projektu 21/03, in navedel smernice za sanacijo stranskega oltarja sv. Petra in Pavla.Zaradi razkoraka med projektno dokumentacijo in izvedenimi gradbenimi deli statične sanacije južne stene stolne cerkve se je ZVKDS, OE Piran, v skladu s svojimi pristojnostmi in nalogami ter na podlagi 67. člena Zakona o varstvu kulturne dediščine (Ur. l. RS, št. 7/99) odločil za vključitev inšpekcijskih služb, ki so pristojne za reševanje vprašanj v zvezi z gradbenimi deli na spomeniških objektih. Dne 26. 3. 2007 je v stolni cerkvi Marijinega vnebovzetja v Kopru potekal sestanek, ki ga je vodila ga. Mateja Zupan, inšpektorica svetnica; na sestanku so bili poleg glavnega inšpektorja IRSKM, mag. Aleksandra Vidmarja, prisotni predstavniki investitorja, odgovorni projektant in predstavnika pristojnega ZVKDS, OE Piran. Sklepi sestanka, ki jih je pripravila inšpektorica, nakazujejo smer reševanja problema statične sanacije južne stene koprske stolnice v naslednjih letih ter med drugim določajo, da bo investitor pri vseh

nadaljnjih delih sodeloval z ZVKDS, OE Piran, ter v skladu s pravnimi podlagami pridobil vsa potrebna upravna dovoljenja pred začetkom nadaljevanja del, o vseh že izvedenih delih, ki se razlikujejo od pred-videnih v PGD projektu, pa bo seznanil ZVKDS, OE Piran, in mu predložil načrte sprememb kot del potrebne dokumentacije o posegih na spomeniku. Vsa dela, predvidena v projektu PGD št. 21/03 iz oktobra 2003, zaradi pomanjkanja finančnih sredstev ne bodo izvedena. Na podlagi vloge investitorja bo ZVKDS, OE Piran, predvidoma v letu 2008 pripravil konservatorski program za celovito obnovo in prezentacijo spomenika, v katerem bodo opredeljeni pogoji in smernice za vse nadaljnje posege v spome-nik in pripravo projektne konservatorsko-restavratorske dokumentacije, s katero bo investitor poskušal pridobiti delež sofinanciranja na državni ali evropski ravni.Med letoma 1986 in 2007 je bilo na območju stolne cerkve in ob njeni južni steni opravljenih šest zaščitnih arheoloških sondažnih raziskav, s pomočjo katerih smo pridobili dragocene podatke o stavbni zgodovini ter vzrokih za nastale poškodbe. Neposredno ob južni steni so bile raziskane štiri arheološke sonde, vsa raziskovanja je vodil Matej Župančič, arheolog Pokrajinskega muzeja Koper.70

Namen arheoloških raziskovanj oktobra 2006 in januarja 2007 je bil poleg dokumentiranja in zaščite ohranjenih starejših stavbnih struktur ter kulturnih plasti s pomočjo arheološke metode predvsem ugotoviti vzrok poškodb v obliki močnih razpok na vzhodnem delu južne stene ter danes že močno poškodovanem kamnitem oltarju sv. Petra in Pavla. Ob zadnjih arheoloških raziskavah je bilo ponovno ugotovljeno, da je vzrok poškodb, ki je posledica posedanja južne stene, v nezadostno trdni temeljni podlagi in posledično oslabljenih temeljih, na katerih stoji, saj so rezultati raziskav pokazali, da je vz-poredno z južno steno v notranjščini ohranjena starejša zidna struktura, vmesni prostor pa je zapolnjen le z nasutjem, kar bi lahko predstavljalo jedro problema poškodb stene ter oltarja sv. Petra in Pavla. Oltar, na katerem so vidne močne poškodbe v obliki razpok (debeline tudi do približno dveh centimetrov), je naslonjen na južno steno, zunanji del menze sloni na odkritem vzporednem zidu, vmesni del pa stoji na podlagi, ki se močno poseda. Zadnja gradbena dela so se nanašala na temelje južne stene v notranjščini v obsegu predhodno raziskanih arheoloških sond.

Opombe1 Marijan Zadnikar, Romanika v Sloveniji. Tipologija in morfologija sakralne arhitekture, Ljubljana 1982, str. 134–135.2 Nicolò del Bello, Capodistria, la Piazza del Comune nel secolo XV., Pagine istriane, anno III, št. 11–12, Koper, november–december

1905, str. 245–246: “A breve distanza dalla torre, di fronte all’Albergo novo ed all’Armeria, su una lunghezza di ventitre passi, si este-ndeva il portico della Basilica.”

3 Cf. Matej Župančič, Il Duomo romanico di S. Maria di Capodistria, Atti e memorie della Società istriana di archeologia e storia patria, n.s. XXXIX, 1991, str. 269.

4 Edvilijo Gardina, Koper, stolnica Marijinega Vnebovzetja, pritlični del pročelja, Dioecesis Justinopolitana. Spomeniki gotske umetnosti na območju koprske škofije, Koper 2000, str. 114.

5 Paolo Naldini, Corografia Ecclesiastica o sia Descrittione della Città e della Diocesi di Giustinopoli detto volgarmente Capo d’Istria, Benetke 1700 (Reprint: Historiae urbium et regionum Italiae rariores, XXXIX, Bologna 1967), str. 19: “... A questa Torre, che s’alzava in Isola, si concatenò molt’Anni prima la Chiesa, con l’aggiunta fattale di tre Archi per parte, drizzati à tempi di Francesco Biondi nel sito medesimo dell’Atrio antico, un secolo prima dall’Armi Genovesi incenerito.”

6 Cf. Naldini 1700 (n. 5), str. 93; Gardina 2000, str. 114–116.7 Nicolò Manzuoli, Nova descrittione della provincia dell’Istria, Benetke 1611 (Reprint: Bologna 1979), str. 77.8 Ibid., str. 69.9 Risbo s tušem hrani Državni arhiv v Benetkah v fondu Senato Mare, f. 223, format 56,5 x 42 cm.10 Salvator Žitko je ohranjeni Finov načrt opredelil kot najpomembnejši urbanistični dokument beneškega obdobja, saj poleg opisa ob-

zidnega pasu prinaša tudi osnovne urbanistične karakteristike mestnega tlorisa, ki so se v temeljnih potezah ohranile vse do propada Beneške republike leta 1797, za umetnostnozgodovinsko stroko pa risba predstavlja dragocen dokument za rekonstrukcijo koncepta mesta otoka in njegovih številnih sakralnih objektov ob koncu drugega desetletja 17. stoletja. Cf. Salvator Žitko, Koprski obzidni pas in mestni tloris na karti Giacoma Fina iz leta 1619, Kronika, 37. letnik, št. 1–2, Ljubljana 1989, str. 37–45.

11 Zvonik je na risbi označen z okrajšano besedo Cap., nad okrajšano besedo je znamenje za okrajšavo.12 Francesco (Franciscus) Zeno, Status Dioecesis Justinopolitanae sub Episcopo Francisco Zeno – anno 1661, Folium Dioecesanum Tergesti-

num, 6, Trst 1870, str. 85: “Urbis in medio tamquam in centro collocata est cathedralis ecclesia, quae sub titolo Assumptionis S. Mariae Majoris nomine appellatur: aedificium sane pulchrum, majestate et antiquate decorum, tres in naves distinctum, decem et octo mar-moreis columnis sussultum. Ejus longitudo est pedum 155, latitudo 75, et altitudo 80 circiter. Quatuordecim obtinet altaria, quorum aliqua diversis a confraternitatibus aluntur...Chorus ab Ecclesiae planitie gradibus decem elevatur, et altare majus ab ipso choro gradus quatuor supereminet sub sacello quatuor sussulto columnis, variorum sanctorum immaginibus in ligno inaurato excisis ...”

13 Helena Seražin, Rekonstrukcija tlorisa romanske stavbe koprske stolnice, “Hodil po zemlji sem naši ...”. Marijanu Zadnikarju ob osemde-setletnici, Ljubljana 2001, str. 171–176.

14 Paolo Naldini, Corografia Ecclesiastica o sia Descrittione della Città e della Diocesi di Giustinopoli detto volgarmente Capo d’Istria, Benetke 1700.

146


147


15 Naldini 1700 (n. 5), str. 19–21: “Non v’è Fabbrica in Giustinopoli, nè più alta, ne più vasta, ne più riguardevole del Duomo. Posa questi trà le due Piazze maggiori poco fà accennate; e porgendo la fronte alla prima verso Ponente, e il tergo alla seconda verso Levante, coll’interposta sua mole, e le segrega, e le congiunge. Ai di lui fianchi allargarsi due dritte strade, che pure aprono doppio transito dall’uno all’altro Foro. Consta di tre Navate à giusta proportione larghe, e lunghe; Mà quella di mezzo, che in altezza le altre eccede, accorciasi al quanto per il sito in essa occupato dal Choro. Il Pavimento e di marmorino battuto, ed il Cielo di legname intagliato, lavoro disteso in piano nelle Navate minori, e nella maggiore inarcato à giusta d’un mezzo Cielo; opera antica, ma durevole, e ben’ordinata. Le muraglie divisorie di queste Navate, col beneficio di nove Archi per parte s’appoggiano a dieciotto Colonne, di Marmo fino, trà le quale le prime si dissero dal Sansovino; Serpentino nero; e dello Sterllio, Marmo d’Antiochia. A capo della Navata maggiore, grandeggia maestosa Tribuna di marmi, piegati dallo scalpello in varj fogliami, fregiati d’oro; Quì la pretiosa Tomba del Santo Vescovo Nazario serve di Mensa al Sacro Altare, sopra di cui il zelo di Francesco Zeno l’anno mille seicento sessanta due collocò l’Augustissimo Sacramento. ... Ai lati di questa Tribuna, quasi sotto gli Archi delle Navate, s’ergono due altre Tribune minori, ò siano piccoli pulpiti di marmo, donde anticamente costumossi nelle Messe solenni annunciare al Popolo il Sacro Evangelio. Frà queste Tribune, e la grande preaccenata, dimmezzano due ampie scale marmoree, di più gradini entrambe, e servono alla salita dal piano della Chiesa, à quello del Coro. Questo spalleggiato dalle Sedie Canonicali, chiudesi con altra Tribuna di marmo fino, ma più bassa, benche in sito più eminente della prima; ed e l’Altar Maggiore, ... Sotto del Coro, come che sostenuto da piccoli Archi con sue Colonne, v’è un Oratorio sotterraneo, che direbbesi nell’Insubria lo Scurolo; se bene egli è à sufficienza luminoso; e se gli scende per due scale corrispondenti nelle Navate minori.” Citat Na-ldinijevega opisa stolnice, prevod v slovenščino in interpretacijo je objavil že Marijan Zadnikar v knjigi Romanika v Sloveniji (Zadnikar 1982, str. 136–138, op. 172). Slovenski prevod Naldinijevega dela: Pavel Naldini, Cerkveni krajepis ali opis mesta in škofije Justinopolis ljudsko Koper (ed. Darko Darovec), Koper 2001, v vseh podrobnostih ni dosleden, zato navajam izvirnik.

16 Antonio Alisi, Il Duomo di Capodistria, Rim 1932-X; Francesco Semi, Il Duomo di Capodistria, Parenzo 1934-XII; Janez Mikuž, Stolnica v Kopru, Ljubljana 1980 (Kulturni in naravni spomeniki Slovenije, 104).

17 Zadnikar 1982 (n. 1), str. 134–146, rekonstruiran tloris romanske bazilike na str. 142.18 Tiziana Franco, “Koral”, Gotika v Sloveniji (Ljubljana, Narodna galerija, 1. 6.–1. 10. 1995, ed. Janez Höfler), Ljubljana 1995, str.

348–350, kat. št. 202.19 Zadnikar 1982 (n. 1), str. 138, 143.20 Raziskavo so izvedli strokovnjaki z milanske univerze: Dipartimento di Fisica, Università degli Studi di Milano, Župančič 1991 (n. 3),

str. 275.21 Zeno 1870 (n. 12), str. 85.22 Seražin 2001 (n. 13), str. 171–176.23 Reprodukcijo načrta za prezidavo kornega dela stolne cerkve je prvič objavila Gabriella Serdi v članku o kipih na fasadi koprske stolnice:

Gabriella Serdi, Le sculture sulla facciata del Duomo di Capodistria, Atti e memorie della società istriana di archeologia e storia patria, n. s. XXXVI, 1988, str. 123–133. Načrt, ki ga danes hrani Semeniška knjižnica v Trstu (Biblioteca del Seminario di Trieste (BST), Archivio del Duomo di Capodistria (ADC), b. 271/1), je reproduciran na str. 127.

24 Manzuoli 1611 (n. 7), str. 77; Folium Dioecesanum Tergestinum 1870 (n. 12), str. 84–92; Naldini 1700 (n. 5), str. 19–21.25 Manzuoli 1611 (n. 7), str. 69. 26 Seražin 2001 (n. 13), str. 173. Domneva ni podprta z oprijemljivimi argumenti, saj vprašanje arkadnih odprtin v pritličju glavne fasade

zaenkrat še ni zadovoljivo rešeno in ne vemo zagotovo, kje sta bila prvotno portala, ki sta danes na severni steni cerkve.27 Seražin 2001 (n. 13), str. 174.28 Serdi 1988 (n. 23), str. 128.29 Seražin 2001 (n. 13), str. 174. Cf. Naldini 1700 (n. 5), str. 21; Antonio Alisi, Il Duomo di Capodistria, Rim 1932-X, str. 30.30 Naldini 1700 (n. 5), str. 20.31 Raziskovalka ZRC SAZU je vprašanje baročne prenove koprske stolnice prvič predstavila z referatom na Mednarodni znanstveni konfer-

enci 1400-letnica koprske škofije in omembe Slovanov v Istri, ki je potekala med 12. in 14. oktobrom 2000 v Kopru (Helena Seražin, Arhitekturna prenova koprske stolnice v prvi polovici 18. stoletja, Mednarodna znanstvena konferenca 1400-letnica koprske škofije in omembe Slovanov v Istri, Koper, 12.–14. oktober 2000, Koper 2000, str. 68–69), prispevek pa je bil objavljen naslednje leto: Helena Seražin, Arhitekturna prenova koprske stolnice v prvi polovici 18. stoletja, Acta Histriae, IX/2 [Prispevki z mednarodne znanstvene konfer-ence. 1400-letnica koprske škofije in omembe Slovanov v Istri], 2001, str. 489–504.

32 Antonio Massari, Giorgio Massari. Architetto veneziano del Settecento, Vicenza 1971, str. 79–83.33 Dokument je prvi objavil Francesco Semi v monografiji o stolnici: Francesco Semi, Il Duomo di Capodistria, Parenzo 1934-XII, str. 28:

“il proto Fran.co ... (sic!) venuto à posta da Venetia p. leuar la pianta della Chiesa, e disegnar la Fabrica che si deue fare, hauer anco fatti gli dissegni delli altari del Santissimo con la Capella et quello di San Nazario”. Isti dokument je nato objavila Helena Seražin, Massarijeva prenova koprske stolnice, ZUZ, 2004, str. 180, cit. n. 14, ki je besedilo transkribirala nekoliko drugače: “L. D. 1690. 25. Aprile. Al Protto Fran:o uenuto à posta dà Venetia [per] leuar la pianta della Chiesa, e disegnar la Fabrica, che si deue fare, hauer anco fatti li dis-segni degl’Altari del Santissimo con la Capella, et anello di S. Nazario in tutto lire cento uinti una, compreso il nollo pagato alle Barche, che lo conduse qui, et à Venetia L 121:-”.

34 Načrt je objavljen v prispevku Gabrielle Serdi, Le sculture sulla facciata del Duomo di Capodistria, Atti e memorie della società istriana di archeologia e storia patria, n. s. XXXVI, 1988, str. 127.

35 Zeno 1870 (n. 12), str. 85; Naldini 1700 (n. 5), str. 19–21.36 Seražin 2004 (n. 33), str. 181.37 Ibid., str. 181–183, cit. n. 21.38 Ibid., str. 182, cit. n. 24, 25, 26.39 Ibid., str. 182–183.40 Seražin 2004 (n. 33), str. 183–184. Cf. prilogo 5, str. 210–211, kjer avtorica prispevka v celoti navaja Massarijevo pojasnilo k načrtom,

od katerih je bil pismu stolničnih oskrbnikov, Francesca Barbabianca in Alviseja Tarsia, ko sta čez dobro desetletje načrte poslala Giovan-niju Poleniju v pregled, priložen le tloris z oznako A. Pismo skupaj s pojasnilom načrtov in tlorisom hrani Museo Biblioteca Archivio di Bassano del Grappa (ABG), Opuscoli Poleni 31, c, 9, 10.

41 Seražin 2004 (n. 33), str. 184–185.42 Ibid., str. 185–186, cit. n. 44.43 Serdi 1988 (n. 22), str. 127.44 Seražin 2004 (n. 33), str. 187. Helena Seražin primerja Massarijev položaj z njegovim rojakom Giovannijem Dozzijem, ki je leta 1724

prevzel odgovornost za povečanje bazilike sv. Evfemije v Rovinju in se tako znašel pred podobnim problemom: na začetku stoletja zgrajeni apsidi je moral priključiti ladijsko telo, pri tem pa je izbral psevdobazilikalni prostor. Vzor za obnovo obeh cerkva naj bi bila prenovljena videmska stolnica Domenica Rossija (1657–1737).

45 Seražin 2004 (n. 33), str. 187–188; cf. tudi Helena Seražin, Arhitekturna prenova koprske stolnice v prvi polovici 18. stoletja, Acta Histriae, IX/2 [Prispevki z mednarodne znanstvene konference. 1400-letnica koprske škofije in omembe Slovanov v Istri], 2001, str. 496, cit. n. 12.

46 Seražin 2001 (n. 46), str. 496 in sl. 5 na str. 498; Seražin 2004 (n. 33), str. 189.47 Ibid., p. 496, cit. n. 13.48 Seražin 2004 (n. 33), str. 189; Seražin 2001 (n. 46), str. 499, sl. 6.49 Seražin 2004 (n. 33), str. 69, 207 (priloga 2: Izjava gradbenih mojstrov in zidarjev o stanju koprske stolnice konec leta 1743) ter str.

195.50 Ibid., str. 190, cit. n. 60, 61. Menim, da vprašanje severnih stranskih portalov ni povsem jasno, je pa sklepanje avtorice prispevka seveda

mogoče.51 Ibid., str. 191, cit. n. 62, 63.52 Načrt hrani Museo Biblioteca Archivio di Bassano del Grapa (ABG), Opuscoli Poleni 31, c. 10, Seražin 2004 (n. 33), str. 196 in 200

(slika 6).53 Seražin 2004 (n. 33), str. 196.54 Ibid., str. 208–209 (priloga 3).55 Ibid., str. 210–211 (priloga 5).56 Seražin 2004 (n. 33), str. 203.57 Ibid., str. 204–205, cit. n. 119.58 Današnja Cankarjeva ulica, ki je bila na začetku 19. stoletja na novo regulirana in razširjena, povezuje skrajni vzhodni del starega

mestnega jedra (kjer so ob izteku današnje Kidričeve ulice stala prva od dvanajstih mestnih vrat – Vrata sv. Martina/Morska vrata – Pristaniška vrata/Porta marittima ) z osrednjo najvišjo točko mesta, trgom Brolo in Titovim trgom. Prvotna napeljava ulice, ki je kot pendant današnji Kidričevi ulici sooblikovala horizontalni del mestnega uličnega “križa”, je potekala od osrednjega trga ob severni stranici obstoječe Cankarjeve ulice, nato je zavila na današnjo Goriško ulico in tekla mimo Giordanovega trga skozi historični predel sv. Petra do današnjega Gramscijevega trga (prvotno Piazzale S. Pietro), ki je kot eden izmed osmih obodnih trgov mesta vključeval tudi pristanišče, imenovano Mandracchio Porta S. Pietro.

59 Daniela Milotti Bertoni, Delovanje tržaške Soprintendenze v Slovenski Istri 1918–1945, v: Kultura na narodnostno mešanem ozemlju Slovenske Istre. Varovanje naravne in kulturne dediščine na področju konservatorstva in muzeologije, Ljubljana 2002, str. 51–85.

60 Beneški arhitekt Ferdinando Forlati (Verona 1882–1976 Benetke) je deloval na beneški Soprintendenzi od leta 1910, nato je vodil tržaško Soprintendenzo med letoma 1926 in 1935, ko se je vrnil na beneško Soprintendenzo in tam deloval do leta 1940. S svojimi nazori o moderni konservatorski doktrini ter pionirskim izvajanjem temeljnih načel spomeniškovarstvene doktrine je pomembno vplival na Franceta Stelèta in razvoj slovenske spomeniškovarstvene službe.

61 Francesco Semi v monografiji Il Duomo di Capodistria iz leta 1934 v opisu notranjščine stolnice o kapeli Najsvetejšega pravi: “... a sinistra è la cappella del Santissimo, nella quale ora, su progetto dell’arch. Ferdinando Forlati, si deve compiere una vasta opera di decorazione marmorea e pittorica, grazie al cospicuo lascito di un benemerito sacerdote capodistriano.” Francesco Semi, Il Duomo di Capodistria, Parenzo 1934-XII, str. 37. V arhivu tržaške Soprintendenze (Soprintendenza archeologica e per i beni ambientali, architettonici, artistici e storici del Friuli Venezia Giulia, Trieste) hranijo risbo/načrt prereza kapele Najsvetejšega, ki verjetno ustreza načrtu, ki ga omenja Semi: Archivio Disegni, Cartella 1, Scheda N.o: 22. Capodistria, Duomo (XVIII/99), našla Daniela Milotti Bertoni.

62 Milotti Bertoni (n. 59), str. 60–61. Koprska stolnica je bila skupaj z nekaj istrskimi cerkvami, npr. katedralo in cerkvijo sv. Frančiška v Pulju, uvrščena med sakralne stavbe pomembnega zgodovinskega in umetnostnozgodovinskega značaja, le poreška Evfrazijeva bazilika je bila razglašena za spomenik državnega pomena.

63 Milotti Bertoni (n. 59), str. 66 in cit. n. 66.64 Ibid., str. 67–68, cit. n. 72.65 Dok. št. 75/1994, z dne 7. 2. 1994, cf. prilogo.66 O/II-847-94, z dne 15. 4. 1994: Stolnica Koper. Sanacija temeljev stranske ladje, I. faza, Ljubljana, april 1994, avtor: inž. Stojan Ribni-

kar.67 Geotehnično poročilo o vzrokih poškodb na objektu stolne cerkve v Kopru s predlogom sanacije, GZL – Inštitut za geologijo, geo-

tehniko in geofiziko, št. D.N.: 1210-1165/94, Ljubljana, 16. marec 1994, obdelal: Peter Bizilj, dipl. inž. gr.68 V dokumentaciji piranske OE ZVKDS je pod št. S/III-218/TM-76, z dne 26. 3. 1976, hranjeno soglasje za obnovo stropa nad zakristijo

v stolni cerkvi v Kopru po projektu Invest - biroja št. 75-20/130. Konservatorskega poročila o poteku obnovitvenih del stropa zakristije med dokumentacijo nisem zasledila.

69 V vmesnem poročilu o arheoloških posegih v koprski stolnici z dne 27. 8. 1994 avtorja Mateja Župančiča natančna lokacija sond ni opredeljena, končnega poročila o arheoloških izkopavanjih pa med dokumentacijo ZVKDS, OE Piran, ni.

70 1986: arheološka sonda v jugozahodnem kotu zunaj cerkve, s pomočjo katere je bila odkrita prvotna dolžina romanske ladje na zahodu; avgust 1994: arheološki sondi ob jugovzhodnem vogalu južne ladijske stene ter zakristije in v zakristiji; oktobra 2006: arheološka sonda ob osrednjem delu južne stene zunaj cerkve; januar 2007: arheološki sondi zahodno ter vzhodno od oltarja sv. Petra in Pavla v notranjščini cerkve.

148


149


LiteraturaArhiv ZVKDS, OE Piran.Antonio Alisi, Il Duomo di Capodistria, Rim 1932-X.Stane Bernik, Organizem slovenskih obmorskih mest. Koper, Izola, Piran, Ljubljana – Piran 1968, str. 37s.Giuseppe Caprin, L’Istria nobilissima, I–II, Trst 1905–1907, str. 75–89.Nicolò del Bello, Capodistria, la Piazza del Comune nel secolo XV., Pagine istriane, anno III, št. 11–12 (III/11–12), Koper, november–de-cember 1905, str. 245–264, o fasadi.Hans Folnesics, Leo Planiscig, Bau- und Kunstdenkmale des Küstenlandes, Dunaj 1906.Edvilijo Gardina, Koper, stolnica Marijinega Vnebovzetja, pritlični del pročelja, Dioecesis Justinopolitana. Spomeniki gotske umetnosti na območju koprske škofije, Koper 2000, str. 112–123.Edvilijo Gardina, Bartolomeo Gianelli. 1824–1894, Koper 1994.Jovo Grobovšek (ed.), Doktrina 1. Mednarodne listine ICOMOS, Ljubljana 2003.Mateja Kavčič, Boris Deanovič, Stavbna dediščina, v: Vračanje izvirnih podob. Restavratorski posegi, Ljubljana 2004, str. 37–47.Ivan Komelj, Gotska arhitektura, Ljubljana 1969 (Ars Sloveniae).Koper (Capodistria), stolnica Marijinega vnebovzetja: fasada, Gotika v Sloveniji (Ljubljana, Narodna galerija, 1. 6.–1. 10. 1995, ed. Janez Höfler), Ljubljana 1995, str. 102–103, kat. št. 36.Ana Lavrič, Vizitacijsko poročilo Agostina Valiera o koprski škofiji iz leta 1579, Ljubljana 1986, str. 60–63.Avv. (avvocato) dott. (ore) Madonizza, Il Duomo di Capodistria, Il popolano dell’Istria, 18. 2. 1851, anno secondo, št. 41, str. 161–163.Nicolò Manzuoli, Nova descrittione della Provincia dell’Istria, Venezia (MDCXI) 1611 [ed. 1979 (Reprint: Bologna 1979)], str. 57–78.Nicolò Manzuoli, Novi opis Istre, v: Stari krajepisi Istre (ed. Darko Darovec), Koper 1999, str. 109–138.Predrag Marković, Koprska kamnoseška delavnica in spodnji del pročelja katedrale v Kopru/ Koparska klesarska radionica i donji dio pročelja katedrale u Kopru, Annales (Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije), 20/2000, series historia et sociologia, 10, 2000, 1, str. 83–102.Antonio Massari, Giorgio Massari. Architetto veneziano del Settecento, Vicenza 1971, str. 79–83.Janez Mikuž, Stolnica v Kopru, Ljubljana 1980 (Kulturni in naravni spomeniki Slovenije, 104).Daniela Milotti Bertoni, Delovanje tržaške Soprintendenze v Slovenski Istri 1918–1945, v: Kultura na narodnostno mešanem ozemlju Slovenske Istre. Varovanje naravne in kulturne dediščine na področju konservatorstva in muzeologije, Ljubljana 2002, str. 51–85.Paolo Naldini, Corografia Ecclesiastica o sia Descrittione della Città e della Diocesi di Giustinopoli detto volgarmente Capo d’Istria, Venezia 1700, str. 19–23; 24–57 (Reprint: Historiae urbium et regionum Italiae rariores, XXXIX, Bologna 1967).Pavel Naldini, Cerkveni krajepis ali opis mesta in škofije Justinopolis ljudsko Koper (ed. Darko Darovec), Koper 2001.Francesco Semi, Il Duomo di Capodistria, Parenzo 1934-XII.Helena Seražin, Arhitekturna prenova koprske stolnice v prvi polovici 18. stoletja, Mednarodna znanstvena konferenca 1400-letnica koprske škofije in omembe Slovanov v Istri, Koper, 12.–14. oktober 2000, Koper 2000, str. 68–69.Helena Seražin, Arhitekturna prenova koprske stolnice v prvi polovici 18. stoletja, Acta Histriae, IX/2 [Prispevki z mednarodne znanstvene konference. 1400-letnica koprske škofije in omembe Slovanov v Istri], 2001, str. 489–504.Helena Seražin, Rekonstrukcija tlorisa romanske stavbe koprske stolnice, “Hodil po zemlji sem naši ...”. Marijanu Zadnikarju ob osemdesetlet-nici, Ljubljana 2001, str. 171–176.Helena Seražin, Arhitekt Giorgio Massari (1687–1766). Sakralna arhitektura na Goriškem, v Furlaniji, Istri in Dalmaciji, Ljubljana 2003 (doktorska disertacija, Univerza v Ljubljani, tipkopis).Helena Seražin, Massarijeva prenova koprske stolnice, ZUZ, 2004, str. 178–220.Helena Seražin, Il duomo di Capodistria/Koper, v: The heritage of the Serenissima. The presentation of the architectural and aechaeological remains of the Venetian Republic. Proceedings of the international conference Izola–Venezia 4.–9. 11. 2005, Koper 2006, str. 39–44.Gabriella Serdi, Le sculture sulla facciata del Duomo di Capodistria, Atti e memorie della società istriana di archeologia e storia patria, n. s. XXXVI, 1988, str. 123–133, na strani 127 je reproduciran načrt koprske stolnice iz leta 1690.France Stelè, Umetnost v Primorju, Ljubljana 1960.Nace Šumi, Arhitektura XVI. stoletja na Slovenskem, Ljubljana 1966, str. 14–17.Nace Šumi, Po poti baročnih spomenikov Slovenije, Ljubljana 1992.Domenico Venturini, Guida storica di Capodistria, Capodistria 1906.Maria Walcher, Giuseppe Pavanello (ed.), Istria. Città maggiori. Capodistria, Parenzo, Pirano, Pola. Opere d’arte dal Medioevo all’Ottocento, Trst 1999.Marijan Zadnikar, Romanika v Sloveniji. Tipologija in morfologija sakralne arhitekture, Ljubljana 1982, str. 134–146.Francesco (Franciscus) Zeno, Status Dioecesis Justinopolitanae sub Episcopo Francisco Zeno -anno 1661, Folium Dioecesanum Tergestinum, 6, Trst 1870, str. 84–92.Salvator Žitko, Koprski obzidni pas in mestni tloris na karti Giacoma Fina iz leta 1619, Kronika (Časopis za slovensko krajevno zgodovino), letnik 37, Ljubljana 1989, št. 1–2, str. 37–45.Matej Župančič, Il Duomo romanico di S. Maria di Capodistria, Atti e memorie della Società istriana di archeologia e storia patria, n.s. XXXIX, 1991, str. 267–276.Matej Župančič, Romanska stolnica sv. Marije v Kopru – vnovič (Prispevki h gradbenemu razvoju), Mednarodna znanstvena konferenca 1400-letnica koprske škofije in omembe Slovanov v Istri, Koper, 12.–14. oktober 2000, Koper 2000, str. 28–29. Foto 1: Giacomo Fino, načrt mesta Koper, 1. avgust 1619, risba s tušem. Državni arhiv v Benetkah (Archivio di Stato di

Venezia), fond Senato Mare, f. 223, format 56,5 x 42 cm

Photo 1: Giacomo Fino, plan of Koper, 1 August 1619, ink drawing. (Archivio di Stato di Venezia, fund Senato Mare, f. 223, format 56.5 x 42 cm.)

150


151


Foto 2: Cerkev Marijinega vnebovzetja v Kopru, južna stena, reliefna dekoracija pilastra na podboju stranskega portala ob zvoniku (foto: Aleš Ogorelec)

Photo 2: Church of the Assumption in Koper, south wall, relief decoration of the pilaster on the frame of the side portal by the bell-tower (photo: Aleš Ogorelec)

Foto 3: Cerkev Marijinega vnebovzetja v Kopru, južna stena, (četrto) slepo romansko okno in napisna plošča iz leta 1714 (foto: Aleš Ogorelec)

Photo 3: Church of the Assumption in Koper, south wall, (fourth) blind Romanesque window and inscription plate from 1714 (photo: Aleš Ogorelec)

152


153


Foto 4: Cerkev Marijinega vnebovzetja v Kopru (foto: Jaka Jeraša, 1997)

Photo 4: Church of the Assumption in Koper (photo: Jaka Jeraša, 1997)Foto 5: Cerkev Marijinega vnebovzetja v Kopru, pročelje stolnice (foto: Jaka Jeraša, oktober 2008)

Photo 5: Church of the Assumption in Koper, main façade (photo: Jaka Jeraša, October 2008)

154


155


Foto 6: Cerkev Marijinega vnebovzetja v Kopru, pogled na prezbiterij in zakristijo (foto: Jaka Jeraša, oktober 2008)

Photo 6: Church of the Assumption in Koper, view of the chancel and sacristy. (photo: Jaka Jeraša, October 2008)

Foto 7: Cerkev Marijinega vnebovzetja v Kopru, notranjščina, pogled proti vzhodu (foto: Jaka Jeraša, oktober 2008)

Photo 7: Church of the Assumption in Koper, interior, view towards the east (photo: Jaka Jeraša, October 2008)

Vanja Prohinar

The Cathedral Church of the Assumption in Koper: A History of the Building and an Overview of the Renovation of the Southern WallKey words: Koper cathedral, Church of the Assumption, southern wall, Romanesque architecture, Romanesque basilica, Baroque, Giorgio Massari, fortification of foundations

Introduction

This article presents the church building’s development through history, with an emphasis on the main construction phases; it is based above all on archival research and on comparative studies done by art historians to date. The presentation of the building’s history is followed by a review of restoration work carried out on the southern wall of the cathedral church in the 1980s, when the first conservation-res-toration research was carried out on the exterior of the southern wall, with the help of documentation kept by the Piran Regional Unit of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia (the Institute).

A description of the architectural history of Koper cathedral

The church in Koper was first mentioned at the end of the 11th century, when archival sources described it as the main church, having an altar devoted to Our Lady, probably the main altar, and an (open) atrium.1 The year 1380 is an important turning point in the history of the cathedral, when the Genoese robbed and devastated the town, taking with them the relics of the town’s patron saints Nazarius and Alexander and also burning down the atrium in front of the façade of the old basilica, which measured 23 Venetian passos, as recounts Nicolò del Bello.2 Soon after, it was proposed that the church, which up until then had stood about eight metres away from the free-standing bell-tower,3 be extended westwards. In a document dated 27 June 1385, the Venetian Doge Antonio Venerio confirmed that the owner of the land in front of the aforementioned portico or atrium of the Romanesque church was the bishop of Koper, Lodovico Morosini (16 October 1364–21 November 1391).4 According to Naldini’s account, during the time of Bishop Francesco Biondi (23 February 1428–29 March 1448) three charming arched arcades connecting the church with the bell-tower were built where the old Romanesque atrium, which the Genoese had burned down a century before, had once stood.5

In 1422, in the time of Bishop Geremia Pola (2 December 1420–1424), the stolen relics of the town’s patron saints Nazarius and Alexander were returned from Genoa to Koper; then on 7 November 1445 the bishop of Koper, Francesco Biondi, of Florentine origin, consecrated the church and altar of Saint Nazarius.6

Vanja Prohinar, Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Piran Regional Unit

156


157


Nicolò Manzuoli, a historian and doctor of law from Koper, dedicated his work from 1611 Nova de-scrittione della provincia dell’Istria to the podestà of Koper, Nicolò Dandol. In it he wrote the following words about Koper cathedral: “La Chiesa Cathedrale intitolata S. Maria maggiore è la più bella che sia nella Città. Hà la facciata tutta di pietre bianche, & entro è diuisa in tre parti. Le muraglie che fanno questa separatione stano à volto sopra 18. colonne di bellissimi marmi. In essa sono tre Corpi Santi di S. Alessandro Papa, del beato Nazario, & del B. Elio.”7 In the beginning of the second decade of the 17th century, the cathedral devoted to Our Lady was the most beautiful church in town. It had a façade of white stone, which we can still see nowadays. The Romanesque interior of the basilica at the time was divided into three parts: the nave and two side aisles. The arcades, which separated the nave from the aisles, were supported by 18 marble columns. Besides describing the cathedral, Manzuoli also provides some information, which gave writers on Koper’s central sacral monument some key information for piecing together the architectural history of the church: “1480 si finì il campanile del Domo principiato 1418 et 1490 si allungò esso Domo vnendolo con detto campanile che prima era in isola, come e quello di S. Marco a Venetia, et 1498 si fece la facciata di esso Domo.”8

Eight years later on 25 May 1619, the podestà of Koper, Captain Bernardo Malipiero, received an order from Venice to organise the renovation of the surrounding wall, so he ordered engineer Giacomo Fino to draw up a plan9; Fino had it drawn up by 1 August of the same year.10 His drawing included not just a plan of the town’s surrounding wall, but also a plan of the town itself. He drew in among the buildings the two main communicational arteries and the sacral buildings that existed at the time. The central position on this plan is taken up by the cathedral (Domo), which is marked as a single rectangular shape without a transept and ends in the east with three apses, the central one being somewhat larger and extending further into what is nowadays the square called Brolo Trg. On the western side, the building’s body already includes the bell-tower (Campanile),11 and on the sketch three entrances are marked: a por-tal on the main western façade and entrances in the middle of the northern and southern church walls.In 1661, the cathedral in Koper dedicated to Our Lady’s assumption was visited by Bishop Francesco Zeno, who in his account recorded the former appearance of the church; he wrote that it was a beautiful, grand and ancient building.12 The record of the visit is the first report on the actual, although only ap-proximate, dimensions of the cathedral from the period prior to it undergoing a Baroque makeover, and represents a precious starting point for the latest reconstruction of the Romanesque basilica published by Helena Seražin.13

The famous Corografia ecclesiastica,14 written by Bishop of Koper Paolo Naldini (1632–1713), which was published in 1700 in Venice on the threshold of the radical Baroquisation of the medieval church, re-corded the untouched appearance of the pre-Baroque cathedral shaped by the Romanesque, Gothic and Renaissance periods. In his comprehensive account of the origins and structure of the Koper cathedral, the bishop included a description of the existing state, which serves as a precious source for the recon-struction of the pre-Baroque church.15 The cathedral, which even at the beginning of the 18th century was the most outstanding (sacral) building in the city, standing between two central town squares, was therefore a basilica with a nave and two side aisles in harmonious proportions. The nave was higher than the side aisles; its eastern end housed the chancel. The floor was of marble, while the ceiling was of carved wood. The side aisles were covered with a flat wooden ceiling, while the nave had a vaulted wooden ceil-ing, probably in the form of an open wooden framework. The nine arches of the arcades separating the side aisles from the nave were supported by 18 fine marble columns. At the end of the nave (in front of the chancel) stood a marble ciborium with carved and gilded foliage, under which lay the precious sarcophagus of St Nazarius, acting as an altar table. On both sides, almost under the arcades, stood two small marble pulipts, from which the Gospel was read during mass. Between the pulpits and the altar of St Nazarius, two broad marble staircases connected the nave with the upper chancel, surrounded on both sides by choir stalls, and in the main apse stood the main altar. Below the chancel there was a vaulted columnated crypt, into which led stairways from both side aisles.

The Romanesque period: reconstructing the floor plan of the Romanesque basilica from the second half of the 12th century

From technical literature we are acquainted with three attempts to reconstruct the old Romanesque columnated basilica cathedral with columnated crypt and wooden (probably) open ceiling. While tak-ing into account the preserved remains of the building, it was above all the secondary sources, which we have presented above and which are included by all art history monographs on this building, which were important in reconstructing the old basilica.16

The first person to attempt to reconstruct the floor plan of the old Romanesque basilica was Marijan Zadnikar. In his comprehensive work on Romanesque architecture, Romanika v Sloveniji;17 he offered his thoughts on one of the oldest phases in the architectural history of the main church in town. His contribution was based above all on older literature and sources, and on the modest remains of the Romanesque façade which could be peeled out from underneath the Baroque covering. Following the radical Baroquisation in the first half of the 18th century, the only things that remained of the original Romanesque basilica were part of the northern side aisle wall and the southern wall of the southern aisle with walled-up Romanesque windows and fragments of the portal, kept in the Koper Regional Museum, which supposedly belonged to the south side entrance into the church (the bishop’s portal). On the basis of the then-visible architectural remains, which were preserved in the Gothicised and above all Baroquised church, and especially with the help of visitation reports and Naldini’s description of the old cathedral, the author was able to reconstruct the appearance and essential characteristics of the Romanesque basilica, for he could only determine with certainty the breadth of the church, while due to Baroque interventions in the eastern end of the cathedral he was not yet able to establish the length.The western façade of the Romanesque basilica was probably in harmony with the basilica church de-sign. In a parchment codex from around 1425, which is kept in the Chapter Archive in Koper, folio 88v features an illuminated figurative initial, on which is depicted the patron saint of the town and the first bishop of Koper, St. Nazarius, above a model of the church which bears probably only a basic re-semblance to the old cathedral.18 On the south wall of the south aisle, the church had a series of upright Romanesque semicircular-headed chamfered windows, and there were probably corresponding windows in the clerestory of the nave. The north aisle was very probably without windows, the church being il-luminated from the north by windows in the clerestory. Approximately in the middle of the north wall there was an entrance, which was later walled up, and its pendant on the south wall was the bishop’s portal, which connected the cathedral with the bishop’s house.In the proposal for the reconstruction of the ground plan of the old cathedral, the author was surprised at the large number of marble columns considering the church’s size. Zadnikar wrote that the density of the columns, which correspond to the distances between the axes of the Romanesque windows on the south wall, reflects the desire to make a rich interior. He sought meaningful comparisons with some early Christian churches nearby, for example the Euphrasian basilica in Poreč, the church S. Maria delle Gra-zie and the cathedral of St Euphemius in Grado. Densely arranged columns are generally characteristic of early Medieval architecture.19

Marijan Zadnikar classed the old Koper cathedral in the group of Romanesque basilicas which have a central nave and two side aisles but no transept, having three semicircular apses in a straight line at the east, the middle one being wider and deeper than the two side apses. He considered the marble columns of the arcades between the aisles and the nave, and the Romanesque columnated crypt typical of early and mature Romanesque architecture, an individual particularity, and the old Koper basilica as a varia-tion of this type of building.The new reconstruction of the ground plan of the Romanesque basilica, which was contributed by Matej Župančič, the archeologist of the Koper Regional Museum, was based on the results of archaeological excavations carried out under his leadership between the years 1986 and 1991. In 1986 the southwest-ern corner of the old Romanesque basilica was unearthed, so the archaeologist discovered that the main church building was 8.1 m from the bell-tower. He also discovered the expected position of the Roman-esque façade. With the help of thermoluminescence,20 the Romanesque windows in the south side aisle were dated to 1137 (±28). While excavating the chancel in 1991, they discovered the foundations of

158


159


the semicircular apse, which initially led Župančič to jump to overhasty conclusions about the position of the original Romanesque apse – he took the origin of the new reconstruction to be the southwestern corner of the Romanesque church which was excavated in 1986, and measured 155 Venetian passos (53.89 m) from it, which is the length of the basilica recorded by Bishop Francesco Zeno in his visita-tion report.21 On the basis of this information, he did not succeed in unearthing the foundations of the southern apse; this was only discovered during excavations in 1994 in the sacristy, so Župančič’s recon-struction of the plan of the Romanesque basilica was shifted eight metres towards the west.The last reconstruction of the ground plan of the Romanesque basilica was published by Helena Seražin in a jubilee edition marking the 80th birthday of the academic Marijan Zadnikar. On the basis of the pre-vious two attempts and valuable new findings connected with the Baroque renovation of the cathedral, she found a new solution.22 For her point of departure she took the reproduction of the original plan for the new choir from 1690,23 which alongside a new solution for the eastern part of the cathedral also in-cludes an accurately drawn plan of the existing state of the nave and aisles – therefore the Romanesque or Gothic interior – which fits the descriptions of Nicolò Manzuoli and bishops Francesco Zena and Paolo Naldini.24 In the naves and aisles, 18 columns can clearly be made out. They separate the nave from the aisles and are mentioned by both bishops, while instead of the newly planned choir, one can see where the original Romanesque main apse used to be. It is drawn in faintly on the plan. The plan shows three entrances into the church: the main portal in the middle of the main façade and two side portals, which are located exactly in the middle of the side aisle walls. Helena Seražin believes that all three portals were probably made around 1498, when the church was extended towards the west as far as the bell-tower and got a new façade.25 The main portal stands in situ to this day, while the side portals are supposed to have been shifted to the wall of the northern side aisle during reconstruction work in the 18th century.26 The length of the church from the western façade to the Romanesque apse, faintly drawn in on the plan from 1690, is 155 Venetian passos, which is the length cited by Bishop Zeno in his description.27 In front of the old Romanesque apse, a sacristy is drawn in and four columns are marked, for which Gabriella Serdi28 believed that they emphasised the ciborium above the sarcophagus of St Nazarius, while Helena Seražin believes that the plan shows the plan view of the crypt with four columns29; this would seem to be more likely, because according to the accounts of Bishop Naldini, the ciborium above the sarcophagus of the town’s patron saint stood in front of the high chancel.30

Regarding the density and placement of the 18 columns along the length of the Romanesque basilica which Marijan Zadnikar was unable to satisfactorily back up with well-founded arguments, I believe that Helena Seražin did not find a satisfactory answer either. All three writers mentioned above saw the Gothic-Renaissance (pre-Baroque) church, which was extended towards the west as far as the bell-tower, so it should be taken into account that the eighteen marble columns were arranged along the entire length of the pre-Baroque church and not only around the periphery of the Romanesque basilica. On the plan from 1690, 18 columns are arranged along the entire length of the nave of the pre-Baroqe church, including the extension as far as the bell-tower in the west. That is why I believe that the latest attempt to reconstruct the Romanesque basilica should come to some conclusions regarding the arrange-ment of the 18 marble columns.

The Baroque renovation of the Koper cathedral in the first half of the 18th century

The architectural renovation of the Koper cathedral in the first half of the 18th century and its individual phases, which out of all the history of the building is the best documented, was presented to the expert public by Helena Seražin, together with an exhaustive study of the preserved archival material and a comparison of the preserved original plans with the existing state of the building.31 Alongside the open question of the cathedral’s main façade, with the ground floor section in Venetian gotico fiorito style and the upper Renaissance forms without the topmost decoration, many questions related to the Baroque renovation of the cathedral in the first half of the 18th century remain unanswered. New discoveries con-firmed Antonio Massari’s findings32 that the radical Baroque renovation which had the most bearing on the church’s appearance was carried out in three separate construction phases; the latter two are ascribed to the leading Venetian architect of the first half of the 18th century, Giorgio Massari (1687–1766). He

created many important Venetian architectural monuments such as the Palazzo Grassi and the Gesuati and Pietà churches.The origins of the planned Baroque renovation reach back to the time of Bishop Paolo Naldini. In 1690 a plan was ordered for the enlargement of the church in the east, which is confirmed by a preserved entry in the cathedral’s ledger; on folio 28 it is written that on 25 April 1690 proto Francesco from Venice was paid 121 lira for drawing the church and a plan for the construction of the new section, as well as a design for the altar of the Blessed Sacrament with a chapel and altar of St Nazarius.33 The description of the plans from the above ledger fits the main features of the plan from the end of the 17th century kept in the seminary library in Trieste.34 The plan of the old columnated basilica with its crypt can be made out, this being the state of the cathedral at the end of the 17th century as described by bishops Francesco Zeno and Paolo Naldini,35 as well as the newly planned eastern section in place of the old Romanesque choir, with a transept and chancel with apse drawn in. Due to the record of the existing state, the plan is of key importance for the reconstruction of the old Romanesque basilica.On the basis of the preserved fragments of the severly damaged upper left plan of the cathedral as drawn up by proto Francesco, Helena Seražin assumes that from the very beginning they had thought about renovating the entire building, therefore also the nave and aisles, and not just the eastern section. On the missing part of the plan, there was a faintly sketched cross-section of the nave and aisles; however, it does not correspond to the ground plan of the columnated basilica, but is a new solution for the nave and aisles, namely to create a rhythm between the walls of the nave according to the principle of the antique triumphal arch, which in the author’s opinion would be comparable with the church of Il Redentore in Venice by Andrea Palladio (1508–1580).36

Although the plans were ready, the construction of the new eastern section with the transept and chancel was postponed for more than two decades when in 1713 the eastern part of the south-side aisle col-lapsed, probably due to unsuitable weight distribution during the reconstrution of the roof and ceiling a few years earlier.37 This event probably influenced the decision to modernise the cathedral’s eastern sec-tion, which was accepted on 31 December 1715. Two days later, with the permission of Bishop Antonio Maria Borromeio and Podestà Nicolò Contarini, they began demolishing the old (Romanesque) chancel and building the large pilasters of the planned transept.38

On 2 May 1716, the wood-carver Fra Vicenzo delle Scuole Pie was paid for making a wooden model of the cathedral, and in September 1720 proto Bernardino Martinuzzi (1669–1735) began building a new choir in cooperation with master Carlo Milanese. They began building the sacristy on the south side of the chancel in July of the following year,39 and this also marked the end of the first phase of the Baroque renovation in the first half of the 18th century.After building the new chancel and transept, engineering difficulties arose in the place where the new eastern section and the old nave and aisles met (perhaps where the transept met the side aisles), so the architect Giorgio Massari from Venice was sent a wooden model of the church on 23 August 1737; Mas-sari then sent the plans (ground plan and longitudinal and transverse cross-sections) with an explanation back to Koper on 5 February the following year.40 From the preserved letters and records in the cathedral ledgers, it is not possible to know if the architect ever visited Koper. He probably followed the course of the construction by means of letters. The construction was overseen for a short period by Lorenzo Martinuzzi (1704–1779), son of Bernardino Martinuzzi, mentioned above.Of the aforementioned plans which Massari sent to Koper, only the plan marked A is preserved. This is the plan which the cathedral custodians Francesco Barbabianca and Alvise Tarsia sent to Giovanni Poleni on 10 August 1748 for him to advise them in connection with the construction of the new choir.41 The preserved letter is a precious document, as on the basis of Massari’s explanation of the plans, Spiegazione delli Disegni fatti per la Continuazione del Duomo di Capod:a adatandosi all’Idea gia principiata, we can reconstruct the architectural plans in their entirety.Massari’s plans were accepted in Koper. In summer of 1738 they began demolishing the old nave, and on 23 July of the same year they dug the foundations for four pilasters in the nave; in just over a month’s time, they sold the twelve pillars and six capitals of the old Romanesque basilica to the Poor Clares in Koper.42 The existing state of the cathedral shows that for the most part they stuck to Giorgio Massari’s plans. From a comparison of Francesco’s ground plan for the cathedral from 169043 and Massari’s from 1738, we can find that the architect kept the transept and choir from the years 1720–1722 and added

160


161


a nave and two aisles supported on pilasters.44 This solution, which meant that the two side aisles were of the same height as the nave, is unusual in Massari’s opus and certainly had something to do with the fact that the architect adapted to the proportions of the already existing transept from the first phase of renovation in the 18th century, as the large corner columns of the transept dictated the proportions of the rest of the cathedral building. Massari’s opus is otherwise dominated by a characteristic type of sacral ar-chitecture: a nave-only church with side chapels and no transept, which ends in the east with a flat choir, such as the Gesuati church in Venice, in which the nave has three chapels with altars along each side.45

Despite this new solution, Massari actually followed his usual canon in the case of the Koper cathedral, because by walling up the side arches of the first and last spans, which are narrower than the middle three, he cleverly regulated the light in the nave, thereby creating the impression that this was a nave-only church with three side chapels that are part of the same space. He planned the windows to be just beneath the arches of the side aisles, with the intent that the light should reflect off the arches and evenly and softly disperse around the main space, making it seem as one. The large upright Baroque windows, which are topped with a slight arch and illuminate the nave, are identical to the planned window in the transept on the plan from 1690, while the large circular façade window on the western wall of the nave can be compared to the motif of the circular frame in the lunette on the western wall of Massari’s Venetian church Gesuati – the Renaissance oculus motif in a lunette, which the architect often used.46 He designed the nave with a semicircular arch and arcades which emerge from an ornament protruding from a richly profiled wreath wall, which surrounds the individual pilaster. The space surrounded by such arcades feels airy, while the pilasters reaching up high are both elegant and monumental. Helena Seražin believes that the architect probably solved the problem of the pilasters by polychroming them; in this way, he created an effect of upward movement and monumentality, but due to the cathedral being whitewashed twice during the 19th century, this effect is lost.47

In his plans, Massari also envisaged a new main façade with colossal columns and three portals, whose appearance would in all likelihood be based on the model of the Palladian temple façades, for example the façade of the Venetian church San Pantalon by the architect Francesco Comina.48 They probably did not choose Massari’s proposal due to the radical way in which it would encroach on the market square. Due to the symmetrical arrangement of the individual architectural elements of the façade, not only the old façade would have had to be demolished, but also the bell-tower. The old façade remained untouched with the exception of the missing ornament, which was added at the top because of the new height of the church; in this way the upper “Renaissance” part of the façade corresponds to the new nave plus two-aisle arrangement from the first half of the 18th century, which following Helena Seražin’s discoveries must date back to the time after 1745.49

The construction work on the building’s exterior in 1738 was overseen by local building experts; in her exhaustive contribution, Helena Seražin supports this with the studied archival documents, and the work included the following operations: they demolished the vaults of the side aisles and the basilica walls of the nave, as well as the façade to the height of the large oculus. The outside walls of the side aisles were then built higher, and four large Baroque windows were incorporated in each one. The cathedral ledger records the payment of stonecutters Giacomo Toffoletti and Alessio Guzi for their work on the side portals of the northern wall; Helena Seražin identifies these two side portals with the side portals of the old basilica, which on the plan from 1690 are marked in the middle of the side aisles.50 As the entries in the ledgers prove,51 the two side portals in the south wall were also built by master Giacomo Toffoletti (although the origin of the door frames is not yet clear). In 1738, Massari also drew up a plan52 for a new, more spacious choir. Of the old choir (from the years 1720–1722) he kept only the chancel and extended it by a narrow span with two passages to the sacristy and the chapel of the Blessed Sacrament. He finished off the choir in the shape of an apse with a circular plan view, which was a repetition of his solution to a problem in the monastery church of Our Lady of Sorrows in Udine only a few years earlier.53 The proposed new choir was to be 55 Venetian passos long (19 m), 27 Venetian passos (12.5 m) longer than the old one. They began digging the foundations for the new choir in 1742 when construction work in the nave and aisles was completed, but due to the exhausted financial means, the town council stopped construction work with an order to stop the construction of the new choir,54 dated 18 April 1744. The construction was passionately defended by the cathedral custodians Alvise Tarsia and Francesco Barbabianca, who thought the existing incongruity

between the nave and aisles and the choir was unacceptable; in their fervour, they turned to Giovanni Poleni (1683–1761), a professor at the University of Padua, with a letter55 dated 10 August 1748 and asked him for his expert opinion.Poleni found that with the new choir, the cathedral would be too long in relation to the width of the nave, and therefore proportionally discordant. He therefore proposed a solution by setting up optical barriers, which would appear to shorten the length of the church; as examples of the proposed solution, he mentioned the church of San Giustina in Padua and Palladio’s Church of San Giorgio Maggiore in Venice. Massari did not fully keep to Poleni’s advice.56 To fulfil the wishes of the people in Koper, he altered the plan for the new choir: to the presbytery, which was almost square in shape, he added a regular semicircular apse and in this way narrowed the choir and shortened it by two metres. On 5 July 1749, the construction of the new choir at last began under the leadership of the Friuli master builder Domenico Schiavi (1718–1795); as can be seen from the cathedral ledgers, his workshop succeeded in building the choir in only four months. Then Domenico’s brother Francesco Schiavi (1721–1798) led the stuccoing of the vaults in the choir and transept, which were also gilded to begin with.57

Giorgio Massari is considered to be an architect who dealt with all aspects of a building – not just the building’s exterior, but also the altar furnishings and the sculptures and paintings decorating the interior. In this way the building and its individual components gave the impression of being a harmonious whole. With the completion of the new choir, the third construction phase of the Baroque renovation was finished in the first half of the 18th century. The successful renovation of the old basilica and the masterful solution of the problem of light and proportion helped build the architect’s reputation and brought him new orders.

The problem of the history of the Koper cathedral in the 19th and 20th centuries

The question of the building’s architectural history in the 19th and 20th centuries remains open for now and represents a great challenge for future study, because from the older local literature we can find many valuable details which show lively activity and work on the cathedral’s architecture in close connection with the social and political events at that time. I would like to draw attention here to the problem of the preserved (and also unpreserved) altar fittings. Together with the insufficiently studied history of architectural development in the two centuries following the instauration of the new Baroque cathedral, they are waiting to be systematically studied, along with the preserved archive documents.In 1806, at the time of French administration in Koper headed by Prefect Angelo Calafati, big changes were effectuated in Koper; I will limit myself to mentioning just two fundamental ones, which in one way or another are directly connected with the cathedral architecture and its central position in the urbanistic plan of the city. Alongside radical changes to the urbanistic (still medieval) organic plan of the former island, which resulted in a new course for today’s Cankarjeva Ulica from Trg Brolo to the far eastern end of the town centre,58 it is also an important fact for the historic reconstruction of work carried out on the cathedral that in that same year the French authorities in Koper dissolved all the mon-asteries, except for the Franciscan monastery of St Anne in the northeastern part of the town, known as Bošadraga. So the rich altar fittings together with many artistic objects (paintings, sculptures and carvings, craft objects and library material) either came into the permanent custody of those churches in Koper that had not been closed down – above all the cathedral and the Franciscan church and monastery of St Anne – or were sold or simply lost. These historical events also saw the interior of Koper cathedral receive new furnishings, and three Baroque stone altars were placed against the side of the south aisle, which are preserved in situ to this day.We can gather only a few precious details about the different (restorative and preventative) measures carried out during the twentieth century from the contribution by Daniela Milotti Bertoni,59 conserva-tor for the Piran Regional Unit of the Institute. While carrying out a study entitled Delovanje tržaške Soprintendenze v Slovenski Istri v letih 1918–1945. Evidentiranje in obdelava arhivskega gradiva (The functioning of the Soprintendenza in Slovenian Istria in the years 1918–1945: A study of archival ma-terial), she carefully examined, recorded and put in order the “old” archive of the Trieste Inspectorate

162


163


(Soprintendenza), which is no longer accessible nowadays. The study, which was limited to the period between the two world wars and the region of the three coastal municipalities, was conceived on the basis of concrete needs of the then-MZVNKD Piran – the necessity of collecting and studying necessary documentation, which would give an insight into restoration work carried out in the past in the region covered by the Piran inter-municipal institute.In the period between the two world wars, when the Soprintendenza (founded in 1923) of Trieste was responsible for the protection of cultural heritage in Koper, we come across the first works on the ca-thedral led by the Venetian architect Ferdinand Forlati.60 He restored the window on the (main) façade, covered the walls of the Chapel of the Most Holy Sacament (Cappella del SS. Sacramento/Cappella del Santissimo) with marble,61 renovated the arches of the arcades (which ones?), and commissioned a fresco depicting the Glorification of the Holy Eucharist for the cupola (the Chapel of the Most Holy Saca-ment) from the painter Cesarini.62

Following Forlati’s departure from the Trieste inspectorate and two further changes in leadership, the architect Fausto Franco was named as its director in 1939, and it was under his leadership that the Koper cathedral was renovated between 1939 and 1943. The “old” archive of the Trieste Soprintendenza still keeps Franco’s report on the work done between May 1939 and May 1949, and from it we gather that the roof was renovated, the foundations of the main apse were fortified, the triangular top of the façade was completed, the organ, vaults and interior walls were renovated, the main altar was restored and other works were carried out.63

The Soprintendenza, which was active in the region of the three coastal municipalities for a number of years after that, foresaw renovation work on the monuments in Koper in the years 1947–1948 and partly in the years 1948–1949. To finish the restoration work on the cathedral that had been started prior to 1940, six million lira were earmarked.64

Renovation work on the south wall of the cathedral Church of the Assumption in Koper

In connection with the architectural studies, renovation and presentation of the Romanesque elements of the south wall, I found only the detailed report by restorer Jure Bernik in the archive of the Piran Regional Unit of the Institute. He probed the south façade in November 1985. Only in February 1994 do we come across documents covering renovation work on the south wall of the cathedral. It was then that the director of the Koper Regional Museum, Salvator Žitko, informed the excavation commission at the Institute about the intention of performing (two) archaeological excavations next to the south wall of the cathedral, on the basis of a conversation on 4 February 1994 in the parish house in Koper, in the presence of a representative of the Piran inter-municipal institute for the protection of natural and cultural heritage, who is not named in the letter.65 In April of the same year, engineer Stojan Ribnikar drew up a project66 for the fortification – injection of concrete under the foundations of the southern wall – which was based on a geotechnical report67 on the reasons for the damage caused to the cathedral building with a proposal for fortification prepared by the Institute for Geology, Geotechnics and Geo-physics in Ljubljana. Following a suggestion by the Diocesan ordinariate in Koper, the institute carried out an inspection of the damage to the south wall on 7 March 1994 and prepared a report on the basis of the results of four archaeological probes; the report clearly set out the geotechnical findings and the state of the building (the composition of the foundation soil and the nature of the foundations), and gave an expert opinion on the causes of the damage and the fortification measures. In all four probes the depth of the foundations was established, as well as the composition of the soil underneath the foundations, right down to the flysch bedrock. From the report we gather that the south (peripheral) wall is built of blocks of sandstone with a thickness of approximately 75 cm; the depth of the strip foundation of the wall, made of blocks of sandstone in lime mortar, increases gradually from the bell-tower in the west to the sacristy in the east. The foundation stands on hard flysch bedrock with two intermediate layers of clay and clayey marl sediments. Severe (primary) diagonal cracks were discovered on the outside of the south wall, as well as damage to the inside of the wall – secondary cracks of the arch and floor. Due to the subsidence of the south wall, the foundations were weakened, with large gaps between the sandstone

blocks, the mortar having fallen away in places. Foundations constructed in this way are very sensitive to differential movement (settling), which is a result of the additional burdening of the compressible layers of clay above the hard flysch bedrock. Therefore, bearing in mind the fact that the damage appeared on the southern part of the building (on the south wall and the sacristy), the institute concluded that the damage was a result of the additional burdening of the compressible layer under the foundations of the sacristy caused by the subsequent construction of the sacristy as an extension of the church. Also, in replacing the original wooden ceiling of the sacristy with a reinforced concrete slab,68 additional burden-ing of the ground underneath the sacristy was caused, which also caused compression of the clay layer. According to the experts, the subsidence of the sacristy foundations was transferred to the foundations of the south wall of the nave and thereby caused damage to the south wall in the form of large cracks. Another contributing cause to the damage was the inadequate drainage of rainwater from the roof, which flowed directly into the ground below the foundations, soaking it and probably also washing it away. Taking into account the established circumstances and the opinions on the causes of the damage to the building, experts proposed injecting concrete underneath the strip foundations of the south wall and sacristy (to reach the flysch bedrock), injecting the peripheral stone walls (the south wall of the nave and sacristy, above all where the cracks are), and using gutters to properly drain away the rainwater from the roof. The project drawn up by engineer Stojan Ribnikar foresaw the injection of concrete underneath the foundations of the south wall from the southeastern side portal to the sacristy, including the protruding west wall of the sacristy.In August 1994, the Koper Regional Museum took over the archaeological probes of the sacristy and south wall.69 There is no documentation covering the course and extent of the injection of concrete under the foundations of the south wall and sacristy in the archive of the competent service for the protection of cultural heritage.In November 2003, two conservators of the Piran Regional Unit of the Institute gave the conditions related to the protection of cultural heritage for the renovation of the cathedral’s foundations and the south wall /EŠD 239/ (parc. No. 643, k.o. Koper). In the explanation of the need for the renewed forti-fication of the foundations and the south wall of the cathedral, it is written that the damage (cracks) in the south wall appeared despite the fact that the foundations of the south wall had already been partly fortified in 1994. The conservator stressed the importance of the south wall, in whose Baroque upper section one can still make out the south wall of the Romanesque basilica, making it a precious witness of the Romanesque phase of Koper’s central sacral monument.The go-ahead for the fortification of the foundations and the south wall was given by the cultural heri-tage protectors on 21 November 2003 in Koper (/EŠD 239/) (parc. No. 642, k.o. Koper) as a response to the submitted project (PGD – reconstruction project) “The Renovation of the South Wall of the Koper Cathedral”, No. 21/03, responsible project manager Mojmir Sajinčič, B.Eng. The work carried out in 1994 – injecting concrete under the foundations of the south wall and the sacristy according to Stojan Ribnikar’s plan – was not completed in its entirety. Concreting underneath the foundations was completed to a length of approximately 13.5 m from the southeastern portal to the sacristy. The remain-der of the south wall, approximately 35 m in length, was not renovated at the time, so it was dealt with by the cited project (No. 21/03) from 2003, which foresaw the injection of concrete (in order to create contact pressure between the existing foundations and the hard flysch bedrock) and the injection of the south wall in the length of 35 m from the bell-tower to the southeastern portal, as well as the drilling of four vertical “perfo” anchors with the aim of improving the connection between the Romanesque wall and the Baroque wall above it.Obtaining the necessary documentation and carrying out preparations for the renovation work on the south wall of the cathedral was begun on 30 May 2006, when the Parish of Koper reported the renova-tion work to the Piran Regional Unit of the Institute with the following supplements: Findings of the survey of the construction of the cathedral of Our Lady in Koper, no. eng. KOS/DOP/PC, from 28 December 2005, and the Offer to carry out the renovation work on the Church of the Assumption in Koper with the code GRAS-BER-90/2006, from 15 May 2006, from the chosen contractor GRAS, d.o.o. The letter was treated as an application to receive conditions relating to the protection of cultural heritage, so the institute asked for a copy of the project, which became the basis for the enclosed list of works. The conditions relating to the protection of cultural heritage for the renovation of the south wall

164


165


of the cathedral /EŠD 239/ (P/V-1488-06, from 28 June 2006) were issued on the basis of project No. 21/03, PGD – reconstruction project, project manager Mojmir Sajinčič (which had already served as the basis for permission from the Institute in 2003), the aforementioned findings of the survey of the construction, and the offer to carry out the renovation work from the contractor Gras, d.o.o., which differs fundamentally from project No. 21/03 in the way it foresees the fortification of the south wall with transverse steel anti-earthquake cables. Project No. 21/03 foresaw the fortification of the south wall with four vertical steel “perfo” anchors. On the basis of the terms set out by the Institute, the Piran Regional Unit issued an agreement for the renovation of the south wall /EŠD 239/ (S/III-1816-06, from 10.7.2006).After the completed archaeological studies on the exterior of the south wall in autumn 2006, a consulta-tion and conservation group for the renovation of the south wall met on 25 October 2006 in Koper. On the basis of a presentation by the chief archaeologist, Matej Župančič, (of Koper Regional Musuem) and Branko Hlača (chief representative of the investor – the Diocese of Koper), the group drew attention to the main problems in renovating the south wall: the structural renovation of the south wall on the outside and the structural renovation of the south wall and altar of Sts Peter and Paul within the church. The group drew attention to the severely damaged stone altar of Sts Peter and Paul and proposed a suit-able solution to the problem.The renovation work on the cathedral, which began in summer 2006, is documented in the follow-ing project: Strokovno mnenje o ustreznosti pristopa k utrditvi južne fasadne stene Stolnice Marijinega vnebovzetja v Kopru s predlogom za izvedbo dodatnih ojačitvenih del v območju dveh globinskih sond ob no-tranjih oltarjih, from 20 February 2007, which was prepared by Gradbeni inštitut ZRMK, d.o.o.: “The renovation began in summer 2006. The building was tied together transversally with a system of steel stretch cables, and the whole wall and foundations were fortified by the systematic injection of concrete. Finally, concrete was injected underneath the foundations until contact was made with the load-bearing strata.” The expert report also mentions the differences from project 21/03, on the basis of which the Piran Regional Unit of the Institute issued an agreement for the works to be carried out – the altered system of tying together the building with (visible) steel cables, while the planned solution of fortifying the south wall with four vertical “perfo” anchors was deemed unsuitable.In January 2007, protective archaeological investigations ordered by the Piran Regional Unit of the Institute were carried out under the leadership of archaeologist Matej Župančič by the Koper Regional Museum along the south wall and the severly damaged side Baroque stone altar of Sts Peter and Paul (two probes). The Institute named an expert commission for the evaluation of the investigations and work carried out on the cathedral (EŠD 239). The commission met on 25 January 2007 in the cathedral itself; after inspecting the situation, it agreed to continue renovating the south wall and the altar of Sts Peter and Paul. Under point 5, it was agreed that the Institute would provide for an independent expert to evaluate the work already accomplished and propose how best to continue the work on the south wall, and if necessary also the altar. After seeing the work that had been accomplished and the initial results of the archaeological investigations, and after having surveyed the project documentation, the independent expert who was chosen, Prof. Dr. Jože Kušar (director of the Department of Construction at the Faculty of Architecture of the University of Ljubljana), advised that the work on the south wall should be con-tinued and finished according to project 21/03, and also gave guidelines for the repair and renovation of the side altar of Sts Peter and Paul.Due to the discrepancy between the project documentation and the work accomplished on the south wall, the Piran Regional Unit of the Institute decided, in accordance with its rights and duties and on the basis of Article 67 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act (Ur. l. RS, No. 7/99), to involve the inspectorate, which is competent for resolving matters connected with construction work on protected buildings. On 26 March 2007, a meeting took place in the cathedral led by Mateja Zupan, a member of the inspectorate; alongside the chief inspector of IRSKM, Aleksander Vidmar, the meeting was also attended by representatives of the investor, the project manager and two representatives of the Piran Re-gional Unit of the Institute. The decisions reached at the meeting, which were proposed by the members of the inspectorate, provide guidelines for renovating the south wall of the cathedral in the coming years and also determine that in all future work the investor will cooperate with the Piran Regional Unit of the Institute. Also, in accordance with the legal basis, the investor will acquire all necessary administra-

tive permission before continuing work on the building. He will inform the Piran Regional Unit of the Institute about all work accomplished which differs from that foreseen in the PGD project, and will submit planned changes as part of the necessary documentation on work carried out on the protected building. All work foreseen in project PGD No. 21/03 from October 2003 will not be carried out due to a lack of financial means. On the basis of a request by the investor, the Piran Regional Unit of the Institute will, foreseeably in 2008, prepare a conservation programme for the comprehensive renovation and presentation of the building. The programme will set out the terms and guidelines for all further work and the preparation of project documentation, with which the investor will try to acquire financial aid on the state or European level.Between the years 1986 and 2007, six preventative archaeological probes were carried out on the site of the cathedral and along its south wall. With the help of these, we have acquired precious information on the building’s history and the reasons for the damage that has arisen. Four archaeological probes directly alongside the south wall were carried out, and all the investigations were led by Matej Župančič, archae-ologist at the Koper Regional Museum.70

The aim of the archaeological investigations in October 2006 and January 2007 was not only to docu-ment and protect the preserved older structures and cultural layers with the help of archaeological methods, but above all to find the causes for the large cracks in the eastern part of the south wall and the stone altar of Sts Peter and Paul, which is now severely damaged. The latest archaeological research again found that the cause of the damage, which is a result of the subsidence of the south wall, lies in the fact that the groundwork for the foundations is not sufficiently firm. As a result, the foundations on which the wall stands are weakened. The results of the investigation showed that in parallel with the south wall, in the church itself, there is a preserved old wall, and the space in between is filled only with gravel. This could be the heart of the problem of damage to the wall and altar of Sts Peter and Paul. The altar, which bears visible signs of serious damage in the form of cracks (with thicknesses of up to approximately two centimetres), leans on the south wall; the outer edge of the altar table leans on the open parallel wall, while what is in between stands on a foundation which is severely subsiding. The latest construction work was connected with the interior foundations of the south wall, where the archaeological probes were carried out.

Notes1 Marijan Zadnikar, Romanika v Sloveniji. Tipologija in morfologija sakralne arhitekture, Ljubljana 1982, pp. 134–135.2 Nicolò del Bello, Capodistria, la Piazza del Comune nel secolo XV., Pagine istriane, anno III, no. 11–12, Koper, November–December

1905, pp. 245–246: “A breve distanza dalla torre, di fronte all’Albergo novo ed all’Armeria, su una lunghezza di ventitre passi, si este-ndeva il portico della Basilica.”

3 Cf. Matej Župančič, Il Duomo romanico di S. Maria di Capodistria, Atti e memorie della Società istriana di archeologia e storia patria, n.s. XXXIX, 1991, p. 269.

4 Edvilijo Gardina, Koper, Stolnica Marijinega Vnebovzetja, pritlični del pročelja, Dioecesis Justinopolitana. Spomeniki gotske umetnosti na območju koprske škofije, Koper 2000, p. 114.

5 Paolo Naldini, Corografia Ecclesiastica o sia Descrittione della Città e della Diocesi di Giustinopoli detto volgarmente Capo d’Istria, Benetke 1700 (Reprint: Historiae urbium et regionum Italiae rariores, XXXIX, Bologna 1967), p. 19: “... A questa Torre, che s’alzava in Isola, si concatenò molt’Anni prima la Chiesa, con l’aggiunta fattale di tre Archi per parte, drizzati à tempi di Francesco Biondi nel sito medesimo dell’Atrio antico, un secolo prima dall’Armi Genovesi incenerito.”

6 Cf. Naldini 1700 (n. 5), p. 93; Gardina 2000, pp. 114–116.7 Nicolò Manzuoli, Nova descrittione della provincia dell’Istria, Benetke 1611 (Reprint: Bologna 1979), p. 77.8 Ibid., p. 69.9 The ink drawing is kept by the Venice State Archive in the Senato Mare fund, f. 223, format 56.5 x 42 cm.10 Salvator Žitko described Fino's preserved plan as the most important urbanistic document from the Venetian period, as besides describ-

ing the surrounding walls, it also portrays the basic urbanistic characteristics of the town plan which remained more all the same until the downfall of the Venetian republic in 1797. For art historians, the drawing is a precious document for reconstructing the concept of the island town and its numerous sacral buildings at the end of the second decade of the 17th century. Cf. Salvator Žitko, Koprski obzidni pas in mestni tloris na karti Giacoma Fina iz leta 1619, Kronika, 37. letnik, no. 1–2, Ljubljana 1989, pp. 37–45.

11 On the sketch, the bell-tower is marked with the abbreviation Cap., and above it the abbreviation is explained.12 Francesco (Franciscus) Zeno, Status Dioecesis Justinopolitanae sub Episcopo Francisco Zeno – anno 1661, Folium Dioecesanum Tergesti-

num, 6, Trst 1870, p. 85: “Urbis in medio tamquam in centro collocata est cathedralis ecclesia, quae sub titolo Assumptionis S. Mariae Majoris nomine appellatur: aedificium sane pulchrum, majestate et antiquate decorum, tres in naves distinctum, decem et octo mar-moreis columnis sussultum. Ejus longitudo est pedum 155, latitudo 75, et altitudo 80 circiter. Quatuordecim obtinet altaria, quorum

166


167


aliqua diversis a confraternitatibus aluntur...Chorus ab Ecclesiae planitie gradibus decem elevatur, et altare majus ab ipso choro gradus quatuor supereminet sub sacello quatuor sussulto columnis, variorum sanctorum immaginibus in ligno inaurato excisis.”

13 Helena Seražin, Rekonstrukcija tlorisa romanske stavbe koprske stolnice, “Hodil po zemlji sem naši ...”. Marijanu Zadnikarju ob osemde-setletnici, Ljubljana 2001, pp. 171–176.

14 Paolo Naldini, Corografia Ecclesiastica o sia Descrittione della Città e della Diocesi di Giustinopoli detto volgarmente Capo d’Istria, Venice 1700.

15 Naldini 1700 (n. 5), pp. 19–21: “Non v’è Fabbrica in Giustinopoli, nè più alta, ne più vasta, ne più riguardevole del Duomo. Posa questi trà le due Piazze maggiori poco fà accennate; e porgendo la fronte alla prima verso Ponente, e il tergo alla seconda verso Levante, coll’interposta sua mole, e le segrega, e le congiunge. Ai di lui fianchi allargarsi due dritte strade, che pure aprono doppio transito dall’uno all’altro Foro. Consta di tre Navate à giusta proportione larghe, e lunghe; Mà quella di mezzo, che in altezza le altre eccede, accorciasi al quanto per il sito in essa occupato dal Choro. Il Pavimento e di marmorino battuto, ed il Cielo di legname intagliato, lavoro disteso in piano nelle Navate minori, e nella maggiore inarcato à giusta d’un mezzo Cielo; opera antica, ma durevole, e ben’ordinata. Le muraglie divisorie di queste Navate, col beneficio di nove Archi per parte s’appoggiano a dieciotto Colonne, di Marmo fino, trà le quale le prime si dissero dal Sansovino; Serpentino nero; e dello Sterllio, Marmo d’Antiochia. A capo della Navata maggiore, grandeggia maestosa Tribuna di marmi, piegati dallo scalpello in varj fogliami, fregiati d’oro; Quì la pretiosa Tomba del Santo Vescovo Nazario serve di Mensa al Sacro Altare, sopra di cui il zelo di Francesco Zeno l’anno mille seicento sessanta due collocò l’Augustissimo Sacramento. ... Ai lati di questa Tribuna, quasi sotto gli Archi delle Navate, s’ergono due altre Tribune minori, ò siano piccoli pulpiti di marmo, donde anticamente costumossi nelle Messe solenni annunciare al Popolo il Sacro Evangelio. Frà queste Tribune, e la grande preaccenata, dimmezzano due ampie scale marmoree, di più gradini entrambe, e servono alla salita dal piano della Chiesa, à quello del Coro. Questo spalleggiato dalle Sedie Canonicali, chiudesi con altra Tribuna di marmo fino, ma più bassa, benche in sito più eminente della prima; ed e l’Altar Maggiore, ... Sotto del Coro, come che sostenuto da piccoli Archi con sue Colonne, v’è un Oratorio sotterraneo, che direbbesi nell’Insubria lo Scurolo; se bene egli è à sufficienza luminoso; e se gli scende per due scale corrispondenti nelle Navate minori.” Extract from Naldini’s description of the cathedral. The Slovene translation and interpretation was published by Marijan Zadnikar in the book Romanika v Sloveniji (Zadnikar 1982, pp. 136–138, op. 172). The Slovene translation of Naldini’s work: Pavel Naldini, Cerkveni krajepis ali opis mesta in škofije Justinopolis ljudsko Koper (ed. Darko Darovec), Koper 2001, is not consistent in all details so I am quoting from the original.

16 Antonio Alisi, Il Duomo di Capodistria, Rim 1932-X; Francesco Semi, Il Duomo di Capodistria, Parenzo 1934-XII; Janez Mikuž, Stolnica v Kopru, Ljubljana 1980 (Kulturni in naravni spomeniki Slovenije, 104).

17 Zadnikar 1982 (n. 1), pp. 134–146, reconstructed plan of the Romanesque basilica on p. 142.18 Tiziana Franco, “Koral,” Gotika v Sloveniji (Ljubljana, Narodna galerija, 1.6.–1.10.1995, ed. Janez Höfler), Ljubljana 1995, pp. 348–

350, cat. No. 202.19 Zadnikar 1982 (n. 1), pp. 138, 143.20 The study was carried out by experts from the University of Milan: Dipartimento di Fisica, Università degli Studi di Milano, Župančič

1991 (n. 3), p. 275.21 Zeno 1870 (n. 12), p. 85.22 Seražin 2001 (n. 13), pp. 171–176.23 A reproduction of the plan to reconstruct the choir of the cathedral was first published by Gabriella Serdi in an article on the statues on

the façade of Koper cathedral: Gabriella Serdi, Le sculture sulla facciata del Duomo di Capodistria, Atti e memorie della società istriana di archeologia e storia patria, n. s. XXXVI, 1988, pp. 123–133. The plan, which is now kept by the seminary library in Trieste (Biblioteca del Seminario di Trieste [BST], Archivio del Duomo di Capodistria [ADC], b. 271/1), is reproduced on p. 127.

24 Manzuoli 1611 (n. 7), p. 77; Folium Dioecesanum Tergestinum 1870 (n. 12), pp. 84–92; Naldini 1700 (n. 5), pp. 19–21.25 Manzuoli 1611 (n. 7), p. 69. 26 Seražin 2001 (n. 13), p. 173. The assumption is not backed up by suitable arguments, as the question of the arcade openings on the

ground floor of the main façade has not yet been satisfactorily solved and we do not know for certain where the portals which are now on the north side of the church stood originally.

27 Seražin 2001 (n. 13), p. 174.28 Serdi 1988 (n. 23), p. 128.29 Seražin 2001 (n. 13), p. 174. Cf. Naldini 1700 (n. 5), p. 21; Antonio Alisi, Il Duomo di Capodistria, Rome 1932-X, p. 30.30 Naldini 1700 (n. 5), p. 20.31 The ZRC SAZU researcher presented the question of the renovation of the Koper cathedral for the first time with a talk at the inter-

national conference marking 1,400 years of the diocese of Koper and the mention of Slavs in Istria, which took place between 12 and 14 October 2000 in Koper (Helena Seražin, Arhitekturna prenova koprske stolnice v prvi polovici 18. stoletja, Mednarodna znanstvena konferenca 1400-letnica koprske škofije in omembe Slovanov v Istri, Koper, 12–14 October 2000, Koper 2000, pp. 68–69); the article was published the following year: Helena Seražin, Arhitekturna prenova koprske stolnice v prvi polovici 18. stoletja, Acta Histriae, IX/2 (Prispevki z mednarodne znanstvene konference. 1400-letnica koprske škofije in omembe Slovanov v Istri), 2001, pp. 489–504.

32 Antonio Massari, Giorgio Massari. Architetto veneziano del Settecento, Vicenza 1971, pp. 79–83.33 The document was first published by Francesco Semi in a monograph on the cathedral: Francesco Semi, Il Duomo di Capodistria,

Parenzo 1934-XII, p. 28: “il proto Fran.co ... (sic!) venuto à posta da Venetia p. leuar la pianta della Chiesa, e disegnar la Fabrica che si deue fare, hauer anco fatti gli dissegni delli altari del Santissimo con la Capella et quello di San Nazario”. The same document was then published by Helena Seražin, Massarijeva prenova koprske stolnice, ZUZ, 2004, p. 180, cit. n. 14, who transcribed the text a little differently: “L. D. 1690. 25. Aprile. Al Protto Fran:o uenuto à posta dà Venetia [per] leuar la pianta della Chiesa, e disegnar la Fabrica, che si deue fare, hauer anco fatti li dissegni degl’Altari del Santissimo con la Capella, et anello di S. Nazario in tutto lire cento uinti una, compreso il nollo pagato alle Barche, che lo conduse qui, et à Venetia L 121:-”.

34 The plan is published in the article by Gabriella Serdi, Le sculture sulla facciata del Duomo di Capodistria, Atti e memorie della società istriana di archeologia e storia patria, n. s. XXXVI, 1988, p. 127.

35 Zeno 1870 (n. 12), p. 85; Naldini 1700 (n. 5), pp. 19–21.36 Seražin 2004 (n. 33), p. 181.37 Ibid., pp. 181–183, cit. n. 21.38 Ibid., pp. 182, cit. n. 24, 25, 26.39 Ibid., pp. 182–183.40 Seražin 2004 (n. 33), pp. 183–184. Cf. supplement 5, pp. 210–211, where the author of the article quotes Massari’s entire explanation

of the plans, of which only the plan marked A was enclosed with the letter sent by the cathedral custodians Francesco Barbabianca and Alvise Tarsia, when after 10 years they sent the plans to Giovanni Poleni for him to check over. The letter, together with the explanation of the plans, is kept by the Museo Biblioteca Archivio di Bassano del Grappa (ABG), Opuscoli Poleni 31, c, 9, 10.

41 Seražin 2004 (n. 33), pp. 184–185.42 Ibid., pp. 185–186, cit. n. 44.43 Serdi 1988 (n. 22), p. 127.44 Seražin 2004 (n. 33), p. 187. Helena Seražin compares Massari’s position with that of Giovanni Dozzi, who in 1724 took over respon-

sibility for enlarging the basilica of St Euphemius in Rovinj and therefore found himself faced with a similar problem: the apses built at the beginning of the century had to be joined to the nave and aisles, and to do this he chose a pseudo-basilican layout. The model for the renovation of both churches was supposed to have been the renovated cathedral in Udine by Domenico Rossi (1657–1737).

45 Seražin 2004 (n. 33), pp. 187–188; cf. also Helena Seražin, Arhitekturna prenova koprske stolnice v prvi polovici 18. stoletja, Acta Histriae, IX/2 (Prispevki z mednarodne znanstvene konference. 1400-letnica koprske škofije in omembe Slovanov v Istri), 2001, p. 496, cit. n. 12.

46 Seražin 2001 (n. 46), p. 496 and sl. 5 on p. 498; Seražin 2004 (n. 33), p. 189.47 Ibid., p. 496, cit. n. 13.48 Seražin 2004 (n. 33), p. 189; Seražin 2001 (n. 46), p. 499, sl. 6.49 Seražin 2004 (n. 33), p. 69, 207 (supplement 2: Izjava gradbenih mojstrov in zidarjev o stanju koprske stolnice konec leta 1743) and p.

195.50 Ibid., p. 190, cit. n. 60, 61. I believe that the question of the northern side portals is not entirely clear, but the author’s reasoning is

nevertheless possible.51 Ibid., p. 191, cit. n. 62, 63.52 The plan is kept by the Museo Biblioteca Archivio di Bassano del Grapa (ABG), Opuscoli Poleni 31, c. 10, Seražin 2004 (n. 33), pp.

196 and 200 (illustration 6).53 Seražin 2004 (n. 33), pp. 196.54 Ibid., pp. 208–209 (supplement 3).55 Ibid., pp. 210–211 (supplement 5).56 Seražin 2004 (n. 33), p. 203.57 Ibid., pp. 204–205, cit. n. 119.58 Today’s Cankarjeva Ulica, which at the beginning of the 19th century was newly regulated and widened, connects the far eastern end of

the old town centre (where at the end of today’s Kidričeva Ulica stood the first of 12 city gates – The Gate of St Martin/The Sea Gate – The Harbour Gate/Porta marittima) with the central highest point in the town, Trg Brolo and Titov Trg. The original course of the street, which like a pendant of today’s Kidričeva Ulica co-formed the horizontal part of the town’s “crossed” streets, ran from the central square along the northern side of the existing Cankarjeva Ulica before turning onto today’s Goriška Ulica and running past Giordanov Trg through the historical part of St Peter to today’s Gramscijev Trg (originally Piazzale S. Pietro), which was one of the eight peripheral squares also incorporated the harbour, called Mandracchio Porta S. Pietro.

59 Daniela Milotti Bertoni, Delovanje tržaške Soprintendenze v Slovenski Istri 1918–1945, in: Kultura na narodnostno mešanem ozemlju Slovenske Istre. Varovanje naravne in kulturne dediščine na področju konservatorstva in muzeologije, Ljubljana 2002, pp. 51–85.

60 Venetian architect Ferdinando Forlati (Verona 1882–1976 Venice) worked for the Venetian Soprintendenza from 1910, then led the Trieste Soprintendenza between 1926 and 1935, after which he returned to the Venetian Soprintendenza and worked there until 1940. With his ideas about modern conservation and his pioneering implementation of the fundamental principles of conservation, he had a profound influence on France Stelè and the development of the Slovenian conservation institution.

61 In his monograph from 1934, Il Duomo di Capodistria, Francesco Semi described the Chapel of the Most Holy Sacament as follows: “A sinistra è la cappella del Santissimo, nella quale ora, su progetto dell’arch. Ferdinando Forlati, si deve compiere una vasta opera di decorazione marmorea e pittorica, grazie al cospicuo lascito di un benemerito sacerdote capodistriano.” Francesco Semi, Il Duomo di Capodistria, Parenzo 1934-XII, p. 37. In the archive of the Trieste Soprintendenza (Soprintendenza archeologica e per i beni ambientali, architettonici, artistici e storici del Friuli Venezia Giulia, Trieste) there is a drawing/plan with a cross-section of the the Chapel of the Most Holy Sacament, which is probably the same plan as the one mentioned by Semi: Archivio Disegni, Cartella 1, Scheda N.o: 22. Capodistria, Duomo (XVIII/99), found by Daniela Milotti Bertoni.

62 Milotti Bertoni (n. 59), pp. 60–61. The Koper cathedral and some other Istrian churches, e.g. the cathedral and church of St Francis in Pula, were listed as being important historical and art historical sacral buildings. Only the Euphrasian basilica in Poreč was designated a monument of national importance.

63 Milotti Bertoni (n. 59), p. 66 and cit. n. 66.64 Ibid., pp. 67–68, cit. n. 72.65 Doc. No. 75/1994, from 7. 2. 1994, cf. supplement.

168


169


66 O/II-847-94, from 15. 4. 1994: Stolnica Koper. Sanacija temeljev stranske ladje, I. faza, Ljubljana, April 1994, author: Stojan Ribnikar, B.Eng.

67 Geotehnično poročilo o vzrokih poškodb na objektu stolne cerkve v Kopru s predlogom sanacije, GZL – Inštitut za geologijo, geo-tehniko in geofiziko, no. D.N.: 1210-1165/94, Ljubljana, 16 March 1994, ed: Peter Bizilj, B.Eng.

68 The documentation of the Piran Regional Unit of the Institute holds the permission to renovate the ceiling above the sacristy of the Ko-per cathedral according to the project drawn up by Invest-biro, No. 75-20/130, under the number S/III-218/TM-76 from 26.3.1976. I could not find a conservation report on the renovation work carried out on the sacristy ceiling among this documentation.

69 In the intermediate report on the archaeological work carried out on the Koper cathedral from 27.8.1994 written by Matej Župančič, the exact location of the probe is not given, and there is no final report on the archaeological excavations in the documentation of the Piran Regional Unit of the Institute.

70 1986: the archaeological probe in the southwestern corner outside the church, with the help of which the original length of the Ro-manesque nave was calculated; August 1994: archaeological probes along the southeasterm corner of the southern aisle and sacristy, and in the sacristy; October 2006: archaeological probe along the middle section of the south wall outside the church; January 2007: archaeological probes west and east of the altar of Sts Peter and Paul inside the church.

LiteratureInstitute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia archive, Piran Regional Unit.Antonio Alisi, Il Duomo di Capodistria, Rome 1932-X.Stane Bernik, Organizem slovenskih obmorskih mest. Koper, Izola, Piran, Ljubljana – Piran 1968, p. 37.Giuseppe Caprin, L’Istria nobilissima, I–II, Trieste 1905–1907, pp. 75–89.Nicolò del Bello, Capodistria, la Piazza del Comune nel secolo XV., Pagine istriane, anno III, No. 11–12 (III/11–12), Koper, November–De-cember 1905, pp. 245–264, about the façade.Hans Folnesics, Leo Planiscig, Bau- und Kunstdenkmale des Küstenlandes, Vienna 1906.Edvilijo Gardina, Koper, stolnica Marijinega Vnebovzetja, pritlični del pročelja, Dioecesis Justinopolitana. Spomeniki gotske umetnosti na območju koprske škofije, Koper 2000, pp. 112–123.Edvilijo Gardina, Bartolomeo Gianelli. 1824–1894, Koper 1994.Jovo Grobovšek (ed.), Doktrina 1. Mednarodne listine ICOMOS, Ljubljana 2003.Mateja Kavčič, Boris Deanovič, Stavbna dediščina, in: Vračanje izvirnih podob. Restavratorski posegi, Ljubljana 2004, pp. 37–47.Ivan Komelj, Gotska arhitektura, Ljubljana 1969 (Ars Sloveniae).Koper (Capodistria), stolnica Marijinega vnebovzetja: fasada, Gotika v Sloveniji (Ljubljana, Narodna galerija, 1.6.–1.10.1995, ed. Janez Höfler), Ljubljana 1995, pp. 102–103, cat. No. 36.Ana Lavrič, Vizitacijsko poročilo Agostina Valiera o koprski škofiji iz leta 1579, Ljubljana 1986, pp. 60–63.Avv. (avvocato) dott. (ore) Madonizza, Il Duomo di Capodistria, Il popolano dell’Istria, 18.2.1851, anno secondo, No. 41, pp. 161–163.Nicolò Manzuoli, Nova descrittione della Provincia dell’Istria, Venezia (MDCXI) 1611 (ed. 1979 [Reprint: Bologna 1979]), pp. 57–78.Nicolò Manzuoli, Novi opis Istre, v: Stari krajepisi Istre (ed. Darko Darovec), Koper 1999, pp. 109–138.Predrag Marković, Koprska kamnoseška delavnica in spodnji del pročelja katedrale v Kopru/ Koparska klesarska radionica i donji dio pročelja katedrale u Kopru, Annales (Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije), 20/2000, series historia et sociologia, 10, 2000, 1, pp. 83–102.Antonio Massari, Giorgio Massari. Architetto veneziano del Settecento, Vicenza 1971, pp. 79–83.Janez Mikuž, Stolnica v Kopru, Ljubljana 1980 (Kulturni in naravni spomeniki Slovenije, 104).Daniela Milotti Bertoni, Delovanje tržaške Soprintendenze v Slovenski Istri 1918–1945, in: Kultura na narodnostno mešanem ozemlju Sloven-ske Istre. Varovanje naravne in kulturne dediščine na področju konservatorstva in muzeologije, Ljubljana 2002, pp. 51–85.Paolo Naldini, Corografia Ecclesiastica o sia Descrittione della Città e della Diocesi di Giustinopoli detto volgarmente Capo d’Istria, Venice 1700, pp. 19–23; 24–57 (Reprint: Historiae urbium et regionum Italiae rariores, XXXIX, Bologna 1967).Pavel Naldini, Cerkveni krajepis ali opis mesta in škofije Justinopolis ljudsko Koper (ed. Darko Darovec), Koper 2001.Francesco Semi, Il Duomo di Capodistria, Parenzo 1934-XII.Helena Seražin, Arhitekturna prenova koprske stolnice v prvi polovici 18. stoletja, Mednarodna znanstvena konferenca 1400-letnica koprske škofije in omembe Slovanov v Istri, Koper, 12–14.10.2000, Koper 2000, pp. 68–69.Helena Seražin, Arhitekturna prenova koprske stolnice v prvi polovici 18. stoletja, Acta Histriae, IX/2 (Prispevki z mednarodne znanstvene konference. 1400-letnica koprske škofije in omembe Slovanov v Istri), 2001, pp. 489–504.Helena Seražin, Rekonstrukcija tlorisa romanske stavbe koprske stolnice, “Hodil po zemlji sem naši ...”. Marijanu Zadnikarju ob osemdesetlet-nici, Ljubljana 2001, pp. 171–176.Helena Seražin, Arhitekt Giorgio Massari (1687–1766). Sakralna arhitektura na Goriškem, v Furlaniji, Istri in Dalmaciji, Ljubljana 2003 (PhD dissertation, University of Ljubljana, typescript).Helena Seražin, Massarijeva prenova koprske stolnice, ZUZ, 2004, pp. 178–220.Helena Seražin, Il duomo di Capodistria/Koper, v: The heritage of the Serenissima: Presentation of the architectural and archaeological remains of the Venetian Republic. Proceedings of the international conference Izola–Venice 4–9.11.2005, Koper 2006, pp. 39–44.Gabriella Serdi, Le sculture sulla facciata del Duomo di Capodistria, Atti e memorie della società istriana di archeologia e storia patria, n. s. XXXVI, 1988, pp. 123–133; on page 127 there is a reproduction of a plan of Koper cathedral from 1690.France Stelè, Umetnost v Primorju, Ljubljana 1960.Nace Šumi, Arhitektura XVI. stoletja na Slovenskem, Ljubljana 1966, pp. 14–17.Nace Šumi, Po poti baročnih spomenikov Slovenije, Ljubljana 1992.

Domenico Venturini, Guida storica di Capodistria, Capodistria 1906.Maria Walcher, Giuseppe Pavanello (ed.), Istria. Città maggiori. Capodistria, Parenzo, Pirano, Pola. Opere d’arte dal Medioevo all’Ottocento, Trieste 1999.Marijan Zadnikar, Romanika v Sloveniji. Tipologija in morfologija sakralne arhitekture, Ljubljana 1982, pp. 134–146.Francesco (Franciscus) Zeno, Status Dioecesis Justinopolitanae sub Episcopo Francisco Zeno -anno 1661, Folium Dioecesanum Tergestinum, 6, Trieste 1870, pp. 84–92.Salvator Žitko, Koprski obzidni pas in mestni tloris na karti Giacoma Fina iz leta 1619, Kronika (Review for Slovenian local history), year 37, Ljubljana 1989, No. 1–2, pp. 37–45.Matej Župančič, Il Duomo romanico di S. Maria di Capodistria, Atti e memorie della Società istriana di archeologia e storia patria, n.s. XXXIX, 1991, pp. 267–276.Matej Župančič, Romanska stolnica sv. Marije v Kopru – vnovič (Prispevki h gradbenemu razvoju), Mednarodna znanstvena konferenca 1400-letnica koprske škofije in omembe Slovanov v Istri, Koper, 12–14.10.2000, Koper 2000, pp. 28–29.

170


171


Sabina Kramar, Judita Lux, Breda Mirtič

Analiza izbranih vzorcev malt in drugih gradbenih materialov iz objekta 2 rimske vile pri MošnjahUDK 7.025:691.53»652«UDK 7.025:693.61»652«UDK 904:728.84(497.Mošnje)»652«

Ključne besede: arheologija, mineralogija, sestava malt in ometov, Mošnje, rimska naselbina

Leta 2007 so bile zaključene zavarovalne arheološke raziskave rimske naselbine pri Mošnjah, ki jih je izvajal Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije (ZVKDS), Območna enota Kranj, pod vodstvom Milana Sagadina in Judite Lux. Del poizkopavalne obdelave arhiva najdišča predstavljajo tudi analize vzorcev malt in ometov,1 ki sta jih opravili Sabina Kramar iz ZVKDS, Restavratorski center, in dr. Breda Mirtič iz Oddelka za geologijo Naravoslovnotehniške fakultete v Ljubljani.2

Opravljene preiskave nam podajajo informacijo o sestavi in tehnologiji izdelave različnih malt in ometov v rimski dobi ter uporabi nekaterih drugih gradbenih materialov, kot so razni tlaki, lep in tuf. Rezultati o sestavi malte so poleg samega dokumentarnega značaja ključnega pomena za namene utrditve in ob-nove zidov oziroma zaradi in situ predstavitve objekta 2. Ta je izmed vseh izkopanih objektov ostal edini ohranjen, saj leži večji del izkopanega najdišča danes pod traso avtoceste.V svetu že obstaja več študij o tehnologiji izdelave in sestave malt in ometov v rimski dobi,3 zato je infor-macija o njihovi sestavi in kakovosti s slovenskega območja toliko pomembnejša. Predstavljeni rezultati bodo omogočili primerjavo uporabljenih gradbenih materialov na območju rimskega imperija. Poleg tega nam preiskave nudijo tudi prispevek k vedenju o sestavi gradbenih materialov, ki so se uporabljali v različnih časovnih obdobjih, tako v slovenskem kot v evropskem prostoru.Prvi rezultati analize malt obravnavanega arheološkega objekta so bili predstavljeni in objavljeni na kon-ferenci Historical mortars conference na Portugalskem septembra 2008,4 v tem prispevku pa predstavl-jamo nekatere nove rezultate.

Predstavitev najdišča

Arheološko najdišče Mošnje – Pod cesto 2007 leži na savski terasi med naseljema Mošnje in Globoko. Odkrito je bilo ob nadzoru nad gradbenimi deli na trasi bodočega avtocestnega odseka Vrba–Peračica. Arheološke raziskave so potekale novembra 2006 in od januarja do aprila 2007. V tem času je bilo razis-kanih 11.600 m² površine, na kateri se je razprostirala rimska vila, ki je merila v dolžino 120 (V–Z) in v širino 48,5 (S–J) metrov. Tako znane analogije kot najdeni drobni predmeti kažejo vse značilnosti rimske

Sabina Kramar, Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, Restavratorski centerJudita Lux, Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, Območna enota KranjDr. Breda Mirtič, Univerza v Ljubljani, Naravoslovnotehniška fakulteta, Oddelek za geologijo

podeželske vile (villa rustica),5 ki pa je bila morda tudi v funkciji obcestne postaje (mansio).6 Temu v prid govori trasa stare ceste, ki jo je kazala terenska konfiguracija zahodno od raziskanih objektov. Na podlagi najdenih predmetov je rimska vila datirana v čas od 1. do 4. stoletja. Arheološke najdbe iz premešanih plasti pa kažejo na obljudenost tega prostora že od starejše železne dobe.Podeželsko vilo je sestavljalo pet zidanih objektov, ki jih je v celoto povezoval oporni zid, potisnjen v ježo zgornje terase (slika 1). Na vzhodni in južni strani potek opornega zidu ni bil ugotovljen. Stanovanjski del vile je predstavljal objekt 2 v vzhodnem delu, ki je bil obenem tudi največji in najbolje ohranjen. Na tem mestu velja opozoriti, da zaradi ohranitve objekta 2 nismo posegali v plasti pod hodnimi površinami, temveč smo le odstranili plasti ruševin.Severni del objekta je bil tako kot oporni zid deloma vkopan. Stavba je merila kar 36,8 × 17,3 metra, največja ohranjena višina zidov pa je dosegla skoraj tri metre. Zidovi so bili zgrajeni iz neobdelanih kam-nov lokalnega vira, v vogalih pa so bili večji obdelani kamni iz tufa.7

Zaradi izgradnje avtoceste je bilo treba jeseni 2007 razstaviti jugozahodni vogal objekta 2, ki sta ga ses-tavljala zidova, označena s SE 260 in SE 146. Sam vogal je bil zgrajen iz večjih obdelanih kamnov iz tufa. Oba zidova sta bila temeljena in sta merila skupaj s temeljem v višino skoraj 1,40 metra.Že na tej stopnji raziskav lahko govorimo o dveh gradbenih fazah stavbe. V prvi, starejši fazi je imel objekt šest prostorov, pozneje pa je bil na vzhodni strani prizidan še en prostor. Ali so bili trije manjši prostori na zahodni strani objekta že na začetku v funkciji zasebnih term (slika 2), ni povsem gotovo. Vsekakor so prehod, ki je vodil iz skrajno južnega prostora term v sosednji prostor, v drugi fazi zazidali. Zasebne terme so sestavljali trije prostori: vroči prostor ali caldarium s talnim centralnim ogrevanjem (hypocaustum), topli prostor ali tepidarium in mrzli del oziroma frigidarium. Izbrani prostor je povsem v skladu s priporočili, ki jih je dal že Vitruvij.8 Opozoril je, da je treba pri gradnji javnega kopališča, izbrati čim toplejše mesto, ki naj ne bo na severni ali severovzhodni strani, saj se ti prostori večinoma uporabljajo od poldneva do večera. Tudi pri gradnji zasebnih hiš naj bo kopalnica na jugozahodni strani hiše, tako da večerno sonce še dodatno ogreje prostore.Prostor s hipokavstom in apsido na zahodni strani je predstavljal vroči del. Tla in spodnji del sten so bili prekriti s črno-belim mozaikom, ki je bil okrašen z geometričnim okrasom trikotnikov in spiral, izstopal pa je motiv najmanj para morskih živali, najverjetneje delfinov. Vsi deli mozaika so bili najdeni v ruševinski plasti hipokavsta.Pri večjih delih talnega mozaika lahko prepoznamo stratigrafijo maltnih plasti (slika 3), ki je značilna za mozaike in jo je opisal že Vitruvij.9 Velik pomen je Vutruvij pripisoval tudi sestavi malte pri posameznih plasteh. Po njegovem mnenju je treba na kamnito podlago položiti plast kamenja, ki naj bo zmešano z apnom, in sicer v razmerju 3 : 1, če gre za novo kamenje, in v razmerju 5 : 2, če je bilo kamenje že upora-bljeno. Sledi naslednja plast (nucleus), ki vsebuje zdrobljeno opeko; razmerje z apnom naj bo 3 : 1. Kot zanimivost naj omenimo, da so bili tako tlak kot tudi stebrički hipokavsta izdelani iz tufa. Najverjetneje so bile tudi plošče na stebričkih izdelane iz tufa, vendar so popolnoma razpadle.V toplem delu kopalnice je pohodno površino predstavljal estrih, ki je bil zelo slabo ohranjen. V mrzlem delu pa je bilo po tleh še ohranjenih nekaj obdelanih kamnitih plošč.V vseh treh prostorih zasebnih term je bil na stenah bel glajen omet, stene pa so bile dodatno okrašene z rdečo fresko (slika 4), na kateri se ponekod pojavljajo črne linije. V svoji knjigi je Vitruvij pisal tudi o pravilnem načinu ometavanja zidov in stropov ter o izdelavi kvalitetne podlage za freske.10 Zapisal je, da omet ne bo pokal in bo brez napak, če bodo zidovi ometani s tremi plastmi ometa iz peska in prav toliko iz marmorja. Ko se omet zagladi do beline marmorja, se v zadnjo plast dodajo barve. V primeru, da se barve nanesejo na moker omet, te ne bodo zbledele.V osrednjem in obenem največjem prostoru stanovanjskega objekta je bil zelo dobro ohranjen prefurnij, izdelan iz tufa, ki je ogreval kaldarij. V osrednjem delu tega prostora je bilo še veliko ognjišče, zgrajeno iz tufa, ob katerem so ležali deli predelne stene velikosti 53 × 18 × 22 cm. Obe stranici sta bili ometani, osnovo pa so sestavljali večji prodniki, vezani z malto. Predelna stena je morda služila ločitvi osrednjega dela od dela prostora, kjer je bil prefurnij. V jugovzhodnem vogalu tega prostoru je bilo še eno manjše ognjišče iz tufa, ob katerem so bili, v ruševinski plasti, najdeni deli lepa. V času, ko je bil zazidan prehod v mrzli del kopališča, je bil najverjetneje porušen del južnega zidu. Nastali vhod je bil prekrit le z estri-hom, drugi prehodi pa so imeli pragove iz obdelanega tufa. Pohodno površino v tem največjem prostoru je predstavljal ilovnat tlak.

172


173


Sosednji, nekoliko manjši prostor je imel prav tako v osrednjem delu ognjišče, izdelano iz plošč tufa, hodno površino pa je predstavljal terrazzo tlak rožnate barve z vstavljenimi belimi in črnimi kamni ter drobci opeke.Skrajni vzhodni prostor je bil osrednjemu delu objekta 2 prizidan pozneje. Severni in zahodni zid sta bila zidana, vzhodna stena pa je bila najverjetneje lesena, saj smo dobili le njen odtis v hodni površini, estrihu. V tem prostoru sta bili ohranjeni dve ognjišči, eno opečnato in eno izdelano iz tufa.Južno od opisanih prostorov je potekal zid v smeri vzhod–zahod, dolg 27,2 metra, ki se je na zahodni strani zaključil z obdelanimi kamni iz tufa. Iz tega podolgovatega prostora so vodili vhodi v posamezne prostore stanovanjskega objekta. Tudi v tem prostoru je bilo ognjišče iz tufa. Od najdb v tem prostoru posebej izstopa iz tufa izdelana sončna ura. Terasasta ureditev stavbe in priljubljenost tufa se kažeta tudi v zidani strukturi škarpe, ki je potekala nekoliko bolj južno in je bila izdelana iz neobdelanih lomljencev tufa, vezanih z malto.

Analiza vzorcev

Vzorci so bili odvzeti iz stanovanjskega objekta podeželske vile (slika 5). Vzorci predstavljajo vezivno malto iz zidov, omete, izravnalne in vezne plasti za freske in mozaik, tlake, lep in tuf (tabela 1).

vzorec vrsta lokacija

ANM 12 lep prostor 4, SE 160

ANM 23 tuf prostor 6, SE 192

ANM 19 omet prostor 5, SE 189




ANM 59 malta prostor 1, SE 313






ANM 121 estrih prostor 3, SE 580


ANM 134 (a–c) mozaik prostor 1, SE 329


ANM136 mozaik prostor 1, SE 359

ANM137 (a, b) omet prostor 1, SE 362

ANM138 (a, b) freska prostor 1, SE 362


ANM140 (a, b) estrih prostor 2, SE 329


ANM142 (a, b) omet prostor 3, SE 337

Tabela 1. Analizirani vzorci

Optična mikroskopija

Iz vzorcev je bil za petrografske in mineraloške analize z optičnim mikroskopom vrste Olympus x 60 narejen poliran zbrusek, da lahko vzorce pregledamo v presevni in odsevni svetlobi. Nato so bili zbruski obarvani z alizarin S rdečim barvilom. Kristali kalcita, ki so dobro topni v klorovodikovi kislini (HCl), se kratek čas jedkajo v tej kislini, nato pa se zaradi alizarin S rdečega barvila značilno obarvajo. Dolomit, ki je v solni kislini bistveno manj topen, se ne ojedka in posledično tudi ne obarva s tem barvilom. Tako lahko v presevni svetlobi ločimo kalcit od dolomita.

Vezivna malta iz zidovPetrološka in mineralna sestava agregata v preiskanih vzorcih malt (vzorci ANM 59, ANM 60, ANM 70, ANM 71, ANM 74, ANM 117 in ANM 123) se ne razlikuje značilno. Prevladujejo sedimentne kam-nine (apnenec, dolomit, roženec, muljevec, peščenjak), sledijo jim magmatske (porfir) ter piroklastične (tuf ) in metamorfne (kvarcit) kamnine ter zrna kremena in glinencev. Kot agregat v vseh vzorcih prev-laduje karbonatna komponenta nad silikatno ter zrna dolomita nad apnencem.Karbonatno komponento agregata predstavljajo zrna dolomita in apnenca. Vsi vzorci vsebujejo dolomit. Med zrni apnenca prevladuje debelokristalni (sparitni) apnenec, prisoten pa je tudi drobnokristalni (mikritni) apnenec. Zrna apnenca so v glavnem dobro zaobljena. Prevladujejo večja zrna, velika nekaj milimetrov. Opazimo tudi posamezna dolomitna zrna, sestavljena iz velikih oglatih kristalov, njihove meje pa definira razkolnost (romboedri). Bolj drobna karbonatna frakcija je po večini ostroroba.Silikatni agregat predstavljajo zrna kremena, tufa, muljevca, kremenovega peščenjaka, roženca ter maloštevilnih zrn glinencev – plagioklazov. Silikatni agregat iz kremena predstavljajo zrna monokristal-nega, polikristalnega ali mikrokristalnega (roženec) kremena. Mono- in polikristalna zrna kremena so oglata do delno zaobljena. Delno zaobljena so predvsem polikristalna zrna. Mikrokristalni kremen je roženec, ki je sedimentna kamnina. Polikristalni kremen lahko predstavlja izpadle delce magmatskih kamnin. Monokristalni kremen pa lahko predstavlja delček, ki je izpadel iz magmatskih kamnin ali pa iz kremenovih peščenjakov. Vsi vzorci vsebujejo kremen v različnih oblikah. V nekaterih vzorcih so prisotna tudi posamezna zrna opeke iz žgane gline. Agregat je zelo nesortiran, velikosti od 0,7 do 7,5 mm. Vezivo je ponekod razpo-kano, prisotne so grudice in skupki karbonatiziranega apna.

OmetMineralna in petrološka sestava ometa (vzorci ANM 19, ANM 22, ANM 56 in ANM 135) je podobna sestavi vezivne malte, le da so tu zrna agregata manjša (do 2 mm) in dobro sortirana (slika 6). Vidnih je več plasti ometov. V vzorcu ANM 56 so prisotni podolgovati organski delci, veliki do 2 mm (slika 7).

Bel glajen ometPreiskave so pokazale, da gre pri belih odlomkih ometa, najdenih v prostorih zasebnih term, za glajen omet (vzorca ANM 137 in ANM 142). Zunanja plast (plast a) je debela od 3 do 4 mm. Sestavljajo jo ostrorobi delci debelozrnatega kalcita (sliki 8 in 9). Zrna so velikosti od 0,29 do 2 mm, v povprečju okoli 0,5 mm. Kalcitni agregat je dobro sortiran. Vezivo je apneno. Plast pod zunanjo (plast b) sestavljajo zao-bljena zrna apnenca in dolomita, kremena in delci magmatskih kamnin. Zrna so velika do 4 mm.

Ometi za zidno poslikavoS preiskavami vzorcev zidne poslikave (vzorci ANM 24, ANM 138, ANM 139 in ANM 141) smo ugotovili, da fini omet11 rdečih fresk iz vseh treh prostorov vsebuje zdrobljeno opeko, ki prevladuje kot agregat (slika 10). Plast je debela do 8 mm. Poleg zdrobljene opeke velikosti do 6 mm je prisotna tudi fina frakcija (prah). Prisotna so še zaobljena zrna apnenca in dolomita ter posamezna zrna kremena in drugih kamnin. Opazna so redka zrna drobljenega debelozrnatega kalcita. Vezivo je apneno.Plast grobega ometa sestavljajo zrna apnenca in dolomita ter silikatna komponenta, zastopana s kre-menom in zrni raznih magmatskih kamnin. Opeka v tej plasti ni prisotna. Dokumentirana debelina plasti grobega ometa je do 1,5 cm.

174


175


MozaikV kaldariju najdeni talni mozaik (vzorec ANM 134) je sestavljen iz več plasti, ki smo jih označili s črkami in samostojno analizirali (slika 3):a – tesselatum z belimi in črnimi mozaičnimi kockami velikosti 1 × 1 × 0,5 cm in apneno malto, ki zapolnjuje prostor med njimi. Črne kocke so izdelane iz laminiranega mikritnega apnenca, ki vsebuje kremenova zrna ter fosilne radiolarije (slika 11). Bele kocke so iz biosparitnega apnenca, ki vsebuje številne fosilne foraminifere (slika 12). Poudariti je treba, da ne gre za isti apnenec, ki predstavlja agregat v malti;b – izravnalna plast je debela 1–2 mm. Sestavljajo jo apneno vezivo in agregat iz apnenca ter posamezna kremenova zrna. Delci so veliki od 0,06 do 0,39 mm. Ta malta se je vrinila tudi med mozaične kocke;c – nucleus je debel 1,5 cm. Prevladujejo zrna zdrobljene opeke, se pravi, da so zrna ostroroba (slika 13). Fino frakcijo agregata predstavlja predvsem opečni prah. Prisotna so tudi zaobljena zrna apnenca in posamezna zrna kremena (monokristalen in polikristalen). Zrna so srednje sortirana, vezivo ni razpo-kano. Vidne so še posamezne grudice apna. Posamezna območja z opečnim prahom so zelo kompaktna. Velikost zrn sega od 0,05 do 6 mm, v povprečju pa so velika okoli 2–3 mm;č – rudus. O točni debelini te plasti ne moremo govoriti, ker je bil mozaik najden v ruševinski plasti. De-belina ohranjene plasti je > 5 cm. Agregat je slabo sortiran, zrna so velika od 0,13 do 2,5 cm. Karbonatna komponenta ter opečni drobljenec sta v razmerju okoli 1 : 1. Karbonatno komponento prestavljata apnenec in dolomit. Tu in tam se pojavljajo še posamezna zrna magmatskih kamnin. Vezivo je apneno in malo razpokano. V tej plasti fina frakcija opeke ni prisotna.Pri mozaiku, ki je prekrival spodnji del zidov (vzorec ANM 136), je bila prisotna le plast ometa, ki je bila nanesena na tegule (slika 14). Sestavljajo jo izključno deli zdrobljene opeke ter fina frakcija (prah). Delci so veliki od 0,2 do 2,2 mm, posamezna zrna do 6 mm. Za vezivo je bilo uporabljeno apno, ki je v stiku z vodo ter dodano fino frakcijo opeke (prah) otrdelo v hidravlični omet.

Estrih Estrih (vzorec ANM 121, ANM 140) sestavlja podoben agregat kot pri vezivni malti, vezivo je apneno. Zrna agregata so slabo sortirana, velikost zrn je od 0,05 do 6 mm. Prisotnih je veliko skupkov karbonatiziranega apna. Vzorec ANM 140 predstavlja malto, ki vsebuje zaobljene delce apnenca, dolomita, ostroroba zrna kremena in koščke zdrobljene opeke. Prisotna je tudi fina frakcija opeke, ki obarva vezivo rožnato. Agregat je slabo sortiran, velik je od 0,2 mm do 1,5 cm. Vezivo ni razpokano, prisotne so grudice apna.

LepLep (vzorec ANM 12) sestavlja zelo peščena glina/ilovica, ki vsebuje nespremenjena zrna muskovita in nespremenjeni kremen (slika 15). Iz železovih hidroksidov je pri žganju nastal hematit, ki je lep – žgano glino – obarval rdeče.

TufVzorec ANM 23 sestavljajo minerali klorit, biotit, plagioklazi, kremen in muskovit (slika 16). Osnova je zelo kriptokristalna. Celoten vzorec kaže orientiranost osnove.

Elektronska mikroskopija

Na poliranih zbruskih izbranih vzorcev, naprašenih z ogljikom, smo opravili tudi analizo veziva SEM-EDX (vrstično elektronsko mikroskopijo z energijsko disperzijsko spektroskopijo rentgenskih žarkov), s katero smo določili kemično sestavo vzorcev preiskovanih gradbenih materialov.12 Uporabljen je bil mik-roskop SEM JEOL 5600 LV na Odseku za nanostrukturne materiale Inštituta Jožef Štefan v Ljubljani.Analiza elementne sestave veziva izbranih vzorcev je pokazala, da je apneno vezivo v vzorcih malt, ometa, estriha, plasti rudus pri mozaiku, grobega ometa stenskih poslikav in glajenega ometa. V vezivu ni prisotnega magnezija (Mg), kar dokazuje uporabo čistega apnenca (CaCO3) za žganje apna in ne dolomita ((Ca,Mg)CO3). Analiza veziva v plasti nucleus mozaika in v finem ometu rdečih zidnih posli-kav potrjuje prisotnost kalcija (Ca), aluminija (Al), silicija (Si) in železa (Fe) v vezivu, kar nakazuje na

hidravličnost veziva. Železo pripada hematitu. V vezivu ni prisotnega žvepla (S), ki bi nakazovalo sadro (CaSO4*H2O).

Praškovna RTG-difrakcijska analiza

Na izbranih vzorcih malt je bila opravljena analiza s praškovno rentgensko difrakcijo, da bi ugotovili vrsto veziva.13 Vzorce malt smo ročno drobili, da smo ločili agregat in vezivo, ter jih presejali skozi sito z velikostjo odprtin 63 mikrometrov. Na ta način smo analizirali frakcijo, manjšo od 63 mikrometrov, ki naj bi predstavljala vezivo. Podatki v literaturi namreč navajajo, da frakcija z velikostjo delcev < 63 mikrometrov že močno vpliva na lastnosti veziva.14

Tako pripravljeni vzorci veziva so bili nato analizirani z RTG-difraktometrom Philips pri 1,2 kW moči, napetosti 40 kW in toku 30 mA z bakrovo cevjo, Kα-žarki in grafitnim monokromatorjem v kotnem območju 2θ med 2 in 70°. Hitrost goniometra je bila 3,4°/min. Mineralno sestavo vzorcev smo določili z računalniškim programom Philips x´Pert Software (tabela 2).Veliko mineralov kljub sejanju predstavlja del fine frakcije agregata. Kot vidimo, sta kalcit in kremen prisotna v vseh vzorcih. Dolomit se pojavlja v skoraj vseh vzorcih, v nekaterih vzorcih pa sicer ni priso-ten, vendar njegovo pojavljanje ni značilno glede na vrsto vzorca ali lokacijo. Enako velja za muskovit, klinoklorit ter glinence. Pojav klinoklorita nakazuje prisotnost tufa. Sadra je prisotna le v vzorcu ANM 134a. Hematit dokazuje prisotnost opečnega zdroba. Kremen predstavlja mono- in polikristalna zrna kremena ter kremen v peščenjaku in zrnih kamnin, ki vsebujejo kremen. Glinenci so pogosti sestavni del različnih magmatskih kamnin.

Vzorec Kalcit Kremen Dolomit Glinenci Muskovit Klinoklorit Sadra Hematit

ANM 19 × × × ×

ANM 22 × ×

ANM 59 × × × ×

ANM 60 × × × × ×

ANM 70 × × × ×

ANM 71 × × ×

ANM 74 × × × ×

ANM 117 × × × × ×

ANM 123 × × ×

ANM 132 × × × ×

ANM 134a × × × × ×

ANM 134b × × × ×

ANM 135 × × ×

ANM 136 × × × × ×

ANM 137a × × ×

ANM 138a × × × × ×

ANM 139 × × × × ×

ANM 140 × × × ×

ANM 141a × × × × ×

ANM 141b × × × ×

ANM 142 × × × ×

Tabela 2: Rezultati RTG-analize, ki so bili opravljeni na izbranih vzorcih

176


177


ATR FTIR-analiza

Iste vzorce kot v prejšnjem poglavju smo analizirali še s Perkin Elmer ATR/FT-IR-spektrometrom Spec-ter 100. Analizirani so bili v območju snemanja od 670 do 4000 cm–1.Rezultati so pokazali, da imajo vsi vzorci zelo močne pike okoli 2510, 1797, 1414, 873 ter 712 cm–1, ki so karakteristični za karbonatno frakcijo (kalcit) – apneno vezivo. Dolomit nakazuje pik okoli 849 cm–1

. Vzorci, ki vsebujejo fino frakcijo opeke (vzorci ANM 134a, ANM 136, ANM 138a, ANM 139a, ANM 140 in ANM 141a), imajo prisotna pika pri 3430 cm–1 ter 1630 cm–1, medtem ko v vzorcih, ki vsebujejo le večje kose opeke, fine frakcije pa ne, nista prisotna. Vibracije pri teh dveh vrednosti nas-tanejo zaradi vibracij molekul vode (H2O) in hidroksilne (OH) skupine, ki so prisotne v mineralih sadre, sljude (muskovit) ter kalcijevih silikatov hidratov ali kalcijevih aluminatov hidratov. Zadnji dve skupini mineralov dokazujeta, da je bil poleg apnenega veziva, ki je vir kalcija, uporabljen še latentno hidravličen material (opečni zdrob), ki sta bila vir silicija in/ali aluminija. V prisotnosti vode so med otrdevanjem veziva lahko nastajali kalcijevi silikati hidrati –CSH (s splošno formulo xCaO.ySiO2.zH2O, ker imajo lahko različno molsko razmerje x : y : z) in kalcijevi aluminati hidrati – CAS (s splošno formulo xCaO.yAl2O3.zH2O, ki imajo tudi lahko različno razmerje x : y : z). V primeru preiskovanih vzorcev skupini teh dveh mineralov dokazujeta hidravličnost veziva. Hkrati imajo ti vzorci močne pike okoli 1007 cm–1, ki verjetno pripadajo C-S-H-vibracijam.15 Piki okoli 1030, 797 ter 778 cm–1 predstavljajo kremen in druge silikatne minerale, ki so prisotni v vseh vzorcih, razen pri ANM 123, ANM 134b, ANM 136, ANM 139, ANM 141a in b ter ANM 142a. Zaključimo lahko, da ti vzorci ne vsebujejo veliko kremena.

Ugotovitve

Malte in omete sestavljajo kot vhodne komponente agregat, voda in vezivo. Njihove lastnosti so odvisne predvsem od vrste veziva. Zato razvoj malt in ometov bazira predvsem na izpopolnjevanju čim boljših veznih lastnosti veziva. Vrsto hidravličnega veziva16 so poznali že v desetem stoletju pred našim štetjem. To je bila vrsta cementa, žganega iz karbonatne in silikatne surovine do 1250 °C, ki je imela nekaj hidravličnih lastnosti. Uporaba apnenih in hidravličnih veziv je postala zelo razširjena v rimski dobi.17 Samo pri stenskem slikarstvu so Rimljani poznali okoli deset vrst ometa.18 V 18. stoletju se je poleg apnenega veziva začel tudi ponovni razvoj hidravličnih veziv, ki so vsaj delno nadomestila apneno vezivo oziroma apnene malte. V 19. stoletju je z razvojem portlandskega cementa hidravlična malta povsem izrinila apneno malto. Omeniti pa je treba, da so apneni malti in ometu včasih primešali tudi razne do-datke in tako z njimi poskušali izboljšati njune lastnosti. Ti dodatki so lahko bili anorganski (zdrobljena opeka, pucolanske zemlje, marmor, sadra) ali organski (slama, živalska dlaka, kazein, sladkor, olje, kri). Včasih so dodajali tudi pigmente in barvila.19

Petrološka in mineralna sestava agregataMineralna in petrološka sestava agregata v malti nakazuje lokacijo, kjer je bil agregat odvzet. Mogoče pa je tudi, da se agregatu dodajajo kamnine oziroma minerali, ki spadajo med latentno hidravlične materiale. To so predvsem steklaste – amorfne oblike silikatnih kamnin, kot na primer tuf – pucolan, keratofir in roženci ter drugi materiali, kot sta opeka iz žgane gline in žlindra. Ti pomembno vplivajo na način otrdevanja malte in na njene končne lastnosti. Poleg mineralnih zrn in klastov kamnin agregata so v malti lahko prisotni tudi organski delci in vlakna, ki predstavljajo armirno sredstvo v času otrdevanja.Posamezna zrna kremena ter večja zrna opeke so spremenjena po zunanjem robu (slika 17), saj so re-agirala z apnom iz apnenega veziva. Predstavljajo latentno hidravličen material. Na posameznih zrnih je namreč dobro viden reakcijski rob, velik nekaj deset mikrometrov, ki ga sestavljajo drobni brezbarv-ni kristali kalcijevih silikatov hidratov. Preiskava z optično mikroskopijo in elektronsko mikroskopijo (SEM) je tudi pokazala, da so zrna najedena. Morda je za hidrofobnost malte pri mozaiku zadoščala le prva plast.

Že Vitruvij je opozoril na posebno vrsto peska, vendar ga posebej ne imenuje.20 In sicer pravi, da v naravi obstaja posebna vrsta vrsta peska s čudežnim delovanjem. Najdemo ga lahko v okolici naselja Baiae in na območju mest okoli hriba Vezuvius. Pomešan z apnom in peskom ne da samo trdnost stavbam, temveč otrdijo tudi nasipi pod vodo, ko se ga uporablja v morju. Danes bi rekli, da dodatek tufa naredi vezivo hidravlično. Dodatek organskih vlaknatih delcev v ometu kaže na verjetnost, da je bil omet nanesen na organsko površino, bodisi na leseno podlago ali na plast trsja. Vzorec je bil najden v ruševinski plasti v prostoru 4. Ker so bili zidovi kamniti, je zelo verjetna domneva, da je vzorec del stropnega ometa. Ta je bil nanesen na trsje ali pa je bila konstrukcija lesena, kar nam še dodatno dokazujejo najdeni številni železni žeblji in železni okovi za lesene tramove.Opravljene analize kažejo na veliko verjetnost, da je debelokristalni kalcit, ki prevladuje v zunanji plasti belega glajenega ometa in je kot dodatek prisoten v finem ometu rdeče stenske poslikave, drobljen marmor ali prekristaljen kalcit. Dodatno nam našo domnevo potrjujejo tudi antični viri.21 Tak omet je močno zaglajen do visokega sijaja, ki ga omogoča prav marmor.22 Da so dodajali izbran material zaradi sijaja, dokazuje tudi dejstvo, da v maltah mozaika teh zrn ni.

Oblika in velikost zrn agregataGlavna naloga agregata je dati malti trdnost, stabilizirati volumen, zapolniti prazne prostore in zmanjšati izgube zaradi krčenja pri sušenju.23 Poleg tega, da določa barvo in teksturo malte, je pomembno, da na druge sestavine kemično ne vpliva in je torej inerten. V nasprotnem primeru lahko pride do določenih kemijskih reakcij, na primer med agregatom in portlanditom (Ca(OH)2) ali med agregatom in alkalijs-kimi spojinami (pogosto pri cementnih maltah), kar lahko zelo poškoduje malto, saj se ob prisotnosti vlage tvorijo mineralne faze, ki povzročajo razpadanje malte.Agregat lahko sestavljajo oglata in zaobljena zrna različnih mineralov. Oglata zrna – klasti lahko kažejo na kratko transportno pot zrna do mesta, kjer je bil agregat odvzet za izdelavo malte. Oglata zrna pa lahko dobimo tudi, če je bil agregat dobljen z drobljenjem debelozrnate kamnine – drobljenec oziroma tolčenec. Zaobljena zrna agregata so jasen znak, da je bil agregat odvzet v vodni strugi oziroma je bil odvzet v gramoznici kot drobnozrnata frakcija. Opozoriti je treba, da so zrna, ki jih sestavljajo minerali z visoko trdoto, manj zaobljena kot tista z nižjo trdoto. Tako med agregate z visoko trdoto štejemo silikatne materiale (minerale in kamnine), kot so kremen in glinenci, ter amorfne oblike silikatnega materiala, kot so tuf, roženci in keratofir. Med minerale z nizko trdoto pa štejemo karbonate, torej kalcit in dolomit in sljudne minerale ter organske snovi. Sljudni minerali so poleg tega tudi prožni, zato se raje ukrivijo, kot pa zdrobijo, in jih običajno najdemo v malti kot velika zrna. Vendar je treba posebej opozoriti, da se zrna dolomita pojavljajo kot nezaobljena zrna. Pojav je možen, ker ima dolomit zelo dobro razkolnost in se pri delovanju mehanske sile dolomitno zrno raje lomi po razkolnih ploskvah, kot da bi se zaoblilo. To pomeni, da bomo našli v agregatu drobnozrnat dolomit, ki pa bo imel ostre robove, čeprav je odvzet iz rečne struge.Če je sortiranost zrn slabša (bimodalna porazdelitev zrn), je struktura malte bolj kompaktna in poro-znost manjša. Manjša zrna zapolnijo prostore med večjimi zrni. Tako je tudi reaktivna površina večja, kar pospeši reakcijo karbonatizacije. Ostrorobi delci imajo večjo specifično površino kot zaobljeni, s čimer kompenzirajo skrček in povečujejo vezljivost. Velika večina vzorcev kaže bimodalno porazdelitev velikosti zrn agregata. Dobro sortiranih je le nekaj vzorcev.Glede na to, da je agregat večinoma zaobljen, lahko predpostavimo, da so uporabili agregat iz savske terase. Geološka karta prikazuje različne terasne sedimente, ki zasipajo Blejsko-Radovljiško kotlino, kot so prodnati, fluvioglacialni in morenski sedimenti, ki so nastali v pleistocenu.24

Prisotnost sadre v vzorcu je posledica procesov preperevanja. Voda v stiku s polutanti iz zraka, kot je žveplov oksid (SO2), tvori njihove kisline, te pa topijo komponente v malti, ko se navlažijo s tako vodo. Voda topi kalcijev karbonat (CaCO3) in nato se na površini malte izločajo kalcijevi sulfati – še najbolj stabilna je sadra.

VezivoRezultati so pokazali, da je v večini vzorcev apneno vezivo. Preiskave z elektronsko mikroskopijo so potrdile, da je v vzorcih vezivo iz čistega kalcita (magnezij ni prisoten), torej so za žganje apna uporabili

178


179


zelo čist apnenec. Apneno vezivo v splošnem sestavlja portlandit (Ca(OH)2), ki je nastal z gašenjem apna (CaO). Tega pa smo dobili z žganjem apnenca (CaCO3) do približno 1000 15C. Portlandit v stiku z zrakom oziroma ogljikovim dioksidom (CO2) iz zraka karbonatizira. Zato apnenemu vezivu pravimo tudi zračno vezivo, saj za svoje otrdevanje ne potrebuje vode. Strjevanje poteka zelo počasi, traja lahko več tednov, pri tem pa se volumen malte, ki ga sestavlja omenjeni material, močno zmanjša.25

Skoraj v vseh vzorcih so prisotne grudice apna različnih velikosti. V nekaterih vzorcih se pojavljajo tu in tam, v nekaterih pa jih je več. Nekatere grudice so razpokane. Vezivo je karbonatiziralo ponekod z malo razpokami, ponekod z več. V vzorcih vezivne malte iz zidov pa se pojavljajo večje grude apna, kar nakazuje na zidavo objektov z živoapneno tehniko. K temu napeljuje tudi izredno velika trdnost veziva.Vzorci z območja kopalnice, kjer je bila zahtevana vodoodbojnost materialov, imajo apneno hidravlično vezivo. V našem primeru so to dosegli z dodatkom opečne moke v mešanico apnene malte. V vzorcih, ki vsebujejo prah opeke, je prišlo do reakcije med kremenico iz opečnega prahu, apnom iz veziva in vodo. Literatura navaja, da se opečna moka dimenzije pod 75 mikrometrov šteje kot vezivo, saj ob stiku z apnom in vodo poteka reakcija hidratacije.26 Pri tem nastajajo kalcijevi silikati hidrati in/ali kalcijevi aluminati hidrati, ki dajejo hidravličnemu vezivu trdnost. Vezivo je v tem primeru zelo kompaktno. Dodatek fine frakcije opeke zmanjša vodoprepustnost in poveča mehansko trdnost, kar se pripisuje hidravlični reakciji, ki se zgodi ob stiku z apnom ob prisotnosti vode. Z EDS-analizo so bili v vezivu dokazani silicij, aluminij in kalcij, ki nakazujejo nastanek kalcijevih silikatov hidratov (CxSyHz) in alu-minatov hidratov (CxAyHz).Omeniti je treba še pucolanski material, ki je lahko naravnega (vulkanski pepel, tuf, keratofir, roženci) ali umetnega izvora (različni steklasti – amorfni materiali, kot so žlindre ali žgana glina – opečni zdrob). To so materiali, ki vsebujejo steklasto (amorfno) fazo s sestavo predvsem iz aluminijevega in silicijevega oksida (Al2O3 in SiO2). Ta steklasta faza, če je drobno zmleta, v prisotnosti vode in kalcijevega oksida (CaO iz apna) reagira v kalcijeve silikate in aluminate hidrate, podobno kot cementno (hidravlično) vezivo. Razlika med njima je, da mora latentno hidravlično vezivo imeti za reakcijo poleg še kalcijev oksid (CaO) (zato latentno), ki pa ga dobi iz apnenega veziva.

Drugi gradbeni materialiLep, ki je bil najden v bližini ognjišča, je bil lahko ogret do take temperature, da so se mu spremenile mineralna sestava in fizikalne lastnosti. Pravzaprav ga lahko označimo že za žgano glino. To se je zgodilo tudi v primeru vzorca ANM 12. Pri vzorcu se vidi, da je prišlo do žganja. Temperatura je bila namreč prenizka, da bi muskovit oddal vodo in pri tem spremenil optične lastnosti, kot je vidno v zbrusku pod optičnim mikroskopom. Temperatura zagotovo ni presegla 700 °C. Glina je sicer res peščena oziroma vsebuje zrna kremena, vendar so zrna zelo drobnozrnata, zaradi česar je bila glina dovolj plastična, da so jo lahko lepo nanašali in ni pokala (ni bila pusta).Tuf je piroklastična kamnina. Tufi so andezitske sestave, ki so nastali v vodnem okolju. Ločimo pelitne (drobnozrnate), psamitne (debelozrnate) ter karbonatizirane tufe. Sestavljajo jih minerali klorit, biotit, plagioklazi ter muskovit. Lahko ločimo steklaste in kristalaste tufe.27

Zaključek

Predstavljene preiskave so del širšega raziskovanja v okviru arheoloških izkopavanj pri Mošnjah z namenom pridobiti čim več informacij o materialih in tehnologiji, ki so jih uporabljali pri gradnji podeželske vile v rimski dobi. Dobljeni rezultati so tudi pomembni s stališča konservatorsko-restavrator-skih posegov oziroma prezentacije podeželske vile in situ, ki je načrtovana v letu 2009.V zgodovini je imela malta dve nalogi: bila je vezivo med gradbenimi elementi, kot sta kamen in opeka, predstavljala pa je tudi zaščito površine sten in fasad. Imela je nalogo zunanje zaščite objekta pred vplivi iz okolja. Zanimanje za sistematični študij malt in ometov na objektih iz preteklosti se je začelo relativno pozno. Prvi podatki so znani šele iz leta 1981 (International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Resto-ration of Cultural Property – ICCROM), ko se je začelo sistematično preučevanje historičnih malt in ometov ter možnosti njihove obnove in popravil. Tako v svetu na primer že več kot deset let sistematično

raziskujejo historične malte in omete;28 študirajo kvalitativno in kvantitativno kemično ter mineralno sestavo malt in ometov, strukturne značilnosti, procese propadanja ter vplive sprememb v maltah in ometih na druge sosednje konstrukcijske materiale. V ta namen raziskovalci uporabljajo vse moderne instrumentalne, analitske in preiskovalne metode. Rezultati teh preiskav vodijo tudi do načinov restavri-ranja zgodovinskih malt in ometov ter izboljšanja obstojnosti proti dejavnikom propadanja.Rezultati analiz, opravljenih na vzorcih iz Mošenj, kažejo, da je bil v večini primerov uporabljen lokalni material, tako za zidavo zidov kot za pripravo malte in različnih ometov. Izredno priljubljen pri antičnih zidarjih v Mošnjah pa je bil tuf; to bi morda lahko povezovali s tem, da ga je mogoče lepo obdelovati. Znano je, da so v okolici opuščeni kamnolomi peračiškega tufa, to najdišče pa nakazuje začetek uporabe tufa že v rimskem obdobju (1., 2. stoletje n. š.) in ne šele, kot je bilo splošno mnenje, v baroku.Izvor kamnin za izdelavo mozaičnih kock v tej fazi preiskav še ni znan, domnevamo pa, da gre za kam-nine, ki so bile odvzete iz lokalnih kamnolomov.Ometom so dodajali različne dodatke, glede na namembnost materialov, da so izboljšali njihove last-nosti. Tako so pri belem glajenem ometu najverjetneje dodajali drobljeni marmor oziroma rekristaliziran kalcit. Za vzorce malt iz predela kopalnice je značilno, da so uporabljali zdrobljeno opeko in tudi fino frakcijo opeke (opečni zdrob). Dodatek te fine frakcije v stiku z apnom in vodo vodi do tako imenovane pucolanske reakcije – hidratacije, ki je naredila vezivo apneno hidravlično in s tem izredno kompaktno in vodoodbojno.Tudi če so bili posamezni deli objekta, od koder so bili vzeti vzorci, grajeni s časovnim zamikom, kažejo enake surovine za gradnjo. Agregat je povsod enak (glede sestave in velikosti zrn). Z uporabo metode C14 bi bilo mogoče določiti tudi absolutno starost veziva. Vezivo bi bilo treba ločiti od agregata, kar bi nam podalo starost ogljika (C) v času, ko je vezivo karbonatiziralo.29 Graditelji rimske vile pri Mošnjah so imeli izdelano tehnologijo, saj so za vsak posamezen namen up-orabljali specialno pripravljeno vezivo. Tako se posamezna veziva (malte in ometi) ločijo med sabo po velikosti zrn agregata, ločijo se glede na vrsto veziva: lahko je čisto apneno ali pa apneno hidravlično. Vsako od naštetih veziv ima drugačne lastnosti in s tem tudi drugačno uporabo. Našteti tipi veziv, ki smo jih evidentirali v Mošnjah, so bili uporabljeni zato, da so dosegli večjo trdnost, da so dosegli neprepust-nost za vodo oziroma da so imeli hitrovezoče vezivo. S to študijo dokazujemo, da so naštete tehnologije obvladali tudi Rimljani na prostoru Slovenije.

Opombe1 Izraz malta označuje gradbeni vezivni material iz peska, vode in apna, omet pa na zid enakomerno naneseno malto, po BAJEC, A., in

drugi (gl. ur. odbor): Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika, Ljubljana 1995, 519, 520, 769.2 LUX, J., in S. KRAMAR: Mošnje – rimska naselbina Pod cesto (EŠD 10036), JZ vogal objekta, izhodišča za konservatorsko-restavratorski

projekt, Kranj 2008, tipkopis. Hrani Arhiv ZVKDS, OE Kranj; KRAMAR, S.: Arheološko najdišče Mošnje (EŠD 10036), poročilo o preiskavi materialov, Ljubljana 2007, tipkopis. Hrani Arhiv ZVKDS, RC; KRAMAR, S.: Arheološko najdišče Mošnje – Pod cesto, objekt 2 (EŠD 10036), poročilo o preiskavi malt, tipkopis, Ljubljana 2008. Hrani Arhiv ZVKDS, RC; KRAMAR, S.: Arheološko najdišče Mošnje – Pod cesto, objekt 2, terme (EŠD 10036), poročilo o preiskavi malte, Ljubljana 2008, tipkopis. Hrani Arhiv ZVKDS, RC.

3 BENEDETTI, D., VALETTI, S., BONTEMPI, E., PICCIOLI, C., in L. E. DEPERO, Study of ancient mortars from the Roman Villa of Pollio Felice in Sorrento (Naples), Applied Physics A 79/2, Berlin 2004, 341–345; GENESTAR, C., PONS, C., in A. MÁS, Analytical characterisation of ancient mortars from the archaeological Roman city of Pollentia (Balearic Islands, Spain), Analitica Chimica Acta 557, Amsterdam 2006, 373–379; VELOSA, A. L., COROADO, J., VEIGA, M. R., in F. ROCHA, Characterisation of Roman mortars from Conímbriga with respect to their repair, Materials Characterization 58, Amsterdam 2007, 1208–1216; PAVIA., S., in S. CARO, An investigation of Roman mortar technology through the petrographic analysis of archaeological material, Construction and Building Materials 22, New York 2008, 1807–1811.

4 KRAMAR, S., LUX, J., in B. MIRTIČ, Characterisation of Mortars from the Roman Archaeological Site near Mošnje (Slovenia), Pro-ceedings of historical mortars conference (HMC08, 23.–26.sept. 2008 Lizbona), v tisku.

5 LUBŠINA - TUŠEK, M., Tlorisna zasnova rimskih vil v Sloveniji, Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje n.v. 17/2, Maribor 1981, 153–203; pregledno delo za rimske vile v Panoniji: THOMAS, E. B.: Römische Villen in Pannonien, Budimpešta 1964.

6 O rimskih cestah v Sloveniji: ŠAŠEL, J., Rimske ceste v Sloveniji, v: Arheološka najdišča Slovenije (ur. S. Gabrovec in drugi), Ljubljana 1975, 74–99; o poteku starejših poti in cest v Sloveniji: TRUHLAR, F., Stara pota ter poskus rekonstrukcije nekdanje prometne mreže, v: Arheološka najdišča Slovenije (ur. S. Gabrovec in drugi), Ljubljana 1975, 99–104; splošno o poštnih postajah: VASIĆ, M., in G. MILOŠEVIĆ: Mansio Idimum, Rimska poštanska i putna stanica kod Medveđe, Arheološki institut p.i. 35 in Narodni muzej Monografija 11, Beograd 2000.

7 O načinu gradnje v rimski dobi piše Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, ki je živel v 1. stoletju pr. n. š.: VITRUVIUS, M. P.: Deset knjiga o arhitek-turi (prevedla M. Lopac in V. Bedenko), Zagreb 1999.

180


181


8 VITRUVIUS 1999 (op. 7), 115, 129.9 VITRUVIUS 1999 (op. 7), 143.10 VITRUVIUS 1999 (op. 7), 144–153; primerjaj: PLESNIČAR - GEC, L.: Emonske freske, katalog razstave, Ljubljana 1973, 10, 11;

PLESNIČAR - GEC, L.: Antične freske v Sloveniji I, Katalogi in monografije 31, Ljubljana 1997, 18–28.11 Fina plast, na katero so slikali, se imenuje drobni intonaco: PLESNIČAR - GEC 1973 (op. 10), 10; TOMAN, V., Ometi za zidno

poslikavo, v: PLESNIČAR - GEC, L.: Antične freske v Sloveniji 1, Katalogi in monografije 31, Ljubljana 1997, 32.12 Za uporabo elektronskega mikroskopa se toplo zahvaljujemo dr. Sašu Šturmu z Inštituta Jožef Štefan v Ljubljani.13 Zaradi premajhne količine vzorcev ANM 24 in ANM 56 ni bilo mogoče opraviti analize na teh dveh vzorcih.14 MOROPOLOU, A., TSIOURVA, TH., BISBIKOU, K., BISCONTINT, G., BAKOLAS, A., in E. ZENDRI, Hot lime technology

imparting high strength to historic mortars, Construction and Building Materials 10, New York 1996,151–159.15 GALANOS, A., DOGANIS, I., MARAVELAKI-KALAITZAKI, P., in N. KALLITHRAKAS-KONTOS, Hydraulic mortars and plas-

ters at the ancient aqueduct of Naxo, Greece, Proceedings on 11th Congress on deterioration and conservation of stone (15.–20. sept. 2008, Torun, Poljska), v tisku.

16 Hidravlična veziva otrdevajo hitreje, dajejo malti večjo trdnost in manjšo poroznost.17 DELATTE, N. J., Lessons from Roman Cement and Concrete, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 127/3,

New York 2001, 109–115. 18 TOMAN 1997 (op. 11), 30–34.19 KRIŽNAR, A.: Slog in tehnika srednjeveškega stenskega slikarstva na Slovenskem, Ljubljana 2006, 19; prim. TOMAN 1997 (op. 11),

30–39.20 VITRUVIUS 1999 (op. 7), 39. Geološka stroka v Sloveniji za "Vitruvijev pesek" uporablja izraz pucolan in tuf.21 VITRUVIUS 1999 (op. 7), 145, 146.22 TOMAN 1997 (op. 11), 32.23 O pomenu peska pri zidavi: VITRUVIUS 1999 (op. 7), 38.24 BUSER, S., in A. CAJHEN: Osnovna geološka karta SFRJ, 1 : 100 000, Tolmač lista Celovec L33–53, Zvezni geološki zavod, Beograd

1980; ŠIFRER, M., Geomorfološki razvoj Blejsko-Radovljiške ravnine in Dobrav v kvartarju, Radovljiški zbornik 1992, Radovljica 1992, 6–14.

25 Primerjaj: TOMAN 1997 (op. 11), 30. Proces priprave apna je opisal tudi Vitruvij: VITRUVIUS 1999 (op. 7), 38, 39.26 BENEDETTI in drugi 2004 (op. 3), 341–345; GENESTAR in drugi 2006 (op. 3), 373–379; VELOSA in drugi 2007 (op. 3), 1208–

1216; PAVIA in CARO 2008 (op. 3), 1807–1811.27 KASTELIC, V.: Peračiški tufi, seminarsko delo, Ljubljana 1999, tipkopis. Hrani Oddelek za geologijo, Naravoslovnotehniška fakulteta,

Univerza v Ljubljani.28 Na primer: ELSEN, J., BRUTSAERT, A., DECKERS, M., in R. BRULET, Microscopical study of ancient mortars from Tournai

(Belgium), Materials Characterization 53, Amsterdam 2004, 289–294; ARIOGLU, N., in S. ACUN, A research about a method for restoration of traditional lime mortars and plasters: A staging system approach, Building and Environment 41, Oxford, New York 2006, 1223–1230; PAAMA, L., PITKÄNEN, I., RÖNKKÖMÄKI, H., in P. PERÄMÄKI, Thermal and infrared spectroscopic characteriza-tion of historical mortars, Thermochimica Acta 320, Amsterdam 1998, 127–133.

29 HALE, J., HEINEMEIER, J., LANCASTER, L., LINDROOS, A., in Å. RINGBOM, Dating Ancient Mortar, American Scientist 91/2, New Haven 2003, 130–137.

Slika 1: Aeroposnetek arhitekture najdišča pri Mošnjah (foto: J. Hanc; arhiv ZVKDS, OE Kranj)

Figure 1: Aerial image of the Mošnje archaeological site (photo: J. Hanc; Archives of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Kranj Regional Unit)

Slika 2: Pogled na prostore privatnih term objekta 2 (foto: M. Lavrič; arhiv ZVKDS, OE Kranj)

Figure 2: View of the rooms of the private thermae in Object 2 (photo: M. Lavrič; Archives of the Institute for the Protec-tion of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Kranj Regional Unit)

182


183


Slika 3: Črno-beli mozaik, iz prostora z apsido in hipokavstom (foto: M. Lavrič; arhiv ZVKDS, OE Kranj)

Figure 3: Black-and-white mosaic from the room with the apside and hypocaust (photo: M. Lavrič; Archives of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Kranj Regional Unit)

Slika 4: Freska rdeče barve v prostoru 2 objekta 2 (foto: M. Lavrič; arhiv ZVKDS, OE Kranj)

Figure 4: Red colour fresco in Room 2 of Object 2 (photo: M. Lavrič; Archives of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Kranj Regional Unit)

Slika 5: Tloris objekta 2

Figure 5: Ground plan of Object 2

184


185


Slika 6: Omet: dobro sortirani agregat. Optični mikroskop, presevna svetloba, vključen analizator

Figure 6: Plaster: well-sorted aggregate. Optical microscope, transmission light, crossed polars

Slika 7: Omet: podolgovati organski delci. Optični mikroskop, presevna svetloba, brez analizatorja

Figure 7: Plaster: Elongated organic fragments. Optical microscope, transmission light, crossed polars

Slika 8: Bel glajen omet: zrna drobljenega debelokristalnega kalcita v zunanji plasti. Optični mikroskop, presevna svetloba, vključen analizator

Figure 8: White polished plaster: grains of ground coarse-grained calcites in the external layer. Optical microscope, transmis-sion light, crossed polars

Slika 9: Bel glajen omet: apneni omet pri zunanji plasti. SEM, BSE

Figure 9: White polished plaster: lime plaster of the external layer. SEM, BSE

186


187


Slika 10: Freska: zrna opeke in zrno debelokristalnega kalcita v finem ometu. Optični mikroskop, presevna svetloba, vključen analizator

Figure 10: Fresco: brick grains and a grain of coarse-grained calcite in fine plaster. Optical microscope, transmission light, crossed polars

Slika 11: Črna mozaična kocka: laminiran mikritni apnenec z radiolarijami. Optični mikroskop, presevna svetloba, vključen analizator

Figure 11: Black mosaic cube: laminated micrite limestone with radiolaria. Optical microscope, transmission light, crossed polars

Slika 12: Bela mozaična kocka: foraminiferni apnenec. Optični mikroskop, presevna svetloba, brez analizatorja

Figure 12: White mosaic cube: foraminiferous limestone. Optical microscope, transmission light

Slika 13: Mozaik: kompaktno apneno hidravlično vezivo z zdrobljeno opeko. Optični mikroskop, presevna svetloba, vključen analizator

Figure 13: Mosaic: compact lime hydraulic binder with ground brick. Optical microscope, transmission light, crossed polars

188


189


Slika 14: Mozaik na spodnjem delu stene z odlomkom tegule (foto: M. Lavrič; arhiv ZVKDS, OE Kranj)

Figure 14: Mosaic in the lower part of the wall with a fragment of the tegula (photo: M. Lavrič; Archives of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Kranj Regional Unit)

Slika 15: Lep: lističi muskovita in zrna kremena. Rjava obarvanost lepa zaradi nastalega hematita. Optični mikroskop, presevna svetloba, vključen analizator

Figure 15: Adhesive: muscovite foils and quartz grains. Brown colouration of the adhesive due to the resulting hematite. Optical microscope, transmission light, crossed polars

Slika 16: Tuf: kremenova in biotitna zrna ter steklasta osnova. Optični mikroskop, presevna svetloba, vključen analizator

Figure 16: Tuff: quartz and biotite grains and vitreous base. Optical microscope, transmission light, crossed polars

Slika 17: Reakcijski rob okoli zrna kremena. Optični mikroskop, presevna svetloba, vključen analizator

Figure 17: Reaction edge around a quartz grain. Optical microscope, transmission light, crossed polars

190


191


Sabina Kramar, Judita Lux, Breda Mirtič

Analysis of Selected Samples of Mortars and Other Construction Materials from Object 2 of the Roman Villa near MošnjeKey words: Archaeology, mineralogy, mortar and plaster composition, Mošnje, Roman settlement

The protective archaeological research of the Roman settlement near Mošnje, conducted by the Insti-tute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Kranj Regional Unit, under the leadership of Milan Sagadin and Judita Lux, was completed in 2007. Part of the post-excavation processing of the site’s archives also includes analyses of mortar and plaster samples1 conducted by Sabina Kramar from the Institute, the Restoration Centre, and Dr Breda Mirtič from the Department of Geology, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Engineering in Ljubljana.2

The analyses conducted have provided us with information about the composition and technology of production of various types of mortars and plasters in Roman times and the use of some other construc-tion materials such as various types of flooring, adhesive and tuff. The mortar composition results, in ad-dition to their documentary nature, are of key importance for reinforcing and renovating the walls and for the in situ presentation of Object 2. Of all the structures excavated to date, this is the only preserved one as the larger portion of the excavated site lies under a motorway route.Several studies have been done worldwide relating to the technology of mortar and plaster produc-tion and mortar and plaster composition in Roman times,3 which makes the information about their composition and quality in Slovenian territory all the more important. The results presented here will facilitate a comparison of construction materials used in the territory of the Roman Empire. In addition, the analyses also contribute to our knowledge of the composition of the construction materials that were used in different periods both in Slovenia and in the rest of Europe.The first results of the analysis of the mortar of the archaeological object were presented and published at the Historical Mortars conference in Portugal in September 20084, and some new results are presented in this paper.

Introduction of the site

The Mošnje – Pod cesto 2007 archaeological site is situated on the Sava terrace between the communities of Mošnje and Globoko. It was discovered during the supervision of construction work on the future Vrba-Perčica motorway section. The archaeological research was done in November 2006 and from January to April 2007. A total of 11,600m2 of the area in which the Roman villa – measuring 120 m in length (E-W) and 48.5 m in width (N-S) – was located was researched during that time. The familiar analogies and the small articles discovered all indicate that this was a Roman country villa (villa rustica),5 which may have also been used as a road station (mansio).6 This view is also supported by the route of

Sabina Kramar, Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Restoration CentreJudita Lux, Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Kranj Regional Unit Dr Breda Mirtič, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Engineering, Department of Geology

the old road, indicated by the lie of the land to the west of the researched objects. The articles discovered suggest that the Roman villa dates back to the period between the 1st and 4th centuries. The archaeologi-cal finds from mixed layers indicate that this area has been inhabited since the early iron age.The villa rustica consisted of five masonry objects, linked into a whole by a support wall pushing into the slope of the upper terrace (Figure 1). The course of the support wall could not be traced on the east and south sides. The residential part of the villa was represented by Object 2 in the eastern part, which was also the largest and best preserved part. It should be noted here that we did not enter the layers under the walking surfaces but only removed the layer of rubble in order to preserve Object 2.The north part of the object, just like the support wall, was partly dug in. The building measured as much as 36.8 x 17.3 metres, and the largest preserved wall was nearly three metres high. The walls were made of raw local stone, while the corners were made of large finished tuff stones.7

In the fall of 2007, the south-west corner of Object 2, consisting of the walls marked as SE 260 and SE 146, had to be dismantled due to the construction of the motorway. The corner itself was built from large finished tuff stones. Both walls had foundations and, together with the foundations, measured nearly 1.40 metres in height.Even at this stage of research, it is clear that the building was constructed in two stages. In its first, ear-lier, stage, the object had six rooms, while another room was added on the east side later. It is not quite certain whether the three smaller rooms on the object’s west side were used as private thermae (Figure 2). It is certain, however, that the passage leading from the southernmost thermae area to the adjacent room was walled off in the second stage. The private thermae consisted of three rooms: the hot bath (caldarium) with central floor heating (hypocaustum), the warm bath (tepidarium) and the cold bath (frigidarium). The selected area completely conforms with Vitruvius’ recommendations.8 He warned that the warmest possible place should be selected for public baths, which should not be on the north or north-east side as these rooms are largely used in the afternoon. Even the bathrooms in private houses were supposed to be on the south-west side of the house so that additional heat could be provided to the rooms by the sun in the evening.The room with the hypocaust and apside on the west side represented the hot section. The floor and lower part of the walls were covered with black-and-white mosaic, decorated with a geometric ornament of triangles and spirals, highlighted by the motif of at least one pair of sea animals, most probably dol-phins. All the parts of the mosaic were discovered in the rubble layer of the hypocaust.In the larger parts of the floor mosaic we can recognise the stratigraphy of mortar layers (Figure 3), which is characteristic of mosaics and was described by Vitruvius.9 Vitruvius also attached considerable importance to the composition of the mortar in the individual layers. According to him, the stone base should be covered with a layer of stones mixed with lime in a 3 to 1 ratio if the stones were new and in a 5 to 2 ratio if the stones had already been used. The next layer (nucleus) should contain ground brick, whose ratio to brick should be 3 to 1. It is interesting to note that, just like the floor, the hypocaust pillars were also made of tuff. The plates on the pillars were also most likely made of tuff, but they have completely disintegrated.The walking surface in the warm section of the bath was covered with screed, which has been very poorly preserved. Several finished stone plates have been preserved on the floor of the cold section.In all three areas of the private thermae, there was polished plaster on the walls, additionally adorned by a red fresco (Figure 4), which has black lines in places. In his book Vitruvius also wrote about the cor-rect method of plastering walls and ceilings and of making a quality base for frescos.10 He wrote that the plaster would not crack and would be without defects if the walls were covered with three layers of sand plaster and as many layers of marble plaster. Once the plaster is polished to the whiteness of marble, dyes should be added to the last layer. If dyes are applied to wet plaster, they will not fade.The central and largest room of the residential building featured a well preserved praefurnium made of tuff, which heated the caldarium. The central section of that room contained a large fireplace made from tuff, near which lay parts of a partition wall 53×18×22 cm in size. Both sides were plastered, and the base consisted of large pebbles bound by mortar. The partition wall may have been used for separating the central section from the section of the room where the praefurnium was located. The south-east corner of this room also included a smaller furnace made of tuff, where fragments of adhesive were dis-covered in the rubble layer. At the time the passage to the cold bath was walled off, part of the southern

192


193


wall was most likely pulled down. The entrance that was created was covered only with screed, while the other entrances had thresholds made of finished tuff. The walking surface in this largest room was made of clay flooring.The adjacent, somewhat smaller, room also included a furnace in its central part, made from tuff plates, while its walking surface was terrazzo flooring rosy in colour and inlaid with white and black stones and brick fragments. The easternmost room was added to the central section of Object 2 later. The north and west walls were made of stone, while the east wall was most likely made of wood as we only have its impression in the screed of the walking surface. Two furnaces have been preserved in this room, one made of brick, and the other made of tuff.To the south of the rooms described above, a wall extended in the direction from east to west, measur-ing 27.2 metres in length and terminating in finished tuff stones on the west side. The entrance from this elongated room led into the individual rooms of the residential building. This room also included a furnace made of tuff. A sundial made of tuff was a particularly prominent find in that room. The terraced arrangement of the building and the popularity of tuff are also indicated by the structure of the scarp, which extended a little more to the south and was made of unfinished tuff stones bound by mortar.

Sample analysis

sample type location

ANM 12 adhesive room 4, SE 160

ANM 23 tuff room 6, SE 192

ANM 19 plaster room 5, SE 189




ANM 59 mortar room 1, SE 313






ANM 121 mortar floor room 3, SE 580


ANM 134 (a–c) mosaic room 1, SE 329


ANM 136 mosaic room 1, SE 359

ANM137 (a, b) plaster room 1, SE 362

ANM138 (a, b) fresco room 1, SE 362


ANM140 (a, b) mortar floor room 2, SE 329


ANM142 (a, b) plaster room 3, SE 337

Table 1. Analysed samples

The samples were taken from the residential object of the villa rustica (Figure 5). The samples represent bonding mortar from the walls, plaster, levelling and binding layers for the frescoes and mosaic, flooring, adhesive and tuff (Table 1).

Optical microscopy

Polished thin sections were made from the samples for petrographic and mineralogical analyses with an Olympus x 60 microscope so that we could examine the samples in transmission and reflection light. The specimens were then dyed with Alizarin Red S dye. Calcite crystals, which are soluble in hydrochlo-ric acid (HCl), are etched in this acid for a short time, after which they assume a characteristic colour due to Alizarin Red S dye. Dolomite, which is considerably less soluble in hydrochloric acid, does not etch and, consequently, cannot be coloured by this dye. In this way we can separate calcite from dolomite in transmission light.

Bonding mortar from the wallsThe petrological and mineral composition of the aggregate in the analysed mortar samples (samples ANM 59, ANM 60, ANM 70, ANM 71, ANM 74, ANM 117 and ANM 123) do not differ significant-ly. The most prevalent types of rock are sediment rock (limestone, dolomite, chert, siltstone, sandstone), followed by magmatic (porphyry), pyroclastic (tuff) and metamorphic (quartzite) rock and quartz and feldspar grains. The carbonate component predominates over the silicate component and dolomite grains over limestone as aggregate in all of the samples. The carbonate component of the aggregate consists of dolomite and limestone grains. All the samples contain dolomite. Most of the limestone grains are thick-crystal (sparite) limestone, but fine-crystal (micrite) limestone is also present. The limestone grains are mostly well rounded. Larger grains, several millimetres in size predominate. There are also individual dolomite grains composed of large angular crystals and with borders defined by cleavage (rhombohedron). The finer carbonate fraction is largely sharp-edged.The silicate aggregate is represented by quartz, tuff, siltstone, quartz sandstone, chert and a small number of clay stone grains – plagioclases. The silicate aggregate from quartz is represented by grains of mono-crystalline, polycrystalline or microcrystalline (chert) quartz. The monocrystalline and polycrystalline quartz grains are angular and partly oval. Partly oval are especially the polycrystalline quartz grains. The microcrystalline quartz is chert, which is a sediment rock. The polycrystalline quartz may represent frag-ments fallen out of magmatic rocks. The monocrystalline quartz may represent fragments fallen out of magmatic rocks or quartz sandstones. All the samples contain quartz in different forms. Some samples also contain individual grains of brick of burnt clay. The aggregate is fairly unsorted, between 0.7 and 7.5 mm in size. The binder is cracked in places, and there are also lumps and clusters of carbonated lime.

PlasterThe mineral and petrological composition of the plaster (samples ANM 19, ANM 22, ANM 56 and ANM 135) is similar to the composition of bonding mortar, the only difference being that the aggregate grains here are smaller (up to 2 mm) and well sorted (Figure 6). Several layers of plaster are visible. The sample ANM 56 contains elongated organic fragments, up to 2 mm in size (Figure 7).

White polished plasterThe analyses have shown that the white plaster fragments discovered in the rooms of the private thermae were polished plaster (samples ANM 137 and ANM 142). The external layer (layer a) is between 3 and 4 mm thick. It is composed of sharp-edged fragments of coarse-grained calcite (Figures 8 and 9). The grains are between 0.29 to 2 mm in size, averaging about 0.5 mm. The calcite aggregate is well sorted. The binder is lime. The layer under the external layer (layer b) consists of rounded grains of lime and dolomite, quartz and fragments of magmatic rocks. The grains are up to 4 mm in size.

194


195


Plaster for wall paintingsWe established through analyses of wall paintings (samples ANM 24, ANM 138, ANM 139 and ANM 141) that the fine plaster11 of the red frescoes from all three rooms contains ground brick, which pre-dominates as aggregate (Figure 10). The layer is up to 8 mm thick. In addition to the ground brick up to 6 mm in size, a fine fraction (powder) is also present. Also present are oval grains of lime and dolomite and individual grains of quartz and other rocks. Rare grains of ground thick-grained calcite are also vis-ible. The binder is lime.The layer of rough plaster consists of grains of lime and dolomite and a silicate component represented by quartz and grains of various magmatic rocks. Brick is not present in this layer. The documented thick-ness of the rough plaster layer is up to 1.5 cm.

MosaicThe floor mosaic discovered in the caldarium (sample ANM 134) consists of several layers, which we marked with letters and analysed independently (Figure 3):a – tessellatum with white and black mosaic cubes 1 × 1 × 0.5 cm in size and lime mortar filling the space between them. The black cubes are made of laminated micrite limestone containing quartz grains and fossil radiolaria (Figure 11). The white cubes are made of biosparite limestone containing numer-ous fossil foraminifera (Figure 12). It should be stressed that this is not the same type of limestone that constitutes the aggregate in the mortar;b – the bedding layer is 1–2 mm thick. It consists of lime binder, lime aggregate and individual quartz grains. The fragments range from 0.06 to 0.39 mm in size. This mortar was also present between the mosaic cubes;c – the nucleus is 1.5 cm thick. Grains of ground brick predominate, i.e. the grains are sharp-edged (Figure 13). The fine fraction of the aggregate is mainly represented by brick powder. Also present are rounded limestone grains and individual grains of quartz (monocrystalline and polycrystalline). The grains are medium sorted, and the binder is not cracked. Also visible are individual clumps of lime. The individual areas with brick powder are very compact. The grains are between 0.05 to 6 mm in size, averaging about 2-3 mm.d - the rudus. The exact thickness of this layer is hard to determine as the mosaic was discovered in a layer of ruins. The thickness of the preserved layer is > 5 cm. The aggregate is poorly sorted, the grains are large, ranging from 0.13 to 2.5 cm. The ratio of carbonate component to crushed brick is about 1 to 1. The carbonate component is represented by limestone and dolomite. Individual grains of magmatic rocks appear in places. The binder is lime and is a little cracked. A fine brick fraction is not present in this layer.A layer of plaster applied to tegulas (Figure 14) was present at the mosaic covering the lower portion of the walls (sample ANM 136). It consists solely of fragments of ground brick and a fine fraction (pow-der). The fragments range from 0.2 to 2.2 mm in size, with individual grains of up to 6 mm. Lime was used as binder, and, in contact with water and the added fine brick fraction (powder) it hardened into hydraulic plaster.

Mortar floor The mortar floor (sample ANM 121, ANM 140) is composed of a similar aggregate as bonding mortar, and the binder is lime. The grains of the aggregate are poorly sorted, and the grain size ranges from 0.05 to 6 mm. There are numerous clusters of carbonated lime. The sample ANM 140 represents mortar, which contains rounded fragments of limestone, dolomite, sharp-edged grains of quartz and small pieces of ground brick. Also present is a fine brick fraction, which gives the binder a rosy colour. The aggregate is poorly sorted, ranging from 0.2 mm to 1.5 cm in size. The binder is not cracked, and there are lime lumps.

AdhesiveThe adhesive (sample ANM 12) consists of a highly sandy clay, which contains unchanged grains of muscovite and untransformed quartz (Figure 15). During the burning process, hematite was produced from iron hydroxides, giving the adhesive – burnt clay – a red colour.

TuffThe sample ANM 23 consists of the minerals chlorite, biotite, plagioclases, quartz and muscovite (Figure 16). The matrix is very cryptocrystalline. The entire sample indicates the orientation of the matrix.

Electron microscopy

We also conducted a SEM-EDX analysis (scanning electronic microscopy with the energy dispersion spectroscopy of X-rays) of the binder on polished specimens of the selected samples, powdered with carbon, by means of which we determined the chemical composition of the samples of the analysed construction materials.12 A SEM JEOL 5600 LV microscope was used at the Department for Nanostruc-tural Materials of the Jožef Štefan Institute in Ljubljana.The analysis of the elemental composition of the binder of the selected samples indicated a lime binder in the samples of mortar, plaster, mortar floor, the rudus layer at the mosaic, the rough plaster on the wall paintings and the polished plaster. There was no magnesium (Mg) present in the binder, which indicates the use of pure limestone (CaCO3) for the burning of the lime rather than dolomite ((Ca, Mg)CO3). The analysis of the binder in the mosaic nucleus layer and in the fine plaster of the red wall paintings confirms the presence of calcium (Ca), aluminium (Al), silicon (Si) and iron (Fe) in the binder, which indicates the hydraulic nature of the binder. The iron belongs to hematite. The binder does not contain sulphur (S), which would indicate gypsum (CaSO4*H2O).

Powder X-Ray Diffraction Analysis

A powder X-ray diffraction analysis was conducted on the selected samples of mortar in order to deter-mine the binder type.13 We ground the mortar by hand to separate the aggregate from the binder, and passed them through a sieve with apertures 63 micrometres in size. In this way we analysed the fraction smaller than 63 micrometers, which should represent the binder. According to data from the literature, a fraction with the size of particles of < 63 micrometres already has a powerful effect on the properties of the binder.14

The binder samples prepared in this way were then analysed by means of a Philips X-ray diffractor at 1.2 kW, 40 kV and 30 mA with a copper tube, Kα-rays and a graphite monochromator with a 2θ angular range between 2 and 70°. The speed of the position finder was 3.4°/min. We determined the mineral composition of the samples by means of Philips x´Pert software (Table 2).Despite sieving, a large number of minerals represent part of the fine fraction of the aggregate. As we can see, calcite and quartz are present in all of the samples. Dolomite appears in nearly all of the samples, while in some samples it is not present, although its appearance is not related to the type of sample or location. The same applies to muscovite, clinochlorite and feldspars. The appearance of clinochlorite indicates the presence of tuff. Gypsum is only present in the sample ANM 134a. Hematite indicates the presence of ground brick. The quartz represents monocrystalline and polycrystalline quartz grains and quartz in sandstone and stone grains containing quartz. The feldspars are a frequent integral component of various magmatic rocks.

196


197


Sample Calcite Quartz Dolomite Feldspar Muscovite Clinochlorite Gypsum Hematite

ANM 19 × × × ×

ANM 22 × ×

ANM 59 × × × ×

ANM 60 × × × × ×

ANM 70 × × × ×

ANM 71 × × ×

ANM 74 × × × ×

ANM 117 × × × × ×

ANM 123 × × ×

ANM 132 × × × ×

ANM 134a × × × × ×

ANM 134b × × × ×

ANM 135 × × ×

ANM 136 × × × × ×

ANM 137a × × ×

ANM 138a × × × × ×

ANM 139 × × × × ×

ANM 140 × × × ×

ANM 141a × × × × ×

ANM 141b × × × ×

ANM 142 × × × ×

Table 2: Results of the X-ray analysis conducted on the selected samples

ATR FTIR-analysis

We analysed the same samples from the preceding chapter by means of the Perkin Elmer ATR-FTIR Spectrum 100 spectrometer. They were analysed in the imaging range of 670 to 4000 cm–1.The results indicate that all the samples have very strong peaks around 2510, 1797, 1414, 873 and 712 cm–1, which is characteristic of the carbonate fraction (calcite) – lime binder. Dolomite is indicated by peak around 849 cm–1

. The samples containing a fine brick fraction (samples ANM 134a, ANM 136, ANM 138a, ANM 139a, ANM 140 and ANM 141a) – have two peaks present at around 3430 cm–1

and 1630 cm-1, while they are not present in the samples containing only larger pieces of brick and no fine fraction. The vibrations at these two values are the result of the vibrations of the molecules of water (H2O) and hydroxyl (OH) group, which are present in the minerals of gypsum, mica (muscovite) and calcium silicate hydrates or calcium aluminate hydrates. The last two groups of minerals indicate that in addition to the lime binder, which is the source of calcium, a latent hydraulic material (crushed brick) was also used, which was the source of silicon and/or aluminium. Calcium silicate hydrates – CSH (with the general formula xCaO.ySiO2.zH2O, as they may have varying molar ratios of x : y : z) – may have formed in the presence of water during the hardening of the binder, and the same is true of calcium aluminate hydrates - CAS (with the general formula xCaO.yAlO.zHO) – which also have varying molar ratios of x : y : z. In the case of the analysed samples, the groups of these two minerals indicate the hy-draulic nature of the binder. At the same time, these samples have strong peaks around 1007 cm–1, which are probably due to C-S-H-vibrations.15

The peaks around 1030, 797 and 778 cm–1 represent quartz and other silicate minerals, which are present in all of the samples except ANM 123, ANM 134b, ANM 136, ANM 139, ANM 141a and b and ANM 142a. It may be concluded that these samples do not contain a large amount of quartz.

Findings

The mortars and plasters consist of aggregate, water and binder as input components. Their properties depend primarily on the type of binder. That is why the development of mortars and plasters is based primarily on achieving the best possible bonding properties of the binder. The hydraulic binder16 type was known as early as the 10th century BC. It was a type of cement burnt from carbonate and silicate raw materials at temperatures of up to 1,250 °C, which had some hydraulic properties. The use of lime and hydraulic binders became very widespread in Roman times.17 The Romans were familiar with ten types of plaster used for murals alone.18 The 18th century saw a renewed development of hydraulic binders, in addition to lime binder, and hydraulic binders at least partly replaced lime binder or lime mortars. In the 19th century hydraulic mortar completely replaced lime mortar as a result of the development of Port-land cement. It should be noted that lime mortar and plaster were occasionally also mixed with various additions in an attempt to improve their properties. These additions may have been inorganic (ground brick, pozzolanic earths, marble, gypsum) or organic (straw, animal hair, casein, sugar, oil, blood). Pig-ments and dyes were also added occasionally.19

Petrological and mineral composition of the aggregateThe mineral and petrological composition of the aggregate in the mortar indicate the location in which the aggregate was taken. Rocks or minerals belonging to latent hydraulic materials may be added to the aggregate. These are mainly vitreous-amorphous forms of silicate rocks such as tuff – pozzolana, kerato-phyres and cherts and other materials such as brick of burnt clay and slag. They significantly affect the method of mortar hardening and its final properties. In addition to the mineral grains and rock clasts of the aggregate, the mortar may also contain organic fragments and fibres as a reinforcing agent at the time of hardening.The individual grains of quartz and larger grains of brick are changed along the external edge (Figure 17) as they reacted with the lime from the lime binder. They represent a latent hydraulic material. A reactivity rim, tens of micrometres in size, is well visible on the individual grains, and it consists of fine colourless crystals of calcium silicate hydrates. The optical microscopy and electron microscopy (SEM) analysis has also shown the grains to be etched. Only the first layer may have been sufficient for the hydrophobic nature of the mortar in the mosaic.Vitruvius emphasised a special type of sand, although he did not name it specifically.20 He claimed that there was a special type of sand in nature whose action is miraculous. It could be found around the settle-ment of Baiae and in the area of the places around Vesuvius hill. Mixed with lime and sand, it not only gives hardness to buildings, but, when used in sea water, it also makes underwater embankments harder. Today we would say that the addition of tuff renders the binder hydraulic. The addition of organic fibrous particles in plaster indicates the probability that the plaster was laid onto an organic surface, either a wood base or a layer of reeds. The sample was discovered in the rubble layer in Area 4. As the walls were made of stone, it is quite likely that the sample was part of ceiling plaster. It was laid onto reeds or the structure was made of wood, which is corroborated by the numerous discover-ies of iron nails and metal parts for wood beams.The analyses conducted indicate a high probability that the coarse-grained calcite which predominates the external layer of the white polished plaster and is present, as an additive, in the fine plaster of the red wall painting, is ground marble or recrystallized calcite. Our assumption is also additionally confirmed by ancient sources.21 Such plaster has a high polish made possible by genuine marble.22 That they added the selected material for the shine is also proved by the fact that these grains are not present in the mor-tars of the mosaic.

198


199


Form and size of the grains of the aggregateThe main purpose of aggregate is to give mortar its hardness, stabilise its volume, fill the empty spaces and reduce losses due to contraction while drying.23 In addition to determining the colour and texture of the mortar, it is important that it does not affect other components chemically and is therefore inert. Otherwise, certain chemical reactions could occur, such as between aggregate and portlandite (Ca(OH)2) or between aggregate and alkaline compounds (frequent in cement mortars), which may cause much damage to the mortar as mineral phases causing the mortar to disintegrate are formed in the presence of humidity.Aggregate may be composed of angular and rounded grains of various minerals. Angular grains – clasts – may indicate a short path of transport of the grain to the place where the aggregate was taken for the production of mortar. Angular grains may also be obtained if the aggregate was obtained by grinding thick-grained rock – stone chippings. The rounded aggregate grains are a clear sign that the aggregate was taken in a riverbed or gravel pit as a fine-grain fraction. It should be noted that the grains consisting of minerals with high hardness are less rounded than those with low hardness. The aggregates with high hardness include silicate materials (minerals and rocks) such as quarts and feldspars and amorphous forms of silicate material such as tuff, cherts and keratophyre. The minerals with low hardness include carbonates, i.e. calcite and dolomite and mica minerals as well as organic substances. Mica minerals are also elastic and are susceptible to bending rather than crushing, and we usually find them in mortar as large grains. However, it should especially be noted that the dolomite grains appear as unrounded grains. This is possible as dolomite has good cleavage, and the action of mechanical force breaks a dolomite grain along cleavage planes rather than making it round. This means that we will find fine-grained dolo-mite in the aggregate which will have sharp edges although it was taken from the river bed.If the sorting of the grains is poor (bimodal grain distribution), the structure of the mortar is more compact and the porosity is lower. Smaller grains will fill the spaces between the larger grains. Thus the reactive surface is also larger, which accelerates the carbonation reaction. The sharp-edged fragments have a greater specific area than the rounded ones, thus compensating for the shrinkage and increasing the binding power. A large majority of samples indicates a bimodal distribution of aggregate grain size. There are only a few well-sorted samples.Given that the aggregate is mostly rounded, we can assume that they used aggregate from the Sava ter-race. The geological maps show different terrace sediments filling up the Bled-Radovljica valley such as gravelly, fluvioglacial and morainic sediments, which formed in the Pleistocene.24

The presence of gypsum in the sample is the consequence of the weathering processes. Water in contact with the pollutants from the air, such as sulphuric oxide (SO2), forms their acids, which, in turn, dis-solve the components in the mortar when they are moistened by such water. Water dissolves calcium carbonate (CaCO3), after which calcium sulphates are precipitated on the surface of the mortar – with gypsum being most stable.

BinderThe results indicate lime binder in most samples. Electron microscopy analyses have confirmed that the binder in the samples is from pure calcite (magnesium is not present) - i.e. quite pure limestone was used for the burning of the lime. Lime binder generally consists of portlandite (Ca(OH)2), formed by the slaking of lime (CaO). We obtained it by burning limestone (CaCO3) up to about 1000 15C. The carbonatization takes place when portlandite comes in contact with air, i.e. carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air. That is why lime binder is also called air binder as it does not require water for hardening. Harden-ing occurs quite slowly and may last for several weeks, with the volume of the mortar consisting of the aforementioned materials being significantly reduced.25

In nearly all samples, there are lime lumps of different sizes. In some samples they appear only in places, while in other samples they are more numerous. Some lumps are fissured. The binder carbonated with few fissures in some places and with more fissures in others. Large lime lumps appear in the samples of bonding mortar from the walls, which indicates that the buildings were made by applying a quicklime technique. This is also suggested by the extremely high hardness of the binder.The samples from the area of the bathroom, where the materials had to be waterproof, have lime hydrau-lic binder. In our case, this was achieved by adding brick flour to the lime mortar mixture. A reaction

between the silica from the brick powder, the lime from the binder and water occurred in the samples containing brick powder. According to the literature, brick flour less than 75 micrometres in size is regarded as binder as a hydration reaction occurs in contact with lime and water.26 This creates calcium silicate hydrates and/or calcium aluminate hydrates, which give the hydraulic binder its hardness. The binder is quite compact in that case. The addition of a fine brick fraction reduces waterproofness and increases mechanical hardness, which is attributed to the hydraulic reaction that occurs during contact with lime in the presence of water. The EDS analysis proved the presence of silicon, aluminium and cal-cium in the binder, which indicates the formation of calcium silicate hydrates (CxSyHz) and aluminate hydrates (CxAyHz).Note should also be taken of the pozzolana material, which may be of natural origin (volcanic ash, tuff, keratophyre, cherts) or artificial origin (various vitreous-amorphous materials such as slag or burnt clay - crushed brick). These are materials that contain a vitreous (amorphous) phase consisting primarily of aluminium and silicon oxide (Al2O3 and SiO2). This vitreous phase, if it is finely ground, reacts forming calcium silicates and aluminate hydrates in the presence of water and calcium oxide (CaO from lime), similarly to cement (hydraulic) binder. The difference between them is that the latent hydraulic binder must also react to form calcium oxide (CaO) (therefore latent), which it receives from lime binder.

Other construction materialsThe adhesive discovered near the furnace may have been heated to such a temperature that its mineral composition and physical properties changed. We may in fact designate it as burnt clay. This also happened in the case of the sample ANM 12. It is evident from the sample that burning occurred. The temperature was too low for the muscovite to release water and change its optical properties in the process, as evident from the polished specimen under the optical microscope. The temperature definitely did not exceed 700 °C. The clay is real sand clay, i.e. it contains grains of quartz, although the grains are quite fine, which is why the clay was plastic enough to be applied easily and without cracking (it was not lean).Tuff is a pyroclastic rock. Tuffs are andesite structures formed in a water environment. There are pelite (fine-grained), psammite (coarse-grained) and carbonated tuffs. They are composed of the minerals chlorite, biotite, plagioclases and muscovite. There are vitreous and crystalline tuffs.27

Conclusion

The presented analyses are part of a broader study within the framework of the archaeological excava-tions at Mošnje aimed at obtaining as much information as possible about the materials and technology used in the building of villas rusticas in Roman times. The results obtained are also important in terms of conservation and restoration interventions, i.e. the presentation of the villa rustica in situ, which is planned for 2009.Historically, mortar has served two purposes: it was a binder between construction elements such as stone and brick, and it also provided protection for the surface of the walls and facades. It provided external protection for buildings against environmental influences. Interest in the systematic study of mortars and plasters on objects from the past arose relatively late. The first information came to light only in 1981 (International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property – ICCROM), which marked the beginning of the systematic study of historical mortars and plasters and the possibility of their restoration and repair. Historical mortars and plasters have been studied in a systematic manner worldwide for more than ten years,28 including the qualitative and quantitative chemical and mineral composition of mortars and plasters, the structural characteristics, the processes of decay and the effects of changes in mortars and plasters on other adjacent construction materials. To that end, researchers use all modern instrumental, analytical and research methods. The results of these analyses also lead to methods of restoring historical mortars and plasters and improvements in resistance to the factors of decay.The results of the analyses conducted on the samples from Mošnje indicate that in the majority of cases local material was used, both for building walls and for preparing mortar and various plasters. Tuff was extremely popular with ancient masons in Mošnje; this could be related to the fact that it is easy to work

200


201


with. It is known that abandoned Peračica tuff quarries are located nearby, and this site indicates that the use of tuff began as early as the Roman period (in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD), and not only during Baroque as was once generally believed.The source of rocks for the production of mosaic cubes in this phase of analysis is not yet known, but we assume that these are rocks taken from local quarries.Various additives were combined with plaster given the purpose of the materials in order to improve their properties. For instance, they most likely added ground marble or recrystallized calcite to white polished plaster. It is characteristic of the mortar samples from the area of the bathroom that ground brick and a fine brick fraction were used (crushed brick). The addition of this fine fraction in contact with water resulted in the so-called pozzolana reaction – hydration – which made the binder lime hy-draulic and thus extremely compact and waterproof.Even if individual parts of the object from which the samples were taken were built with a time lag, the raw materials for construction were the same. The aggregate is the same everywhere (in terms of com-position and grain size). The absolute age of the binder could be determined by the C14 method. The binder would have to be separated from the aggregate, which would give us the age of carbon (C) at the time the binder carbonatization occured.29 The builders of the Roman villa near Mošnje had elaborate technology as they used specially prepared binders for each particular purpose. Individual binders (mortars and plasters) are distinguished from each other by aggregate grain size and type of binder: they can be strictly lime or lime hydraulic. Each of these binders has different properties and thus a different use. These binders, discovered at Mošnje, were used in order to achieve greater hardness or waterproofness or to provide fast bonding. This study proves that Romans in the territory of Slovenia were also masters of the technologies described above.

Notes1 The term “mortar” refers to construction bonding material made of sand, water and lime, while plaster refers to evenly applied mortar,

BAJEC, A., et al (main editorial board): Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika, Ljubljana 1995, 519, 520, 769.2 LUX, J., and S. KRAMAR: Mošnje – rimska naselbina Pod cesto (EŠD 10036), JZ vogal objekta, izhodišča za konservatorsko-restavratorski

projekt, Kranj 2008, typescript. Kept by the Archives of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Kranj Regional Unit; KRAMAR, S.: Arheološko najdišče Mošnje (EŠD 10036), poročilo o preiskavi materialov, Ljubljana 2007, typescript. Kept by the Archives of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, RC; KRAMAR, S.: Arheološko najdišče Mošnje – Pod cesto, objekt 2 (EŠD 10036), poročilo o preiskavi malt, tipkopis, Ljubljana 2008. Kept by the Archives of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, RC; KRAMAR, S.: Arheološko najdišče Mošnje – Pod cesto, objekt 2 (EŠD 10036), poročilo o preiskavi malte, Ljubljana 2008, typescript. Kept by the Archives of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, RC.

3 BENEDETTI, D., VALETTI, S., BONTEMPI, E., PICCIOLI, C., and L. E. DEPERO, Study of ancient mortars from the Roman Villa of Pollio Felice in Sorrento (Naples), Applied Physics A 79/2, Berlin 2004, 341–345; GENESTAR, C., PONS, C., and A. MÁS, Analytical characterisation of ancient mortars from the archaeological Roman city of Pollentia (Balearic Islands, Spain), Analitica Chi-mica Acta 557, Amsterdam 2006, 373–379; VELOSA, A. L., COROADO, J., VEIGA, M. R., and F. ROCHA, Characterisation of Roman mortars from Conímbriga with respect to their repair, Materials Characterization 58, Amsterdam 2007, 1208–1216; PAVIA., S., and S. CARO, An investigation of Roman mortar technology through the petrographic analysis of archaeological material, Construction and Building Materials 22, New York 2008, 1807–1811.

4 KRAMAR, S., LUX, J., and B. MIRTIČ, Characterisation of Mortars from the Roman Archaeological Site near Mošnje (Slovenia), Proceedings of historical mortars conference (HMC08, 23–26 Sep 2008 Lisbon, in the press.

5 LUBŠINA - TUŠEK, M., Tlorisna zasnova rimskih vil v Sloveniji, Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje n.v. 17/2, Maribor 1981, 153–203; pregledno delo za rimske vile v Panoniji: THOMAS, E. B.: Römische Villen in Pannonien, Budapest 1964.

6 O rimskih cestah v Sloveniji: ŠAŠEL, J., Rimske ceste v Sloveniji, in: Arheološka najdišča Slovenije (editor S. Gabrovec et al), Ljubljana 1975, 74–99; o poteku starejših poti in cest v Sloveniji: TRUHLAR, F., Stara pota ter poskus rekonstrukcije nekdanje prometne mreže, in: Arheološka najdišča Slovenije (editor S. Gabrovec et al), Ljubljana 1975, 99–104; splošno o poštnih postajah: VASIĆ, M., and G. MILOŠEVIĆ: Mansio Idimum, Rimska poštanska i putna stanica kod Medveđe, Archaeological Institute p.i. 35 and the National Museum Monografija 11, Belgrade 2000.

7 Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, who lived in the 1514 century BC wrote about the method of construction in the Roman era: VITRUVIUS, M. P.: Ten Bookson Architecture (translated by M. Lopac and V. Bedenko), Zagreb 1999.

8 VITRUVIUS 1999 (ibid. 7), 115, 129.9 VITRUVIUS 1999 (ibid. 7), 143.10 VITRUVIUS 1999 (ibid. 7), 144–153; cf.: PLESNIČAR - GEC, L.: Emonske freske, exhibition catalogue, Ljubljana 1973, 10, 11;

PLESNIČAR - GEC, L.: Antične freske v Sloveniji I, Catalogues and monographs 31, Ljubljana 1997, 18–28.11 The fine layer that was painted on is called fine intonaco: PLESNIČAR - GEC 1973 (ibid. 10), 10; TOMAN, V., Ometi za zidno

poslikavo, in: PLESNIČAR - GEC, L.: Antične freske v Sloveniji 1, Catalogues and Monographs 31, Ljubljana 1997, 32.

12 We are grateful to Dr Sašo Šturm from the Jožef Štefan Institute in Ljubljana for the use of the electronic microscope.13 Due to the small quantity of the ANM 24 an ANM 56 samples, it was not possible to conduct analyses on these two samples.14 MOROPOLOU, A., TSIOURVA, TH., BISBIKOU, K., BISCONTINT, G., BAKOLAS, A., and E. ZENDRI, Hot lime technology

imparting high strength to historic mortars, Construction and Building Materials 10, New York 1996,151–159.15 GALANOS, A., DOGANIS, I., MARAVELAKI-KALAITZAKI, P., and N. KALLITHRAKAS-KONTOS, Hydraulic mortars and

plasters at the ancient aqueduct of Naxo, Greece, Proceedings on 11th Congress on deterioration and conservation of stone (15–20 Sep 2008, Torun, Poland), in the press.

16 Hydraulic binders harden more quickly and give grater hardness and smaller porosity to mortar.17 DELATTE, N. J., Lessons from Roman Cement and Concrete, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 127/3,

New York 2001, 109–115. 18 TOMAN 1997 (ibid. 11), 30–34.19 KRIŽNAR, A.: Slog in tehnika srednjeveškega stenskega slikarstva na Slovenskem, Ljubljana 2006, 19; cf. TOMAN 1997 (ibid. 11),

30–39.20 VITRUVIUS 1999 (ibid. 7), 39. Geologists in Slovenia use the terms pozzolana and tuff for “Vitruvius’ sand”.21 VITRUVIUS 1999 (ibid. 7), 145, 146.22 TOMAN 1997 (ibid. 11), 32.23 On the importance of sand in masonry: VITRUVIUS 1999 (ibid. 7), 38.24 BUSER, S., and A. CAJHEN: Osnovna geološka karta SFRJ, 1 : 100 000, Tolmač lista Celovec L33–53, Federa Geological Institute, Bel-

grae 1980; ŠIFRER, M., Geomorfološki razvoj Blejsko-Radovljiške ravnine in Dobrav v kvartarju, Radovljiški zbornik 1992, Radovljica 1992, 6–14.

25 Cf.: TOMAN 1997 (ibid. 11), 30. The process of lime preparation was also described by Vitruvius: VITRUVIUS 1999 (ibid. 7), 38, 39.

26 BENEDETTI et al 2004 (ibid. 3), 341–345; GENESTAR et al 2006 (ibid. 3), 373–379; VELOSA et al 2007 (ibid. 3), 1208–1216; PAVIA and CARO 2008 (ibid. 3), 1807–1811.

27 KASTELIC, V.: Peračiški tufi, term paper, Ljubljana 1999, in the press. Kept by the Geology Department of the Faculty of Natural Science and Technology in Ljubljana.

28 E.g. ELSEN, J., BRUTSAERT, A., DECKERS, M., and R. BRULET, Microscopical study of ancient mortars from Tournai (Belgium), Materials Characterization 53, Amsterdam 2004, 289–294; ARIOGLU, N., and S. ACUN, A research about a method for restoration of traditional lime mortars and plasters: A staging system approach, Building and Environment 41, Oxford, New York 2006, 1223–1230; PAAMA, L., PITKÄNEN, I., RÖNKKÖMÄKI, H., and P. PERÄMÄKI, Thermal and infrared spectroscopic characterization of histori-cal mortars, Thermochimica Acta 320, Amsterdam 1998, 127–133.

29 HALE, J., HEINEMEIER, J., LANCASTER, L., LINDROOS, A., and Å. RINGBOM, Dating Ancient Mortar, American Scientist 91/2, New Haven 2003, 130–137.

202


203


Lucija Močnik Ramovš, Barbka Gosar Hirci

Retuša: kako in s čim?Mednarodna delavnica retuširanja oljnih slik in lesene polihromirane plastikeUDK 7.025.4:75-037.1UDK 7.025.4:730-035.3UDK 75.025.4UDK 730.025.4

Ključne besede: retuša, reintegracija, estetska prezentacija, barvna selekcija, florentinska šola, slike na platnu, tehnologija, kanadski balzam, restavriranje, Stefano Scarpelli

Povzetek

Restavratorski poseg pri slikah na tkanih nosilcih med drugim zajema tudi postopek kitanja manjkajočih delov in retušo. Način izpeljave retuše1 je pogojen z obsegom in vrsto poškodb, tehniko izvirnika, zgo-dovinsko vrednostjo slike, avtorjem ... Pomembno vlogo pri izvedbi retuše pa imajo predvsem izurjena »roka« in poznavanje slikarskih veščin konservatorja-restavratorja ter njegova senzibilnost za formo ob-ravnavane umetnine. Omenjeni članek v prvem delu obravnava klasifikacijo obsega poškodb na sliki po stopnjah, potrebnih za določanje najustreznejših načinov dopolnjevanja manjkajočih delov barvnih plas-ti z izvirnikom. Osredotoča se na problematiko retuše na oljnih slikah. V nadaljevanju je s tehničnega in tehnološkega vidika razložena metoda retuširanja, ki je bila predstavljena na delavnici pod vodst-vom italijanskega restavratorja Stefana Scarpellija, v okviru medinstitucionalnega sodelovanja ZVKDS, Restavratorskega centra, in UL ALUO, Oddelka za restavratorstvo.

Uvod

Umetniško delo od nastanka naprej nosi v sebi zgodovinsko, simbolično in estetsko vrednost. Zaradi estetske sporočilnosti, kateri je umetniško delo zavezano, se način restavriranja, ne glede na namembnost nastalega dela, v primerjavi z nelikovno kulturno dediščino, v nekaterih elementih bistveno razlikuje. Percepcija umetniškega dela je namreč tesno povezana z zaznavanjem likovnoestetske celote, zato že manjša poškodba barvne površine, še sploh pa večji manjkajoči del, lahko deluje zelo moteče. Težnja pri restavriranju tovrstnega gradiva se nagiba k povezovanju manjkajočega z obstoječim; drugače rečeno, k vzpostavitvi estetske celote.

Mag. Lucija Močnik Ramovš, Univerza v Ljubljani, Akademija za likovno umetnost in oblikovanjeMag. Barbka Gosar Hirci, Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, Restavratorski center

Od začetka razvoja konservatorsko-restavratorske stroke do danes sta se stopnja spoštovanja avtentičnosti dokumenta in s tem povezano razumevanje pomena konservatorsko-restavratorskega posega močno spremenila. Raziskovanje zgodovine obravnavane umetnine, dokumentiranje in interdisciplinarne povezave danes predstavljajo temelj premišljenim, argumentiranim in objektivno naravnanim, od prim-era do primera različnim strokovnim odločitvam. Med številnimi pionirji restavratorske metodologije in kritično obravnavanega problema dopolnjevanja manjkajočih delov barvnih plasti velja izpostaviti Cesara Brandija in Paula Phillipota, na katera se naslanja začetna vsebina teksta.V zavedanju, da je prezentacija umetnine neločljivo povezana z njeno estetsko realnostjo, se lahko v nadaljevanju vprašamo, v kolikšnem obsegu, če sploh, dopolniti manjkajoče dele na sliki.2 Odgovor na to vprašanje zahteva v prvi vrsti jasno predstavo o stopnji in obsegu poškodb na sliki.3

Klasifikacija poškodb in njihova obdelava

Slikarsko delo se od svojega nastanka spreminja. Paolo Mora, Laura Mora in Paul Philippot v svojem članku4 delijo poškodbe na slikah glede na lokacijo, velikost in globino, torej debelino barvne plasti ter podloge.Poškodbe so lahko tako v primeru vprašanja retuše sistematično razdeljene na več stopenj:

1. delna izguba patine,5

2. delna izguba barvnega sloja, 3. manjkajoči barvni sloj, omejen na območje površine, ki ga je mogoče rekonstruirati,4. manjkajoči barvni sloj, ki ga zaradi obsega in/ali lokacije ni mogoče rekonstruirati. Pri dopolnjevanju manjkajočih delov na sliki je treba upoštevati vse omenjene stopnje. Dela se je treba lotiti postopoma, z upoštevanjem metode od manjšega k večjemu. Prva faza zajema obdelavo tistih poškodb, ki jih je na neki način najlažje obdelati in so tudi najmanj moteče. Rekonstrukcija takih površin je v celoti upravičena zaradi želje po vzpostavitvi poenotenosti z originalom. Obraba patine spreminja karakter površine slike, izgublja se globina tonov, spreminjajo se prostorske lastnosti. Obraba barvnega nanosa je prav tako moteč element, ki sili v ospredje. Točkovne tvorbe se lahko kažejo kot svetlejša obarvana mesta, skozi katera proseva podloga delno ali v celoti.

Ustrezna obdelava naštetih majhnih poškodb nam omogoči jasnejšo predstavo o večjih poškodbah. Rekonstrukcija teh je odvisna od številnih okoliščin, med katerimi izstopa tudi velikost oz. obseg poškodbe.6 Kadar je poškodba prevelika, postane zaznavanje umetnine moteče. Manjkajoči deli stopajo v ospredje (prvi plan) in original potiskajo v ozadje. Cesare Brandi je učinek primerjal z odnosom figure do ozadja in njegovo dojemanje povezal z gestaltpsihologijo.7

Površina mora biti obdelana tako, da se ta učinek optično zmanjša in da manjkajoči del prevzame funk-cijo nosilne površine – ozadja.8 V dosedanji praksi se je na slikah metoda, poimenovana nevtralna retuša,9

izkazala kot ustrezna.

Metode barvnega dopolnjevanjaPaul Philippot izpostavlja dejstvo, da je cilj povezovanja manjkajočih delov z izvirnikom ponovna vz-postavitev celote, ko umetnino opazujemo pod normalnimi pogoji, od blizu pa mora biti dodano jasno razpoznavno.10 V restavratorski praksi se je razvilo več metod barvnega dopolnjevanja. Že dodobra usidrana in znana metoda tratteggio najbolj ustreza kritičnemu pristopu. Razvila se je v Institutu Centrale del Restauro med letoma 1945 in 1950 pod okriljem Brandijeve teorije.11 Gre za sistem prenašanja modelacije in risbe z delov izvirnika na manjkajoče predele, z uporabo črtic različnih barv. Ta sistem bi lahko primerjali z neke vrste zaslonom med retušerjem in izvirnikom, ki ima namen vzpostaviti razliko med retušo in izvirnikom. Zaradi načina nanašanja ta način onemogoča tudi kakršen koli osebni izraz retušerja. Iz te metode izhajata v okviru florentinske šole dve različici, znani kot barvna selekcija in barvna abstrak-cija. V sedemdesetih letih sta se razvili pod okriljem Umberta Baldinija in Ornelle Casazza. Temeljita na barvnem izboru, ki je primerljiv barvni lestvici originala in je položen na belo podlogo.

204


205


Omenjenima različicama sledi izpod rok njunih utemeljiteljev sorodna različica, znana pod imenom zlata selekcija, ki je namenjena dopolnjevanju manjkajočih delov pozlate.Knut Nicholaus12 med metodami barvne polnitve omenja tudi standardno retušo, ki se od klasične metode tratteggio razlikuje v večji stopnji približevanja originalu. Z zabrisovanjem mej med dodanim in obstoječim omenjena retuša svoj skrajni namen doseže v popolni retuši. Njena uporaba lahko z vidika kritičnoetičnega dojemanja stroke hitro postane vprašljiva.Ne glede na izbiro ene od omenjenih kritičnih metod za dopolnjevanje manjkajočega z obstoječim, moramo postopek izpeljati tako, da zadovoljuje tehnične in tehnološke potrebe materialov. Z vidika kvalitete pa moramo težiti k uravnoteženosti vseh likovnih elementov in spremenljivk, s katerimi ust-varimo harmoničen in hkrati kritičen odnos med dodanim in obstoječim.

Delavnica pod mentorstvom Stefana Scarpellija

V letu 2006 je na oddelku za štafeljano slikarstvo ZVKDS, Restavratorskega centra, potekala strokovna delavnica o retuširanju oljnih slik in lesene polihromirane plastike13 (fotografija 15). Mentor delavnice, italijanski konservator-restavrator Stefano Scarpelli, nas je v petih dneh popeljal skozi pomembnejše faze svojega strokovnega dela, ki ga izvaja za galerijo Uffizi v Firencah. Predstavil je retušo, ki temelji na florentinski šoli in teži k popolnemu približevanju originalni poslikavi. Začetek in temelj predstavljene retuše so brezhibno pripravljeni manjkajoči deli podloge. Zakitane poškodbe morajo biti do popolnosti površinsko prilagojene originalni površini. Konservator-restavrator mora na površini zakitanih območij simulirati vdolbine, izbokline, poteze čopiča in razpoke. Pri obde-lovanju zakitanih površin je stranska osvetlitev slikovne površine izredno pomembna. Z njo se kvalitetno preverja površinska obdelava manjkajočih delov slikovne plasti. Velikokrat težave pri retuširanju povzroča razlika v vpojnosti na novo zakitanih površinah. Ta problem se največkrat rešuje z izoliranjem zakitanih površin in končnim lakiranjem slike.

Podlaganje retušPo natančni obdelavi zakitanih površin se izvaja podlaganje kot prva faza retuširanja (fotografije 4, 5, 7, 11 in 17). Slika se po Scarpellijevem sistemu predhodno ne lakira. Lakiranju se izognemo zaradi tehnologije podlaganja, saj se izvaja v gvaš tehniki.14 V tej tehniki nanesena retuša zaradi vodnega veziva ne bi imela dobre oprijemljivosti s površino, ki bi bila lakirana s smolnim lakom. Gvaš barve se nanašajo v tankih slojih izključno na zakitana območja. Na mestih, kjer je originalna barvna plast uničena, vendar je pod-loga v dobrem stanju, ne izvajamo podlaganja z gvaši. Izjema so območja svetlih barvnih tonov, če je podloga obarvana (npr. bolus). Če je originalna podloga v svetlem barvnem tonu, se lahko podlaganju na območju svetlih barvnih tonov izognemo. Kvalitetni proizvajalci gvašev so merilo za dobro kritnost in profesionalno retuširanje (Winsor and New-ton, Schmincke). Na oddelku za štafelajno slikarstvo uporabljamo paleto gvašev Designers Gouache proiz-vajalca Schmincke.15 Paleta navedenih gvašev ima zelo dobro kritnost, z njimi lahko gradimo prehode in nanose. Razliko med gvaši in oljnimi barvami predstavlja čas, v katerem se barve spremenijo. Gvaši potemnijo in otoplijo takoj, ko jih polakiramo, medtem ko oljne barve temnijo in toplijo med procesom naravnega staranja, zaradi napačne priprave ali pri neprimernem hranjenju umetnine.Podlaganje retuš se izvaja v svetlejših in hladnejših tonih. Prehode med barvnimi toni gradimo mehko. Izogibamo se ostrih kontur. Končno odločitev o pravi meji med različnimi barvnimi toni pustimo za čas finalizacije retuše. Prehode in retušo gradimo odprto in zračno. Pri podlaganju moramo biti pozorni tudi na smer nanosov in naravo potez. Če so avtorjeve poteze izrazito vertikalne, diagonalne, vijugaste ali izrazito ekspesivne, moramo to dejstvo upoštevati pri podlaganju in barvo nanašati v popolnoma istih smereh. Ton in svetlost se vseskozi preverjata z bombažnim tamponom, rahlo namočenim v white špiritu. To je zelo dober način kontroliranja pravilnega podlaganja. S topilom gvaš barve za trenutek dosežejo ton, ki ga bodo imele po lakiranju. Reverzibilnost je ena od najpomembnejših lastnosti gvaš barv. Retuše v tej tehniki so popolnoma reverzi-bilne, medtem ko oljne z leti postanejo trde in težko odstranljive. Po podlaganju retuš sliko lakiramo.

LazuriranjeIzbor pigmentov in priprava paleteSledi retuširanje z barvami, ki so po Scarpellijevem receptu (fotografija 14) izdelane iz najkvalitetnejših pigmentov, in vezivom, kanadskim balzamom.16 Za zelo primerno se je izkazala paleta Schmincke17 z naslednjim izborom pigmentov:• titan bela (ser. št. 103), • kadmijeva rumena – citrona (ser. št. 226),• kadmijeva rumena – svetla (ser. št. 227),• kadmijeva rumena – temna (ser. št. 229),• kadmijeva oranžna (ser. št. 231),• kadmijeva rdeča – svetla (ser. št. 360),• vermilion (ser. št. 371),• alizarin mader – temna (ser. št. 367),• ultamarin – temni (ser. št. 499),• kobalt modra – svetla (ser. št. 489),• indigo (ser. št. 491),• pariško modra (ser. št. 493),• cerulean modra (ser. št. 487),• kobalt zelena – temna (ser. št. 502),• kromoksidhidrat – viridian (ser. št. 507),• kromoksid zelena (ser. št. 505),• rumeni oker (ser. št. 617),• naravna siena (ser. št. 623),• zlati oker (ser. št. 621),• žgana siena (ser. št. 679),• naravna umbra (ser. št. 682), • žgana umbra (ser. št. 683),• kaselska zemlja ali Van Dyck rjava (ser. št. 675),• slonokoščeno črna (ser. št. 723),• sajasto črna (ser. št. 729).Pigmenti morajo biti fino mleti. Velikost zrna preverjamo tako, da s čopičem in alkoholom naslikamo nekaj potez na stekleno površino. Umetniški pigmenti serije 18 proizvajalca Schmincke so zelo kvalitetni in dobro zmleti. Obdelati je treba le zemeljske pigmente. Za trenje18 uporabljamo v ta namen prip-ravljeno stekleno ploščo in steklen terilnik. Manjšo količino pigmenta stresemo na stekleno površino, zmešamo z nekaj kapljicami vode ter tako nastalo kašo taremo. V določenih primerih lahko vodo sprva nadomestimo z alkoholom. S tem pospešimo proces mletja, saj se grobo mleti pigmenti z alkoholom hitreje razpustijo. Velikost zrn preverjamo tako, da z alkoholom strte pigmente s čopičem, omočenim v alkoholu, nanesemo na stekleno ali porcelanasto površino. Pri dobro zmletih pigmentih zrna niso več vidna s prostim očesom, prav tako jih ni zaznati v potezah čopiča. Nanos je homogen. Po končani ob-delavi pustimo, da tekočina iz pigmenta izhlapi, in pigment shranimo v dobro zaprtih posodah.Pripravljene pigmente uporabimo za pripravo retuširnih barv.19 Manjšo količino pigmenta položimo na očiščeno stekleno ali porcelanasto površino. Pigmentu dodamo vezivo kanadski balzam. Uporabimo približno razmerje: 1/3 pigmenta in 2/3 veziva. Pigment in vezivo mešamo z lopatico, dokler ne dobimo goste, homogene zmesi. Nekateri pigmenti se vežejo s kanadskim balzamom bolje in hitreje kot drugi. Kjer je proces mešanja težji, dodamo nekaj kapljic acetona. Ta omogoča kvalitetnejše mešanje, obenem pa ne škodi barvi, saj hitro izhlapi. Izdelane barve morajo biti nekoliko gostejše od medu. Razmerje veziva in pigmenta vpliva na lazurnost barv. Določeni pigmenti sprejmejo več, drugi manj veziva. Prob-lem nastane, če je veziva preveč. V tem primeru se barve nanašajo slabo, barvni ton je zelo šibek in nanosi se ne sušijo. Pripravljeno paleto lahko uporabljamo dve do tri leta, če pazimo na čistočo. Po naših izkušnjah so zelo uporabne porcelanaste palete s pokrovom, ki lahko služijo tudi kot palete za mešanje barv.20 Prednost omenjenih palet je, da jih po končanem delu lahko pokrijemo in s tem preprečimo lepljenje prahu in druge umazanije na retuširne barve.

206


207


IzvedbaPripravljene barve nanašamo lazurno. Finalno retušo moramo izvesti v kar najmanj slojih, pri tem pa seveda pazimo, da retuše ne zasitimo preveč. Če pride do prezasičenja barvnih tonov, retuše delujejo težko, z leti pa se pojavi nevarnost temnenja. Posamezni lazurni nanosi se morajo predhodno popolnoma posušiti. Sušenje po navadi traja en dan. Medij za retuširanje je butilalkohol. V primeru, da retuše ob uporabi butilalkohola spremenijo sijaj, mediju po kapljicah dodajamo lak, s katerim smo prvič lakirali sliko. Sijaj retuše se mora ujemati s sijajem površine izvirnika. Lazure sprva nanašamo na območja, ki so bila podložena z gvaši. Tonsko se poskušamo približati barvi okolice, vendar mora retuša še vedno ohran-jati ustrezno svetlost in ton (nekoliko hladneje in svetleje). Ko lazuriramo, se popolnoma izogibamo uporabi bele barve, saj z leti povzroča temnenje. Če so v okolici poškodbe, razpoke in ostanki nečistoč, to simuliramo z uporabo črtic, točk, madežev ... (fotografije 1, 2 in 3). Na območjih, kjer so oblike in meje med posameznimi barvnimi ploskvami nejasne, odločitev o obliki, konturi ali risbi gradimo počasi in mehko brez ostrega izrisovanja oblik. Vedno retuširamo na sliki najprej območja poškodb, kjer je situacija jasna, vendar vizualno najbolj moteča. Sliko je treba obravnavati celovito. Nikoli ne zaključimo posameznega detajla do popolnosti, temveč retušo gradimo enotno na celotni barvni površini. Na tak način se lažje odločimo, kdaj je slika zares končana. Če se osredotočimo le na detajle, slednje poretuširamo do popolnosti, celota pa še vedno ne deluje enotno. Pri slikah velikega formata je lahko tako retuširanje utrujajoče. Retuše morajo delovati zračno, morda od blizu celo nekoliko nedokončano. Včasih je treba na določena manjša poškodovana območja položiti le nekaj barvnih točk, in že je površina enotna, poškodba pa neopazna. Cilj opisane tehnike retuširanja je, da se dodane barvne plasti popolnoma približajo originalu (fotografije 6, 8, 10, 12 in 18).Scarpellijev način retuširanja se odmika od klasične tehnike tratteggio. Avtor zagovarja ustvarjalno razmišljanje o retuširanju, ki je blizu slikarskemu. Kljub temu retuširanje ne sme biti avtorsko, temveč se mora retušer popolnoma podrediti originalu.

Zaključek

Izredno težko je napisati pravila o izvajanju retuširanja slik. Vsaka slika je zgodba zase, vsaka slika v sebi nosi lastna pravila in zgradbo. Z leti se njena materialna sestava stara, kar površino slike še dodatno označuje. Slikarji uporabljajo avtorske likovne prvine, ki jih pogojuje čas ali okus naročnikov. Dober retušer zna vsem spremenljivkam prisluhniti; jih videti, razumeti, občutiti in vsa ta vedenja združiti pri retuširanju. Slike gledalci sprejemajo individualno. Retušer mora pri izvajanju retuše stopiti iz svoje vloge in poskusiti sliko pogledati neobremenjeno, z očmi gledalca, in ne restavratorja. V želji po izdelavi kvalitetne retuše velja za konec omeniti temeljno pravilo: bolje manj kot preveč!

Opombe1 V nadaljevanju teksta izraz retuša smiselno nadomešča tudi izraz dopolnjevanje manjkajočih delov barvnih plasti. Z izrazom retuša v ožjem

pomenu označujemo izvedbo. Izraz dopolnjevanje manjkajočih delov barvnih plasti (tudi barvna reintegracija) je pomensko širši. Pomeni: odločitev, metodologijo izpeljave, kritično zavedanje in etiko.

2 Craig Hugh Smyth, “The Aesthetic and Historical Aspects of Presentation of Damaged Pictures (1963)”: Reading in Conservation, Issues in the Conservation of Paintings, Los Angeles 2005, str. 371.

3 Poudarek besedila v nadaljevanju je na obravnavani problematiki slikarskih del.4 Paolo Mora, Laura Mora, Paul Philippot, “Problems of Presentation”: Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural

Heritage, Los Angeles 1996, str. 348.5 Delna izguba označuje površinske spremembe patine oz. barvnega nanosa, ki so posledica odrgnin ali tankih manjkajočih plasti barve,

pod katero je še ohranjena berljiva podoba.6 Rekonstrukcija ni upravičena, kadar sloni na hipotezi.7 Cesare Brandi, Theory of Restoration, Nardini Editore 2005 (Teoria del restauro, Giulio Einaudi editore1977), str. 92.8 V primeru stenskih slik mora manjkajoči del prevzeti funkcijo stene.9 Največkrat je nevtralna retuša izpeljana v barvnem tonu, ki “nevtralno” deluje na obstoječi original in zaradi ustrezne stopnje barvne

svetlosti, čistosti in kromatičnosti stopa v ozadje.

10 Paul Phillipot, “Historic Preservation. Philosophy, Criteria, Guidelines II”: Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, Los Angeles 1996, str. 359.

11 Metodo tratteggio sta promovirala Brandijeva učenca Paolo in Laura Mora kot rimsko metodo.12 Knut Nicolaus, The Restoration of Paintings, Könemann, 1998, str. 294.13 Na mednarodni delavnici retuširanja oljnih slik in lesene polihromirane plastike po vodstvom restavratorja Stefana Scarpellija je sode-

lovalo sedem konservatorjev-restavratorjev: mag. Miha Pirnat ml., Narodna galerija; mag. Barbka Gosar Hirci, ZVKDS RC; doc. Lucija Močnik Ramovš, ALUO; doc. Miladi Makuc Semion, ALUO; Vlado Fras, akad. rest., ZVKDS RC; Nuška Dolenc Kambič, akad. rest., ZVKDS RC; in Emina Frljak, akad. rest., ZVKDS RC.

14 Gvaš tehnika je način slikanja z akvarelnimi barvami, vendar z uporabo bele, zato je tehnika v nasprotju z akvarelom kritna. Dobro prekriva podlogo, svetli toni pa se slikajo kot pri tempera tehniki. Če gradimo barvno večplastno, vsak naslednji nanos prekriva pred-hodnega. Vodotopna veziva, kot tudi uporaba bele barve in polnila v gvaš barvah, zmanjšujejo svetlobni refleks, in posušene barve dajejo vtis pastela. Zaradi manjše svetlosti, v primerjavi z akvareli, gradimo sliko od temnega k svetlemu ali od srednjega tona k svetlemu ali temnemu kontrastu. Tehnika je bila znana že v 17. stol.; povzeto po: Metki Kraigher Hozo, Slikarstvo/metode, slikanje/materiali, Svjet-lost, Sarajevo 1991, str. 1.

15 Navedeno paleto lahko poiščete na spletni strani http://www.schmincke.de/. 30. 3. 2008.16 Kanadski balzam se pridobiva iz vrst kanadske jelke (abies balsamea). Svež balzam je tekoč kot med. Vsebuje približno 25 odstotkov

eteričnega olja. Podoben je strasbourškemu terpentinu. Prednost balzamov je, da z leti ne temnijo, namazu dajejo dobro elastičnost in gladkost; povzeto po Metki Kraigher Hozo, Slikarstvo/metode, slikanje/materiali, Svjetlost, Sarajevo 1991, str. 392.

17 http://www.schmincke.de/.Pure artists´pigments, series 18. 1. 4. 2008.18 Radoje Hudoklin, Tehnologija II, str. 191: »Z vodo ali alkoholom taremo pred trenjem z vezivom tudi trda, debelo zrnata barvila, ki ne

prenesejo dolgega trenja z mastnim oljem. Tako si olajšamo trenje z vezivom in ne umažemo barv. Ročno teremo na kamniti, porcela-nasti ali stekleni plošči s kamnitim, porcelanastim ali steklenim terilcem.« In na str. 192: »Ročno trenje namaznih barv na steklenih površinah je kaj preprosto. Barvilo pomešamo z mastnim ali nemastnim vezivom v gosto kašo. Malo te kaše razmažemo po plošči in jo s terilcem tremo in drobimo, dokler ne postane namazna barva povsem enakomerna in gladka. Dovolj strta je namazna barva takrat, ko ne opazimo nobenega zrnca več, če jo na tanko razmažemo po nohtu. Razmazati se mora kot surovo maslo. Barvno kašo razmažemo po plošči v čim tanjši plasti, drugače namazne barve ne stremo zlepa.

Pri trenju se namazne barve navadno strdijo, še preden so dovolj strte. Zato jim po malem dodajamo tekočino, s katero jih taremo. Pri trenju z mastnim oljem pa postanejo nekatere namazne barve tudi redkejše. Takim namaznim barvam dodajamo potrebno količino barvilnega prahu. Trenje gre najhitreje od rok, če vodimo terilec po plošči v krožnicah in ga pri tem vrtimo. Strto barvo pobiramo po plošči s tankimi lesenimi, reževinastimi ali koščenimi lopaticami.«

19 Radoje Hudoklin, Tehnologija II, str. 193: »Pri trenju oljnih barv kažejo barvila različna nagnjenja do mastnih olj. Nekatera se rada razpršijo v mastnem olju, druga ne. Nekatera mastno olje opuščajo. Ena dobro poveže le povsem nevtralno mastno olje (npr. ultramarin in cinkovo belilo), drugim ustreza nekoliko lužnato vezivo. Nekatera barvila staremo hitro (neapeljsko rumena), druga lahko taremo dolgo, pa se bodo še vedno zbirala v kosmiče (caput mortuum, zelene zemlje). Pri trenju se nekatere namazne barve zgostijo (npr. svinčevo belilo in nekateri okri), druge postanejo tako redke, da jim moramo dodajati barve v prahu (npr. cinkovo belilo, ultramarin, kraplak). Na splošno velja, da z mastnim oljem teže staremo barvila, ki vsebujejo vezano vodo, kot barvila, ki je ne vsebujejo. Teže taremo barvila, ki so sestavljena iz kristalčastih zrnc, kot barvila, ki imajo amorfno strukturo. Na karakter olja (nevtralno, kislo, lužnato) so barvila kislega značaja občutljivejša kot lužnata barvila ali barvila, ki vsebujejo kalcijev karbonat.«

20 http://www.deffner-johann.de/, 30. 3. 2008, proizvajalec Deffner & Johann, serijska številka artikla 1831 200. Porcelanasta paleta z 22 čašicami premera 2 cm. Prednost te palete je v porcelanastem pokrovu. Pokrito paleto lahko imamo nekaj let, če vzdržujemo čistočo izdelanih barv.

208


209


1. Pietro Liberi, Sv. Miklavž med sv. Mohorjem in Fortunatom, olje na platnu, 392 x 215 cm, last: RKC, nahajališče: cerkev sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani; detajl Miklavževe draperije, kjer je na levi strani vidno področje podložene retuše z gvaši, na desni pa izvajanje finalne retuše z barvami na osnovi pigmentov in kanadskega balzama (foto: arhiv ZVKDS RC)

1. Pietro Liberi, St Nicholas between St Hermagoras and St Fortunatus, oil on canvas, 392 x 215 cm, property of: RC Church, location: St Nicholas’s Church in Ljubljana; detail of Nicholas’s drapery, with an area of background retouching with gouache paints visible on the left and, on the right, final retouching with paints based on pigments and Canada balsam (photograph: Restoration Centre archives)

2. Pietro Liberi, Sv. Miklavž med sv. Mohorjem in Fortunatom, olje na platnu, 392 x 215 cm, last: RKC, nahajališče: cerkev sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani; detajl Miklavževe draperije, kjer je vidna risba krakelir – retuširanje s pomočjo točk in linij (foto: arhiv ZVKDS RC)

2. Pietro Liberi, St Nicholas between St Hermagoras and St Fortunatus, oil on canvas, 392 x 215 cm, property of: RC Church, location: St Nicholas’s Church in Ljubljana; detail of Nicholas’s drapery, where craquelure drawing is visible – re-touching with the help of dots and lines (photograph: Restoration Centre archives)

3. Pietro Liberi, Sv. Miklavž med sv. Mohorjem in Fortunatom, olje na platnu, 392 x 215 cm, last: RKC, nahajališče: cerkev sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani; detajl Miklavževe draperije, kjer je lepo vidna gradnja Scarpellijeve retuše, ki se odmika od klasične tehnike tratteggio (foto: arhiv ZVKDS RC)

3. Pietro Liberi, St Nicholas between St Hermagoras and St Fortunatus, oil on canvas, 392 x 215 cm, property of: RC Church, location: St Nicholas’s Church in Ljubljana; detail of Nicholas’s drapery, where the structure of Scarpelli’s retouch-ing, which moves away from the classic tratteggio technique, is clearly visible (photograph: Restoration Centre archives)

4. Johann Moritz Gustav Manderscheid-Blankenheim, olje na platnu, 145 x 112 cm, last: Narodni muzej; detajl leve dlani med prvo fazo retuširanja – podlaganjem z oljnimi barvami (foto: arhiv ZVKDS RC)

4. Johann Moritz Gustav Manderscheid-Blankenheim, oil on canvas, 145 x 112 cm, property of: National Museum; de-tail of left palm during first phase of retouching – neutral retouching with oil paints (photograph: Restoration Centre archives)

210


211


5. Pietro Liberi, Sv. Miklavž med sv. Mohorjem in Fortunatom, olje na platnu, 392 x 215 cm, last: RKC, nahajališče: cerkev sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani; portret sv. Miklavža med prvo fazo retuširanja – podlaganjem z gvaši (foto: arhiv ZVKDS RC)

5. Pietro Liberi, St Nicholas between St Hermagoras and St Fortunatus, oil on canvas, 392 x 215 cm, property of: RC Church, location: St Nicholas’s Church in Ljubljana; portrait of St Nicholas during first phase of retouching – neutral retouching with gouache paints (photograph: Restoration Centre archives)

6. Pietro Liberi, Sv. Miklavž med sv. Mohorjem in Fortunatom, olje na platnu, 392 x 215 cm, last: RKC, nahajališče: cerkev sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani; portret sv. Miklavža po končani retuši (foto: arhiv ZVKDS RC)

6. Pietro Liberi, St Nicholas between St Hermagoras and St Fortunatus, oil on canvas, 392 x 215 cm, property of: RC Church, location: St Nicholas’s Church in Ljubljana; portrait of St Nicholas after completion of retouching (photograph: Restoration Centre archives)

212


213


7. Pietro Liberi, Sv. Miklavž med sv. Mohorjem in Fortunatom, olje na platnu, 392 x 215 cm, last: RKC, nahajališče: cerkev sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani; portret angela med prvo fazo retuširanja – podlaganjem z gvaši (foto: arhiv ZVKDS RC)

7. Pietro Liberi, St Nicholas between St Hermagoras and St Fortunatus, oil on canvas, 392 x 215 cm, property of: RC Church, location: St Nicholas’s Church in Ljubljana; portrait of an angel during first phase of retouching – neutral retouch-ing with gouache paints (photograph: Restoration Centre archives)

8. Pietro Liberi, Sv. Miklavž med sv. Mohorjem in Fortunatom, olje na platnu, 392 x 215 cm, last: RKC, nahajališče: cerkev sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani; portret angela po končani retuši (foto: arhiv ZVKDS RC)

8. Pietro Liberi, St Nicholas between St Hermagoras and St Fortunatus, oil on canvas, 392 x 215 cm, property of: RC Church, location: St Nicholas’s Church in Ljubljana; portrait of an angel after completion of retouching (photograph: Restoration Centre archives)

214


215


9. Pietro Liberi, Sv. Miklavž med sv. Mohorjem in Fortunatom, olje na platnu, 392 x 215 cm, last: RKC, nahajališče: cerkev sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani; portret sv. Mohorja med prvo fazo retuširanja – podlaganjem z gvaši (foto: arhiv ZVKDS RC)

9. Pietro Liberi, St Nicholas between St Hermagoras and St Fortunatus, oil on canvas, 392 x 215 cm, property of: RC Church, location: St Nicholas’s Church in Ljubljana; portrait of St Hermagoras during first phase of retouching – neutral retouching with gouache paints (photograph: Restoration Centre archives)

10. Pietro Liberi, Sv. Miklavž med sv. Mohorjem in Fortunatom, olje na platnu, 392 x 215 cm, last: RKC, nahajališče: cerkev sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani; portret sv. Mohorja po končani retuši (foto: arhiv ZVKDS RC)

10. Pietro Liberi, St Nicholas between St Hermagoras and St Fortunatus, oil on canvas, 392 x 215 cm, property of: RC Church, location: St Nicholas’s Church in Ljubljana; portrait of St Hermagoras after completion of retouching (photo-graph: Restoration Centre archives)

216


217


11. Pietro Liberi, Sv. Miklavž med sv. Mohorjem in Fortunatom, olje na platnu, 392 x 215 cm, last: RKC, nahajališče: cerkev sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani;detajl Miklavževe draperije med prvo fazo retuširanja – podlaganjem z gvaši (foto: arhiv ZVKDS RC)

11. Pietro Liberi, St Nicholas between St Hermagoras and St Fortunatus, oil on canvas, 392 x 215 cm, property of: RC Church, location: St Nicholas’s Church in Ljubljana; detail of Nicholas’s drapery during first phase of retouching – neutral retouching with gouache paints (photograph: Restoration Centre archives)

12. Pietro Liberi, Sv. Miklavž med sv. Mohorjem in Fortunatom, olje na platnu, 392 x 215 cm, last: RKC, nahajališče: cerkev sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani; detajl Miklavževe draperije po retuširanju (foto: arhiv ZVKDS RC)

12. Pietro Liberi, St Nicholas between St Hermagoras and St Fortunatus, oil on canvas, 392 x 215 cm, property of: RC Church, location: St Nicholas’s Church in Ljubljana; detail of Nicholas’s drapery after retouching (photograph: Restoration Centre archives)

218


219


13. Pietro Liberi, Sv. Miklavž med sv. Mohorjem in Fortunatom, olje na platnu, 392 x 215 cm, last: RKC, nahajališče: cerkev sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani; detajl modrega ozadja (foto: arhiv ZVKDS RC)

13. Pietro Liberi, St Nicholas between St Hermagoras and St Fortunatus, oil on canvas, 392 x 215 cm, property of: RC Church, location: St Nicholas’s Church in Ljubljana; detail of blue background (photograph: Restoration Centre archives)

14. Material za izvajanje retuše (foto: arhiv ZVKDS RC)

14. Retouching material (photograph: Restoration Centre archives)

15. Mednarodna delavnica retuširanja oljnih slik in lesene polihromirane plastike (foto: arhiv ZVKDS RC)

15. International workshop on retouching oil paintings and wooden polychrome sculpture (photograph: Restoration Centre archives)

16. Portret moškega, olje na platnu, 92,3 x 7,5 cm, grad Snežnik; detajl pred obdelavo (foto: arhiv Univerze v Ljubljani, ALUO, Oddelek za restavratorstvo)

16. Portrait of a man, oil on canvas, 92.3 x 7.5 cm, Snežnik Castle; detail before treatment (photograph: Archives of the Restoration Department, Academy of Fine Art and Design, University of Ljubljana)

220


221


17. Portret moškega, olje na platnu, 92,3 x 7,5 cm, grad Snežnik; detajl po podlaganju (foto: arhiv Univerze v Ljubljani, ALUO, Oddelek za restavratorstvo)

17. Portrait of a man, oil on canvas, 92.3 x 7.5 cm, Snežnik Castle; detail after neutral retouching (photograph: Archives of the Restoration Department, Academy of Fine Art and Design, University of Ljubljana)

18. Portret moškega, olje na platnu, 92,3 x 7,5 cm, grad Snežnik; detajl po retuši (foto: arhiv Univerze v Ljubljani, ALUO, Oddelek za restavratorstvo)

18. Portrait of a man, oil on canvas, 92.3 x 7.5 cm, Snežnik Castle; detail after retouching (photograph: Archives of the Restoration Department, Academy of Fine Art and Design, University of Ljubljana)

222


223


Lucija Močnik Ramovš, Barbka Gosar Hirci

Retouching: How and with What?International Workshop on Retouching Oil Paintings and Wooden Polychrome SculptureKey words: retouching, reintegration, aesthetic presentation, chromatic selection, Florentine School, canvas paintings, technology, Canada balsam, restoration, Stefano Scarpelli

Summary

Restoration work on paintings on woven supports includes, among other things, the process of filling losses and retouching. The retouching method1 is conditioned by the extent and type of damage, the technique of the original, the historical value of the painting, the artist, and so on. The most important elements in the execution of retouching are a trained “hand”, the conservator-restorer’s knowledge of painting skills, and sensibility to the form of the work of art in question. The first part of the paper deals with the classification of the extent of damage to the painting by the stages necessary for determining the most suitable methods of reintegrating paint losses with the original. It focuses on the problem of retouching on oil paintings. The paper then goes on to explain, from the technical and technological points of view, the retouching method that was presented at the workshop conducted by the Italian restorer Stefano Scarpelli as part of the interinstitutional cooperation between the Restoration Centre of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia and the Restoration Department of the Academy of Fine Art and Design at the University of Ljubljana.

Introduction

From the moment it is created, a work of art carries in itself a historical, symbolic and aesthetic value. Because of the aesthetic significance to which a work of art is tied, the method of restoration – regardless of the purpose for which the work is destined – differs in several important ways from the method of restoration used for non-artistic cultural heritage. The perception of a work of art is closely connected to the perception of the artistic/aesthetic whole, and therefore even minor damage to the painted surface – not to mention larger losses – can have a very distracting effect. The tendency in restoring material of this kind is towards linking the missing with the extant or, to put it another way, towards re-establishing an aesthetic whole.

Since the earliest days of the development of the conservation-restoration profession, the degree to which the authenticity of the document is respected has changed considerably, and with it the understanding of the importance of conservation-restoration. Today, research into the history of a given work of art, documentation, and interdisciplinary connections represent the basis for carefully considered, properly

Mag Lucija Močnik Ramovš, University of Ljubljana, Academy of Fine Arts and Design Mag Barbka Gosar Hirci, Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Restoration Centre

argued and objectively oriented professional decisions, which vary from case to case. Two notable fig-ures among the many pioneers of restoration methodology and the critical approach to the problem of reintegrating paint losses are Cesare Brandi and Paul Phillipot. The initial content of this text is based on their work.Aware as we are that the presentation of a work of art is inseparably connected to its aesthetic reality, we may go on to ask ourselves to what extent, if at all, it is right to fill losses in a painting.2 The answer to this question requires, in the first place, a clear conception of the degree and scale of damage to the image.3

Classification of damage and its treatment

A painting starts to change the moment it is created. In their paper,4 Paolo Mora, Laura Mora and Paul Philippot classify damage to paintings in terms of location, size and depth (i.e. the thickness of the paint layer and the ground).Thus in the case of the question of retouching, damage may be systematically divided into several stages: 1. partial loss of the patina,5

2. partial loss of the paint layer,3. paint losses limited to an area which can be reconstructed,4. paint losses which owing to the extent and/or location cannot be reconstructed. When reintegrating paint losses in a painting, all the stages mentioned here must be taken into account. The work must be tackled progressively, using a smaller-to-larger approach. The first phase includes the treatment of those cases of damage which are easiest to treat and also least distracting. The reconstruction of such areas is entirely justified by the desire to re-establish uniformity with the original. Deterioration of the patina changes the character of the surface of the painting, the depth of the tones is lost, and spatial characteristics are altered. Deterioration of the paint layer is likewise a distracting element which forces itself into the foreground. Point formations can appear as areas of lighter colour through which the ground is partly or fully visible. Suitable treatment of minor damage of the types listed can give us a clearer picture of more serious dam-age. Reconstruction of the latter depends on numerous circumstances, in particular the size or extent of the damage.6

If the damage is too big, perception of the work of art is affected. Missing sections (losses) occupy the foreground and push the original into the background. Cesare Brandi compared the effect with the rela-tionship of the figure to the background, and linked its comprehension to Gestalt psychology.7

The surface has to be treated in such a way that this effect is optically reduced and the missing section assumes the function of the supporting surface or background.8 In practice to date, the method known as neutral retouching9 has proved to be suitable for paintings.

Methods of reintegrating paint lossesPaul Philippot underlines the fact that the aim of reintegration of missing sections with the original is to re-establish a whole when the work of art is viewed under normal conditions, while the additions must remain clearly recognisable when viewed from close up.10

Restorers have developed several methods of reintegrating paint losses. The tratteggio method, already firmly established and well known, best suits the critical approach. It was developed at the Istituto Centrale del Restauro in Rome between 1945 and 1950 under the influence of Brandi’s theory.11 It is a system for transferring modelling and drawing from parts of the original to the missing sections using a network of parallel, vertical lines of different colours. This system could be compared to a kind of screen between the retoucher and the original, the purpose of which is to establish a difference between the retouching and the original. Owing to the method of application, this method also renders impossible any personal expression on the part of the retoucher. Deriving from this method within the context of the Florentine School are two variants known as chro-matic selection and chromatic abstraction. Developed in the 1970s by Umberto Baldini and Ornella Casazza, they are based on a colour selection which is comparable to the chromatic scale of the original and is placed on a white ground.

224


225


These two variants are joined by a related variant which was also developed by their originators: known as gold selection, its purpose is to reintegrate missing sections of gilding.Knut Nicolaus12 also mentions standard retouching as a colour filling method. This differs from the classic tratteggio method in its greater degree of approximation to the original. By blurring the borders between the added and the existing, this retouching achieves its ultimate purpose in total retouching. Its use can quickly become questionable from the point of view of the critical/ethical understanding of the profession.Whichever of the above critical methods is chosen for the reintegration of losses, the procedure must be carried out in such a way as to meet the technical and technological requirements of the materials. From the point of view of quality, we must tend towards a balance of all artistic elements and variables, which allows us to create a harmonious and at the same time critical relationship between the added and the extant.

Workshop run by Stefano Scarpelli

In 2006 a professional workshop on retouching oil paintings and wooden polychrome sculpture13 was held in the easel painting department of the Restoration Centre of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia (photograph 15). Over the course of five days, the workshop mentor, the Italian conservator-restorer Stefano Scarpelli, led us through the more important phases of his work at the Uffizi Gallery in Florence. He presented an approach to retouching based on the Florentine School which aims at a total approximation of the original painting. The beginning and foundation of retouching as presented by Scarpelli consists of impeccable prepara-tion of missing sections of the ground. Filled damage must be adapted perfectly to the original surface. On the surface of the filled areas, the restorer must simulate the hollows, bulges, brush strokes and cracks of the original. When treating filled surfaces, lateral lighting of the picture surface is extremely impor-tant. This enables high-quality checking of the surface treatment of losses in the painted layer. Frequent difficulties in retouching are caused by a difference of the absorbency of the newly filled surfaces. This problem is usually resolved through isolation of the filled surfaces and final varnishing of the painting.

Neutral retouchingAfter careful treatment of the filled areas, neutral retouching is carried out as the first phase of retouching (photographs 4, 5, 7, 11 and 17). In Scarpelli’s system, the painting is not varnished first. Varnishing is avoided because of the neutral retouching technology, which uses a gouache technique.14 Because a water-based binder is used, retouching applied using this technique would not adhere well to a surface varnished with a resin varnish. Gouache paints are applied in thin layers to the filled areas (exclusively). In places where the original paint layer has been destroyed but the ground is in good condition, neutral retouching with gouache paints is not carried out. An exception to this are areas of light colour tones, if the ground is a traditional bolus ground. If the original ground is in a light tone, neutral retouching can be avoided in the light-toned area. Good quality gouache paints (such as those made by (Winsor and Newton and Schmincke) are essential for good coverage and professional retouching . In the easel painting department we use Schmincke’s Designers’ Gouache range.15 These gouaches offer extremely good coverage and can be used to build transitions and applications. The difference between gouache paints and oil paints is the time it takes for the colours to change. Gouache paints grow darker and warmer as soon as they are varnished, while oil paints grow darker and warmer during the natural ageing process, as a result of incorrect preparation or in the case of unsuitable storage of the work of art.Neutral retouching is carried out in lighter and cooler tones. Transitions between colour tones are built softly. Sharp contours are avoided. The final decision on the correct border between different colour tones is left to the finalisation stage of the retouching process. Transitions and retouchings are built up in an open and airy manner. During neutral retouching, attention must also be paid to the direction of the applications and the nature of the brush strokes. If the artist’s brush strokes are clearly vertical, diagonal, serpentine or clearly expressive, this fact must be taken into consideration in the neutral retouching, and the paint must be applied in identical directions. Colour and luminance are continually checked using

a cotton wool pad lightly soaked in white spirit. This is a very good method of checking that the neutral retouching is being done correctly: with the solvent, the gouache colours momentarily take on the tone they will have after varnishing. Reversibility is one of the most important properties of gouache paints. Retouchings done in this tech-nique are completely reversible, whereas oil retouchings become hard over the years and are difficult to remove. After neutral retouching, the painting is varnished.

GlazingSelection of pigments and preparation of the paletteThe next stage is retouching with paints which, according to Scarpelli’s recipe (photograph 14), must be made from the finest quality pigments, and a Canada balsam binder.16 The Schmincke17 range with the following selection of pigments has proved very suitable:• titanium white (No 103),• cadmium yellow lemon (No 226),• cadmium yellow light (No 227),• cadmium yellow deep (No 229),• cadmium orange (No 231),• cadmium red light (No 360),• vermilion red (No 371),• alizarine madder deep (No 367),• ultramarine blue deep (No 499),• cobalt blue light (No 489),• indigo (No 491),• Prussian/Paris blue (No 493),• cerulean blue (No 487),• cobalt green deep (No 502),• chromium oxide green brilliant (No 507),• chromium oxide green (No 505),• yellow ochre (No 617),• raw sienna (No 623),• gold ochre (No 621),• burnt sienna (No 679),• raw umber (No 682),• burnt umber (No 683),• Cassler/Vandyke brown (No 675),• ivory black (No 723),• lamp black (No 729).The pigments must be finely ground. The size of the grain is checked by painting a few strokes on a glass surface with a brush and alcohol. Series 18 artists’ pigments from Schmincke are of very good quality and well ground. Only earth pigments need to be treated. For grinding,18 a glass plate prepared for this purpose and a glass pestle are used. A small quantity of pigment is shaken onto the glass surface and mixed with a few drops of water. The resulting paste is then ground. In certain cases alcohol may be used to substitute water at the beginning. This speeds up the grinding process, since coarse-ground pigments dissolve more quickly with alcohol. The size of the grains is checked by applying pigments crushed in alcohol with a brush dipped in alcohol to a glass or porcelain surface. If the pigments are well ground, the grains are no longer visible to the naked eye and cannot be seen in the brush strokes either. The ap-plication is homogeneous. After treatment is complete, allow the water from the pigment to evaporate and store the pigment in well sealed containers.The prepared pigments are used to prepare the retouching paints.19 Place a small quantity of pigment on a cleaned glass or porcelain surface. Add Canada balsam as a binder. The approximate ratio should be: 1/3 pigment and 2/3 binder. Mix the pigment and binder with a spatula until they form a dense, homo-geneous mass. Some pigments bind better and more quickly with Canada balsam than others. Where the mixing process is more difficult, a few drops of acetone may be added. This enables better mixing

226


227


while at the same time it does not damage the paint, since it evaporates quickly. The mixed paints must be slightly thicker than honey. The ratio of binder to pigment affects the glaze of the paints. Certain pigments accept more binder, and others less. Problems arise if there is too much binder. If this happens the paints apply poorly, the colour tone is very weak and the applications do not dry. A prepared palette of paints can be used for two to three years if it is kept clean. In our experience por-celain palettes with a lid – which can also serve as a mixing palette20 – are very useful. The advantage of these palettes is that once the work is complete they can be covered, thus preventing dust and other dirt from sticking to the retouching paints.

ProcedureThe prepared paints are applied as a glaze. The final retouching must be carried out in as few layers as possible, while making sure not to oversaturate the retouching. If oversaturation of colour tones occurs, the retouchings will have a heavy effect and there is a danger of darkening over time. Individual glaze ap-plications must be allowed to dry completely before the next application. Drying usually takes one day. The retouching medium is butyl alcohol. If retouchings carried out using butyl alcohol affect the lustre, the varnish used to varnish the painting the first time may be added to the medium by drops. The lustre of the retouching must correspond to the lustre of the surface of the original. The glazes are initially ap-plied to the areas where neutral retouching has been carried out with gouache paints. In terms of tone, we try to approach the colour of the surrounding area, but the retouching must still conserve a suitable brightness and tone (slightly cooler and brighter). When glazing, the use of white paint is avoided com-pletely, since it causes darkening over the years. If there are cracks and the remains of dirt in the area surrounding the damage, this can be simulated with the use of lines, dots, spots, etc. (photographs 1, 2 and 3). In areas where shapes and borders between individual colour planes are unclear, the decision on the shape, contour or drawing is built slowly and softly without sharp drawing of shapes. Retouching always begins with the damaged areas of the painting where the situation is clear but visu-ally most distracting. The painting must be treated holistically. One should never work on an individual detail until it is completely finished, but rather build the retouching in a uniform manner across the entire painted surface. In this way it is easier to decide when the painting is really finished. If one only concentrates on details, these are retouched to perfection but the whole still does not have a uniform ap-pearance. With large-format paintings, this kind of retouching can be tiring. The retouchings must have an airy effect and from close up should perhaps even look slightly unfinished. Sometimes it only takes a few points of colour in small areas of damage and already the surface appears uniform and the damage is no longer noticeable. The objective of the retouching technique described here is for the added paint layers to resemble the original perfectly (photographs 6, 8, 10, 12 and 18).Scarpelli’s method of retouching moves away from the classic tratteggio technique. He advocates a cre-ative approach to retouching which is close to the painter’s way of thinking. Nevertheless, retouching must not be an original creation. Instead, the retoucher must subordinate himself entirely to the origi-nal.

Conclusion

It is extremely difficult to set out the rules of retouching. Every painting is a story unto itself. Every painting carries in itself its own rules and structure. Over the years its material structure ages, which fur-ther characterises the surface of the painting. Artists use original artistic elements conditioned by the age in which they were working or the taste of whoever commissioned the painting. The good retoucher is capable of considering all the variables: seeing them, understanding them and feeling them, and combin-ing all these perceptions in the retouching. Viewers see paintings in an individual way. When carrying out retouching, the retoucher must step out of his role and try to look at the painting in an unencum-bered way, with the eyes of a viewer rather than a restorer. And in our desire for quality retouching, it is worth ending by mentioning a fundamental rule: better less than too much!

Notes1 In the remainder of the text the expression retouching is also used to mean reintegration of missing sections of paint layers. The expres-

sion retouching in the narrower sense means the actual process of retouching. The expression reintegration of missing sections of paint layers (also reintegration of paint losses) has a broader significance. It means: decision, methodology of execution, critical awareness and ethics.

2 Craig Hugh Smyth, “The Aesthetic and Historical Aspects of Presentation of Damaged Pictures (1963)”: Reading in Conservation, Issues in the Conservation of Paintings, Los Angeles 2005, p. 371.

3 The emphasis of the text from this point on is on the issue as it relates to paintings.4 Paolo Mora, Laura Mora, Paul Philippot, “Problems of Presentation”: Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cul-

tural Heritage, Los Angeles 1996, p. 348.5 Partial loss indicates superficial changes to the patina or paint application which are the consequence of abrasions or thin missing layers

of paint beneath which a legible image still survives.6 Reconstruction is not justified when it is based on hypothesis.7 Cesare Brandi, Theory of Restoration, Nardini Editore 2005 (Teoria del restauro, Giulio Einaudi editore1977), p. 92.8 In the case of murals the missing section has to take on the function of the wall.9 In most cases neutral retouching is carried out in a colour tone which has a “neutral” effect on the existing original and, by virtue of its

suitable luminance, purity and chromaticity values, recedes into the background.10 Paul Phillipot, “Historic Preservation. Philosophy, Criteria, Guidelines II”: Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of

Cultural Heritage, Los Angeles 1996, p. 359.11 The tratteggio method was promoted by Brandi’s pupils Paolo and Laura Moro as the Roman method.12 Knut Nicolaus, The Restoration of Paintings, Könemann, 1998, p. 294.13 The international workshop on retouching oil paintings and wooden polychrome sculpture led by the restorer Stefano Scarpelli was at-

tended by seven conservators-restorers: Miha Pirnat, Jr. of the National Gallery; Barbka Gosar Hirci, Vlado Fras, Nuška Dolenc Kambič and Emina Frljak of the Restoration Centre of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia; and Lucija Močnik Ramovš and Miladi Makuc Semion of the Academy of Fine Art and Design.

14 The gouache technique is a method of painting with watercolours but with the use of white pigment, which means that, unlike water-colour, the technique has good hiding power (opacity). It covers the background well, while light tones are painted as in the tempera technique. If the paint is built up in layers, each successive application covers the preceding one. Water-soluble binders, combined with the use of white pigment and filler in gouache paints, reduce light reflection, and dried paints give the impression of pastel. Because gouache paints are less bright than watercolours, the painting is built from dark to light or from a medium tone to a light or dark con-trast. The technique has been known since the 17th century. Taken from: Metka Kraigher Hozo, Slikarstvo/metode, slikanje/materiali, Svjetlost, Sarajevo 1991, p. 1.

15 This palette can be viewed online at http://www.schmincke.de/ (30 March 2008).16 Canada balsam is obtained from the North American balsam fir (Abies balsamea). Fresh balsam has the consistency of honey. It has an

essential oil content of approximately 25% and is similar to Strasbourg turpentine. The advantage of balsams is that they do not darken with time and they give the paint layer good elasticity and smoothness. Taken from: Metka Kraigher Hozo, Slikarstvo/metode, slikanje/materiali, Svjetlost, Sarajevo 1991, p. 392.

17 http://www.schmincke.de/ Pure artists’ pigments, series 18, 1 April 2008.18 Radoje Hudoklin, Tehnologija II, p. 191: “Before grinding with the binder, hard, thick-grained pigments which cannot stand lengthy

grinding with greasy oil are ground with water or alcohol. This makes grinding with the binder easier and does not dirty the paints. We grind by hand on a stone, porcelain or glass plate with a stone, porcelain or glass pestle.” And on p. 192: “Manual grinding of paints on glass surfaces is simple. Mix the pigment with an oily or non-oily binder into a dense paste. Spread this paste slightly across the plate and use a pestle to grind and crush it until the paint becomes perfectly uniform and smooth. The paint is ground sufficiently when we can no longer observe any grains if we spread it thinly on a fingernail. It must spread like raw butter. The paste should be spread across the plate in as thin a layer as possible, otherwise the paint will not grind well.

During grinding, paints often harden before they are sufficiently ground. To avoid this, we add a little liquid with which to grind them. When grinding with oil, some paints also become thinner. To these paints we add the necessary quantity of pigment powder. Grinding is quickest if we move the pestle across the plate in circles, turning it as we go. The ground paint is scraped from the plate using a thin wooden, horn or bone palette knife.”

19 Radoje Hudoklin, Tehnologija II, p. 193: “When grinding oil paints, pigments react in different ways to greasy oils. Some disperse in greasy oil; others do not. Some abandon the greasy oil. Some pigments (e.g. ultramarine and zinc white) only bind well in a completely neutral oil. Others prefer a slightly alkaline binder. Some pigments (e.g. Naples yellow) are ground quickly; others (e.g. Caput mortuum, earth green) can be ground for longer, but will still collect in flakes. Some paints (e.g. lead white and some of the ochres) become thicker with grinding, while others become so thin that it is necessary to add powdered pigment (e.g. zinc white, ultramarine, kraplak). Gener-ally speaking, it is more difficult to grind pigments in oil if they contain bound water. It is more difficult to grind pigments composed of crystalline particles than pigments with an amorphous structure. Pigments of an acid character are more sensitive to the character of the oil (neutral, acid, alkaline) than alkaline pigments or pigments containing calcium carbonate.”

20 http://www.deffner-johann.de/, 30 March 2008, Deffner & Johann, article serial number 1831 200. Porcelain palette with 22 wells (diameter 2cm). The advantage of this palette is the porcelain cover. The covered palette can be kept for a number of years if the paints are kept clean.

228


229


Mojca MarjAna Kovač

Konservatorske raziskave – temelji konservatorskega programa/načrtaPregled razvoja konservatorskega raziskovalnega dela na OE Piran

UDK 719UDK 7.025.3/.4

Ključne besede: konservatorske raziskave, konservatorski program, konservatorski načrt, konservator-sko-restavratorski projekt

Uvod

Temeljna naloga konservatorske stroke je ohranjanje nepremičnih kulturnih spomenikov in dediščine v skladu s sodobno konservatorsko doktrino in ob upoštevanju mednarodnih konvencij in priporočil. Pogoj za korektno ohranjanje vseh vrst spomenikov in dediščine predstavlja preučevanje in raziskovanje, v katero so praviloma vključene različne stroke, ki delujejo na področju konservatorstva z istim ciljem – varovanjem in ohranjanjem spomenika. Zato predstavlja raziskovalno delo v konservatorstvu tis-ti aktivni delež, ki mu daje interdisciplinarno širino delovanja in možnosti povezovanja s sorodnimi humanističnimi, tehničnimi in naravoslovnimi vedami. Raziskovanje je gibalo stroke, brez katerega si ni mogoče predstavljati njenega razvoja. Zastavljeno raziskovalno delo mora imeti postavljene cilje v okviru konservatorske stroke, ti pa so najpogosteje povezani s kompleksnimi posegi, ki jih spomeniki ali dediščina potrebujejo za varovanje in ohranjanje; mednje sodijo obnova, sanacija in prezentacija spomenikov in dediščine.Med začetne naloge konservatorjevega dela, ne glede na to, v katero vrsto konservatorske stroke sodi, spada seznanjanje s spomenikom ali dediščino, predvsem kar zadeva njegovo obstoječe stanje, tega pa konservator dopolnjuje s preučevanjem sprememb in posegov v bližnji ali daljni preteklosti. Za uspešno delo mora konservator določiti obseg in raven potrebne dokumentacije obstoječega stanja spomenika ali dediščine, s katerim se ukvarja. Njegova naloga je nedvomno zahtevna in odgovorna, saj praviloma sam izbere metodološki pristop v spomenik ali dediščino, pogoj za to pa je, da je njegovo poznavanje spomenika izvrstno. Čeprav delo konservatorja temelji na poznavanju obstoječega stanja spomenika, je ena izmed njegovih temeljnih nalog to znanje dopolniti z vrednotenjem in novimi spoznanji. Zato ni zanemarljivo dejstvo, da mora biti konservator seznanjen s spremembami iz preteklosti, ki so pustile na spomeniku ali dediščini sledi in so obenem tudi sestavni del stavbne zgodovine. Z različnimi strokami in metodami je mogoče preučevati stavbni razvoj spomenika. Preučevanje historičnih in arhivskih virov predstavlja začetek raziskovalnega dela in je pogoj za določitev vrednot, ki jih opredeljujemo na podlagi časovnega merila spomenika ali dediščine. Čeprav je videti, da je vrednotenje spomenika ali dediščine enostaven delovni postopek, je določitev smernic za ohranitev vrednot spomenika ali dediščine zelo od-govorna naloga, saj mora temeljiti na raziskovalnem strokovnem delu. S programom potrebnih raziskav

Mag. Mojca MarjAna Kovač, Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, Območna enota Piran

konservator izbere in določi vrste raziskav, ki so potrebne za pridobitev rezultatov in ki bodo uporabne za konservatorjevo delo. Čeprav predstavlja konservatorski načrt po vsebini zelo heterogeno nalogo, ki naj bi bila prilagojena vrsti spomenika, je pristop k obdelavi spomenika praviloma individualen. Namen tega prispevka je predstavitev začetkov raziskovalnega konservatorskega dela na izbranih prim-erih posameznih nepremičnih spomenikov na območju pristojnosti piranske območne enote ZVKDS,1 za katere so bili izdelani konservatorski programi. Vsem predstavljenim primerom je bil skupen enoten cilj, to je z raziskavami bolje spoznati spomenik, zato da bi bilo mogoče odgovorno postaviti konserva-torske smernice za ohranjanje in varovanje spomenika kot obvezujoče pogoje za projektiranje. Pregled dela obsega obdobje dveh desetletij, od konca osemdesetih let 20. stoletja do danes, obdelani pa so bili najpomembnejši spomeniki na območju Slovenske Istre, in sicer tako umetnostni in arhitekturni spo-meniki profanega in sakralnega značaja kot tudi mestni ambienti – trgi.

Konservatorski programi

Konservatorski program je najpomembnejši elaborat, izdelan za posamezni objekt ali sklop objektov kulturne dediščine in spomenikov, saj vsebuje vse vedenje o spomeniku ali dediščini ter tudi rezultate preučevanja in raziskovanja na izbranem objektu kulturne dediščine. V zaključnem delu konservator-skega programa je treba izpostaviti cilj – to so smernice za varovanje in ohranjanje bistvenih elementov, ki opredeljujejo objekt za spomenik in ki jih je treba upoštevati pri izdelavi projektne dokumentacije za nameravane posege v objekt kulturne dediščine.V pregledu prizadevanj, ki obravnavajo izdelavo konservatorske dokumentacije za prenovo spomenikov in dediščine, je treba izpostaviti drobno knjižico o prenovi Ljubljane, v kateri Šumi predstavi temeljne postopke, potrebne za izdelavo konservatorskega programa.2 Izdelavo konservatorskega programa deli v dve fazi: pripravljalno in programskoprojektno. V začetno fazo dela sodi zbiranje podatkov o lokaciji, lastnostih, stopnji ohranjenosti in celovitosti spomenika. Postopki strokovnega dela zajemajo inventa-rizacijo, evidenco, analizo, valorizacijo in kategorizacijo. Druga faza strokovnega dela zajema izdelavo programske in projektne dokumentacije, ki je temeljna za izvedbo posegov v spomenik. Posegi, ki so za spomenik primerni, so varovanje (konservacija), ozdravljenje (sanacija) in obnova (restavracija). Kon-servatorski program zajema vse omenjene postopke, saj prav ti sodijo v sistem potrebnih ukrepov, s katerimi zavarujemo spomenik pred nadaljnjim propadanjem, podaljšamo njegov obstoj in ga primerno prezentiramo. Med prvimi primeri, obdelanimi na podlagi predstavljenega metodološkega pristopa, so strokovnjaki tedanjega Medobčinskega zavoda za varstvo naravne in kulturne dediščine Piran (MZVNKD Piran) obdelali Titov trg v Kopru. V izdelanem elaboratu strokovnih podlag za programsko izrabo so bila postavljena izhodišča za ureditev tega izjemnega historičnega mestnega prostora.3 S preučevanjem nek-danjega pomena osrednjega mestnega trga, imenovanega Platea Communis, za katerega je značilna in edinstvena dvoranskost prostora, je bila izpostavljena njegova pomembna urbanistična vloga. Povezane z najpomembnejšim mestnim trgom so tudi stavbe, ki ta trg obkrožajo, zato so bile tudi te vključene v konservatorski program in so bile zanje izdelane smernice za določitev primerne programske izrabe. Kulturni spomeniki, ki obkrožajo Titov trg, so bili zgrajeni kot najpomembnejše javne zgradbe mesta, zato bi jim bilo primerno ponovno nameniti reprezentančno kulturno, politično in družbeno dejavnost na osrednjem mestnem prostoru. S smernicami v omenjenem elaboratu so bila postavljena izhodišča za obnovo ključnih koprskih spomenikov ob glavnem trgu. Temeljna pogoja, ki sta bila postavljena za vsak posamezen spomenik, sta bila izdelava konservatorskega programa in izvedba konservatorskih raziskav. Še istega leta je bil kmalu za omenjenim elaboratom izdelan prvi konservatorski program, ki je po-drobneje inventariziral in ovrednotil najpomembnejša mestna trga: Titov trg in trg Brolo.4 Na podlagi preučevanja zgodovinskih virov je bilo mogoče slediti stavbnozgodovinskemu razvoju osrednjega mest-nega trga v različnih časovnih in stilnih obdobjih. Z razvojem mestnega prostora so povezani objekti, ki ustvarjajo tržni prostor, zato je stavbnozgodovinski razvoj teh objektov ključnega pomena. V elaboratu, ki je bil izdelan za osrednji mestni trg Kopra, so bili obdelani najpomembnejši objekti, ki ta prostor ustvarjajo, hkrati gre za najpomembnejše javne mestne stavbe profanega in sakralnega značaja: Pretorsko palačo, Foresterijo, Armerijo, Ložo in stolnico Marijinega vnebovzetja z zvonikom. Podrobna inven-

230


231


tarizacija in valorizacija omenjenih objektov je bila v elaboratu dopolnjena z usmeritvami, s katerimi stavbnimi in arheološkimi raziskavami bo treba nadaljevati, da bodo odkriti kvalitetni arhitekturni el-ementi spomenikov, ki so po predvidevanjih skriti pod plastmi ometov in zidov ter v tleh pod obstoječo pohodno površino. Ker je bilo tedaj stanje stavb, ki so bile nekoč za mestno upravo najpomembnejši objekti, zaradi nep-rimerne uporabe in vzdrževanja že zelo kritično, se je lastnik omenjenih spomenikov odločil za začetek sistematičnega načrtovanja prenove. Med prvimi objekti – spomeniki, ki so bili na seznamu potrebne obnove, so bili Pretorska palača, Foresterija in Armerija. Vsi trije spomeniki so predstavljali za last-nika, Mestno občino Koper, stavbe, ki bi jim ponovno povrnili prvotno funkcijo, saj bi jih bilo mogoče uporabiti za reprezentančno protokolarno namembnost. V predhodnih obravnavanih elaboratih so bile zastavljene konservatorske raziskave, ki so bile izvedene in obdelane v dopolnitvi konservatorskega pro-grama.5 Kompleksno zastavljene konservatorske raziskave so obsegale stavbne raziskave s sondiranjem, ki so z rezultati dopolnile natančneje izdelane smernice za obnovo spomenika in ohranitev najkvalitetnejših arhitekturnih konstrukcijskih in oblikovnih elementov spomenika iz različnih stilnih obdobij. Tam, kjer je bilo treba poglobiti in razširiti raziskovalno delo, so bile določene nadaljnje usmeritve s predlogom izvedbe potrebnih dopolnitev raziskav. Zaradi obširnosti konservatorskih sondažnih raziskav, ki so bile tedaj med največjimi na našem območju, so te potekale sistematično in v sodelovanju s strokovnjaki s Hrvaškega; ti so tedaj imeli nekaj več izkušenj, saj so se na soroden način lotili raziskav stavb v Du-brovniku.6 Pomembna skupna ugotovitev je bila, da je že na začetku konservatorskih raziskav treba izdelati natančno arhitekturno dokumentacijo obstoječega stanja spomenika. V sodelovanju s hrvaškimi kolegi je bila potrjena naša ugotovitev, da je za meritve in izris arhitekturnega posnetka spomenika treba ta spomenik zelo dobro poznati, zato je treba k sodelovanju pritegniti strokovnjake, ki so usposobljeni za tovrstna dela.7 Metodologija sondažnih raziskav, ki je bila izvedena na stavbah Pretorske palače, Foresteri-je in Armerije, je bila oblikovana na podlagi lastnih izkušenj in v sodelovanju z izkušnjami strokovnjakov s Hrvaškega. Uspešnost je zagotovljena le, kadar gre za interdisciplinarno sodelovanje različnih strok, ki so izbrane in udeležene pri določeni nalogi. Izpostavljene so bile izkušnje in ugotovitve hrvaških kolegov, da so za vodenje strokovne ekipe pogosto najprimernejši umetnostni zgodovinarji, nepogrešljivo pa je njihovo sodelovanje z inženirji statiki, restavratorji, arhitekti, arheologi, zgodovinarji in še drugimi. Temeljita obnova Pretorske palače je zahtevala še poglobljeno raziskovanje tega ključnega spomenika, ki zapira južno stranico Titovega trga, zato je bila na podlagi obširnih stavbnih raziskav v konstrukcijske sklope palače in v raziskave tal palače naročena še druga dopolnitev konservatorskega programa.8 Na-men izdelave dopolnitve konservatorskega programa je določitev natančnejših smernic za ohranjanje in varovanje slogovnih arhitekturnih značilnosti spomenika ter določitev izhodišč, ki jih bo treba upoštevati pri izdelavi projektne dokumentacije. Na podlagi raziskovalnega dela so bila dopolnjena znanja o spo-meniku, ki so pomembna za njegov nadaljnji obstoj. V konservatorski program so vključeni rezultati konservatorskega raziskovalnega dela, dopolnjeni z interpretacijo strokovnjakov različnih strok, ki so v skupini sodelovali. Do leta 1994 so konservatorji tedanjega MZVNKD Piran že pridobili izkušnje na področju raziskoval-nega dela in izdelave konservatorskih programov, da so lahko predstavili svoja spoznanja na simpoziju Stavbarstvo in prenova na Koprskem.9 Osrednja tematika je bila predstavitev raziskav na konserva-torskem področju dela in vključevanje rezultatov raziskav, kot usmeritev za izbor primernih posegov v historično substanco spomenika. Sklepni del posveta je postavil konservatorski program s smernicami in pogoji kot tisti ključni elaborat, ki ga je treba upoštevati pri izdelavi projektne dokumentacije. Pred-stavitev poteka interdisciplinarno zastavljenega raziskovalnega konservatorskega dela na Pretorski palači in določitev pomena najdb v kontekstu vrednotenja večplastne historične arhitekture sta bili predstav-ljeni kot ključni konservatorski izhodišči. V sklepnem delu konservatorskega programa sta bila predstav-ljena predlog prezentacije kvalitetnih arhitekturnih elementov Pretorske palače in možnost dopolnitve spomenika s sodobno interpretacijo manjkajočih spomeniških kvalitet.10 Kljub vloženemu trudu v ra-ziskovalno delo in prizadevanjem konservatorjev se ta razlika ločevanja starega od novega, ki sodi med temeljne principe sodobne konservatorske doktrine v svetu, v končni obliki ni dosledno izpeljala. Ker je bilo konservatorsko raziskovalno delo na cerkvi sv. Jurija v Piranu že večkrat tema različnih predstavitev na strokovnih srečanjih in objav, bodo v tem prispevku predstavljeni le ključni segmenti dela.11 V prvem konservatorskem programu, v katerem so sodelovali strokovnjaki različnih strok, je bil

načrtovan pristop k celoviti obnovi cerkve že v začetni fazi dela.12 Ta pa je temeljila na konservatorskih raziskavah, saj je bil cilj ugotoviti ne le poškodbe spomenika, temveč tudi vzroke za te poškodbe; le na tak način je bilo namreč mogoče uspešno izbrati primerne metode potrebnih pristopov načrtovanja obnove spomenika. Čeprav se je zaradi finančnih vzrokov raziskovalna faza zavlekla, so bili zastavljeni cilji doseženi. Odkriti so bili vzroki propadanja in poškodb na cerkvi, čeprav je bil obseg raziskav skrčen. Raziskovalno delo je sprožilo dilemo o obširnosti raziskav in smiselnosti uporabe nedestruktivnih razis-kav pred nadaljnjimi destruktivnimi "klasičnimi" sondažnimi konservatorskimi arheološkimi in stavb-nimi raziskavami. Izvedbo nedestruktivnih raziskav je bilo mogoče v tedanjem času zagotoviti v okviru financiranja projektov Ministrstva za kulturo.13 Izveden je bil pregled tal cerkve in okolice z georadar-jem na določenih zaključenih enotah. Ker so bile raziskave uspešne, obširna arheološka sondiranja niso bila potrebna. Rezultati pregleda ostenja cerkve s pomočjo termografije so bili uporabni, zato obširne sondažne stavbne raziskave niso bile potrebne.14 Destruktivne sondažne raziskave so bile omejene le na najnujnejše površine ostenja. Zaradi obširnosti celovite obnove so bili izdelani konservatorski programi za posamezne sklope stavbe; ti programi so bili pozneje združeni v konservatorski program celovite ob-nove in prezentacije piranske cerkve sv. Jurija z namenom dokumentacije, priložene k javnemu razpisu za izbor izvajalca.15 Konservatorske smernice in pogoji so bili upoštevani v projektni dokumentaciji celovite obnove cerkve.16 Kljub izvedenemu javnemu razpisu za oddajo del izbranemu izvajalcu, kar je bil tedaj pogoj, da Ministrstvo za kulturo sofinancira spomeniškovarstveni projekt, dela po programu celovite obnove cerkve niso bila izvedena; piranska cerkev je zato zdaj le delno statično sanirana. Žal pa tudi opravljena dela statične sanacije ladje spomenika niso bila izvedena v skladu s projektno dokumentacijo; tako obstaja upravičen sum, da izvedena dela statične sanacije spomeniku niso v korist. Zaskrbljujoče je dejstvo, da konservatorska stroka nima interesa ugotavljati, ali je bila statična sanacija za spomenik primerna ali morda celo škodljiva. V poglobljenem strokovnem delu piranskih konservatorjev predstavlja v letu 1996 izdelan konservator-ski program za ureditev Titovega trga v Kopru, razširjenega na območje trga za krstilnico sv. Janeza Krstnika, nadaljevanje zastavljenega konservatorskega raziskovalnega dela in uporabe nedestruktivnih metod.17 Zaradi izjemno občutljivega območja in kvalitete mestnega ambienta destruktivnih raziskav ni bilo mogoče izvesti. Za izdelavo konservatorskega programa je bilo treba izvesti georadarske raziskave talne površine osrednjega trga mesta in območja ob krstilnici. Za osrednji mestni trg pa je bilo treba omenjene raziskave dopolniti s termografskim pregledom tlaka in izdelati natančen posnetek obstoječega stanja talne površine; to sestavljajo masivne kamnite plošče sivega peščenjaka v kombinaciji z belim kamnom, iz katerega so le posamezni oblikovani elementi.18 Natančen posnetek obstoječega stanja je bil tedaj dopolnjen z vsemi poškodbami kamnitih plošč; na podlagi takega tehničnega posnetka je mogoče predvideti obširnost sanacije in obnove tržnega tlaka, kar je bil tudi cilj zadane naloge dopolnitve konserva-torskega programa. Z georadarskim pregledom tržnega prostora sta bila postavljena ocena in pregled strati-grafije tal in morebitnih najdb pod pohodno površino trga. Kljub obširni konservatorski dokumentaciji in raziskavam Titovega trga program obnove osrednjega koprskega mestnega trga še ni bil pripravljen.Prizadevanja konservatorjev MZVNKD Piran na področju raziskav in izdelave konservatorskih pro-gramov so bila med letoma 1995 in 1998 vključena v raziskovalni projekt Kultura na narodnostno mešanem ozemlju Slovenske Istre, ki je potekal na Znanstvenem inštitutu Filozofske fakultete.19 Če se osredotočimo le na področje konservatorstva, ugotovimo, da so v projektu sodelovale različne stroke s področja kulturne in naravne dediščine: arheologija, zgodovina, umetnostna zgodovina, arhitektura, etnologija in geografija. V publikaciji predstavljeni projekti različnih strok, ki delujejo na konservator-skem področju, obravnavajo izdelavo konservatorskih programov na izbranih kulturnih spomenikih in dediščini; to so rimska vila v Simonovem zalivu, Kolonski zaselek Polje 29 nad Izolo, cerkev Marije Alietske v Izoli in servitski samostan v Kopru. Konservatorski programi so bili izdelani v skladu z za-stavljenim konceptom od priprave dokumentacije, potrebnih raziskav, izhodišč in smernic za izdelavo projektne dokumentacije do izvedbe del. Čeprav publikacija ni bila tako odmevna, predstavlja na kon-servatorskem področju pionirsko delo in uveljavitev znanstvenoraziskovalnega dela.Kmalu po razglasitvi koprskega servitskega samostana za spomenik državnega pomena je bil v letu 2000 izdelan konservatorski program za obnovo in prezentacijo te izjemne samostanske arhitekture, ki se je kljub predelavam ohranila z najkvalitetnejšimi arhitekturnimi elementi.20 Samostanski kompleks je bil že kmalu po ukinitvi uporabljen za mestno bolnišnico. V konservatorskem programu je bilo pomemb-

232


233


no izhodišče temeljite obnove določitev primerne namembnosti, in sicer za potrebe novoustanovljene Univerze na Primorskem. "Klasično" zasnovan konservatorski program, po vzoru pripravljalne faze, je po vsebini obsegal inventarizacijo s temeljito umetnostnozgodovinsko topografijo, stavbnozgodovinski razvoj, analizo stilnih in tipoloških značilnostih ter vrednotenje, ki je v zaključni fazi opredelilo kat-egorizacijo spomenika kot izhodišče za celovito obnovo in prezentacijo.21 Ker je samostanski kompleks že več kot desetletje izpraznjen in brez funkcije, se ga ne vzdržuje in propada. Čeprav je njegova nova namembnost že nekaj let določena, se začetek obnove in nadaljevanje konservatorskih raziskav še nista premaknila. Ker metodologija in vsebina konservatorskega programa nista bili natančneje določeni v smislu obvezujočih vsebinskih elementov, so bila v letu 2002 izdelana interna navodila za strokovno delo na spomenikih.22 Čeprav so bila navodila za izdelavo konservatorske dokumentacije obširno zastavljena in v določenih sklopih nesistematično urejena, sta bila delo konservatorja in postavitev skupine stro-kovnjakov jasno opredeljena, vključno z obravnavanjem interdisciplinarnosti pristopa do dela na spo-menikih ter ob upoštevanju tedanje gradbene zakonodaje. Osnovni pojmi, s katerimi so opredeljena opravila strokovnjakov, so bili zastavljeni v skladu s konceptom delovanja konservatorske stroke, ki jo je v določenih postopkih že temeljito obdelala J. Pirkovič.23 Med temeljna opravila konservatorja, ki izdeluje konservatorski program, sodijo dokumentiranje, preučevanje, raziskovanje, interpretiranje in vrednotenje ter, kot zaključek konservatorskega programa, smernice za ohranjanje spomeniških lastnosti in usmeritve za ključni opravili na spomeniku, torej za sanacijo in prezentacijo spomenika. Cilj elaborata so predstavljale smernice, ki jih projektanti upoštevajo pri izdelavi projektne dokumentacije. Ker Navo-dila 1–6 niso bila obvezna izhodišča za izdelavo konservatorskih programov, sta bili njihova izdelava in vsebina prepuščeni presoji posameznega konservatorja. Ravni obdelave konservatorskih programov so zato zelo različne, in sicer tako po vsebini kot tudi po sodelovanju raznovrstnih strokovnih sodelavcev. Vsebina konservatorskega programa je prepuščena zgolj odgovornosti posameznih konservatorjev, saj so prav ti odgovorni za oblikovanje delovne skupine in določitev programa dela. Navodila obravnavajo usmeritve pri imenovanju skupine sodelujočih strokovnih delavcev, katerih odgovornost je hierarhično postavljena in med katerimi ima najpomembnejšo vlogo odgovorni konservator.24 Vloga tega je prim-erljiva z vlogo, ki jo ima po gradbeni zakonodaji vodja projekta. Navodilo, ki določa izdelavo ocene stanja kulturnega spomenika, se kljub jasno postavljenim smernicam žal ni uveljavilo v široki uporabi, tako kot je bilo zastavljeno, čeprav bi bila za spomenike taka ocena nujno potrebna.25 Navodilo, ki obravnava dokumentiranje nepremične kulturne dediščine, pa je med najpogosteje uporabljenimi, saj je arhitekturna dokumentacija obstoječega stanja spomenika temeljna za vse nadaljnje posege na tem spomeniku.26 Prav tako se v redno prakso konservatorjevega dela ni vključilo navodilo, ki določa smer-nice za izdelavo projektne naloge za posege v kulturni spomenik.27 Navodilo za izdelavo konservatorsko-restavratorskega programa za posege v kulturni spomenik obravnava ob inventarizaciji spomenika tudi obširne analize stanja spomenika, poročila o opravljenih delih, namembnosti in zgodovinskem razvoju ter rezultate raziskav in potrebnih gradbenorestavratorskih in restavratorskih del.28 Izvedbena faza dela obsega navodila za gradbenorestavratorsko fazo del, ki je obravnavana v gradbenem smislu in v povezavi z gradbeno zakonodajo.29 Kljub podrobno in zapleteno zastavljenim izhodiščem navodil je v veliko primerov izdelan konservatorski program predstavljal temeljni dokument spomenika ali dediščine, na podlagi katerega so projektanti bolj ali manj uspešno projektirali. V sklepni oceni je mogoče ugotoviti, da navodila obravnavajo spomenik ali dediščino celovito, saj upoštevajo ne le oblikovane arhitekturne elemente stavb, temveč tudi konstrukcijske sklope, ki so bistvenega pomena pri varovanju in ohranjanju kulturne dediščine ter določanju usmeritev za nujne sanacijske in restavratorske posege.Na podlagi predstavljenih internih navodil je bil v letu 2003 izdelan konservatorski program za celovito obnovo in prezentacijo koprske palače Totto ex Gavardo v Kidričevi ulici.30 Izjemnost palače predstav-lja njeno dolgo ulično pročelje, ki je v novo obliko stavbe povezalo več manjših srednjeveških objektov. Palača je bila v sredini 18. stoletja zgrajena tako, da je simetrično zasnovano pročelje povzelo tipične značilnosti baročnega oblikovanja arhitekture. S predelavo arhitekta Eda Mihevca je bilo pritličje palače v svojem celotnem uličnem poteku spremenjeno v pokrito ulično pasažo, kar je temeljito spremenilo koncept zasnove palače. Značilnosti mestne palače potrjujejo horizontalno poudarjeno reprezentančno nadstropje – piano nobile –, vertikalni poudarek arhitekture z osrednjim reprezentančnim traktom, kjer je glavni vhod, in povezanost palače z vrtom v zadnjem delu, ki je bil po izgradnji novih stanovanjskih

blokov in stolpnice močno okrnjen. Osrednji trakt je centralno komunikacijsko vozlišče palače, obenem je ta del tudi najbolj reprezentančen del palače s stopniščem in vhodno vežo, ki se odpira na nekdanji vrt palače. Vzhodno in zahodno krilo palače je doživelo z novo namembnostjo drastične predelave, ki niso upoštevale kvalitet in značilnosti meščanske palače. Z natančnim pregledom obstoječega stanja palače, izdelavo arhitekturnega posnetka in sondažnimi raziskavami so bile odkrite najkvalitetnejše osta-line nekdanje reprezentančne palače, ki so v največji meri ohranjene v njenem centralnem delu. Šele na podlagi dobljenih rezultatov raziskav je bilo mogoče izdelati dokončno vrednotenje spomenika. Investi-tor celovite obnove palače je sprejel predlog odgovornega konservatorja, da se v skladu z mednarodnimi priporočili v konservatorski program vključi zunanji strokovnjak, inženir statik, za dopolnitev konser-vatorskih smernic za določitev pristopov in možnosti statične sanacije, ki upoštevajo ohranitev vrednot spomenika. Pomen in uporabnost izdelanega konservatorskega programa je spoznal investitor, ki je v naslednjem letu naročil izdelavo konservatorsko-restavratorskega projekta celovite obnove in prezent-acije osrednjega reprezentančnega dela palače.31 Za izdelavo konservatorsko-restavratorskega projekta je bilo treba v celoti odkriti stensko poslikavo, saj je le tako mogoče izdelati natančne izračune o pos-likanih površinah sten, rekonstrukciji poškodovanih delov poslikave in odstranitvi posameznih ohran-jenih fragmentov kvalitetnih poslikav. Izdelani so bili popisi za restavriranje vhodne veže s štukaturo, ki jo je treba rekonstruirati. Arhitekturna dokumentacija obstoječega stanja je bila dopolnjena s prerezi in pogledi vseh reprezentančnih prostorov palače, ti pa so bili obdelani z vnosom podatkov o poškodbah in vzrokih, zaradi katerih so poškodbe nastale.32 Umetnostnozgodovinska topografija z valorizacijo, izdelana za vsak prostor osrednjega dela palače, je bila dopolnjena še s katalogom najkvalitetnejših arhi-tekturnih elementov palače. Vsebinska dopolnitev izdelave konservatorsko-restavratorskega projekta je bila dopolnjena na podlagi metodologije projektiranja na kulturni dediščini, ki je v uporabi v Italiji, kjer izpostavijo in vzporedno obravnavajo konservatorski pristop arhitekturne obnove s statično konsoli-dacijo.33 V sodelovanju s strokovnjakom inženirjem statikom so bila pripravljena natančnejša izhodišča za najprimernejše posege statične sanacije, vključno z upoštevanjem konservatorskih smernic za osrednji del palače, ki bo tudi z novo namembnostjo ohranil reprezentančno funkcijo palače in bo tako zagotov-ljen dostop javnosti. Zadana naloga, izdelava konservatorsko-restavratorskega projekta, je v sodelovanju z investitorjem in projektanti uspešno posegla na področje izdelave projektne dokumentacije, saj je bil omenjeni projekt vključen v projektno dokumentacijo za izvedbo, ki jo obenem omogoča gradbena zakonodaja. V zaključku lahko ugotovimo, da uspešen rezultat naloge zagotavlja le dobro sodelovanje z investitorjem; investitor je ključen v sodelovanju s skupino strokovnjakov, med katerimi je odgovorni konservator enakovreden s projektanti. Zaradi dolgotrajnega procesa ureditve lastniških odnosov spome-nika se izvedba projekta še ni začela.

Konservatorski načrt Z uveljavitvijo novega Zakona o varstvu kulturne dediščine (Ur. l. RS, št. 16/2008) je med kulturn-ovarstvene pogoje, ki jih obravnava 29. člen, uvrščen konservatorski načrt; to je zakonsko določen stro-kovni dokument, ki je po vsebini enakovreden s predhodnim konservatorskim programom, vendar v prejšnjem Zakonu o varstvu kulturne dediščine (Ur. l. RS, št. 7/99) ni bil tako jasno postavljen. V nadaljevanju 29. člena sta kot povezava med dvema kulturnovarstvenima pogojema določeni: izvedba predhodnih raziskav in izdelava konservatorskega načrta. Oba navedena pogoja sta obenem temeljni opravili konservatorja, ki omogočata pridobitev kulturnovarstvenega soglasja za posege v spomenik ali dediščino, zato je prav, da sta obravnavana v medsebojni odvisnosti. Izdelavo konservatorskega načrta in izvedbo predhodnih raziskav je treba uvrstiti med kulturnovarstvene pogoje takrat, kadar upravičeno domnevamo, da se v nepremičnini skrivajo neodkriti elementi dediščine, ki so zaradi nameravanih pose-gov ogroženi. Zakonska določila omogočajo predpisati izdelavo konservatorskega načrta takrat, kadar so predvideni posegi v spomenik obširni in njihov cilj presega vzdrževanje, saj je s posegi mogoče doseči izboljšanje stanja nepremičnine ter tako zagotoviti varovanje in ohranjanje vrednot kulturnega pomena. S tovrstnimi posegi, ki so usmerjeni v sanacijo ohranjenih vrednot kulturnega pomena spomenika ali dediščine, je neizogibno treba posegati v strukturne elemente spomenika ali dediščine, zato je potrebna predhodna izdelava konservatorskega načrta.

234


235


Čeprav so bila interna navodila za izdelavo konservatorske dokumentacije, ki so veljala od leta 2003, obširna in nesistematično urejena, je bilo delo odgovornega konservatorja in skupine strokovnjakov, ki v procesu obdelave spomenika tega raziskujejo, pripravljajo potrebno dokumentacijo in med seboj sodelujejo, jasno in odgovorno postavljeno. Ker je konservatorstvo interdisciplinarna stroka, so bile postavljene zahteve po določitvi skupine strokovnjakov različnih strok, ki so bile izbrane glede na vr-sto spomenika ali dediščine. Osnovni pojmi, s katerimi so opredeljena opravila strokovnjakov, so bili zastavljeni v skladu s konceptom delovanja konservatorske stroke, katere razvoj je v določenih postop-kih temeljito obdelala Jelka Pirkovič.34 Med temeljna opravila konservatorja, ki izdeluje konservatorski načrt, sodijo dokumentiranje, preučevanje, raziskovanje, interpretiranje in vrednotenje obravnavanega spomenika, kar pripelje do obveznega zaključnega dela v konservatorskem načrtu, do smernic za ohran-janje in varovanje kulturnega pomena spomenika. Smernice za ohranjanje in varovanje kulturnega pom-ena spomenika lahko primerjamo s prejšnjim konservatorskim programom, v katerem je bila določena prezentacija spomenika. Da bo konservatorski načrt uporaben za lastnika in projektante, morajo biti odpravljene vse neznanke v zvezi z obstoječim stanjem spomenika in določitvijo kulturnega pomena spomenika. Pogoj za uspešnost izdelave konservatorskega načrta zagotavlja raziskovalna faza konserva-torskega dela, saj brez potrebnih raziskav na nepremičnini ni mogoče postaviti oprijemljivih smernic in pogojev, s katerimi je mogoče zagotoviti varovanje lastnosti, ki določajo spomenik. Zaključek kon-servatorskega programa ali načrta predstavljajo pogoji, ki so napisani tako, da usmerjajo projektante v iskanje primernih posegov in rešitev, s katerimi ne bosta ogroženi ali uničeni historična substanca spomenika in njegova avtentičnost. V zaključnem delu je treba izpostaviti nujnost prezentacije spome-nika, nadaljnje vzdrževanje in vključevanje spomenika v uporabo. Pred kratkim sprejeti Zakon o varstvu kulturne dediščine (Ur. l. RS, št. 16/08) uvaja novo terminologijo strokovnih izrazov, med katerimi žal ne najdemo prezentacije spomenika, ki sodi med najpomembnejše cilje raznovrstnih posegov, ki so za spomenike potrebni in s katerimi spomenike varujemo in ohranjamo.Na podlagi internih navodil za izdelavo konservatorskega načrta35 je bila v decembru 2007 priprav-ljena dopolnitev konservatorskega programa za palačo Kreljeva 6 v Kopru. Za pomembno koprsko baročno palačo, ki je bila s sondažnimi raziskavami ostenja reprezentančnih prostorov raziskana že v letih 1992 in 1993, je bil tedaj izdelan konservatorski program.36 V prvem konservatorskem programu je bil poudarek na temeljitem dokumentiranju obstoječega stanja palače. V arhitekturni posnetek so bili vneseni rezultati stavbnih raziskav, ki so bile takrat najpomembnejše za določitev izhodišč za obnovo in prezentacijo palače.37 Pod sloji ometa in beležev so se ohranile renesančne in baročne poslikave ostenja v najstarejšem še gotskem delu palače in v glavni dvorani ter na reprezentančnem baročnem stopnišču. Stenska poslikava palače je bila v celoti odkrita in zaščitena šele po izdelavi konservatorskega programa.38 Žal pa je bilo tedaj raziskovalno delo omejeno le na odkrivanje poslikav v nekdanjih salonih, kar ne zadostuje za določitev smernic za celovito obnovo spomenika, vključno z določitvijo primerne namemb-nosti palače. Ker je materialna in konstrukcijska ohranjenost palače v kritičnem stanju, je bilo treba za postavitev ključnih konservatorskih pogojev zagotoviti sodelovanje strokovnjaka s področja statike; ta je v elaboratu statične presoje s smernicami opredelil izbor možnih sanacijskih posegov, s katerimi ne bi bile ogrožene kulturne vrednote spomenika.39 Ker konservatorski program v letu 1992 ni bil dokončan, ga je bilo treba dopolniti s smernicami, ki usmerjajo projektante k iskanju primernih rešitev sanacije obstoječih konstrukcijskih sklopov palače.40 Dopolnitev je bila izdelana po navodilih konservatorskega načrta ter je obravnavala palačo v smislu celovitega pristopa k obnovi in prezentaciji spomenika. Zaradi sodobnega pristopa je bilo treba ponovno izvesti fotografsko dokumentiranje palače, medtem ko je bil arhitekturni posnetek iz leta 1992 digitaliziran. Palača je poenotila starejše in manjše objekte na obstoječi lokaciji, saj jo sestavlja pet različnih delov. Ob osrednjem najvišjem delu sta stranski krili palače, ti dve pa imata še vsaka po en dvoriščni prizidek. Izjemnost palače se kaže tudi v njeni nedokončanosti, ki ji daje nenavaden značaj. V skladu z navodili je bila palača obdelana kot celovit spomenik z obravnavo vseh njenih podrobnosti, saj je obenem tudi zelo členjen arhitekturni spomenik, vendar pa je njegova zasnova značilna za baročno palačo. Razdrobljenost in členjenost spomenika sta prispevali svoj delež pri obravnavi kulturnega pomena palače kot celote in kot skupek obravnave posameznih prostorov, ki imajo raznovrstni kulturni pomen. V katalogu so predstavljeni najkvalitetnejši elementi palače s podrob-nostmi, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri izdelavi konservatorsko-restavratorskega projekta.

V zaključek tega prispevka sodi predstavitev zadnjega konservatorskega načrta, ki upošteva ne le dose-danje raziskovalne izkušnje, temveč tudi mednarodna priporočila. Med najbolj razširjena in uveljav-ljena mednarodna priporočila sodi listina ICOMOS, ki obravnava statično obnovo objektov kulturne dediščine, vendar mora ta temeljiti na obveznem predhodnem raziskovanju arhitekture in konstrukcij.41 V skladu z najsodobnejšim konservatorskim metodološkim pristopom je bila obdelana nekdanja mi-noritska cerkev sv. Frančiška v Kopru. Cerkev uvrščamo med najstarejše gotske sakralne stavbe, ki po zasnovi in zgrajenosti sodijo v tipološko skupino cerkva beraških redov. Cerkev, ki so jo postavili med letoma 1266 in 1268, je obenem tudi izjemen tip, saj uveljavlja bernardinsko tlorisno shemo, ki je prav v tej cerkvi reducirana. Namesto prečne ladje, postavljene med ladjo in kornim zaključkom, ima cerkev trikorni zaključek, ta pa izstopa iz širine ladje cerkve.42 Kljub poznejši baročni predelavi ladje, z vstavit-vijo ravnega, z medaljoni poslikanega in s štukaturo okrašenega stropa, je cerkev ohranila gotski značaj. Cerkev je izgubila svojo prvotno sakralno funkcijo v začetku 19. stoletja, zato je bila iz nje odstranjena vsa cerkvena oprema. Že v tridesetih letih 20. stoletja je bila uporabljena kot šolska telovadnica in tako je ostalo vse do leta 1990, ko je bilo treba cerkev zaradi nevarnosti zapreti. Od tedaj spomenik ni vzdrževan in zelo hitro propada. Danes je njegovo stanje zelo kritično, zato se je lastnik spomenika, Mestna občina Koper, odločil za celovito obnovo in prezentacijo z namenom, da bo cerkev uporabljal kot dvorano za kulturne in protokolarne prireditve. Zaradi kritičnega stanja baročnega stropa in nevarnosti, da poslikava z medaljoni odstopi od podlage, se je bilo treba takoj lotiti utrjevanja baročnega stropa; ta dela so potekala v letih 1991 in 1992. Kljub krajšemu premoru so v naslednjih letih potekale sondažne raziskave v obeh kornih kapelah. Sočasno z restavratorskimi in sondažnimi posegi je bil pripravljen konservatorski program, katerega namen je bila določitev načelnih izhodišč za sanacijo, obnovo in prezentacijo nekdanje cerkve, skupaj z usmeritvami za določitev primerne namembnosti spomenika. Kljub prizadevanjem uporabnika nekdanje cerkve, da bi obnovo spomenika uvrstili v program sofinanciranja Ministrstva za kulturo, se do danes to še ni zgodilo. Stanje ohranjenosti minoritske cerkve je postajalo vedno bolj kritično, saj spomenik ni bil vzdrževan. Šele proti koncu leta 2006 je bilo mogoče zasnovati program najnujnejših konservatorskih raziskav, in te raziskave tudi začeti. Cilj raziskovalnega dela je bil natančneje določiti ohranjenost konstrukcij in materialov spomenika, da bi lahko izbrali najprimernejše sanacijske posege. V sodelovanju z italijanskimi strokovnjaki so bile raziskave izdelane v dveh fazah: na podlagi vizualnega pregleda in z inštrumenti.43 Zaradi slabšega stanja ohranjenosti spomenika je bilo treba izdelati primerno arhitekturno dokument-acijo obstoječega stanja v digitalni obliki, ki je bila potrebna tudi za vnos podatkov o ohranjenosti mate-riala in konstrukcij. Po čiščenju podstrešja je bil potreben natančen pregled lesene konstrukcije ostrešja in stropa, ki ju je pregledal inženir statik.44 Na podlagi rezultatov opravljenih raziskav spomenika, ob upoštevanju zbranega historičnega gradiva in pregleda dokumentacije o nujnih interventnih posegih, ki jo hrani arhiv ZVKDS, OE Piran, je bil v skladu z novimi navodili izdelan konservatorski načrt.45 Čeprav predložena navodila ne zahtevajo izvedbe potrebnih konservatorskih raziskav, s katerimi je mogoče določiti smernice za ohranjanje in varovanje kulturnega pomena spomenika, je konservatorski načrt dopolnjen z vsemi izvedenimi konser-vatorskimi raziskavami, saj je le tako mogoče postaviti strokovno utemeljena izhodišča, ki so pogoj za izdelavo projektne dokumentacije.

Zaključek

Namen pregleda pomembnejših konservatorskih programov in načrtov v skoraj dvajsetletnem obdobju prizadevanj strokovnjakov piranske enote ZVKDS je izpostaviti strokovni vidik izdelovalcev in uporab-nost izdelanih elaboratov v praksi. Če izpostavimo namen izdelave konservatorskega elaborata, ki pred-stavlja enega izmed temeljnih strokovnih del s področja teoretičnega in metodološkega pristopa obnove spomenika, izdelek pa je še nadalje uporaben tudi v praksi, natančneje v izvedbi načrtovanih posegov na samem spomeniku, lahko upravičeno potrdimo pomembnost tega strokovnega dela. Vsebina pred-stavljenih elaboratov zajema kompleksne obnovitvene posege, saj so ti zahtevnejši gradbeni, sanacijski in restavratorski posegi, ki vsi presegajo redna vzdrževalna dela. Le nekaj je med predstavljenimi primeri takih, ki so bili izpeljani od začetka izdelave konservatorskega programa do izdelave potrebne projektne

236


237


dokumentacije in v končnem delu tudi do izvedbe zastavljenih posegov obnove in prezentacije. Zato je na tovrstnih dokončno izpeljanih posegih mogoče oceniti, kako uspešna je bila izdelava začetnega konservatorskega elaborata. V vseh navedenih primerih so bile v izdelavo konservatorskih programov in načrtov vključene konserva-torske raziskave, ki so bile izbrane glede na specifičnost posameznega spomenika in na njegovo zvrst, in večina predstavljenih spomenikov sodi med arhitekturne in umetnostne nepremične spomenike. Kon-servatorske raziskave so tiste, na podlagi katerih pridobimo rezultate, ki jih je mogoče nadalje uporabljati za določanje smernic za ohranjanje in varovanje kulturnega pomena spomenika, kar pripelje do prezen-tacije spomenika. Raziskave na spomenikih morajo bili zasnovane interdisciplinarno, zagotoviti je treba sodelovanje strokovnjakov glede na vrsto in obseg predvidenega dela. Zato morajo biti konservatorske raziskave primerno izbrane, da so strokovno utemeljene in uporabne, saj je prav od tega odvisno zau-panje investitorja v odgovorne strokovne odločitve konservatorjev in drugih udeleženih strokovnjakov. Cilj konservatorskih raziskav je pridobiti vedenje in znanje o spomeniku zato, da je mogoče sprejeti odgovorne odločitve o nameravanih posegih in ne nazadnje tudi izbrati najprimernejše posege, ki bodo spomeniku zagotovili izboljšanje stanja in nadaljnji obstoj. Zakon o varstvu kulturne dediščine (Ur. l. RS, št. 16/08, 34. člen) določa in nalaga v breme lastnika spomenika opravilo predhodnih raziskav; to je tudi v skladu z mednarodnimi priporočili, saj le na podlagi pridobljenih rezultatov raziskav lahko lastnik sprejme v sodelovanju s strokovnjaki odločitve o določitvi najprimernejših nujnih posegov san-acije ali restavriranja spomenika. Žal je v praksi korektno zastavljeno raziskovalno konservatorsko delo s stavbnimi raziskavami prej izjema kot pravilo. Čeprav ga priporočajo mednarodne listine, je k nam prinesel to novost šele novi zakon s preventivnimi raziskavami. Na podlagi izkušenj v konservatorstvu je treba izpostaviti še resen problem, ko je lastnika ali investitorja sicer mogoče prepričati o nujnosti in upravičenosti konservatorskih raziskav, a se žal zgodi, da projektant, ki naj bi pri svojem delu upošteval smernice konservatorskega načrta, te ignorira. Žal lahko ugotavljamo, da tak način dela na kulturni dediščini in spomenikih v naši praksi še ni utečen in uveljavljen. Nedvomno je eden izmed temeljnih problemov še vedno, kako ozavestiti lastnike kulturne dediščine ter jim predstaviti njihovo vlogo v skrbi za ohranjanje in varovanje kulturne dediščine, kar pa zahteva temeljite in poglobljene pristope na širokem področju delovanja vseh, ki se zavedajo tovrstne problematike. Pot do uspešne izvedbe obnovit-venih posegov na kulturnem spomeniku ali dediščini je dolga, saj gre za kompleksen proces, v katerem sodelujejo številni udeleženci, in ni odvisna le od konservatorske stroke. Pomembno odgovornost za uspešno opravljeno delo, ki je pri nas mogoče premalo izpostavljena, nosi investitor, ki ima v svojih rokah "škarje in platno" ter odloča o izboru projektantov in izvajalcev del. V sklepnem delu prispevka je treba izpostaviti nujnost objave, publiciranja in seznanjanja javnosti s stro-kovnim konservatorskim delom, saj to prispeva k odgovornem odnosu in ugledu konservatorske stroke. Interdisciplinarno zasnovano raziskovalno delo praviloma vključuje različne raziskovalne metode, od klasičnih do najsodobnejših, saj se le tako lahko konservatorska stroka razvija in posodablja. Konserva-tor mora biti seznanjen s klasičnimi tehnikami in materiali, prav tako pa tudi s sodobnimi pristopi in možnostmi obnove za raznovrstne posege, uporabo modernih tehnologij in sodobnih, na spomenikih preizkušenih materialov, s katerimi je mogoče spomenik varovati in ohranjati. Strokovnim delavcem bi morala biti omogočena predstavitev njihovega dela na različnih mednarodnih in domačih kongresih, ter možnosti izmenjave izkušenj in uveljavljanja usposobljenosti v slovenskem konservatorstvu, kar je v današnjem času enotnega evropskega prostora zelo pomembno izhodišče za nadaljnji razvoj konserva-torske stroke.

Opombe1 Pred letom 1999, ko je bila državna spomeniška služba centralizirana, je bil za območje občin Izola, Piran in Mestne občine Koper

pristojen Medobčinski zavod za varstvo naravne in kulturne dediščine Piran (MZVNKD Piran). 2 Šumi, Nace: Prenova Ljubljane, Ljubljana 1987, str. 15–16.3 Strokovne podlage za programske zasnove za območje Titov trg v Kopru, MZVNKD Piran, Piran 1987, inv. št. 1547, sign. 897 (tipko-

pis). 4 Konservatorski program za Titov trg v Kopru (obdelali Sonja Hoyer, Liljana Bojanić, Lidija Šircelj in Salvator Žitko), MZVNKD Piran,

Piran 1987, inv. št. 1051, sign. 519 (tipkopis). 5 Dopolnitve konservatorskega programa za prenovo Platee Communis, Titovega trga v Kopru (strokovna koordinatorica Sonja Ana

Hoyer, s sodelavci), MZVNKD Piran, Piran 1990, inv. št. 1304, sign. 692 (tipkopis).6 Grujić, Nada: Ranjina kuća u Dubrovniku od XV. do XX. stoljeća, Peristil XXXIX, Zagreb 1996, str. 69–84.7 Vse arhitekturne načrte so pripravljali sodelavci arhitekti, ki so strokovnjaki na področju poznavanja arhitekturne zgodovine, saj gre za

nazorno predstavitev stavbne zgodovine v grafični obliki.8 Stavbni kompleks Pretorske palače v Kopru, Dopolnitve konservatorskega programa za prenovo Platee Communis – Titovega trga II

(strokovna koordinatorica in odgovorna konservatorka Sonja Ana Hoyer, s sodelavci), MZVNKD Piran, Piran 1993, inv. št. 1727, sign. 1080 (tipkopis).

9 Posvetovanje je bilo v Kopru 9. junija 1994. Prispevki sodelujočih Naceta Šumija, Vojteha Ravnikarja, Draga Kosa, Sonje Ane Hoyer, Mojce Guček, Mojce Ravnik in Marka Stokina so objavljeni v reviji Annales 6/95, Koper 1995, str. 17–54.

10 Hoyer, Sonja Ana: Konservatorska problematika prenove Pretorske palače v Kopru, Annales 6/95, Koper 1995, str. 29–36.11 Kovač, Mojca Marjana: Umetnostni zgodovinar konservator kot nosilec projekta celovite obnove spomenika. Cerkev sv. Jurija v Piranu,

Slovenska umetnostna zgodovina. Tradicija, problemi, perspektive, Ljubljana 2004, str. 170–177. Kovač, Mojca: Metodologija obnove kulturnega spomenika. Cerkev sv. Jurija v Piranu (Metodologia di restauro in un edificio monumentale. La chiesa di San Giorgio a Pirano), Benetke (Venezia), VEGA Parco Scientifico Tecnologico di Venezia, str. 67–86.

12 Kompleks župnijske cerkve sv. Jurija, Piran: topografija, valorizacija, konservatorska in restavratorska dokumentacija s poudarkom na prezbiteriju (izvleček za komisijsko presojo) in sklic strokovne komisije za prezentacijo prezbiterija (odgovorna konservatorka Mojca Guček s sodelavci in Restavratorskim centrom), MZVNKD Piran, Piran 1991, inv. št. 2052, sign. 1317 (tipkopis).

13 Nedestruktivne konservatorske raziskave so potekale v več fazah, saj je bil primaren cilj ugotoviti na ožjem območju spomenika uspešnost raziskav in uporabnost rezultatov.

14 Guček, Mojca, Hudolin, Jernej, Stokin, Marko (1996): The conservation project and presentation of St. George's minster church in Pi-ran (Slovenia), ICOMOS, 11th General Assembley and international symposium "The Heritage and social Changes", Sofija, Bolgarija, 5.–9. oktober 1996, str. 484–494.

15 Obnova in prezentacija cerkve sv. Jurija v Piranu. Povzetek konservatorskih programov (odgovorna konservatorka Mojca Kovač s sodelavci), ZVKDS, OE Piran, Piran 2003, inv. št. 3903, sign. 3557 (tipkopis); Piran – cerkev sv. Jurija. Navodila za izdelavo popisa za prezentacijo ostenja (odg. konservatorka Mojca Kovač, sodelavka Irena Potočnik), ZVKDS, OE Piran, in RC, Ljubljana 2003, inv. št. 3905, sign. 3558 (tipkopis).

16 Kovač, Mojca Marjana: Konservatorski pristop k projektu statične sanacije cerkve sv. Jurija v Piranu, Varstvo spomenikov 42–43, Lju-bljana 2007, str. 98–108.

17 Titov trg in "trg" za rotundo Carmine v Kopru, Konservatorski program, MZVNKD Piran, Piran 1997, inv. št. 2609, sign. 1648 (tip-kopis).

18 Guček, Mojca, Janežič, Miran, Piccolo, Mauro, Stokin, Marko: Koper – Platea Communis: beneath the medieval square: new ap-proaches in Slovenian conservation policy. Photogrammetry in architecture, archaeology and urban conservation, CIPA International symposium, Göteborg 1997.

19 Kultura na narodnostno mešanem ozemlju Slovenske Istre (ed. Hoyer, Sonja Ana), Razprave FF, Ljubljana 2002.20 Koper, Santorijeva 9, Konservatorski program za prenovo nekdanjega servitskega samostana v Kopru (izdelala Hoyer, Sonja Ana s

sodelavci), MZVNKD Piran, Piran 2000, inv. št. 4285, sign. 2110 (topkopis). 21 Hoyer, Sonja Ana: Servitski samostan v Kopru Santa Maria delle Grazie (1453–1792) – dokumentacija za konservatorski program

prenove, Kultura na narodnostno mešanem ozemlju Slovenske Istre, Razprave FF, Ljubljana 2002, str. 167–189.22 Navodila 1–6 (izdelal Janez Mikuž s sodelavci), potrjena so bila na strokovnem svetu ZVKDS 10. 12. 2002 in začela veljati 1. 1. 2003,

ZVKDS, Ljubljana 2002 (tipkopis). 23 Pirkovič, Jelka: Osnovni pojmi in zasnova spomeniškega varstva v Sloveniji, Vestnik IX, Ljubljana 1993.24 Navodilo št. 1: Imenovanje odgovornih konservatorjev/restavratorjev in delovnih skupin za delo s kulturnimi spomeniki državnega

pomena ter opredelitev njihovih nalog.25 Navodilo št. 2: Navodilo za izdelavo ocene stanja kulturnega spomenika.26 Navodilo št. 4: Navodila in normativi za izdelavo arhitektonskih posnetkov objektov kulturne dediščine.27 Navodilo št. 3: Navodilo za izdelavo projektne naloge za posege v kulturni spomenik.28 Navodilo št. 5: Navodilo za izdelavo konservatorsko-restavratorskega programa za posege v spomenik.29 Navodilo št. 6: Gradbenorestavratorske faze v procesu obnove kulturnih spomenikov.30 Palača Totto ex Gavardo (EŠD 8302), Koper – Kidričeva 22, 22a in 22b. Konservatorski program za celovito obnovo in prezentacijo

palače (odg. konservatorka Mojca MarjAna Kovač in sodelavci), ZVKDS, OE Piran, Piran 2003, inv. št. 3831, sign. 2497 (tipkopis).31 Koper, Kidričeva ulica 22, 22a, 22b. Konservatorski in restavratorski projekt (odg. konservatorka Mojca MarjAna Kovač in sodelavci),

ZVKDS, OE Piran, Piran 2004, inv. št. 4002, sign. 3628 (tipkopis).32 Izdelavo poškodb in vzrokov poškodb je na podlagi vizualnega pregleda in italijanskih normativov in standardov izdelala Agnese Babič,

arhitektka konservatorka, ki je študij dokončala na Univerzi v Benetkah.33 Feiffer, Cesare: L'aspetto progettuale tra teoria e prassi. "Il progetto conservazione: preliminare, definitivo, esecutivo". "Progettare il

restauro", april 1999–junij 1999. Raccolta degli atti del corso (uredili: Manfrin, R., Pegorin, D., Simioni, G., Stocco, B.), Architettura e strutture, Laboratorio restauro, Padova 2000, str. 268–308.

34 Pirkovič, Jelka: Osnovni pojmi in zasnova spomeniškega varstva v Sloveniji, Vestnik IX, Ljubljana 1993.35 Interna navodila ZVKDS so objavljena na internetu v sklopu intraneta. Predstavljen primer obravnava secesijsko Urbančevo hišo v

Ljubljani. Ker je to specifičen spomenik, predstavljenega modela ni mogoče uporabiti, ne da bi ga bilo treba prirediti za drug nepremični kulturni spomenik.

36 Palača Kreljeva 6 v Kopru, konservatorski program za prenovo (odgovorna konservatorka Mojca Guček s sodelavci), MZVNKD Piran, Piran 1993, inv. št. 1936, sign. 1239 (tipkopis).

238


239


37 Guček, Mojca: Spomeniškovarstvena izhodišča za prenovo palače na Kreljevi 6 v Kopru, Annales 6/95, Koper 1995, str. 37–42.38 Odkritja poslikave so bila predstavljena na razstavi v palači na Kreljevi 6 v Kopru oktobra 1997 in v Ljubljani v Spomeniškovarstvenem

centru na Salendrovi ulici 4 marca 1999.39 Sajinčič, Mojmir: Statični elaborat za dopolnitev konservatorskega programa Koper – palača Kreljeva 6 (EŠD 254), Gradbeno-fizično

poročilo: Opis poškodb z njihovimi vzroki, Izdelava matematičnega modela zgradbe, Preverba napetosti v ohranjenih nosilnih elemen-tih, temeljih in temeljnih tleh, Opredelitev posegov po sklopih – kot navodilo za projekte PGD in PZI, v Koper – palača Kreljeva 6 (EŠD 246). Konservatorski program (konservatorski načrt), ZVKDS OE Piran, Piran 2007, inv. št. 4745, sign. 4110 (tipkopis).

40 Koper – palača Kreljeva 6 (EŠD 246). Konservatorski program (konservatorski načrt), ZVKDS OE Piran, Piran 2007, inv. št. 4745, sign. 4110 (tipkopis).

41 Zupančič, Matej: Vloga statične sanacije pri obnovi objektov arhitekturne dediščine, Varstvo spomenikov 42–43, Ljubljana 2007, str. 228–245. Prispevek povzema listino ICOMOS, Osnovna načela za analize, konserviranje in statično obnovo objektov arhitekturne dediščine, ki je bila potrjena na 14. generalni skupščini v Zimbabveju leta 2003.

42 Guček, Mojca: Koper, nekdanja frančiškanska cerkev, v: Dioecesis Justinopolitana. Spomeniki gotske umetnosti na območju koprske škofije, Koper 2000, str. 107–108.

43 Avramidou, Nina: Restauro della ex chiesa di San Francesco a Capodistria, Firence 2007, inv. št. 4588, sign. 4014 (tipkopis). Maio, Benedetta: Rilievo geometrico e raporto tecnologico, Firence 2007, inv. št. 4759, sign. 4121 (tipkopis). Maio, Mario: Indagini diagnos-tiche ex chiesa di San Francesco in Capodistria, Firence 2008, inv. št. 4760, sign. 4122 (tipkopis).

44 Sajinčič, Mojmir: Elaborat: dokumentiranje ostrešja z vrisom poškodb in oceno vzrokov poškodb za objekt nekdanja cerkev sv. Frančiška v Kopru, O/II-2800-07.

45 Koper – cerkev sv. Frančiška Asiškega (EŠD 8345). Konservatorski načrt (odgovorna konservatorka Mojca Kovač s sodelavci), ZVKDS, OE Piran, Piran 2008, inv. št. 4768, sign. 4123 (tipkopis).

1 – Koper, servitski samostan Santorijeva 9 (foto: Jaka Jeraša, 1999)

1 – Koper, Servite monastery at Santorijeva 9 (photo: Jaka Jeraša, 1999)

2 – Koper, Titov trg (foto: Jaka Jeraša, 1999)

2 – Koper, Titov trg (photo: Jaka Jeraša, 1999)

240


241


3 – Piran, kompleks cerkve sv. Jurija (foto: Jaka Jeraša, 1997)

3 – Piran, complex of the Church of St. George (photo: Jaka Jeraša, 1997)

4 – Koper, palača Kreljeva 6, dvoriščna fasada (foto: Zdenko Bombek, 1994)

4 – Koper, palace at Kreljeva 6, courtyard façade (photo: Zdenko Bombek, 1994)

5 – Koper, Titov trg (foto: Jaka Jeraša, 1997)

5 – Koper, Titov trg (photo: Jaka Jeraša, 1997)

242


243


6 – Piran, Tartinijev trg in kompleks cerkve sv. Jurija (foto: Jaka Jeraša, 1992)

6 – Piran, Tartinijev trg and complex of the Church of St. George (photo: Jaka Jeraša, 1992)

7 – Koper, stolnica Marijinega vnebovzetja in krstilnica sv. Janeza Krstnika (foto: Jaka Jeraša, 1997)

7 – Koper, Cathedral of the Assumption and Baptistery of St. John the Baptist (photo: Jaka Jeraša, 1997)

244


245


Mojca MarjAna Kovač

Conservation Research – the Foundations of a Conservation Programme/Plan

Review of the development of conservation research work in the Piran Regional Unit

Key words: conservation research, conservation programme, conservation plan, conservation and restoration project

Introduction

The fundamental task of the conservation profession is to preserve immovable cultural monuments and heritage in accordance with modern conservation doctrine and taking into account international conventions and recommendations. One condition for the proper preservation of all types of monu-ment and heritage is study and research, which generally includes various professions operating in the area of conservation towards the same goal – protecting and preserving a monument. Research work in conservation therefore represents the active component that affords it an interdisciplinary breadth of operation and the possibility of linking up with related disciplines in the humanities, technology and natural science. Research is the motive force of the profession without which we could not envisage its development. Planned research work must have set objectives within the framework of the conservation profession, and these objectives are most commonly related to complex interventions which the monu-ments or heritage require for protection and preservation; this includes renovation, rehabilitation and the presentation of monuments and heritage.The first tasks in conservation work, regardless of what type of conservation profession it falls into, en-compass a familiarisation with the monument or heritage, especially as regards its existing state, and the conservator supplements this by studying modifications and encroachments in the near or distant past. To be successful, the conservator must determine the scope and level of the necessary documentation of the existing state of the monument or heritage involved. His task is undoubtedly demanding and re-sponsible, since he himself generally selects the methodological approach to the monument or heritage, and the condition for this is that his knowledge of the monument must be excellent. Although the work of the conservator is based on familiarisation with the existing state of the monument, one of his funda-mental tasks is to supplement this knowledge through evaluation and new findings. For this reason it is important to note that the conservator must be familiarised with modifications from the past that have left traces on the monument or heritage and are at the same time a constituent part of the structure’s history. Through various professions and methods it is possible to study the constructional develop-ment of the monument. Studying historical and archive sources represents the start of research work and is a condition for determining the values we define on the basis of the time scale of the monument or heritage. Although it can be seen that the evaluation of a monument or heritage is a simple working

Mag Mojca MarjAna Kovač, Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Piran Re-gional Unit

procedure, determining the guidelines for preserving the values of the monument or heritage is a highly responsible task, since it must be founded on professional research. Through a range of necessary re-search, the conservator selects and identifies the types of research that are necessary for obtaining results and will be useful for conservation work. Although in its substance the conservation plan represents a highly heterogeneous task that should be adapted to the type of monument, the approach to working with the monument is generally individual. The purpose of this paper is to present the initial components of research conservation work in selected cases of individual immovable monuments in the area of jurisdiction of the Piran Regional Unit of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia,1 for which conservation programmes were elaborated. Common to all the cases presented was a single objective, which was to gain better knowl-edge of the monument through research, in order to be able to establish with the proper responsibility conservation and protection guidelines for the monument as binding conditions in project design. The review of work covers a period of two decades, from the end of the 1980s to the present day, and the work involved the leading monuments in the area of Slovenian Istria, including both artistic and archi-tectural monuments of a secular and sacral character and urban environments and squares.

Conservation programmes

The conservation programme is the most important elaborate formulated for an individual structure or group of structures of cultural heritage and monuments, since it contains all the knowledge of the monument or heritage and also the results of study and research on the selected structure of cultural heritage. In the concluding part of the conservation programme the objective needs to be highlighted – this means the guidelines for protecting and preserving essential elements that define the structure as a monument and which must be taken into account in formulating project documentation for the intended interventions in the cultural heritage structure.Within the review of efforts addressing the formulation of conservation documentation for the renewal of monuments and heritage, special attention should be paid to a tiny booklet on the renewal of Lju-bljana, in which Šumi presents the fundamental procedures necessary for the formulation of a conserva-tion programme.2 He divides the production of a conservation programme into two phases: preparatory and programme design. The initial phase of work involves collecting data on the location, characteristics, level of preservation and integrity of the monument. The processes of professional work encompass inventories, records, analysis, valuation and categorisation. The second phase of professional work in-volves the production of programme and project documentation, which is fundamental to the execu-tion of interventions on the monument. Those interventions that are appropriate for the monument are protection (conservation), treatment (rehabilitation) and renovation (restoration). The conservation programme embraces all the aforementioned procedures, since these fall within the system of necessary measures with which we are protecting the monument from further destruction, extending its existence and presenting it appropriately. Among the first cases dealt with on the basis of the presented methodological approach, experts from the then Intermunicipality Institute for the Protection of Natural and Cultural Heritage (MZVNKD) of Piran worked on Titov trg [Tito Square] in Koper. The elaborate of the expert basis for programme use established a starting point for arrangement of this exceptionally historic urban space.3 By studying the one-time importance of the main city square, called Platea Communis, characterised by its unique col-umned courtyard appearance, its important urban role was highlighted. This main city square is also as-sociated with the buildings that surround it, so these too were included in the conservation programme, and guidelines were formulated for them in order to determine appropriate programme use. The cultural monuments that surround Titov trg were constructed as the most important buildings of the city, so it would be appropriate to assign to them once again prestigious cultural, political and public activities in the central city area. The guidelines in the aforementioned elaborate served to establish starting points for the renovation of key Koper monuments around the main square. The fundamental conditions established for each individual monument were the formulation of a conservation programme and the execution of conservation research.

246


247


Soon after this elaborate, in the same year the first conservation programme was formulated, and this made a detailed inventory and evaluation of the main city squares: Titov trg and Brolo.4 Based on a study of historical sources, it was possible to trace the historical development of the buildings of the main city square in various ages and style periods. The structures that make up the square are associated with the development of this urban space, so the historical development of these structures is vitally important. The elaborate produced for the central city square of Koper involved dealing with the main structures creating this space, and at the same time these are the main public city buildings of a secular and sacral character: the Praetorian Palace, the Foresteria hostelry, the Armeria (armoury), the Log-gia and the Cathedral of the Assumption and its bell tower. In the elaborate, a detailed inventory and valuation of these structures was supplemented with guidelines as to which building and archaeological research should be continued in order to uncover high-quality architectural elements of the monuments that are anticipated as being concealed beneath layers of plaster and walls and in the floors beneath the existing flooring. Since the then state of the buildings, which were once the most important structures for the city admin-istration, was already highly critical owing to inappropriate use and maintenance, the owner of these monuments decided to start the systematic planning of renewal. Among the first monument buildings that were on the list requiring renovation were the Praetorian Palace, the Foresteria and Armeria. All three monuments represented for the owner, the City of Koper, buildings to which they sought to restore their original function, since it would be possible to use them for prestigious protocol purposes. The preliminary elaborates that were examined set out conservation research, which was carried out and processed in a supplementary conservation programme.5 The complex conservation research encom-passed buildings research with probes, the results of which supplemented the more precisely formulated guidelines for renovation of the monument and preservation of the highest-quality architectural con-structional and design elements of the monument from various style periods. In those places where it was necessary to intensify and expand research work, further guidelines were determined with a proposal for carrying out the necessary supplementary research. Owing to the extensive nature of the conservation probe research, which at the time were among the largest-scale in this area, it was conducted systemati-cally and in cooperation with experts from Croatia, who had at that time acquired more extensive experi-ence, having performed research in a similar way on buildings in Dubrovnik.6 An important common finding was that right at the beginning of the conservation research, there is a need to compile precise ar-chitectural documentation of the existing state of the monument. In cooperation with our Croatian col-leagues we confirmed the finding that a measurement and sketch of the architectural reproduction of the monument requires a very good knowledge of the monument, so cooperation is required from experts qualified for such work.7 The methodology of probe research, which was performed on the buildings of the Praetorian Palace, the Foresteria and Armeria, was designed on the basis of our own experiences and in cooperation with the experiences of the Croatian experts. Success is guaranteed only where there is the interdisciplinary cooperation of various professions selected and involved in the specific task. The project highlighted the experiences and findings of the Croatian colleagues, that the people best suited to lead an expert team were art historians, while it is essential for them to collaborate with structural engineers, restorers, architects, archaeologists, historians and others. The fundamental renovation of the Praetorian Palace required enhanced research of this key monu-ment, which closes the southern side of Titov trg, so on the basis of extensive building research a further supplement to the conservation programme was ordered for the constructional complex of the palace and research of the palace floor.8 The purpose of formulating a supplement to the conservation pro-gramme was to determine more precise guidelines for preserving and protecting the stylistic architectural features of the monument and to determine the principles that must be followed in formulating project documentation. The research work served as a basis for supplementary knowledge of the monument, which was important for its continued existence. The conservation programme includes the results of conservation research work, supplemented with an interpretation by experts from different professions working in the group. By 1994 conservators from the then Piran Intermunicipal Institute for the Protection of Natural and Cultural Heritage had already gained experience in the area of research work and the elaboration of con-servation programmes, so that they were able to present their findings at the symposium Architecture

and Renewal in the Koper Area.9 The main topic was a presentation of research in the conservation field and inclusion of the results of research as a guideline for selecting appropriate interventions in the historical substance of the monument. The concluding part of the consultation established the conserva-tion programme with its guidelines and conditions as the key elaborate that must be taken into account in formulating project documentation. A presentation of the progress of the interdisciplinary research conservation work on the Praetorian Palace and a determination of the importance of finds in the con-text of evaluating the multi-layered historical architecture were set out as the key conservation starting points. In the concluding part of the conservation programme a presentation was made of the high-qual-ity architectural elements of the Praetorian Palace and the possibility of enhancing the monument with a modern interpretation of missing monument qualities.10 Despite the effort invested in research work and the endeavours of conservators, this difference of separating up the old and the new, which ranks as one of the fundamental principles of modern conservation doctrine around the world, was not consistently implemented in the final form. Since the conservation research work on the Church of St. George in Piran has already been the topic of various presentations in professional consultations and publications, only the key segments of the work will be presented in this paper.11 In the first conservation programme, which involved the coopera-tion of experts from different professions, an approach to the comprehensive renovation of the church was planned in the initial phase of work.12 This was based on conservation research, since the objective was to determine not just the damage to the monument, but also the causes of this damage; indeed only in this way was it possible to make a successful selection of the appropriate methods for the necessary ap-proaches to planning the renovation of the monument. Although owing to financial reasons the research phase was dragged out, the target objectives were achieved. The causes of the destruction and damage to the church were identified, even though the scope of the research was diminished. The research work triggered a dilemma over the extent of the research and the sense of using non-destructive research before further destructive “classical” probe archaeological and architectural conservation research. Non-destructive research could at that time be ensured under the financing of projects by the Ministry of Culture.13 An inspection of the church floor and surroundings was performed with a georadar on certain composite units. Since the research was successful, extensive archaeological probing was not necessary. The results of inspecting the church walls by means of thermography were useful, so extensive prob-ing of the building was not necessary.14 Destructive probing research was limited to the most critical wall surfaces. Owing to the extensiveness of the comprehensive renovation, conservation programmes were formulated for individual sections of the building; these programmes were later merged into the conservation programme for the comprehensive renovation and presentation of the Piran Church of St. George for the purpose of documentation attached to the public tender for the selection of contractor.15 Conservation guidelines and conditions were taken into account in the project documentation for the comprehensive renovation of the church.16 Despite the holding of a public tender for granting works to a selected contractor, which was then a condition for cofinancing from the Ministry of Culture for a monument protection project, works were not carried out under the programme of comprehensive renovation of the church; the Piran church has therefore still only partly been structurally rehabilitated. Unfortunately, too, the structural rehabilitation works performed on the nave of the monument were not carried out in accordance with project documentation; there is thus a well-founded suspicion that the structural rehabilitation works carried out on the monument have not been of any benefit. What is worrying is the fact that the conservation profession has no interest in determining whether the struc-tural rehabilitation was appropriate or perhaps even damaging to the monument. In the intensified expert work of Piran conservators, the conservation programme formulated in 1996 for the arrangement of Titov trg in Koper, expanded to the area of the square for the Baptistery of St. John the Baptist, represents a continuation of the conservation research work set out and the use of non-destructive methods.17 Owing to the exceptionally sensitive area and the quality of the city environment, destructive research methods could not be performed. Formulation of the conservation programme required georadar research on the floor surface of the main city square and the area by the baptistery. For the main city square the research had to be supplemented by a thermographic inspection of the pavement and a precise recording of the existing state of the flooring surface had to be made; this comprises massive slabs of grey sandstone in a combination with white stone, in which there are

248


249


just individual designed elements.18 The precise recording of the existing state was then supplemented with all the damage to the stone slabs; on the basis of this technical recording it was possible to envis-age the extensiveness of the rehabilitation and renovation of the square’s pavement, which was also the goal in the assignment of supplementing the conservation programme. A georadar inspection of the square facilitated an assessment and check of the stratigraphy of the ground and possible finds under the flooring of the square. Despite the extensive conservation documentation and research on Titov trg, the programme to renovate the main city square of Koper has still not been drawn up.The efforts of conservators from the Piran Intermunicipality Institute for the Protection of Natural and Cultural Heritage in the area of research and the formulation of conservation programmes were included between 1995 and 1998 in the research project Culture in the ethnically mixed territory of Slovenian Istria, which was conducted at the Science Institute of the Faculty of Arts.19 If we focus simply on the area of conservation work, we may state that various professions in the field of cultural and natural heri-tage collaborated on the project: archaeology, history, art history, architecture, ethnology and geography. The projects of various professions presented in the publication and operating in the conservation field deal with the formulation of conservation programmes for selected cultural monuments and heritage; these are the Roman villa in Simon’s Bay, the Colonus settlement of farmers working their lord’s land at Polje 29 above Izola, the Church of the Virgin of Alletto in Izola and the Servite monastery in Koper. Conservation programmes were formulated in accordance with the established concept from the prepa-ration of documentation, the necessary research, principles and guidelines for the production of project documentation through to the execution of works. Although the publication caused no great stir, in the conservation field it represents pioneering work and an affirmation of scientific research work.Soon after the declaration of the Koper Servite monastery as a monument of national importance, a conservation programme was produced in 2000 for renovation and presentation of this exceptional mo-nastic architecture, which despite modifications had been preserved with its highest-quality architectural elements.20 Soon after its dissolution, the monastery complex was used as a city hospital. An important principle of the fundamental renovation in the conservation programme was the determining of an ap-propriate purpose, this being specifically for the needs of the newly founded University of Primorska. The “classically” designed conservation programme, on the model of the preparatory phase, comprised in substance an inventory with fundamental art history topography, historical development of the build-ing, analysis of the style and typological characteristics and evaluation, which in the final phase defined a categorisation of the monument as a starting point for comprehensive renovation and presentation.21 Since the monastery complex has been vacant and without any function for over a decade, it is not being maintained and is deteriorating. Although its new purpose has already been identified for several years, no progress has been made on the start of renovation and further conservation research. Since the methodology and content of the conservation programme were not precisely defined in terms of binding substantive elements, in 2002 internal instructions were produced for expert work on the monuments.22 Although the instructions for the production of conservation documentation have broad scope and are not systematically governed in certain sections, the work of conservators and the establish-ing of a group of experts were clearly defined, and this included addressing the interdisciplinary nature of the approach to work on the monuments and taking into account the then construction legislation. The basic concepts serving to define the tasks of experts were set out in accordance with the concept of the working of the conservation profession, which in certain procedures had already been thoroughly addressed by J. Pirkovič.23 The fundamental tasks of the conservator working to produce a conservation programme include documenting, studying, researching, interpreting and evaluating, and as a conclu-sion to the conservation programme, guidelines for preserving the monumental nature and guidelines for key tasks on the monument, in other words rehabilitation and presentation of the monument. The objective of the elaborate was guidelines which the project designers observe in formulating proj-ect documentation. Since Instructions 1-6 were not compulsory starting points for the formulation of conservation programmes, their production and content were left to the judgement of the individual conservator. The levels of working on conservation programmes therefore differ widely, specifically both in content and in the collaboration of a range of experts. The content of the conservation programme is left simply to the responsibility of individual conservators, since it is they who are responsible for creat-ing the working group and determining the programme of work. The instructions deal with guidelines

in the appointing of the group of collaborating experts, whose responsibility is established hierarchically, and among whom the leading conservator has the main role.24 The role of this person is comparable to the role played under construction legislation by the project leader. Despite clearly established guide-lines, the instruction requiring the assessment of the state of the cultural monument has unfortunately not been widely implemented, as was planned, although such assessment would be urgently needed for monuments.25 The instruction dealing with the documenting of immovable cultural heritage, however, is one of the most commonly applied, since architectural documentation of the existing state of the monument is fundamental to all further interventions on the monument.26 Equally, there has been no inclusion in regular conservation practice of the instruction setting out guidelines for the elaboration of project tasks for interventions on a cultural monument.27 The instruction for the formulation of a conservation and restoration programme for interventions on a cultural monument, alongside an inven-tory of the monument, addresses extensive analyses of the state of the monument, reports on works per-formed, the purpose and historical development and the results of research and necessary construction and restoration works.28 The implementing phase of the work covers instructions for the restorative con-struction phase of works, which is dealt with in construction terms and in connection with construction legislation.29 Despite the detail and complexity of the starting points for the instructions, in many cases the conservation programme represented the fundamental document for the monument or heritage on the basis of which the project designers were more or less successful. In the final analysis it is possible to determine that the instructions address the monument or heritage comprehensively, since they take into account not just the designed architectural elements of the buildings, but also the constructional sections that are vitally important in protecting and preserving the cultural heritage and in determining guidelines for urgent rehabilitation and restoration interventions.Based on the presented internal instructions, in 2003 a conservation programme was formulated for the comprehensive renovation and presentation of the Koper palace of Totto ex Gavardo in Kidričeva Street.30 The exceptional nature of the palace is represented by its long street façade, which linked several smaller medieval buildings into a new shape for the structure. The palace was built in the middle of the 18th century in such a way that the symmetrically planned façade drew upon the typical characteristics of Baroque architectural design. Through adaptations by the architect Edo Mihevc, the front of the pal-ace for its full length along the street was converted into a covered street passage, which fundamentally changed the concept of the palace’s design. The characteristics of the urban palace are confirmed by the horizontally emphasised reception and function space of the upper storey – piano nobile – the vertical emphasis of the architecture with its central section intended for receptions and functions, where there is the main entrance, and the connection of the palace to the garden at the back, which was severely truncated following the construction of new apartment blocks and high-rise buildings. The main section is the central communication hub of the palace, and at the same time this section is also the most public and prestigious part of the palace, with its staircase and entrance hall opening up onto the former palace garden. The east and west wings of the palace underwent drastic modification with the implementation of the new purpose, and this did not take account of the qualities and characteristics of the burgher palace. A close inspection of the existing state of the palace, creation of an architectural picture and probe research yielded the highest-quality remnants of the former publicly prestigious palace, which are preserved to the greatest extent in the central section. Only on the basis of the obtained research results was it possible to formulate a final evaluation of the monument. The investor behind the comprehensive renovation of the palace accepted the proposal of the chief conservator, whereby in accordance with in-ternational recommendations the conservation programme would include external experts, a structural engineer, for supplementing the conservation guidelines to determine approaches and the possibility of structural rehabilitation taking into account preservation of the monument’s values. The importance and applicability of the elaborated conservation programme was recognised by the investor, who in the fol-lowing year ordered the design of a conservation and restoration project for comprehensive renovation and presentation of the central, reception and function section of the palace.31 Design of the conserva-tion and restoration project required the full uncovering of wall paintings, since only in this way was it possible to calculate precisely the painted surfaces of the walls, the reconstruction of damaged sections of painting and the removal of individual preserved fragments of high-quality painting. Inventories were made for restoring the entrance hall with stucco work, which needs to be reconstructed. The architectural

250


251


documentation of the existing state was supplemented with cross sections and views of all the reception and function rooms of the palace, and these were processed through the entry of data on damage and the causes of the damage.32 The art history topography and valuation made for each room or space of the central part of the palace was supplemented by a catalogue of the highest-quality architectural elements of the palace. The substantive supplementation of the conservation and restoration project design was further supplemented on the basis of the methodology of project design for cultural heritage in use in Italy, where they highlight and address in parallel the conservation approach to architectural renovation with structural consolidation.33 In collaboration with a structural engineering expert, precise guidelines were formulated for the most appropriate structural rehabilitation interventions, including taking into account conservation guidelines for the central part of the palace, which with its new purpose will retain the reception and prestige function of the palace, and public access will thus be ensured. The set task of designing a conservation and restoration project, in cooperation with the investor and project designer, successfully delved into the area of producing project documentation, since the project was included in the project documentation for execution, which is at the same time facilitated by construction legisla-tion. In conclusion we may state that the successful result of the task is only ensured by good cooperation with the investor; the investor is a key partner in cooperation with the group of experts, among which the chief conservator is equal to the project designers. Owing to the lengthy process of settling the own-ership relations for the monument, execution of the project has not yet begun.

Conservation plan With the entry into force of the new Cultural Heritage Protection Act (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 16/2008) the cultural protection conditions covered by Article 29 include the con-servation plan; this is an expert document provided by law that in substance is equal to the previous conservation programme, although in the previous Cultural Heritage Protection Act (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 7/99) it was not so clearly established. Article 29 goes on to make the following connection between the two cultural protection conditions: the performance of preliminary research and elaboration of a conservation plan. Both conditions are at the same time the fundamental tasks of the conservator that enable the obtaining of cultural protection consent for interventions in a monument or heritage, so it is right that they are addressed as mutually dependent. The elaboration of the conservation plan and performance of preliminary research should be classed as cultural protection conditions whenever there is a justified suspicion that the piece of real estate in question conceals un-discovered elements of heritage that are threatened by the intended interventions. The legal provisions enable the prescribing of a conservation plan whenever the intended interventions on a monument are extensive and their aim goes beyond maintenance, since the interventions will enable the improvement of the state of the real estate and thus ensure protection and preservation of values that are culturally important. Such interventions, which are aimed at rehabilitating the preserved culturally important assets of the monument or heritage, inevitably require encroachment on the structural elements of the monument or heritage, so the prior formulation of a conservation plan is necessary. Although the internal instructions for producing conservation documentation that have been valid since 2003 are extensive and not systematic, the work of the chief conservator and the group of experts, who in the process of dealing with the monument research it, draw up the necessary documentation and collaborate with each other, is clearly and responsibly set out. Since conservation work is an interdis-ciplinary profession, the requirements were established for determining a group of experts from differ-ent professions, who are selected depending on the type of monument or heritage. The basic concepts serving to define the tasks of experts were set out in accordance with the concept of the working of the conservation profession, the development of which in certain procedures had already been thoroughly addressed by Jelka Pirkovič.34 The fundamental tasks of the conservator making up the conservation plan include documenting, studying, research, interpreting and evaluating the monument in question, and this leads to the obligatory concluding work in the conservation plan, to the guidelines for preserving and protecting the cultural importance of the monument. The guidelines for preserving and protecting the cultural importance of the monument can be compared with the previous conservation programme,

which determined the presentation of the monument. In order for the conservation plan to be usable for the owner and project designers, all unknown elements in connection with the existing state of the monument must be eliminated, and the cultural importance of the monument must be determined. A condition for success in formulation of the conservation plan is ensured by the research phase of the conservation work, since without the necessary research on the piece of real estate it is not possible to establish tangible guidelines and conditions with which it is possible to ensure protection of the quali-ties that define the monument. The conclusion of the conservation programme or plan is represented by those conditions that are written such that they steer the project designers towards seeking out ap-propriate interventions and solutions which will not threaten or destroy the historical substance of the monument and its authenticity. In the conclusion it is necessary to highlight the urgent need for pre-sentation of the monument, further maintenance and the involvement of the monument in actual use. The recently adopted Cultural Heritage Protection Act (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 16/08) introduces new terminology for expert expressions, although unfortunately there seems to be no mention of presentation of the monument, which ranks among the most important goals of a diverse range of interventions that are necessary for monuments and through which monuments are protected and preserved.Based on internal instructions for the elaboration of a conservation plan35, in December 2007 a supple-ment to the conservation programme was drawn up for the palace at Kreljeva 6 in Koper. A conser-vation programme was drawn up for this important Baroque palace in Koper, which was researched through probing of the walls of the main function and reception rooms back in 1992 and 1993.36 In the first conservation programme the emphasis was on thorough documentation of the existing state of the palace. The architectural picture that was made up included the results of building research, which was at that time extremely important for determining the way ahead for renovation and presentation of the palace.37 Preserved under the layers of plaster and whitewash were Renaissance and Baroque wall paintings in the oldest, still Gothic section of the palace, and in the main hall and the magnificent Baroque staircase. The wall paintings of the palace were entirely uncovered and protected only after the formulation of the conservation programme.38 Unfortunately the research work was at that time limited to just uncovering paintings in the former salons, which is not sufficient to determine guidelines for the overall renovation of the monument, including the determining of an appropriate purpose for the palace. Since the level of material and constructional preservation of the palace is in a critical state, in order to establish key conservation conditions it was necessary to ensure the cooperation of an expert in the field of structural engineering; in the elaborate of the structural assessment this expert set out guidelines to define the selection of possible rehabilitation measures which would not threaten the cultural value of the monument.39 Since the conservation programme was not finalised in 1992, it was necessary to supplement it with guidelines steering the project designers towards seeking appropriate solutions for rehabilitation of the existing constructional segments of the palace.40 This supplement was produced according to the instructions of the conservation plan and dealt with the palace in terms of an integrated approach to renovation and presentation of the monument. An updated approach required a new photographic documentation of the palace, while the architectural picture from 1992 was digital-ised. The palace brought together older and smaller structures at the existing location, being composed of five different parts. By the central, highest section are the lateral wings of the palace, and these each have a courtyard extension. The exceptional nature of the palace can also be seen in its incomplete ap-pearance, which lends it an unusual character. In accordance with the instructions, the palace was dealt with as a complete monument, with attention being focused on all its details, since at the same time it is a highly compartmentalised architectural monument, although its basic design is typical of a Baroque palace. The disjointed and compartmentalised nature of the monument had an influence on the work relating to the cultural importance of the palace as a whole and as a combination of the treatment of individual rooms, which have diverse cultural importance. The catalogue presents the highest-quality elements of the palace with details that need to be taken into account in the design of the conservation and restoration project. The conclusion to this paper looks at a presentation of the final conservation plan, which takes into account not just research experience gained to date, but also international recommendations. One of the most widespread and established international recommendations is the ICOMOS charter dealing

252


253


with the structural renovation of cultural heritage buildings, although this must be based on obligatory preliminary research of the architecture and construction.41 In line with the latest conservation meth-odological approach, work was performed in relation to the former Minorite Church of St. Francis in Koper. This church is classed as one of the oldest Gothic sacral buildings, which in its layout and construction falls within the typological group of churches of mendicant orders. The church, which was erected between 1266 and 1268, is at the same time an exceptional type, since it used the Bernardine ground plan, which right in this church has been reduced. Instead of a transept set between the nave and the end of the choir, the church has a tri-choral end, and this extends beyond the breadth of the nave.42 Despite later Baroque modification of the nave, with the installing of a level ceiling painted with medal-lions and decorated with stucco work, the church retained its Gothic character. The church lost its original sacral function at the beginning of the 19th century, so all church furnishings were removed from it. Even by the 1930s it was being used as a school gym and thus it remained right up until 1990, when the church had to be closed owing to danger. Since then the monument has not been maintained and has been deteriorating very rapidly. Its state today is very critical, so the owner of the monument, the City of Koper, opted for comprehensive renovation and presentation, with the aim of using the church as a venue for cultural and protocol events. Owing to the critical state of the Baroque ceiling and the danger of the paintings and medallions coming away from their base, reinforcement of the Baroque ceiling was immediately required; these works were carried out in 1991 and 1992. Despite a short break, in subsequent years probe research was conducted in both choir chapels. At the same time as the restoration and probe interventions, a conservation pro-gramme was drawn up, and the purpose of this was to determine the principles guiding rehabilitation, renovation and presentation of the former church, together with guidelines for determining appropriate use of the monument. Despite the efforts of the user of the former church to get the renovation of the monument included in the Ministry of Culture cofinancing programme, to date this has not happened. The state of preservation of the Minorite church became increasingly critical, since the monument was not maintained. Only towards the end of 2006 was it possible to design a programme of the most urgent conservation research, and to start this research. The aim of the research work was to determine precisely the preservation level of the construction and materials of the monument, in order to enable selection of the most appropriate rehabilitation measures. In cooperation with Italian experts, research was con-ducted in two phases: on the basis of visual inspection and using instruments.43 Owing to the poor state of the monument’s preservation, it was necessary to compile appropriate architectural documentation of the existing state in digital form, which was also necessary for the entry of data on the preservation level of materials and construction. After cleaning of the loft, a close inspection of the wooden construction of the roofing and ceiling was required, and this was performed by a structural engineer.44 Based on the results of research conducted on the monument, and taking into account the collected historical material and a review of documentation on essential intervention works, kept in the archives of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Piran Regional Unit, in line with new instructions a conservation plan was drawn up.45 Although the proposed instructions do not require the implementation of the necessary conservation research which make it possible to determine the guidelines for preserving and protecting the cultural importance of the monument, the conservation plan is supplemented with all the conservation research carried out, since only in this way is it possible to establish professionally grounded guidelines, which are a condition for the compilation of project documentation.

Conclusion

The purpose of reviewing the main conservation programmes and plans in what was almost the period of a decade of efforts by experts from the Piran unit of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia is to highlight the professional aspect of those producing such documents and the usefulness of these documents in practice. If we focus on the purpose of formulating conservation elaborates, which represent one of the fundamental expert contributions in the field of the theoretical and methodological approach to monument renovation, while the product is even more useful in practice, more precisely

in the execution of planned interventions on the monument itself, then we may justifiably confirm the importance of this professional work. The substance of the presented documents covers complex renova-tion works, these being demanding construction, rehabilitation and restoration interventions that all go beyond regular maintenance work. Few of the presented cases are such that they were implemented from the start of work on the conservation programme right through to the production of the necessary proj-ect documentation, and in the final phase also through to the execution of the projected interventions of renovation and presentation. It is therefore possible to estimate in this kind of completed intervention, how successful the production of the initial conservation elaborate has been. In all the cases mentioned, the production of conservation programmes and plans involved conserva-tion research that was selected with regard to the specific features of the individual monument and its type, and the majority of the monuments presented rank among architectural and artistic monuments of real estate. Conservation research is what provides the basis for results that can be further used for determining guidelines for preserving and protecting the cultural importance of the monument, which leads to the presentation of the monument. Research on monuments must be set out in an interdisci-plinary way, and there is a need to ensure the cooperation of experts depending on the type and scope of the envisaged work. For this reason conservation research must be appropriately selected, so as to be professionally justified and useful, since it is this that will determine the confidence of the investor in the responsible expert decisions of conservators and other involved experts. The aim of conservation research is to acquire knowledge of the monument so as to enable responsible decisions to be made regarding intended interventions, and not least to select the most appropriate interventions that will ensure for the monument improvement of its state and continued existence. The Cultural Heritage Protection Act (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 16/08, Article 34) provides and places the burden on the owner of the monument for preliminary research, and this is also in line with international recom-mendations, since only on the basis of results obtained from research can the owner in cooperation with experts make decisions on identifying the most appropriate urgent interventions for rehabilitation or restoration of the monument. Unfortunately in practice properly set out research conservation work on buildings research is rather the exception than the rule. Although international documents recommend it, this new feature has only been brought to us by a new law with preventive research. Based on the experiences in the conservation profession, another serious problem needs highlighting; this is where the owner or investor can be persuaded of the urgency and justification for conservation research, but sadly what happens is that the project designer, who should take into account the guidelines of the conserva-tion plan in his work, ignores it. Unfortunately we may state that such a method of work on cultural heritage and monuments in Slovenian practice is not yet properly established. Undoubtedly one of the fundamental problems remains how to raise awareness among the owners of cultural heritage and repre-sent to them their role in seeing to the preservation and protection of cultural heritage, which requires fundamental and in-depth approaches in the broad field of operation of all those who are aware of such issues. The path to successful execution of renovation works on cultural monuments or heritage is long, since it involves a complex process in which numerous participants play a part, and it does not depend merely on the conservation profession. Important responsibility for successfully performed work, which is perhaps insufficiently emphasised in Slovenia, is borne by the investor, who has in his hands the “scis-sors and canvas” and decides on the selection of project designers and contractors. The concluding part of this paper should also highlight the urgent need for publication, publicising and familiarisation of the public with professional conservation work, since this contributes to a responsible attitude and reputation in the conservation profession. Research work set out in an interdisciplinary way generally includes various research methods, from classical to the latest, since only in this way can the conservation profession develop and modernise. Conservators must be familiarised with classical techniques and materials, and equally with modern approaches and the renovation possibilities for a variety of interventions, the use of modern technologies and modern materials tested on monuments, with which it is possible to protect and preserve the monument. Professional workers should be enabled to present their work at various international and domestic conferences, and given the possibility of exchanging experiences and establishing their qualifications in the Slovenian conservation profession, which in today’s single European area is a highly important principle for the further development of the conservation profession.

254


255


Notes1 Before 1999, when the national monument service was centralised, jurisdiction over the area of the municipalities of Izola, Piran and

Koper was held by the Intermunicipality Institute for the Protection of Natural and Cultural Heritage (MZVNKD) of Piran. 2 Šumi, Nace: Prenova Ljubljane, Ljubljana 1987, pp. 15–16.3 Expert basis for the programme design for the area of Titov trg in Koper, MZVNKD Piran, Piran 1987, inv. No. 1547, sign. 897 (type-

script). 4 Conservation programme for Titov trg in Koper (worked on by Sonja Hoyer, Liljana Bojaniæ, Lidija Šircelj and Salvator Žitko), MZ-

VNKD Piran, Piran 1987, inv. No. 1051, sign. 519 (typescript). 5 Supplement to the conservation programme for renewal of the Platea Communis, Titov trg in Koper (expert coordinator Sonja Ana

Hoyer, et al.), MZVNKD Piran, Piran 1990, inv. No. 1304, sign. 692 (typescript).6 Grujiæ, Nada: Ranjina kuæa u Dubrovniku od XV. do XX. stoljeæa, Peristil XXXIX, Zagreb 1996, pp. 69–84.7 All the architectural plans have been prepared by architect colleagues who are expert in the field of architectural history, since this in-

volves an instructional presentation of the building history in graphic form.8 Building complex of the Praetorian Palace in Koper, Supplement to the conservation programme for renewal of the Platea Communis,

Titov trg II (expert coordinator and chief conservator Sonja Ana Hoyer, et al.), MZVNKD Piran, Piran 1993, inv. No. 1727, sign. 1080 (typescript).

9 The consultation was in Koper on 9 June 1994. The papers by participants Nace Šumi, Vojteh Ravnikar, Drago Kos, Sonja Ana Hoyer, Mojca Guček, Mojca Ravnik and Marko Stokin are published in the magazine Annales 6/95, Koper 1995, pp. 17–54.

10 Hoyer, Sonja Ana: Conservation issues of the renewal of the Praetorian Palace in Koper, Annales 6/95, Koper 1995, pp. 29–36.11 Kovač, Mojca Marjana: Umetnostni zgodovinar konservator kot nosilec projekta celovite obnove spomenika. Cerkev sv. Jurija v Piranu,

Slovenska umetnostna zgodovina. Tradicija, problemi, perspektive, Ljubljana 2004, pp. 170–177. Kovač, Mojca: Metodologija obnove kulturnega spomenika. Cerkev sv. Jurija v Piranu (Metodologia di restauro in un edificio monumentale. La chiesa di San Giorgio a Pirano), Venice, VEGA Parco Scientifico Tecnologico di Venezia, pp. 67–86.

12 Complex of the minster Church of St. George, Piran: topography, valuation, conservation and restoration documentation with emphasis on the presbytery (extract from the committee assessment) and calling of the expert committee for presentation of the presbytery (chief conservator Mojca Guček et al. and the Restoration Centre), MZVNKD Piran, Piran 1991, inv. No. 2052, sign. 1317 (typescript).

13 Non-destructive conservation research was conducted in several phases, since the primary goal was to determine in the immediate area of the monument the success of research and the usefulness of results.

14 Guček, Mojca; Hudolin, Jernej; Stokin, Marko (1996): The conservation project and presentation of St. George's minster church in Piran (Slovenia), ICOMOS, 11th General Assembly and international symposium "The Heritage and Social Changes", Sofia, Bulgaria, 5–9 October 1996, pp. 484–494.

15 Renovation and presentation of the Church of St. George in Piran. Summary of conservation programmes (chief conservator Mojca Kovač et al.), Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Piran Regional Unit, Piran 2003, inv. No. 3903, sign. 3557 (typescript); Piran – Church of St. George. Instructions for making a census for the presentation of the walls (chief conservator Mojca Kovač, associate Irena Potočnik), Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Piran Regional Unit and Restoration Centre, Ljubljana 2003, inv. No. 3905, sign. 3558 (typescript).

16 Kovač, Mojca Marjana: Konservatorski pristop k projektu statične sanacije cerkve sv. Jurija v Piranu, Varstvo spomenikov 42–43, Lju-bljana 2007, pp. 98–108.

17 Titov trg and the “square” for the Carmine rotunda in Koper, Conservation Programme, MZVNKD Piran, Piran 1997, inv. No. 2609, sign. 1648 (typescript).

18 Guček, Mojca, Janežič, Miran, Piccolo, Mauro, Stokin, Marko: Koper – Platea Communis: beneath the medieval square: new ap-proaches in Slovenian conservation policy. Photogrammetry in architecture, archaeology and urban conservation, CIPA International symposium, Göteborg 1997.

19 Kultura na narodnostno mešanem ozemlju Slovenske Istre [Culture in the ethnically mixed territory of Slovenian Istria] (ed. Hoyer, Sonja Ana), Faculty of Arts Discussions, Ljubljana 2002.

20 Koper, Santorijeva 9, Conservation programme for the renewal of the former Servite monastery in Koper (produced by Hoyer, Sonja Ana et al.), MZVNKD Piran, Piran 2000, inv. No. 4285, sign. 2110 (typescript).

21 Hoyer, Sonja Ana: The Servite monastery in Koper of Santa Maria delle Grazie (1453–1792) – documentation for the conservation programme of renewal, Culture in the ethnically mized territory of Slovenian Istria, Faculty of Arts Discussions, Ljubljana 2002, pp. 167–189.

22 Instructions 1–6 (formulated by Janez Mikuž et al.), confirmed in the expert council of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia on 10 December 2002 end entered into force on 1 January 2003, Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Ljubljana 2002 (typescript).

23 Pirkovič, Jelka: Osnovni pojmi in zasnova spomeniškega varstva v Sloveniji, Vestnik IX, Ljubljana 1993.24 Instruction No. 1: Appointing chief conservators/restorers and working groups for work on cultural monuments of national importance

and definition of their tasks.25 Instruction No. 2: Instruction for assessing the state of a cultural monument.26 Instruction No. 4: Instructions and regulations for making up architectural pictures of cultural heritage structures.27 Instruction No. 3: Instruction for elaborating project tasks for interventions on a cultural monument.28 Instruction No. 5: Instruction for drawing up the conservation and restoration programme for interventions on a monument.29 Instruction No. 6: Construction and restoration phases in the process of renovating cultural monuments.

30 Palace of Totto ex Gavardo (EŠD 8302), Koper – Kidričeva 22, 22a and 22b. Conservation programme for the comprehensive renova-tion and presentation of the palace (chief conservator Mojca MarjAna Kovač et al.), Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Piran Regional Unit, Piran 2003, inv. No. 3831, sign. 2497 (typescript).

31 Koper, Kidričeva ulica 22, 22a, 22b. Conservation and restoration project (chief conservator Mojca MarjAna Kovač et al.), Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Piran Regional Unit, Piran 2004, inv. No. 4002, sign. 3628 (typescript).

32 Work on damage and the causes of damage was performed on the basis of visual inspection and Italian standards by Agnese Babič, conservator architect, who graduated from the University of Venice.

33 Feiffer, Cesare: L'aspetto progettuale tra teoria e prassi. "Il progetto conservazione: preliminare, definitivo, esecutivo". "Progettare il restauro", April 1999 – June 1999. Raccolta degli atti del corso (ed. Manfrin, R., Pegorin, D., Simioni, G., Stocco, B.), Architettura e strutture, Laboratorio restauro, Padua 2000, pp. 268–308.

34 Pirkovič, Jelka: Osnovni pojmi in zasnova spomeniškega varstva v Sloveniji, Vestnik IX, Ljubljana 1993.35 Internal instructions of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia are published on the internet within an intranet

system. The example presented is the treatment of the Secession Urbančeva hiša building in Ljubljana. Since this is a specific monument, the presented model cannot be used without it being necessary to adapt it for another cultural monument of real estate.

36 The palace at Kreljeva 6 in Koper, Conservation programme for renewal (chief conservator Mojca Guček at al.), MZVNKD Piran, Piran 1993, inv. No. 1936, sign. 1239 (typescript).

37 Guček, Mojca: Spomeniškovarstvena izhodišča za prenovo palače na Kreljevi 6 v Kopru, Annales 6/95, Koper 1995, pp. 37–42.38 The discovery of the paintings was presented at an exhibition in the palace at Kreljeva 6 in Koper in October 1997 and in Ljubljana in

the Monument Protection Centre at Salendrova 4 in March 1999.39 Sajinčič, Mojmir: Structural elaborate to supplement the conservation programme Koper – palace at Kreljeva 6 (EŠD 254), physical

construction report: Description of damage and its causes, Producing a mathematical model of the building, Testing the tension in the preserved bearing elements, foundations and foundation flooring, definition of interventions by sections – as an instruction for PGD and PZI projects in Koper – palace at Kreljeva 6 (EŠD 246). Conservation programme (conservation plan), Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Piran Regional Unit, Piran 2007, inv. No. 4745, sign. 4110 (typescript).

40 Koper – palace at Kreljeva 6 (EŠD 246). Conservation programme (conservation plan), Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Piran Regional Unit, Piran 2007, inv. No. 4745, sign. 4110 (typescript).

41 Zupančič, Matej: Vloga statične sanacije pri obnovi objektov arhitekturne dediščine, Varstvo spomenikov 42–43, Ljubljana 2007, pp. 228–245. The paper draws from the ICOMOS charter on the basic principles for analysis, conservation and structural renovation of structures of architectural heritage, which was confirmed at the 14th general assembly in Zimbabwe in 2003.

42 Guček, Mojca: Koper, former Franciscan church, in: Dioecesis Justinopolitana. Spomeniki gotske umetnosti na območju koprske škofije, Koper 2000, pp. 107–108.

43 Avramidou, Nina: Restauro della ex chiesa di San Francesco a Capodistria, Florence 2007, inv. No. 4588, sign. 4014 (typescript). Maio, Benedetta: Rilievo geometrico e raporto tecnologico, Florence 2007, inv. No. 4759, sign. 4121 (typescript). Maio, Mario: Indagini diagnostiche ex chiesa di San Francesco in Capodistria, Florence 2008, inv. No. 4760, sign. 4122 (typescript).

44 Sajinčič, Mojmir: Elaborate: documentation of the roofing with a sketch of the damage and assessment of the causes of damage for the building of the former Church of St. Francis in Koper, O/II-2800-07.

45 Koper – Church of St. Francis of Assisi (EŠD 8345). Conservation plan (chief conservator Mojca Kovač et al.), Institute for the Protec-tion of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Piran Regional Unit, Piran 2008, inv. No. 4768, sign. 4123 (typescript).

256


257


Zvezda Delak Koželj

Programski model delovanja etnologa konservatorjaUDK 719:39(497.4)UDK 39:719(497.4)

Ključne besede: etnologija, konservatorstvo, etnolog konservator, kulturna dediščina, celostno ohranjanje, področja delovanja, strokovne naloge

Uvod

Prispevek povzema vsebinske poudarke osrednjih štirih sklopov1 magistrskega dela podpisane2 in jih nadgrajuje s predstavitvijo programskega modela delovanja etnologa konservatorja, ki je tudi v nadaljevanju podrobneje predstavljeno. Namen prispevka ni bil v iskanju najrazličnejših vzrokov za ne najustreznejšo umeščenost etnologov v varstveni dejavnosti. Ne glede na njihovo (pre)majhno zastopanost v primerjavi z muzejsko službo,3 so sčasoma kakovostno in količinsko izboljšali svoje delovanje, tudi v smislu prepoznavnosti vsebine in predmeta strokovnega dela. V uvodu so izpostavljeni le bistveni poudarki iz omenjenih sklopov:– V zadnjem desetletju 20. stoletja in na njegovem prehodu v novo tisočletje je tematsko raznovrstnost večine etnoloških raziskav spremljala metodična in metodološka pluralnost. Etnologi so se približali vprašanju interpretiranosti in s tem tudi enkratnosti svojih spoznanj s prisojanjem pomena raziskovanim prvinam v kontekstu strokovnih izkušenj. Pri tem opozarjajo na "podobo samoreference" in na druge značilnosti pristopa moderne in postmoderne znanosti. – Nezaželene posledice naše strokovne samozadostnosti in neaktivnosti pri razumevanju in sprejemanju novih vidikov ter vsebin varstva bodo lahko usodne za obstoj dediščine. Po "zlati dobi za kulturo in kulturno dediščino" v osemdesetih letih 20. stoletja nam preti ali pretirana ekonomizacija ali marginal-izacija naše dejavnosti. Ob širitvi nalog na področje celostnega ohranjanja kulturne dediščine in njenih pomenov prihaja do poskusov izločanja etnologije iz varstvene dejavnosti, ostajamo pa tudi brez us-treznih partnerjev na področju nevladnih organizacij s področja kulturne dediščine. – Etnologom se odpirajo novi strokovni izzivi, še zlasti na področjih varstva in ohranjanja vsega kulturne-ga okolja, celostnega ohranjanja kulturne dediščine in kulturne raznolikosti. Poleg raziskav, interpretacij, posredovanj pomenov kulturne dediščine v preteklosti in sedanjosti naj bi se jim odpirale nove zadolžitve na področju komunikacije, mediacije, marketinga, upravljanja, mreženja dediščinskih potencialov in ne nazadnje tudi trajnostnega načrtovanja skladnega regionalnega razvoja ter prostorskega planiranja. – Področje kulturne dediščine bi moralo biti vključeno v regionalne razvojne programe z razumljivimi pobudami in jasnimi odgovori, kaj in zakaj varujemo, z omejitvami in predvsem s priložnostmi za raz-voj. Odsotnost varstva po eni strani dejansko vodi v ogroženost regionalnih in lokalnih identitet, kar bi morali etnologi prepoznati kot svojo priložnost, po drugi strani pa nas sili v povečanje aktivnosti tudi popolna odtujenost ljudi od varstvene stroke.

Mag. Zvezda Delak Koželj, Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine, Centralna enota

– Ne glede na vedno podrobnejše in izčrpnejše dokumente varstvene službe za potrebe prostorskega načrtovanja, kar je vsekakor uspeh varstvene dejavnosti, ugotavljam, da v obravnavanih gradivih še ve-dno ni pomembnega dejstva: ni ustreznega odgovora na vprašanja, kaj in (delno) kako ter še posebno zakaj (z nedvoumno predstavljenimi argumenti) varujemo določeno enoto dediščine.Glede na vsebino omenjenih poglavij in na vsakodnevne strokovne izzive, ki jih nudijo še zlasti novosti v etnologiji in v varstveni dejavnosti, predstavljam programski model delovanja etnologa konservatorja, ki je kot stalni, ciklični proces v nadaljevanju podrobneje obdelan. Obsega ključna strokovna opravila v varstveni dejavnosti, od temeljnih do aplikativnih, ki se v pretežni meri že izvajajo. Zaradi optimizacije obstoječih in pritegnitve (delno) novih vsebin in povezav so naloge, ponekod v nadaljevanju, pisane v pogojniku: 1. Izvedba kompleksnih raziskovalnih nalog kulturnega in naravnega okolja (tipa "rajonizacije"), ki so

posredovale etnologom v preteklosti nepričakovane in premalo upoštevane rezultate, kot npr. pri njihovi nadgradnji za različne potrebe drugih dejavnosti.

2. Na podlagi izsledkov opravljenih raziskav – pristop k izvedbi enotnega vrednotenja vseh kulturnih pojavov.

3. Aplikacija rezultatov v vse nadaljnje strokovne postopke. 4. Sodelovanje pri celostnem ohranjanju dediščine.5. Neprekinjeno delovanje z ljudmi4 pri vseh strokovnih postopkih (z lastniki, upravljavci, načrtovalci,

upravnimi službami, nevladnimi organizacijami …).6. Popularizacija in izobraževanje o sami varstveni dejavnosti in dediščini (za strokovno, laično ja-

vnost).

I. Kompleksne raziskovalne naloge "Rajonizacijskega" tipa,5 še posebno zaradi primerljivosti in dela na podlagi genetično strukturalne metode, omogočajo doseči cilj – preučitev razmerja, vloge posamezne kulturne prvine (snovne, nes-novne) do celotne kulturne strukture izbranega območja (praviloma občine).6 Izpostavljam mnogostransko vzročno-posledično razlago nastanka, obstoja in spreminjanja vseh kul-turnih pojavov na podlagi prostorske, časovne in družbene določenosti. Ne glede na dosedanjo topo-grafsko prakso, bi se moralo raziskovalno delo spuščati bolj v podrobnosti in v kar največji meri izrabljati možnosti interpretacije, in to ne samo pri odnosu do tradicije in novosti, ampak pri vseh družbeno odmevnih kulturnih pojavih.Na podlagi kompleksne raziskave bi pridobljena evidenca vseh kulturnih prvin, tako nepremičnih, premičnih in nesnovnih kakor tudi aktualnih in vseh drugih kulturnih pojavov na obravnavanem območju, bila podlaga za njihovo nadaljnje vrednotenje.

II. Enotno vrednotenje vseh kulturnih pojavov Teža raziskave je usmerjena v analizo pomenov in opredelitve vrednosti (tako pozitivnih kot negativnih) za tamkajšnje prebivalce in različne stroke. Na podlagi v magistrski nalogi izčrpneje predstavljenega univerzalnega sistema vrednotenja,7 ki ga je mogoče smiselno dopolnjevati, obravnavamo vse kulturne prvine.8

Zavedati se moramo, da so kulturne vrednosti, ki so povezane z dediščino in z odnosom današnjih opa-zovalcev do njih, praviloma subjektivnega značaja (to pomeni, da so odvisne od interpretacij, ki odsevajo naš čas). Te ocene bodo npr. določile stopnjo splošnega interesa do stavbe s pripadajočo okolico, inter-pretacijo njenih dejanskih kulturnih značilnosti (snovnih in vsebinskih) ter razvoj vzdrževalnih ukrepov. Cilj razvrščanja v predstavljene kategorije je le pomoč pri prepoznavanju različnih tipov vrednosti in pri razumevanju njihovega odnosa do dediščine z vsemi povezavami. Vse kulturne pojave vrednotimo interdisciplinarno, etnologi prispevajo svoj delež pri vseh vrednostih, ne samo pri identitetnih, funkcionalnih, izobraževalnih in družbenih, ki bi jim jih na prvi pogled prisojali. Tako naj npr. pri ekonomskih tolmačijo dodatne pomene ugotovljenih snovnih in nesnovnih vsebin za najugodnejšo izrabo kulturne prvine.V tabeli so predstavljeni poglavitni poudarki s primerjavo meril avtorjev, ki so se pri nas bolj poglobljeno ukvarjali z vrednotenjem nepremične dediščine.

258


259


I. Kulturne vrednosti Hazler9 Pirkovič10 Koželj11

Identitetne:temelječe na prepoznavanju pomena čustvenih vezi družbe do pojava.

Relativne umetniške ali tehnične vrednosti:temelječe na raziskavah pomena oblikovanja ter tehničnih, strukturnih in funkcionalnih zasnov ter izvedbe v različnih časovnih obdobjih.

Likovnoestetsko

Vrednost redkosti:temelječe na statistiki razmerja enote do ostalih – enakega tipa, stila, ust-varjalca, obdobja, območja ali kombinacije med njimi.

gradbenorazvojno,zgodovinskočasovno, geografsko ali prostorsko

tipološko,avtorsko, razvojno

avtorsko,tipološko,razvojno

II. Sodobne družbenoekonomske vrednosti

Ekonomske vrednosti: temelječe na pojavnosti kulturne prvine kot ekonomske kategorije.

Funkcionalne vrednosti:temelječe na ustreznosti rabe (prvotne, nepretrgane, nove).

Izobraževalne vrednosti: temelječe na zmožnosti vključitve v turistične in izobraževalne vsebine.

Družbene vrednosti:temelječe na pojavnosti v tradicionalnih in sodobnih aktivnostih v skupnosti ter pri vzpostavitvi družbene in kulturne identitete, kakor tudi prepoznave družbene in profesionalne determiniranosti ustvarjalcev, lastnikov, uporab-nikov ter namembnosti in vsebin pojava.12 etnološko-socialno

kulturno-civilizacijsko

Politične vrednosti:temelječe na povezanosti s specifičnimi dogodki v preteklosti obravnavane regije ali države.

Cilj vrednotenja na obravnavanem območju je prepoznava in kritična interpretacija ugotovljenih nega-tivnih ter pozitivnih pomenov z argumentacijo vrednosti (kaj, zakaj,13 kje in posledično kako varujemo) s strani obravnavanega družbenega okolja, posameznikov in strok. Ob primerjavi z drugimi ovrednotenimi kulturnimi prvinami v regiji oziroma državi sledi vzpostavitev hierarhije vrednosti posamezne prvine glede na vse ostale, kar omogoča ustvariti najustreznejšo prezent-acijsko strukturo z opredelitvijo varstvenih režimov14 in najobjektivnejšo sliko pojavnosti vseh kulturnih pojavov na obravnavanem območju. Navedeni rezultati pogojujejo izvedbo nadaljnjih varstvenih postopkov, kot sta vpis v Register nepremične kulturne dediščine in razglasitev za spomenik lokalnega ali državnega pomena. Že pri teh strokovnih postopkih je zaželena odprtost, javnost delovanja strokovne službe; izpostavljam zlasti preverjanje strokovnih odločitev na ravni komisij.

III. Aplikacija rezultatov v vse strokovne postopke,15 kot so:• vpis enote dediščine v Register nepremične kulturne dediščine z nedvoumno argumentacijo, kaj, zakaj, kako

in kje varujemo obravnavano enoto dediščine;• razglasitev višje hierarhično ovrednotene enote dediščine za kulturni spomenik glede na prostorsko

odmevnost,16 ki bi ji morala slediti izdelava konservatorskega načrta,17 s posebnim poudarkom na jasnih varstvenih režimih;

• konservatorski načrt18 podrobneje opredeli uresničevanje kulturnovarstvenih pogojev, preveri pomen stavbe ali območja za stroko, lastnike, uporabnike … Razkriti mora zakonitosti kontinuitete razvoja v razmerju človek – način življenja – stavba ali območje. Podrobneje naj ovrednoti dediščinske last-nosti in analizira, kako so posamezne vrednosti in njihovi nosilci ranljivi oziroma občutljivi za pred-videne spremembe (nameravanih del, sprememb uporabe …). Opredeli naj ravnanje in konkretne ukrepe za izvedbo del ter nadaljnjo uporabo;

zgodovinsko-pričevalno

zgodovinsko-pričevalno

• izdelava Strokovnih zasnov varstva in kulturnih pojavov19 na ravni občine. Predlagam njihovo pripravo na dveh ravneh:

– na splošni ravni z analizo SWOT20 (prednosti, slabosti, priložnosti in nevarnosti) dediščine, – na ravni posamične enote dediščine oz. kulturnega pojava s podrobno argumentiranimi odgovori,

kaj, zakaj,21 kako in kje varujemo, ter s predstavitvijo drugih kulturnih pojavov;• splošni del Strokovnih zasnov varstva (ugotovitve analize SWOT, dopolnjene z bolj splošnimi podatki

– kaj, zakaj in kje varujemo) bi morali za potrebe prostorskega načrtovanja uporabiti za strateško raven. Konkretnejše usmerjevalne podatke (s poudarkom predvsem, kako) pa bi morali nameniti za izved-beno raven. Vsekakor predlagam pripravo "pogojev" in "soglasij" le za razglašene kulturne spome-nike, saj naj bi usmeritve za posege vsebovali že prostorski izvedbeni pogoji;22

• za potrebe regionalnega razvoja bi morali Strokovne zasnove varstva za posamezne občine dopolniti z drugo kulturno dejavnostjo institucij, nevladnih organizacij in posameznikov. Povezovanje na področju kul-ture na regionalni in lokalni ravni bi moralo obsegati strokovne usmeritve za vključevanje kulturnih prvin (z odgovori, kaj, zakaj, kako, kje), izhajajoč iz potreb in želja ljudi ter ob stalnem sodelovanju drugih resorjev. Možne razvojne potenciale bi morali načrtovalcem predstaviti v obliki kontinuitet-nih, identitetnih ali inovativnih23 variant. Strokovno delo bi moralo potekati neprekinjeno s stalnim nadgrajevanjem obstoječih gradiv z novimi raziskavami etnologov, ki bi jih morali spodbujati in usk-lajevati oddelki za kulturo (na občinski ravni) in regionalne razvojne agencije (na regionalni ravni);

• za varovana območja, kot npr. krajinska območja nacionalne prepoznavnosti, naselja in varovana območja s strani varstva narave, bi moral potek vključevanja celotne kulturne dejavnosti v postopke varovanja in razvoja potekati enako kot pri postopkih regionalnega razvoja, saj ta območja niso ve-zana na občinske okvire. Opozarjam na potrebo po prednostni kompleksni raziskavi in posledično izvedbi vseh drugih strokovnih postopkov, potrebnih za zavarovanje območja. Vztrajam na ned-voumni opredelitvi, kaj, zakaj, kje in kako varujemo kulturne prvine in ne samo naravne vrednote, kakor tudi na prikazu odnosa ljudi do tamkajšnje narave nasploh kot kulturnega pojava;

• procesi prenove naselij predstavljajo sklop različnih ukrepov z gospodarskega, družbenega in kulturne-ga področja, s pomočjo katerih se ob ustreznem prostorskem načrtovanju zagotovita ohranitev in oživljanje dediščine. Za potrebe konservatorskega načrta za prenovo bi morali etnologi predvsem nadgra-diti omenjene kompleksne raziskave in izdelane Strokovne zasnove varstva z raziskavami vsaj odnosa prebivalcev do naselja in posamičnih stavb, razvoja konkretnih oblik življenja v konkretnih stavbah in okoljih ter skupaj s prebivalci in institucijami poiskati možnosti za najugodnejšo izvedbo prenove;

• za Načrt upravljanja, ki ga predvideva novi varstveni zakon za varovana območja ali spomenike ki ima-jo upravljavca, bi morali posredovati pregled kulturnih vrednot iz Strokovnih zasnov varstva. Varstveni podatki bi se uskladili z drugimi interesi sodelujočih dejavnosti v območju, z vizijo varstva in razvoja, strateškimi in izvedbenimi načrti upravljanja, načrtom dejavnosti in načrtom njegovega spremljanja v načrt upravljanja. Za "spomeniška" območja, ki se prekrivajo z naravovarstvenimi, bi morali pripraviti načrt upravljanja ob sodelovanju obeh strokovnih služb. Etnolog bi moral sodelovati pri vseh fazah priprave, izvedbe in spremljanja načrta upravljanja.

IV. Zaradi obveznega, a še ne izvedljivega izvajanja celostnega ohranjanja dediščine bi morali etnologi v prihodnje sodelovati v vseh njegovih fazah in postopkih, tako v operativnem smislu z vsemi dejavniki celostnega ohranjanja kot tudi v strokovnem smislu z vsakokratnim modelom neposredne zaščite objekta oziroma območja. Celostno ohranjanje obravnavamo kot smiselno porazdelitev nalog ohranjanja dediščine na različne državne organe in lokalne skupnosti (ne samo na varstveno stroko) ter na sodelovanje med njimi. Državljani lastniki dediščine in drugi zainteresirani (društva, združenja, nevladne organizacije) so pomemben in enakopraven soudeleženec pri sprejemanju odločitev na vseh ravneh odločanja. Ker te postopke prepoznavam predvsem kot interpretacijsko-argumentacijsko-usklajevalne, bi lahko et-nolog (ne samo kot konservator v ožjem, strokovnem smislu) sodeloval predvsem kot komunikolog, mediator med vsemi sodelujočimi dejavniki, glede načrtovanja in izvedbe ustreznih obnovitvenih pose-gov, ki vodijo k izboljšanju življenja. Po drugi strani pa bi bil tudi popularizator, interpretator do vseh prizadetih in navzven do preostale družbe, glede vseh ukrepov, ki vodijo k zavarovanju, ohranjanju in skupnemu uživanju dediščine.

260


261


Ne nazadnje bi deloval tudi kot menedžer pri trženju dediščine in mreženju dediščinskih potencialov (npr. pri dediščinskih grozdih).

V. Zaradi problema represivnega delovanja varstvene službe, saj zaradi varstvenih zahtev prihaja praviloma posledično do dejanj v nasprotju z željami lastnikov kulturne dediščine, je zaželena poleg nedvoumne in izdatno interpretirane in argumentirane razlage, kaj, zakaj in kako varujemo, neprekinjena prisotnost lastnikov in javnosti pri vseh varstvenih postopkih. Nedvoumna argumentacija in interpretacija varstvenih gradiv je pomembna tudi zaradi odločujoče vloge politike, lastnikov in nevladnih organizacij v vseh varstvenih postopkih.Etnologi konservatorji moramo sodelovati pri načrtovanju, izvedbi vseh strokovnih postopkov, kakor tudi pri spremljanju stanja kulturnih pojavov, še posebno z lastniki,24 stanovalci in upravljavci, po potre-bi pa tudi z načrtovalci, upravnimi službami ter nevladnimi organizacijami. Zlasti slednje naj bi opravl-jale vlogi sodelavca varstvene dejavnosti in korektorja kulturne politike. Le pravočasna vključitev lastnikov in uporabnikov lahko razreši marsikatero kasnejšo konfliktno situ-acijo, da bodo razumeli, sprejeli kulturno prvino kot vrednost in skupno z varstveno službo oblikovali vizijo ohranitve. Ni pomemben samo pravni akt zavarovanja, še pomembnejše je zavedanje vrednosti kulturnega pojava, saj v prvi vrsti ohranjamo dediščino prav za lastnike, stanovalce in lokalno skupnost, šele posredno tudi za občudovalce, turiste ipd. Predvsem odprtost do lastniških in lokalnih pobud, tako pri posameznih obnovitvenih posegih kot npr. pri oblikovanju grozdov za trženje dediščine, bi morali obravnavati kot temeljni strokovni izziv. Stremeti bi morali za tem, da bi naše delo postalo posledica pobud in želja lastnikov in lokalnega prebivalstva, ne pa obratno, kar se dogaja v večini primerov.

VI. Popularizacija in izobraževanje naj bi potekala s pomočjo najrazličnejših medijev na naslednjih vsebinah: – varstvene dejavnosti (poslanstva, varstvenih postopkov …), – kulturne raznolikosti in najrazličnejši pomeni dediščine (stari,25 novi26), – konkretni primeri (predvsem dobrih rešitev) doma in po svetu, – posredovanja podatkov o ogroženih enotah dediščine in njeni morebitni prodaji, tako za strokovno

kot za laično javnost.Popularizacija je izjemnega pomena, še posebno v času in v sistemu, ki ne omogoča dovolj instrumentov (npr. finančnih, fiskalnih), da bi bila lastnikom dediščina poleg kulturne tudi ekonomska kakovost in vrednost. Šele izdatno zavedanje o vrednostih dediščine omogoča njeno popolno in resnično varovanje na podlagi ustreznega načrtovanja lastnika z vsemi sodelujočimi.

Ob zaključku znova izpostavljam, da opredeljeni programski model delovanja etnologa konservatorja ni nikakršna novost, ampak le drugače izpostavlja, povezuje ali na nov način osvetljuje strokovne naloge, vse z na-mero po vzpostavitvi aktualnejših, optimalnih27 in bolj kakovostnih strokovnih postopkov etnologov konservatorjev.Če povzamem predstavljeno, bi izpostavila, da bi kompleksne raziskave, vrednotenje, vključevanje do-bljenih rezultatov v vse varstvene postopke in popularizacija ob stalnem sodelovanju ljudi morali po-tekati neprekinjeno in ciklično. To pomeni, da bi po prvem "krogu" navedenih strokovnih postopkov (lahko) prišli ob izdatni popular-izaciji in izobraževanju, ki bi omogočila spremenjeno zavedanje kulturnih prvin, posledično do novih raziskovalnih rezultatov in do novih pomenov, ki bi jih (lahko) že drugače ovrednotili. Iz tega sledi, da bi morali znova revidirati strokovne postopke in izobraževalne vsebine, kar bi pomenilo ponovno izoblikovanje nove, višje kakovosti. Tako bi trajno, ciklično strokovno delovanje etnologov konservatorjev omogočilo kar najbolj objektivno umestitev kulturnih pojavov in kulture nasploh v celostnem ohranjanju dediščine in kulturnih pojavov.

Opombe1 Etnološka veda po drugi svetovni vojni, Razvoj varstvenega koncepta v svetu in pri nas, Vloga etnologa konservatorja v varstveni dejavnosti, Etnolog konservator in kompleksne interdisciplinarne naloge. 2 Etnologija in varstvo naravne in kulturne dediščine, Ljubljana 2007.3 Na primer, v primerjavi števila etnologov konservatorjev s kustosi etnologi je razmerje 1 : 4 v korist slednjih.4 Nujnost, pogojena s postmoderno kritiko vsiljevanja čisto druge resničnosti domačinom s strani etnologov, kakor jo sami prepoznavajo.

Drugače povedano: pogosto so interpretacije raziskav in pomenov premalo ustrezno in nedvoumno predstavljene ljudem, ki bi morali biti s temi vsebinami vsekakor seznanjeni. Ta odsotnost vodi praviloma do pogostih nerazumevanj in konfliktov med konservatorji in lastniki varovanih stavb. V te postopke usmerjata tudi strokovna etika in mednarodni varstveni dokumenti.

5 Poglavja splošne sheme rajonizacije, ki naj bi omogočila pregled temeljnih sestavin načina življenja, obenem pa zahtevala strnitev podat-kov, medsebojno primerljivost posamičnih del in končno sintezo, obsegajo:1. opredelitev območja; 2. notranji ustroj območja (geografski položaj, jezik, oblika naselij, političnoupravna delitev, sodna območja in javna varnost, cerkve-

noupravni okviri, pokopališča, zdravstvena in živinozdravstvena služba, pošte in poštni okoliši, šolstvo in šolanje, organizirana izobraževalna dejavnost zunaj rednega šolanja, promet in prometne zveze, sedeži denarnih zavodov, društva in društvena dejavnost, trgovanje, gostinska dejavnost, kulturna dejavnost, šport in zabavišča, turistični in božjepotni kraji, območja in razvoj gradnje počitniških hišic, vključenost območja v regije širšega značaja, odročni kraji in manj razvita območja, izrazitejše lokalne značilnosti, izbrani kraji);

3. demografski razvoj območja (predvsem vzroki upadanja ali rasti prebivalstva, opozoriti na izseljenstvo in zdomstvo);4. gospodarski razvoj območja;5. spremembe poklicne sestave prebivalcev;6. spremembe socialne sestave prebivalcev;7. uvajanje novosti v: kmečkih gospodarstvih, rokodelski obrtni dejavnosti, stavbarstvu, stanovanjski opremi, komunikacijskih sred-

stvih, noši, prehrani;8. razkroj in stopnja ohranjenosti tradicionalne kulturne podobe (v kraju, ki je izbran za obravnavo): v poljedeljstvu in živinoreji, v

domači delavnosti in tradicionalni obrti, v šegah, verovanju, zdravilstvu, glasbi, plesu, likovnem obzorju, krajevnih posebnostih;9. etnološka preučenost območja in predlogi (Hudelja 1992: 24). Shemo uporabljamo kot ogrodje raziskave in jo po potrebi prilagajamo glede na posebnosti obravnavanega območja.

6 Delo naj bi bilo najprej posvečeno zbiranju arhivskega gradiva, zbiranju literature z obravnavanega območja in seznanitve z vsemi dotedanjimi izsledki bazične in drugih znanstvenih disciplin, šele nato pa naj bi sledilo "klasično" terensko delo z intervjuji, anketami, opazovanjem z neposredno udeležbo …

7 Širše predstavljeno v poglavju Vloga etnologa konservatorja v varstveni dejavnosti.8 Novi Zakon o varstvu kulturne dediščine predvideva enotni register za nepremično, premično in živo dediščino.9 Hazler 1999: 162–182.10 Pirkovič 1993: 117–125. 11 Koželj 1991: 105–110.12 Dodatno pojasnilo dodala avtorica prispevka. 13 Predstaviti nedvoumne in jasne argumente, zakaj varujemo. 14 Kot npr. varovanje in situ, prenos, dokumentarno varstvo.15 Eden izmed bistvenih pogojev za uspešno strokovno delo je nedvoumna razmejitev pristojnosti med vsemi institucijami, ki so kakor koli

vezane na varstvo. Prav tako bi morali vsi odločujoči prepoznati načela "skupnega varstva", ki temelji na naslednjem: "Kulturna in nara-vna dediščina oblikujeta človekovo okolje; za njuno skupno varstvo morajo biti izpeljane kombinirane dejavnosti v okviru mednarodnega ekološkega pristopa k prostorskemu upravljanju. Bistvena je koordinacija politik dediščinskega ohranjanja in prostorskega planiranja." (Svet Evrope 2002: 45)

16 Državni, lokalni pomen.17 Konservatorski načrt namesto konservatorskega programa predvideva novi varstveni zakon.18 Pomeni temeljno strokovno nalogo vsake od udeleženih strok v varstveni dejavnosti.19 Na podlagi kompleksne raziskave, vrednotenja in interpretacij. Novi varstveni zakon je Strokovne zasnove … tudi vsebinsko preimenoval

v Prikaz vrednotenja dediščine v prostoru.20 SWOT (angl. strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats).21 Predstaviti nedvoumne argumente na podlagi vrednotenja – če se le da, na način, kaj se lahko naredi, in ne, česa se ne sme narediti.22 Vzpostavlja novi prostorski zakon.23 Bogataj 1992: 44–45.24 V sedanji praksi lastniki kulturne dediščine ali spomenikov praviloma niti ne poznajo varstvenega statusa svojih nepremičnin. 25 Kulturni, ekonomski, družbeni, prostorski.26 Politični, družbeno- in prostorskopovezovalni, razvojni v najširšem smislu.27 Zaradi tega tudi vnovična oblika pogojnika.

262


263


LiteraturaJanez Bogataj, Sto srečanj z dediščino na Slovenskem, Ljubljana, 1992. Branka Berce Bratko, Etnološki vidik v urbanističnem in prostorskem planiranju, Ljubljana, 1985. [Magistrska naloga na Oddelku za etnologijo FF.]Tone Cevc, Peter Fister, Ivan Sedej in Fanči Šarf, Stavbarstvo in stanovanjska oprema, Etnološka topografija slovenskega etničnega ozemlja, V. Vprašalnice, Ljubljana, 1976, 25–110. Kate Clark, From regulation to participation: cultural heritage, sustainable development and citizenship, Forward Planning: The Function of Cultural Heritage in a changing Europe, Council of Europe, http://www.coe.int/, 17. 2. 2006.Council of Europe, European cultural heritage (Volume I) - International co-operation: collected texts, Strasbourg, 2002.Council of Europe, Draft Framework Convention of the Council of Europe on the value of cultural heritage for society and its Explanatory Report, Faro, 2005, http://www.wcd.coe.int/, 25. 10. 2005.Bernard M. Feilden, Jukka Jokilehto, Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites, Rim, 1993.Vito Hazler, Predlog standardov za delo etnologov v spomeniškem varstvu, Etnolog 8, Ljubljana, 1998, 77–104.Isti, Podreti ali obnoviti? Zgodovinski razvoj, analiza in model etnološkega knservatorstva na Slovenskem, Ljubljana, 1999.Mihaela Hudelja, Uvodna pojasnila k bibliografiji, Poročilo (ETSEO – 20. stoletje), Ljubljana, 1992, 8-24. Jukka Jokilehto, A History of Architectural Conservation, Oxford, 2005. Michael Kearney, Changing Fields of Anthropology: From Local to Global, Lanham, 2004.Zvezdana Koželj, Uvod v etnološko konservatorstvo I, Etnološko konservatorstvo, Ljubljana, 1990, 1–28. [Skripta za vaje iz etnološkega kon-servatorstva, Oddelek za etnologijo FF.]Ista, Vrednotenje kulturnega pomena Tavčarjevega dvorca na Visokem v Poljanski Dolini, Varstvo spomenikov 33, Ljubljana, 1991, 105–110.Ista, Kulturna dediščina in turizem, Stanje in perspektive razvoja turizma v gozdnem prostoru, Ljubljana, 2006, 112–123.Ista, Ethnology, Cultural heritage and Protected Areas, Etnography of Protected Areas: Endangered Habitats - Endangered Cultures, Županičeva knjižnica 16, Ljubljana, 2006, 19–30.Ista, Sodobne usmeritve etnologije v varstveni dejavnosti, 9. vzporednice med slovensko in hrvaško etnologijo, Knjižnica GSED 38, Ljubljana, 2006, 335–346.Ista, Teorija svetovnega sistema Immanuela Wallersteina in varstvo kulturne dediščine, Varstvo spomenikov 41, Ljubljana, 2007, 129–139.Ista, Etnologija, varstvo dediščine in regionalni razvoj: možnosti in priložnosti etnologije v regionalnem razvoju, Etnologija in regije: Koroška, Knjižnica GSED 40, Ljubljana, 2007, 187–207.Ista, Etnologija in varstvo naravne in kulturne dediščine, Ljubljana, 2007. [Magistrska naloga na Oddelku za etnologijo in kulturno antrop-ologijo FF.]Slavko Kremenšek, Družbeni temelji razvoja slovenske etnološke misli, Pogledi na etnologijo, Ljubljana, 1978, 9–65.Jelka Pirkovič, Osnovni pojmi in zasnova spomeniškega varstva v Sloveniji, Vestnik 11, Ljubljana, 1993.Philip Carl Salzman, Understanding Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theory, Long Growe, 2001.Ivan Sedej, Resnica in mit v teoriji spomeniškega varstva, Varstvo spomenikov 15, Ljubljana, 1970, 7–14.Isti, Varstvo spomenikov v luči varovanja stavbne dediščine, Varstvo spomenikov 20, Ljubljana, 1976, 325–336.Isti, Prispevek h konservatorski metodologiji in teoriji, Vestnik 4, Ljubljana, 1977, 66–107. Isti, Etnološke raziskave in delež etnologije v raziskovanju pogojev za ohranjevanje starih mestnih in vaških jeder, GSED 18/3, Ljubljana, 1978, 58–60.Isti, Družbeni pomen stavbne dediščine in odnos med kulturnim in naravnim okoljem (Teze za razpravo), GSED 18/4, Ljubljana, 1978, 65–67. Isti, Vloga in položaj etnologa v varstvu kulturnih spomenikov, GSED 20/1, Ljubljana, 1980, 3–4.Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik, Etnologija na Slovenskem: Med čermi narodopisja in antropologije, Ljubljana, 2000. Več avtorjev, Poglavja iz metodike etnološkega raziskovanja-1, Knjižnica GSED 4, Ljubljana, 1980. Več avtorjev, Etnologija – arhitektura, GSED 20/1,3, Ljubljana, 1980. Več avtorjev, Slovenski muzej na prostem, Odnos slovenske etnologije do arhitekturne dediščine in sodobnega stanovanjskega načrtovanja, Ljubljana, 1981.Več avtorjev, Aktualni vidiki prenove naselbin na Slovenskem, Sinteza 58, 59, 60, Ljubljana, 1982. Več avtorjev, Etnologija in nova varstvena zakonodaja, GSED 37/1,2, Ljubljana, 1997.Več avtorjev, Navodila za izvedbo programa uvajanja CRPOV in izdelavo razvojnega projekta CRPOV, Ljubljana, 1999.Več avtorjev, Ali je v konservatorstvu še vedno prostor za etnologijo? GSED 41/3,4, Ljubljana, 2001.Immanuel Wallerstein, Utopistike ali izbira zgodovinskih možnosti 21. stoletja. Dediščine sociologije, Obljuba družbenih ved, Ljubljana, 1999.Zakon o prostorskem načrtovanju, Uradni list RS, št. 33, Ljubljana, 2007.Zakon o varstvu kulturne dediščine, Uradni list RS, št. 16, Ljubljana, 2008.

Zvezda Delak Koželj

Programme Model for the Functioning of a Conservator EthnologistKey words: ethnology, conservation, conservator ethnologist, cultural heritage, integrated preservation, field of work, expert tasks

Introduction

This article draws from the principal substantive points of the four main sections1 of the master’s disser-tation by the author2 and supplements them with a presentation of a programme model for the functioning of a conservator ethnologist, which is set out in greater detail below. The purpose of the article was not to seek out a wide variety of reasons for the none too appropriate placing of ethnologists in protection activities. Irrespective of their (too) meagre representation in com-parison with the museum service,3 in time they have made qualitative and quantitative improvements to their work, including in terms of the recognisability of the substance and subject of their professional work. The introduction highlights just the main points from the aforementioned sections:- In the last decade of the 20th century and the beginning of the new century the thematic diversity of the majority of ethnological research was accompanied by a methodical and methodological plural-ity. Ethnologists came closer to the issue of interpretation and with it the uniqueness of their findings through an assessment of the significance of research elements in the context of professional experience. Here they point out the “self-referential image” and other characteristics of the approach of modern and post-modern science. - The undesired consequences of our professional self-sufficiency and inactivity in understanding and

accepting new aspects and contexts of protection could be fatal for the survival of heritage. Following the “golden age for culture and cultural heritage” in the 1980s, we are threatened by the excessive commercialisation or marginalisation of our activities. With the expansion of tasks to the area of in-tegrated preservation of cultural heritage and its significance, there will be attempts to exclude ethnol-ogy from protection activities, and we also lack appropriate partners in the area of non-governmental organisations in the field of cultural heritage.

- New professional challenges are opening up for ethnologists, especially in the areas of protection and preservation of the entire cultural environment, integrated preservation of cultural heritage and cultural diversity. In addition to research, interpretations and communicating the significance of cultural heritage in the past and present, they can supposedly now tackle new duties in the area of communication, mediation, marketing, administration, networking heritage potentials and of course also sustainable planning of harmonious regional development and spatial planning.

- The field of cultural heritage should be included in regional development programmes with under-standable incentives and clear responses regarding what and why we are protecting, with limitations and above all with opportunities for development. The absence of protection on the one hand actu-ally signals a threat to regional and local identities, which ethnologists should recognise as their op-

Mag Zvezda Delak Koželj, Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Joint Services

264


265


portunity, while on the other hand we are forced into increased activity by a complete alienation of people from the protection profession.

- Irrespective of the increasingly detailed and exhaustive documents of the protection service for the requirements of spatial planning, which is of course a success of protection activities, I have found that in the material examined an important fact is still lacking: there is no adequate answer to the question, what and (partly) how and especially why (with unequivocally presented arguments) we are protecting a given unit of heritage.

In view of the content of the aforementioned chapters and the everyday professional challenges pre-sented especially by new features in ethnology and in protection work, I present the programme model for the functioning of a conservator ethnologist, which is addressed in greater detail below as a permanent, cyclical process. It covers key professional tasks in protection activities, from basic to applied, and which to a major extent are already being carried out. In order to optimise existing and attract (partly) new content and links, the tasks in places below are written in the conditional: 1. Carrying out complex research tasks on the cultural and natural environment (a type of “regional iden-

tification”), which in the past yielded for ethnologists unexpected and insufficiently accommodated results, such as in fleshing them out for the various needs of other activities.

2. Based on the results of research performed – an approach to carrying out a standardised evaluation of all cultural phenomena.

3. Application of results in all further professional processes. 4. Cooperation in integrated preservation of heritage.5. Uninterrupted working with people4 in all professional processes (with owners, administrators, plan-

ners, administrative services, non-governmental organisations …).6. Popularisation and education regarding actual protection activities and heritage (for professional and lay

circles).

I. Complex research tasks of the "regional identification" type,5 especially for the purpose of comparability and work based on a genetically structural method, enable the attainment of the goal – studying relationships, the role of the individual cultural element (material, non-material) up to the entire cultural structure of the selected area (generally a municipality).6 I highlight the multifaceted cause-effect interpretation of the creation, existence and alteration of all cultural phenomena on the basis of spatial, time and social determinants. Irrespective of topographical practices to date, research work should immerse itself more in the details and to the greatest possible extent it should exploit the possibility of interpretation, and this not just in relation to the traditional and new, but in all cultural phenomena with social repercussions.Based on complex research, the obtained record of all cultural elements, including real estate, movable and non-material as well as current and all other cultural phenomena in the relevant area, would be a basis for their further evaluation.

II. Standardised evaluation of all cultural phenomena The difficulty of research is directed towards analysis of the significance and definition of the value (both positive and negative) for the local residents and various professions. Based on a universal system of evaluation set out more exhaustively in the master’s dissertation,7 which can be supplemented where this makes sense, we may address all cultural elements.8

We must be aware that cultural values that are linked to heritage and to the attitude of today’s observers to these values, area generally subjective in nature (this means that they depend on interpretations that reflect our times). These assessments will for instance determine the level of general interest in a building and pertaining environs, the interpretation of its actual cultural characteristics (material and substantive) and the development of maintenance measures. The aim of using the presented categories is merely to help in recognising different types of value and in understanding their relationship towards heritage and all it involves.

All cultural phenomena are valued in an interdisciplinary way, and ethnologists contribute their share in all values, not just in those of identity, function, education and society, in which we might at first glance judge them. Thus for instance, regarding economic values, the additional significance of identified mate-rial and non-material content is interpreted for the most favourable use of a cultural element.The table below shows the main points of emphasis with a comparison of the criteria of authors in Slo-venia who have dealt in greater depth with the evaluation of real estate heritage.

I. Cultural values Hazler9 Pirkovič10 Koželj11

Identity:based on recognising the importance of the emotional ties of society to the phenomenon.

Relative artistic or technical values:based on researching the significance of design and technical, structural and functional plans and execution in various periods of time.

Fine artaesthetic

Rarity value:based on statistics of the relationship of the unit to others – of the same type, style, creator, period, area or combination of them.

building development, history and period,geographical or spatial

typological,original, devel-opmental

original,typological,developmental

II. Modern socio-economic values:

Economic values: based on the occurrence of the cultural element as an economic category.

Functional values:based on the appropriateness of use (original, uninterrupted, new).

Educational values: based on the capacity for inclusion in tourism and education

Social values:based on occurrence in traditional and modern activities in the commu-nity and in establishing social and cultural identity, as well as recognition of the social and professional determination of creators, owners, users and the purpose and substance of the phenomenon.12 ethnological and social

cultural andcivilisational

Political values:based on the association with specific events in the past of the relevant region or country

historical testa-ment

historical testa-ment

The aim of evaluation in the relevant area is a recognition and critical interpretation of the identified negative and positive significance with an argumentation of the value (what, why,13 where and conse-quently how we protect) on the part of the addressed social environment, individuals and professions. Upon comparing with other evaluated cultural elements in the region or country, there then follows the establishing of a hierarchy of the values of the individual element relative to all others, which enables the creation of the most appropriate presentational structure with a definition of protection regimes14 and the most objective picture of the occurrence of all cultural phenomena in the relevant area. The aforementioned results determine the implementation of further protection procedures, such as entry in the Register of Immovable Cultural Heritage and declaration as a monument of local or national importance. Even in these professional procedures, an openness and public nature in how the professional service operates is desirable; I would highlight especially the verification of professional decisions on the com-mittee level.

III. Application of results in all professional procedures,15 such as:• entry of the heritage unit in the Register of Immovable Cultural Heritage with unequivocal argumentation

regarding what, why, how and where we are protecting the relevant unit of heritage;• declaration of the higher hierarchically evaluated unit of heritage as a cultural monument regarding its

266


267


significance in that space,16 which should be followed by an elaboration of the conservator’s plan,17 with special emphasis on clear protection regimes;

• the conservator’s plan18 defines in detail the fulfilment of cultural protection conditions, verifies the significance of the building or area for the profession, owners, users and so forth. It must reveal the properties of continuity of development in the relationship of human – way of life – building or area. It should evaluate in detail the heritage properties and analyse how individual values and the features in which they are found are vulnerable or sensitive to envisaged changes (planned works, changes in use etc.). It should define actions and specific measures for implementing works and fur-ther use;

• elaboration of Expert plans for protection and cultural phenomena19 on the municipality level. I propose their preparation on two levels:

– on a general level with a SWOT20 analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) of heri-tage,

– on the level of the individual unit of heritage or cultural phenomenon with detailed reasoned re-sponses as to what, why,21 how and where we are protecting, and with a presentation of other cultural phenomena;

• the general part of the Expert plans for protection (findings of the SWOT analysis, supplemented with more general data – what, why and where we are protecting) should be used for the requirements of spatial planning for the strategic level. More specific guiding data (with an emphasis primarily on how) should be intended for the implementing level. In any event I propose the drafting of "conditions" and "consent" only for declared cultural monuments, since guidelines for encroachments should already contain spatial implementing conditions;22

• for the needs of regional development, the Expert plans for protection for individual municipalities should be supplemented with other cultural activities of institutions, non-governmental organisations and individuals. Linking in the area of culture on the regional and local levels should encompass profes-sional guidelines for the inclusion of cultural elements (with responses as to what, why, how, where), stemming from people’s needs and wishes and with the constant cooperation of other departments. Possible developmental potentials should be presented to planners in the form of continuity, identity or innovative23 variants. Professional work should be pursued uninterrupted with constant building upon existing material through new research by ethnologists, who should be encouraged and coor-dinated by departments of culture (on the municipality level) and regional development agencies (on the regional level);

• for protected areas, such as landscape areas of national significance, settlements and protected areas for nature protection, the inclusion of the entire cultural activity in processes of protection and development should be pursued in the same way as in regional development procedures, since these areas are not tied to municipal frameworks. I point out the need for priority complex research and consequently the implementation of all other professional procedures necessary for the protection of an area. I insist on the unequivocal definition of what, why, where and how we are protecting cultural elements and not just natural values, as well as on a presentation of the attitude of people generally to nature in that location as a cultural phenomenon;

• the processes of reviving settlements represent a group of various measures in the economic, social and cultural fields, by means of which with adequate spatial planning the preservation and reviving of heritage are ensured. For the requirements of the conservator’s plan for revival, ethnologists should primarily build upon the aforementioned complex research and Expert plans for protection through research of at least the attitude of residents to the settlement and individual buildings, development of specific ways of living in specific buildings and environments and together with inhabitants and institutions seeking possibilities for the most favourable implementation of revival;

• for the Management plan, which is envisaged by the new protection act for protected areas or monu-ments that have an administrator, we should supply a review of cultural values from the Expert plans for protection. Protection data would be harmonised with the other interests of cooperating activities in the area, with the vision of protection and development, strategic and implementing plans of management, the plan of activities and the plan of its monitoring in the management plan. For “monu-ment” areas that overlap with nature protection areas, we should draw up management plans with the

cooperation of both professional services. Ethnologists should cooperate in all phases of prepara-tion, implementation and monitoring of the management plan.

IV. For the purpose of compulsory but not yet feasible implementation of integrated preservation of heritage, ethnologists in the future should cooperate in all its phases and processes, both in the opera-tional sense with all the factors of integrated preservation and in the professional sense with individual models of direct protection for the structure or area. We deal with integrated preservation as the rational allocation of tasks of preserving heritage to various national bodies and local communities (not just to the protection profession) and to cooperation among them. Citizens who own heritage and other interested parties (societies, associations, non-governmental organisations) are important and equal participants in making decisions at all levels of decision-mak-ing. Since I recognise these processes primarily as interpretational-argumentational-coordinating, ethnolo-gists (not just as conservators in the narrow professional sense) could cooperate primarily as commu-nicologists and mediators between all the participating actors, regarding the planning and execution of appropriate renovation encroachments leading to an improvement in life. On the other hand they would also be popularisers and interpreters for all those affected, and outwardly to the rest of society, regarding all the measures leading to protection, preservation and common enjoyment of heritage. They would also function as managers in marketing heritage and networking heritage potentials (for instance in heritage clusters).

V. Owing to the issue of the repressive operation of the protection service – for owing to protection re-quirements there are generally in consequence actions that go against the wishes of the owners of cultural heritage – in addition to an unequivocal and richly interpreted and presented reasoning as to what, why and how we are protecting, it is desirable to have the uninterrupted presence of owners and the public in all protection procedures. Unequivocal argumentation and interpretation of protection material is also important owing to the decisive role of politics, owners and non-governmental organisations in all protection procedures.Conservator ethnologists must cooperate in planning and implementation of all professional proce-dures, as well as in monitoring the state of cultural phenomena, especially with owners,24 residents and administrators, and where necessary also with planners, administrative services and non-governmental organisations. NGOs in particular should perform the role of colleague in protection activities and cor-rector of cultural policy. Only the timely inclusion of owners and users can resolve many later conflict situations, so that they can understand, accept the cultural element as an asset and together with the protection service formulate a vision of preservation. It is not important just to have a legal act of protection, even more important is an awareness of the value of the cultural phenomenon, since first and foremost we are preserving heri-tage actually for the owners, residents and local community, and only then indirectly also for admirers, tourists and so forth. In particular an openness to owner and local initiatives, both for individual renovation measures and for instance in formulating clusters for marketing heritage, should be addressed as a fundamental profes-sional challenge. We should aim to make our work become a result of the initiatives and desires of own-ers and local residents, and not the other way around, as happens in the majority of cases.

VI. Popularisation and education should be provided by means of the widest variety of media with the following content: – protection activities (missions, protection procedures …), – cultural diversity and the most varied significance of heritage (old,25 new26), – specific examples (especially of good solutions) at home and around the world, – providing data on threatened units of heritage and their possible sale, both for professional and lay circles.Popularisation is exceptionally important, especially at a time and in a system that do not facilitate sufficient instruments (e.g. financial, fiscal) to make heritage an economic quality and asset as well as a

268


269


cultural asset for owners. Only an abundant awareness of the values of heritage enable its full and real protection based on appropriate planning by owners and all participants.

In conclusion I would reiterate that the defined programme model for the functioning of conservator ethnolo-gists is not anything new, but something that just in a different way highlights, links or in a new way sheds light on expert tasks, all with the intention of establishing more current, optimal27 and higher quality professional procedures for conservator ethnologists.To sum up, I would point out that complex research, evaluation, inclusion of obtained results in all pro-tection processes and popularisation alongside the constant cooperation of people should flow without interruption and cyclically. This means that following the first “cycle” of the aforementioned professional procedures we would (or could) arrive at abundant popularisation and education, which would facilitate a changed awareness of cultural elements, and consequently at new research results and at new significance that would (or could) be evaluated differently. It follows from this that we should review once again the professional procedures and educational con-tent, which would signify the reformulation of new, higher quality. In this way the sustainable, cyclical professional functioning of conservator ethnologists would enable the most objective possible positioning of cultural phenomena and culture in general in the integrated preservation of heritage and cultural phenomena.

Notes1 Ethnological science after the Second World War, Development of a protection concept here and around the world, The role of the conservator

ethnologist in protection activities, The conservator ethnologist and complex interdisciplinary tasks. 2 Ethnology and the protection of natural and cultural heritage, Ljubljana 2007.3 For instance, in a comparison of the number of conservator ethnologists with curator ethnologists the proportion is 1: 4 in favour of the

latter.4 An essential need, determined in part by the post-modern criticism of forcing an entirely different reality on local residents by ethnolo-

gists, as they themselves recognise. Put another way: frequently interpretations of research and significance are not sufficiently appro-priately and unequivocally presented to people who should definitely be familiarised with such things. This absence leads generally to frequent misunderstandings and conflicts between conservators and owners of protected buildings. Professional ethics and international protection documents are also aimed at such procedures.

5 The chapters on the general scheme of regional identification, which should enable a review of the fundamental components of the way of life, and at the same time demand a condensing of data, mutual comparability of individual works and finally a synthesis, comprise:1. definition of the area; 2. internal machinery of the area (geographical position, language, form of settlements, political and administrative division, judicial

areas and public safety, church administration frameworks, cemeteries, health and veterinary services, post and postal districts, education and schooling, organised educational activities outside regular schooling, transport and transport links, principal offices of monetary institutes, societies and society activities, trading, catering, cultural activities, sports and entertainment facilities, tour-ist and pilgrimage sites, areas and the development of holiday home construction, involvement of the area in regions of broader significance, peripheral locations and less developed areas, outstanding local features, selected locations);

3. demographic development of the area (chiefly the causes of any decline or growth in population, drawing attention to emigration and those living away from the home area);

4. economic development of the area;5. changes to the occupational composition of residents;6. changes to the social composition of residents;7. introducing new features in: farm holdings, handicrafts, building, home furnishings, means of communication, dress and food;8. disintegration and level of preservation of the traditional cultural image (in the location selected for treatment): in agriculture and

animal husbandry, in domestic activities and traditional crafts, in customs, faith, healthcare, music, dance, the artistic horizon and local features;

9. the degree to which the area has been studied ethnologically and proposals (Hudelja 1992: 24). The scheme is used as a framework for research and where necessary is attached depending on the special features of the area in question.

6 Work should firstly be devoted to collecting archive material, collecting literature from the area in question and familiarisation with all the findings to date of basic and other scientific disciplines, and only then should there be “classical” field work with interviews, surveys, observation through direct participation and so forth.

7 More broadly presented in the chapter The role of the conservator ethnologist in protection activities.8 The new Cultural Heritage Protection Act envisages a single register for real estate, movable and living heritage.

9 Hazler 1999: 162–182.10 Pirkovič 1993: 117–125. 11 Koželj 1991: 105–110.12 Additional explanation contributed by the author of the article. 13 Present unequivocal and clear arguments as to why we are protecting. 14 Such as in situ protection, transfer, documentary protection.15 One of the essential conditions for successful professional work is without doubt the demarcation of competence among all institutions

that are in any way tied to protection. Equally, all decision-makers should recognise the principle of “common protection”, which is based on the following: “Cultural and natural heritage are shaped by the human environment; for their common protection, combined activities within the framework of an international ecological approach to spatial management must be implemented. The coordination of policies of heritage preservation and spatial planning is essential.” (Council of Europe 2002: 45)

16 National and local significance.17 The new protection act envisages the conservator’s plan instead of the conservator’s programme.18 This means the fundamental expert task of each participating profession in protection activities.19 Based on complex research, evaluation and interpretation. The new protection act also renamed the Expert plans… as Presentation of the

evaluation of heritage in the environment.20 SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats).21 Present unequivocal arguments based on evaluation – if at all possible, in the way of what can be done, and not what should not be

done.22 Established by the new spatial planning act.23 Bogataj 1992: 44–45.24 In current practice, owners of cultural heritage or monuments generally do not even know the protection status of their real estate. 25 Cultural, economic, social, spatial.26 Political, societal and spatial linking, developmental in the broadest sense.27 For this reason the renewed form of the conditional.

LiteratureJanez Bogataj, Sto srečanj z dediščino na Slovenskem, Ljubljana, 1992. Branka Berce Bratko, Etnološki vidik v urbanističnem in prostorskem planiranju, Ljubljana, 1985. [Master's dissertation at the Ethnology Department of the Ljubljana Faculty of Arts.]Tone Cevc, Peter Fister, Ivan Sedej and Fanči Šarf, Stavbarstvo in stanovanjska oprema, Etnološka topografija slovenskega etničnega ozemlja, V. Vprašalnice, Ljubljana, 1976, 25–110. Kate Clark, From regulation to participation: cultural heritage, sustainable development and citizenship, Forward Planning: The Function of Cultural Heritage in a changing Europe, Council of Europe, http://www.coe.int/, 17. 2. 2006.Council of Europe, European cultural heritage (Volume I) - International co-operation: collected texts, Strasbourg, 2002.Council of Europe, Draft Framework Convention of the Council of Europe on the value of cultural heritage for society and its Explanatory Report, Faro, 2005, http://www.wcd.coe.int/, 25. 10. 2005.Bernard M. Feilden, Jukka Jokilehto, Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites, Rome, 1993.Vito Hazler, Predlog standardov za delo etnologov v spomeniškem varstvu, Etnolog 8, Ljubljana, 1998, 77–104.Ibid., Podreti ali obnoviti? Zgodovinski razvoj, analiza in model etnološkega knservatorstva na Slovenskem, Ljubljana, 1999.Mihaela Hudelja, Uvodna pojasnila k bibliografiji, Poročilo (ETSEO – 20. stoletje), Ljubljana, 1992, 8-24. Jukka Jokilehto, A History of Architectural Conservation, Oxford, 2005. Michael Kearney, Changing Fields of Anthropology: From Local to Global, Lanham, 2004.Zvezdana Koželj, Uvod v etnološko konservatorstvo I, Etnološko konservatorstvo, Ljubljana, 1990, 1–28. [Text for ethnological conservation exercises, Ethnology Department of the Ljubljana Faculty of Arts.]Ibid., Vrednotenje kulturnega pomena Tavčarjevega dvorca na Visokem v Poljanski Dolini, Varstvo spomenikov 33, Ljubljana, 1991, 105–110.Ibid., Kulturna dediščina in turizem, Stanje in perspektive razvoja turizma v gozdnem prostoru, Ljubljana, 2006, 112–123.Ibid., Ethnology, Cultural Heritage and Protected Areas, Etnography of Protected Areas: Endangered Habitats - Endangered Cultures, Županičeva knjižnica 16, Ljubljana, 2006, 19–30.Ibid., Sodobne usmeritve etnologije v varstveni dejavnosti, 9. vzporednice med slovensko in hrvaško etnologijo, Knjižnica GSED 38, Ljubljana, 2006, 335–346.Ibid., Teorija svetovnega sistema Immanuela Wallersteina in varstvo kulturne dediščine, Varstvo spomenikov 41, Ljubljana, 2007, 129–139.Ibid., Etnologija, varstvo dediščine in regionalni razvoj: možnosti in priložnosti etnologije v regionalnem razvoju, Etnologija in regije: Koroška, Knjižnica GSED 40, Ljubljana, 2007, 187–207.Ibid., Etnologija in varstvo naravne in kulturne dediščine, Ljubljana, 2007. [Master's dissertation at the Ethnology Department of the Ljubljana Faculty of Arts.]Slavko Kremenšek, Družbeni temelji razvoja slovenske etnološke misli, Pogledi na etnologijo, Ljubljana, 1978, 9–65.Jelka Pirkovič, Osnovni pojmi in zasnova spomeniškega varstva v Sloveniji, Vestnik 11, Ljubljana, 1993.Philip Carl Salzman, Understanding Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theory, Long Growe, 2001.Ivan Sedej, Resnica in mit v teoriji spomeniškega varstva, Varstvo spomenikov 15, Ljubljana, 1970, 7–14.

270


271


Ibid., Varstvo spomenikov v luči varovanja stavbne dediščine, Varstvo spomenikov 20, Ljubljana, 1976, 325–336.Ibid., Prispevek h konservatorski metodologiji in teoriji, Vestnik 4, Ljubljana, 1977, 66–107. Ibid., Etnološke raziskave in delež etnologije v raziskovanju pogojev za ohranjevanje starih mestnih in vaških jeder, GSED 18/3, Ljubljana, 1978, 58–60.Ibid., Družbeni pomen stavbne dediščine in odnos med kulturnim in naravnim okoljem (Points for discussion), GSED 18/4, Ljubljana, 1978, 65–67. Ibid., Vloga in položaj etnologa v varstvu kulturnih spomenikov, GSED 20/1, Ljubljana, 1980, 3–4.Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik, Etnologija na Slovenskem: Med čermi narodopisja in antropologije, Ljubljana, 2000. Multiple authors, Poglavja iz metodike etnološkega raziskovanja-1, Knjižnica GSED 4, Ljubljana, 1980. Multiple authors, Etnologija – arhitektura, GSED 20/1,3, Ljubljana, 1980. Multiple authors, Slovenski muzej na prostem, Odnos slovenske etnologije do arhitekturne dediščine in sodobnega stanovanjskega načrtovanja, Ljubljana, 1981.Multiple authors, Aktualni vidiki prenove naselbin na Slovenskem, Sinteza 58, 59, 60, Ljubljana, 1982. Multiple authors, Etnologija in nova varstvena zakonodaja, GSED 37/1,2, Ljubljana, 1997.Multiple authors, Navodila za izvedbo programa uvajanja CRPOV in izdelavo razvojnega projekta CRPOV, Ljubljana, 1999.Multiple authors, Ali je v konservatorstvu še vedno prostor za etnologijo? GSED 41/3,4, Ljubljana, 2001.Immanuel Wallerstein, Utopistike ali izbira zgodovinskih možnosti 21. stoletja. Dediščine sociologije, Obljuba družbenih ved, Ljubljana, 1999.Spatial Planning Act, Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 33, Ljubljana, 2007.Cultural Heritage Protection Act, Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 16, Ljubljana, 2008.

Bernarda Županek

Dediščina na razpotju: emonski spomeniki med včeraj in jutri UDK 904(497.4Ljubljana)»652«UDK 719:904(497.4Ljubljana)

Ključne besede: Emona, (arheološka) dediščina, arheološki park, upravljanje dediščine, vključevanje javnosti, dediščina kot družbena praksa

Povzetek

Nepremična dediščina rimskega mesta Emone, prezentirana znotraj Ljubljane, se je v veliki meri ob-likovala v šestdesetih in sedemdesetih letih 20. stoletja; v istem obdobju in specifičnem družbenem kontekstu je bila oblikovana tudi njena pozicija do obiskovalcev. V zadnjih dveh desetletjih, ki ju na področju dediščine tudi pri nas zaznamujeta dva nova poudarka – čim večji dostop do dediščine in participacija javnosti pri njenem oblikovanju ter razumevanje dediščine kot tržnega produkta –, postaja položaj emonske dediščine znotraj Ljubljane vedno bolj obroben. V članku poskušam razumeti vzroke za nastalo situacijo, oceniti današnje stanje in osvetliti konceptualne nastavke za prihodnost.

Emona in njeni spomeniki

Dediščina rimskega mesta Emone, prezentirana znotraj sodobne Ljubljane, obsega dva arheološka parka, kompleks južnega emonskega obzidja na Mirju ter več manjših enot, razpršenih znotraj današnjega mestnega jedra. Ta emonska dediščina je rezultat skoraj stoletnih prizadevanj arheologov in konserva-torjev ter drugih posameznikov in skupin, z njo na različne načine povezanih.1 Kljub prizadevanjem pa je prezentirana emonska dediščina danes – razen ostankov južnega obzidja na Mirju – nepoučenemu težko opazna in tudi zaradi tega težko dostopna.2 Zato je pogosto spregledana, je vedno bolj stran od poti, ki jih uporabljajo Ljubljančani, vedno manj je prisotna v njihovih opažanjih in razmišljanjih. Tudi zato je pogosto objekt vandalizma.3 Zakaj je tako? Predvsem zato, ker je prezentirana emonska dediščina produkt specifičnega historičnega konteksta,4 ki se v zadnjih dveh desetletjih pri nas postopoma, a korenito spreminja. Zato se bistveno spr-eminja tudi položaj emonske dediščine. Danes se nam zastavlja vrsta novih vprašanj: Kako je družbeno okolje določevalo vlogo emonske dediščine nekoč in kakšna je lahko njena vloga v spremenjeni situaciji? Kako upravljati z emonsko dediščino danes in za koga? Kako konceptualizirati vlogo emonske dediščine znotraj Ljubljane v času intenzivnih družbenih sprememb?

Mag. Bernarda Županek, Mestni muzej Ljubljana

272


273


Oblikovanje emonske dediščine

Rimska kolonija Emona je bila verjetno postavljena konec prvega stoletja pred našim štetjem ali v začetku prvega stoletja našega štetja na prostoru današnjega Gradišča na levem bregu Ljubljanice.5 Mesto, nas-eljeno predvsem s kolonisti iz severne Italije, je cvetelo od prvega do nekako začetka petega stoletja. Emona je imela pravokoten tloris z osrednjim trgom ter sistem pravokotno križajočih se cest, med kat-erimi so bile stavbne površine. Mesto je obdajalo obzidje s stolpi, poseljeni pa so bili tudi nekateri predeli zunaj obzidja. Ob severni, zahodni in vzhodni vpadnici v mesto so bila – po rimski navadi – grobišča; predvsem severno grobišče je bilo v šestdesetih letih dvajsetega stoletja temeljito raziskano. Po prvi po-lovici šestega stoletja je življenje v Emoni zamrlo.6

Prezentirani ostanki Emone so skoraj v celoti na območju znotraj nekdanjega mestnega obzidja. Arheološki park Emonska hiša7 leži v jugovzhodnem vogalu nekdanje naselbine; v neposredni bližini so ohranjeni ostanki temelja enega od stolpov v južnem obzidju. Arheološki park Zgodnjekrščansko središče leži v severozahodnem delu nekdanjega rimskega mesta, blizu Cankarjevega doma. Obsežen del južnega emonskega obzidja na Mirju je ohranjen in interpretiran po zaslugi konservatorja dr. Francéta Steléta in arhitekta Jožeta Plečnika.8 Manjši prezentacijski sklopi se nizajo po vsem predelu nekdanjega rimskega mesta: kloaka ob Aškerčevi cesti, temelji bazilike v Jakopičevi galeriji, del zahodnega obzidja pri Cankarjevem domu, del severnega obzidja ob izhodu iz pasaže Maximarketa, v ulici Josipine Turnogra-jske, pa severna emonska vrata, kjer danes domuje Bukvarna, ter kip Emonca, ki kot del nagrobne edi-kule in skupaj z razstavljenim kamnitim sarkofagom nakazuje začetek obsežnega severnega emonskega grobišča tik pred severnimi mestnimi vrati. Posamezni gradbeni elementi stojijo pri gostilni Pod Lipo, blizu lokacije templja kapitolinske triade,9 in ob izhodu iz pasaže Maximarketa. Drugačen opomnik Emoni predstavlja reminiscenca na rimski forum, kot jo je oblikoval arhitekt Edo Ravnikar10 v sklopu tako imenovanih Ferantovih blokov,11 prav tako njegova naznačba emonske rotunde ter v tlaku defini-rani tlorisi rimskih objektov na ploščadi med Cankarjevim domom in stavbo Nove ljubljanske banke. Vsi našteti prezentirani objekti in opomniki so plod skoraj stoletja truda. Prve sistematične arheološke raziskave Emone segajo v čas začetka 20. stoletja, ko je Walter Schmid raziskal južni del rimskega mesta.12 Ta del Emone je želel Schmidt zavarovati in ga preurediti v veliki Emonski muzej. Zato je takratni Mes-tni svet ljubljanski rezerviral oziroma zavaroval ves kompleks južno od Rimske ceste za odkop, raziskavo in prezentacijo Emone ter za načrtovani Emonski muzej.13 Ko pa se je po prvi svetovni vojni Ljubljana začela naglo širiti, je ljubljanski upravni forum prostor južnega dela nekdanjega rimskega mesta razpar-celiral in začel parcele odprodajati zasebnikom v pozidavo.14 Rimski zid je ležal prav na sredi zemljišča, ki naj bi omogočilo živahno zidavo. Prišlo je do zahtev po porušitvi tega dela emonskega obzidja, vendar so prizadevanja Francéta Steléta in Jožeta Plečnika za ohranitev zidu vplivala na javno mnenje, in zaradi pritiskov je mestni svet odstopil od nameravanega rušenja.15

Po letu 1945 je raziskave in zaščitna izkopavanja Emone vodil Mestni muzej Ljubljana. Dela so bila še posebej intenzivna v šestdesetih in sedemdesetih letih. Zajela so tiste dele rimskega mesta, ki so bili ogroženi zaradi novogradenj ali preureditev mestnih cest in kanalizacije. Raziskave Emone je vso drugo polovico dvajsetega stoletja za Mestni muzej Ljubljana vodila dr. Ljudmila Plesničar Gec. V tem času je arheološka in konservatorska stroka spet dala pobudo, da je treba antične ostanke prezentirati in vključiti v okvir sodobne arhitekturne in urbanistične ureditve. Te pobude so bile delno realizirane, in emonska dediščina je bila prezentirana na več lokacijah znotraj Ljubljane.16 Na obsežnejših površinah je bila pred-stavljena v obeh arheoloških parkih, in sicer v Jakopičevem vrtu, odprtem leta 196617 (danes Emonska hiša), in v Starokrščanskem centru, odprtem leta 197618 (danes Zgodnjekrščansko središče).

Emonska dediščina med včeraj ... Nepremična dediščina nekdanjega rimskega mesta Emona je bila v največji meri prezentirana v šestdesetih in sedemdesetih letih 20. stoletja. Mislim dr. Marijana Slabeta, izraženim v članku v tej reviji leta 1988,19 je treba tudi z današnjega gledišča in v primerjavi z nekaterimi okvirno istodobnimi prezentacijami v tujini20 pritrditi: prezentacijska dela so bila opravljena na zelo visoki ravni. Čeprav izkopavalka dr. Ljud-

mila Plesničar, ki je bila tako rekoč kontinuirano angažirana pri arheoloških raziskavah v Ljubljani, v pregledu obsežnih izkopavalnih posegov pravi, da je bil prezentiran le majhen del raziskanih območij, je z današnjega gledišča slika vendarle drugačna: glede na razmere je bilo narejenega veliko. Ne gre podcen-jevati naporov, vloženih v kvalitetna in obsežna prezentacijska dela v času, ko so bili to pionirski projekti, ob katerih so se prve izkušnje tovrstnega dela šele oblikovale, ko je bila zakonodaja takemu delu manj naklonjena in ko je bilo teoretsko, konceptualno ozadje konservatorskih in prezentacijskih del takih historičnih lokacij pri nas še v povojih.Čas raziskovalnih in prezentacijskih posegov na emonski dediščini je tudi čas specifičnega pogleda na arheološko dediščino. V času do obdobja po prvi svetovni vojni se je oblikovala idejna osnova za emon-ske prezentacijske projekte, ki je potem ostala skorajda nespremenjena vse dvajseto stoletje. Odnos do emonskih ostalin se je kazal v ambicioznih projektih ohranjanja velikih površin in situ (na primer Schmidov Emonski muzej,21 potem povojni načrt ureditve Mirja22 in pozneje oba arheološka parka). Načrtovane parkovne ureditve so ustrezale pojmovanju antike, ki ga lahko označimo kot nostalgično23 in elitistično: prezentirane arhitekturne ostaline, urejene v arheološki park, so prostor, namenjen kul-turnemu uživanju izobražencev. Hkrati načrtovani projekti prepovedi pozidave in prezentacije emonske dediščine na zelo obsežnem prostoru izražajo veliko podporo lokalne uprave, tako v času po prvi sve-tovni vojni, ko se je Ljubljana širila in želela postati sodobno mesto (ureditev Mirja), kot v šestdesetih in sedemdesetih letih dvajsetega stoletja, v času oblikovanja Ljubljane v moderno prestolnico uspešne republike (čas nastanka obeh arheoloških parkov).Poskušali smo odgovoriti na vprašanje, kako in zakaj je bila emonska dediščina ohranjana in prezentira-na; ostaja nam še vprašanje, ki je posebno težo dobilo v zadnjih dveh desetletjih (prim. spodaj, Dediščina za obiskovalce), namreč za koga je bila prezentirana. O tem piše dr. Marijan Slabe leta 1986: ”... Vendar se poznavalcu spomeniškovarstvene problematike ob nekaterih primerih zastavlja vrsta vprašanj v zvezi s pogostno ravnijo dojemanja raziskovalcev spomenika; pri tem ne izključujem niti tistega že preživetega pojmovanja, ki ga tu tudi poudarjam, da je arheološki spomenik namenjen predvsem ali zgolj razis-kovanju.”24 Čeprav je imela stroka namen rezultate in dediščino predstaviti javnosti, je to dediščino interpretirala in prezentirala pravzaprav zase. To stanje se je v nekem smislu nadaljevalo do danes; ar-heologija ga je vzdrževala z monopolom nad prenašanjem informacij o dediščini ter odločanjem o po-menu dediščine tako v akademskem kot v bolj neformalnih okoljih, kot so na primer muzeji. Zaradi teh in drugih razlogov25 sta ostajala koncept in vloga emonske dediščine v celotnem dvajsetem stoletju statična. Emonska dediščina je bila videna kot izpovedna sama po sebi, ko je enkrat izkopana, raziskana in prezentirana. Kljub drugačnemu družbenemu kontekstu je enak koncept veljal tudi v času najintenzivnejšega od-krivanja in prezentiranja Emone, v šestdesetih in sedemdesetih letih. Prav v tem obdobju je dobila ideja emonske dediščine trdno obliko zaradi prizadevanj in pritiskov tako arheološke kot konservatorske stroke ter ob podpori države. V tem času so se oblikovale mnoge ideje za vključitev emonske dediščine v tkivo Ljubljane. Izhodišča za inkorporiranje v mestno tkivo je stroka dovolj domislila in izdelala, vendar so stala na isti premisi kot desetletja prej; emonsko dediščino so razumela kot v času zamrznjen ostanek antične kulture, namenjen uživanju ozkih družbenih skupin, ki jo poznajo in cenijo. Čeprav je bilo vseskozi poudarjeno, da je “... treba poiskati tudi primerne načine, ki bi dali posamezni arheološki dediščini, namenjeni za prezentacijo, ustrezno funkcijo, ki je ... eden temeljnih elementov ohranitve in varovanja nekega arheološkega spomenika v okolju,”26 do tovrstne integracije ni prišlo. Kljub spoznanju, da “…. prezentacija ni končni postopek v okviru predstavitve spomenika, marveč šele začetna faza nje-gove oživitve,” tega zaradi zgoraj naštetih razlogov ni bilo moč v celoti realizirati. Skratka, prezentirana emonska dediščina je, kot smo zapisali že v začetku, kljub dolgoletnim, inten-zivnim in premišljenim prizadevanjem danes praviloma slabo prepoznavna, težko dostopna in težko razumljiva.27 Taka izkušnja ni izjemna, ampak relativno pogosta28 in razumljiva: upravljanje arheološke dediščine je namreč praviloma dolgoročen eksperiment, ki temelji na spreminjajočih se vrednotah in percepcijah in katerega izid je v celoti zelo težko predvideti.29

274


275


… in jutri

Vloga dediščine v družbi se je v zadnjih dveh desetletjih temeljito spremenila in se še vedno intenzivno spreminja. Ob hitrih tehnoloških in družbenih spremembah, ko urbana družba postaja vedno bolj dis-locirana od svoje preteklosti, postaja dediščina – ki je ključna pri konstruiranju identitete, tradicije in kulturnih referenčnih točk – vedno pomembnejša. Hkrati pa se – z razvojem turistične industrije, predvsem tako imenovanega “heritage tourism” – dediščina spreminja v blago, produkt na trgu. Pojem dediščine se oblikuje kot odgovor na spremenjene potrebe družbe. V zadnjih desetletjih z globalizacijo narašča pomen lokalnih identitet, zato dediščina postaja vedno pomembnejša v mednarodnem merilu.30 V času globalizacije, vpliva transnacionalnega kapitala, komunikacij in kulture je iskanje avtentičnosti in korenin vedno intenzivnejše. Kot odmeven model upravljanja z dediščino se namreč že vsaj dve desetletji v svetu uveljavlja tisto, čemur angleško govoreči pravijo »heritage industry«, v povezavi z drugo vrtoglavo rastočo globalno gos-podarsko panogo – turizmom. Internacionalnost turizma med drugim narekuje primerjavo turističnih – in znotraj teh historičnih – lokacij v zahodnem svetu in posledično spremembe v skladu s trendi množičnega turizma.31 Tu je treba omeniti Disneyland kot model ultimativnega prostora za zabavno preživljanje prostega časa in veliko turistično atrakcijo. Ta komercialno nedvomno izjemno uspešni model, ki so ga vzpostavile ZDA, je deležen neposrednega posnemanja z raznimi Gardalandi, pa tudi bolj posrednega oponašanja. Slednjo pot so izbrali nekateri evropski arheološki parki, ki se odločajo za rekonstrukcije objektov in historičnih ambientov, na oblikovanje katerih vpliva predvsem cilj privabiti čim več obiskovalcev.32 Skratka, zaposleni v tako imenovani industriji dediščine33 delamo v okolju, kjer se tekmovalnost in konkurenčna ponudba povečujeta.34 Tržna naravnanost, stremenje po profitu in čim prejšnji povrnitvi finančnega vložka, ki so med premisami industrije dediščine, so poleg priložnosti tudi povsem konkretna nevarnost za dediščino: kvaliteta, avtentičnost, strokovnost so redko v interesu kapitala. Zagovornike dediščine kot tržnega produkta (tako v smislu turizma kot industrije dediščine nasploh) vodijo komer-cialne vrednote, ki so pogosto drugačne kot kulturne vrednote: prve so orientirane na sedanjost in trajajo le toliko časa, dokler je profit, druge segajo globlje in širše.35 Turistični produkt ima neizogibno omejeno življenjsko dobo in izbere iz preteklosti tisto, kar lahko prinaša dobiček. Vendar pa v procesu izbiranja bodočega produkta izmed možnosti, ki jih ponuja preteklost, komercialne vrednote uspešno ustvarjajo novo kulturo, ki nam omogoča zlahka zdrsniti med sedanjost in preteklost in katere vrednote temeljijo na tem, da je treba biti zanimiv, in ne na tem, da je treba biti avtentičen, zgodovinsko ustrezen.36 Zato je za nas v tem spreminjajočem se času verjetno največji izziv, kot pravi Grahame Black, na kakšen način bomo “uravnotežili pretekle elitistične težnje s populistično in tržno orientirano sedanjostjo”.37 In konkretno za emonsko dediščino jutri in v prihodnje: kako zgraditi most med preteklostjo, ko je bila ta dediščina slabše dostopna, manj opazna, manj poudarjana, ter sedanjostjo, ki je in bo vedno bolj tržno naravnana. Kako obdržati kvaliteto in strokovnost ter se ne ujeti v past populizma in trivialnih razlag preteklosti? Kakšna bo znotraj tega okvirja prihodnost emonske dediščine? Kako uravnotežiti vrednost historičnih formacij s potrebo po razvoju urbanega okolja? Kako in predvsem za koga ohranjati in up-ravljati emonsko dediščino? Kako konceptualizirati njeno jutrišnjo podobo?

Dediščina kot družbena praksa

Iz zgoraj povedanega povzemamo, da sta danes videti za upravljanje emonske nepremične dediščine aktualna dva modela: na eni strani »nedotakljiva« dediščina, ki jo je treba varovati za vsako ceno – torej model, ki je bil v uporabi doslej –, na drugi strani pa dediščina kot tržno blago, ki naj se jo čim bolj izkorišča in tudi potvarja, da bi bila bolj privlačna. Debate o dediščini pri nas in v tujini preveva osnovni konflikt med tema modeloma. Glavni fokus prvega modela je na spomeniku oziroma najdišču, ki je bil posamezniku ali organizaciji zaupan v skrb in varovanje, in ne – ali vsaj ne dovolj – na kakršni koli obstoječi ali možni/potencialni uporabi tega. Zdi se, da so v tem modelu obiskovalci nujno zlo ali so tolerirani kot neka obrobna, zunanja funkcija v zvezi s samim spomenikom in jih je treba upravljati na

tak način, da spomenik ostane nedotaknjen.38 Druga skrajnost, ki jo – zaenkrat še predvsem v tujini – za-stopajo agencije in podjetja, katerih interes je potrošnja dediščine, pa je, da je dediščina ena od možnosti prostočasnih aktivnosti, dobro plačana turistična ponudba, “avtentičen” produkt, ki ga je treba narediti iz dostopnih virov.39 Kako torej glede na uveljavljena modela konceptualizirati jutrišnjo podobo emonske nepremične dediščine? Menimo, da je poleg obeh naštetih možen še tretji model; model, ki dediščino odpira, vendar vztraja pri avtentičnosti, unikatnosti in kvaliteti za vsako ceno. Dediščina nastaja in živi kot družbeni proces in praksa, zato jo je treba – in je to tudi edino smiselno – kot tako tudi upravljati. To pomeni, da je ob varovanju spomenika poudarjena kvalitetna komunikacija z obiskovalci, sodelovanje ljudi, odpiranje ograj. Zakaj toliko poudarjamo javne programe, angažiranje obiskovalca, doživljanje, izkušnje? Ker je dediščina več kot spomenik ali skupek spomenikov: razumemo jo kot družbeni in kulturni proces, ne zgolj kot fizično prisotnost spomenikov. Dediščina v resnici stalno nastaja – nastaja v dinamičnem procesu, v katerem je preteklost uporabljena kot izhodišče za debato, konflikte in pogajanja o tem, kaj naj bo vrednoteno in varovano in zakaj.40 Znotraj takega pogleda na dediščino je ta predvsem komunikacijska praksa,41 zato se najbolje udejanja v javnih programih, projektih vključevanja javnosti in podobnih dejavnostih. Samo v tem smislu je dediščina nekaj živega: zaživi z izkustvi, aktivnostmi, ukvarjanjem z njo, udejanjanjem. Tak način up-ravljanja je tudi najboljše varovalo proti vandalizmu,42 ki v zadnjem desetletju kontinuirano povzroča številne poškodbe na emonski dediščini,43 in dolgoročno pomembna oblika preventivne konservacije tega korpusa spomenikov. Spoznanje o tesni zvezi med živostjo dediščine in možnostjo njene ohranitve in varovanja pri nas ni novost.44

Dediščina za obiskovalce

Komu je emonska dediščina namenjena? Obiskovalcem, seveda. Predvsem mora biti namenjena Ljubljančanom, saj je njihova, del njihove zgodovine in identitete. Tudi pri nas – kot v tujini že de-setletja – vedno bolj poudarjamo nujnost intenzivnejšega približevanja dediščine javnosti.45 Javni zavodi s področja kulture – in tako med njimi tudi Mestni muzej Ljubljana, ki je upravitelj obeh arheoparkov – so vedno bolj zavezani k široki vlogi v družbi: od varovanja dediščine do njenega predstavljanja javnosti s širokim spektrom različnih dejavnosti – podporo vseživljenjskemu učenju, povečevanjem dostopa do dediščine, vključevanjem lokalnih skupnosti in tako naprej –, ki imajo skupni imenovalec: več komu-nikacije z obiskovalcem. Doseči učinkovitejšo komunikacijo z občinstvom pa je tudi eno od izhodišč sodobne arheološke prakse, ki ga poudarjajo tako etični imperativi kot vedno bolj tudi imperativi fi-nancerjev. Kako je emonska dediščina povezana z javnostjo, z Ljubljančani? Doslej je pri upravljanju z emon-sko dediščino prejkone veljal model »nedotakljive« dediščine, ki jo je treba varovati za vsako ceno. Vključevanje v življenje mesta je bilo sicer zaželeno,46 vendar videno predvsem v povezavi z delovanjem drugih institucij. Tako naj bi Cankarjev dom pripomogel k oživitvi parka Zgodnjekrščansko središče,47 kar pa se ni uresničilo. Premalo se je vlagalo v komunikacijo emonske dediščine na večini lokacij. Zato je danes praktično edini del emonske dediščine, ki stalno živi in je vključen v življenje mesta, prezentirani del južnega emonskega obzidja na Mirju. Na lokaciji sicer povsem manjkajo ustrezne informacije o tem objektu v preteklosti, in tudi zato Mirje živi v povsem drugem kontekstu. Vsekakor pa je Mirje primer žive dediščine: ta nastaja, ko je vključena v vsakdanjik, dediščina ni nekaj, kar se zgodi samo ob sobotah. Drugi deli emonske dediščine prejkone stagnirajo. Zakaj? Kot druga mesta je tudi Ljubljana pomemben historični in arheološki vir pokopanih informacij, saj nam zgradbe, struk-ture in deli tlorisne zasnove pomagajo preučevati preteklost in nas povezujejo z našo zgodovino. Vendar mesta morajo rasti in se razvijati; dediščina, ki je rigidno zaprta za najmanjše spremembe, ki ni prostor za igro otrok, posedanje, dogodke, prireditve, ostane zunaj, odmaknjena, neživa. Mestno življenje jo odrine na obrobje svojih interesov ali, kot je jasno prepoznano že vsaj 30 let, ”... prezentacija ni končni postopek v okviru predstavitve spomenika, marveč šele začetna faza njegove oživitve”.48

276


277


Vsekakor je treba emonsko dediščino še bolj intenzivno odpreti, jo vključiti v kvalitetne javne površine, ji dati javno funkcijo, jo vključiti v življenje mesta. Prezentirana emonska dediščina je prostor za javne programe, bodisi podobne, kot jih v Mestnem muzeju Ljubljana že izvajamo, bodisi nove. Ena od alter-nativ je pripeljati v historično okolje emonske dediščine programe, ki niso povezani s tem kontekstom, na primer manjše koncerte nerimske glasbe ali moderne instalacije; tako povabimo v historični prostor ljudi, ki jih dediščina primarno sploh ne zanima, in jim morda posredno vzbudimo zanimanje zanjo. Dober primer oživljanja dediščine sta oba arheološka parka, kjer je Mestni muzej Ljubljana z dolgo-letno akcijo privabljanja otrok iz ljubljanskih, okoliških in tudi zelo oddaljenih vrtcev in šol uspel s pedagoškimi programi, povezanimi z rimskim obdobjem, z dnevi odprtih vrat in drugimi akcijami vz-postaviti stalno zanimanje določenih skupin za te spomenike in emonsko dediščino kot celoto. Oba arheološka parka sta namreč del celote, del prezentirane dediščine Emone. Ta le kot celota lahko daje ustrezen historični kontekst posameznim spomenikom, prezentiranim znotraj nje; le kot celota je emon-ska dediščina pomenljiva tudi v manj povednih delih, razumljiva tudi v skritih detajlih in reminiscencah. Zato je treba vse emonske spomenike tudi fizično povezati v celoto, v enoto: z oznakami, vodniki, do-godki, zgodbami in podobno.Tako bo razumevanje emonske dediščine lažje in njena vključenost v urbano jedro Ljubljane bolj po-menljiva; vodeni ogledi tako ne bodo več nujnost, ampak opcija, saj si bo emonske spomenike lahko ogledal in se o njih poučil vsakdo sam. Tovrsten premik k posameznikovemu raziskovanju, ki je hkrati premik k aktivnejšemu in bolj individualnemu ukvarjanju z dediščino, smo v Mestnem muzeju začeli z danes aktualnim mobilnim učenjem z GPS-vodnikom po Emoni.49

Namesto zaključka

Arheologi, konservatorji in drugi strokovnjaki s področja dediščine smo vedno bolj odgovorni javnosti, ljudem zunaj svoje discipline. Eden velikih izzivov arheološke prakse danes je, na kakšen način razlagati arheološke koncepte in dognanja tako, da bodo razumljivi najširši publiki.50 Ker dediščina ni zgolj ob-jekt, ampak socialna praksa, in je kot taka neprestano v nastajanju, ni ogrožena samo v fizičnem smislu. Zavedanje, da je dediščina neprestano nastajajoč konstrukt, je ključno za iskanje novega načina upravl-janja z njo: načina, kako najširšemu občinstvu predstaviti preteklost historično ustrezno in hkrati razum-ljivo, in načina, ki bo znal obiskovalca privabiti k aktivnemu sodelovanju pri oblikovanju dediščine. Skratka, interpretacija dediščine na način, ki je pomenljiv za najširšo javnost, spodbujanje različnih interpretacij ter vključevanje različnih interesnih skupin v diskusije o dediščini morajo biti za arheologe, konservatorje in druge strokovnjake znotraj varstva spomenikov ena od poklicnih obveznosti, ki ni nič manj pomembna kot katera koli druga.

Opombe1 Prim. Ljudmila Plesničar Gec, Ohranjanje starih vrednot. O antičnih spomenikih v Ljubljani, Prešernov koledar 1986, str. 66–72; Iva

Curk, Sto zgodb arheoloških spomenikov v Sloveniji, Ljubljana: Prešernova družba, 1995, str. 72–87.2 Bernarda Županek, Dediščina rimske Emone: med nostalgijo in avtoriteto, v: Dediščina v rokah stroke (ur. Jože Hudales in Nataša

Visočnik). Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za etnologijo in kulturno antropologijo 2005, Zbirka Županičeva knjižnica, št. 14, str. 155–163.

3 Op. 2.4 Op. 2.5 M. Šašel Kos, The 15th Legion at Emona-Some Thoughts, v: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 109, 1995, str. 227–244; Lju-

d6ila Plesničar Gec, Urbanizem Emone, Ljubljana: Mestni muzej Ljubljana, Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete 1999.6 Ljudmila Plesničar Gec, Emona v pozni antiki v luči arhitekture, Arheološki vestnik 48, Ljubljana 1997, str. 359–370.7 Ta park je bil ob nastanku poimenovan Arheološki park Jakopičev vrt zaradi slikarjevega ateljeja v bližini. V letih uporabe se je izkazalo,

da obiskovalce moti diskordanca med imenom parka in njegovo vsebino – da tâko poimenovanje ustvarja nesporazume. Zato smo v letu 2006 park v skladu z njegovo vsebino preimenovali v Arheološki park Emonska hiša.

8 Prim. Curk (op. 1), str. 72. 9 Ljudmila Plesničar Gec, Emonski forum, Koper: Založba Annales, 2006, str. 31.10 Edvard Ravnikar, 1907–1993.11 Prim. Ljudmila Plesničar Gec, Arheološki spomeniki Ljubljane, Varstvo spomenikov 19, Ljubljana 1987, str. 47.

12 Walter Schmid, Emona, Jahrbuch für Altertumskunde 7, Dunaj: A. Schroll & Co. 1913.13 Ljudmila Plesničar, Jakopičev vrt. Kulturni in naravni spomeniki Slovenije, Zbirka vodnikov 14, 1968, str. 3–4.14 Curk (op. 1), str. 72.15 Curk (op. 1), str. 72.16 Prim. tudi tipološko delitev v Marijan Slabe, Iz izkušenj pri prezentiranju arheološke dediščine, Varstvo spomenikov 30, Ljubljana 1988,

str. 13–21; Plesničar Gec, op. 5, str. 113–118. 17 Op. 13. 18 Ljudmila Plesničar Gec, Zgodnjekrščanski center v Emoni, Kulturni in naravni spomeniki Slovenije, Zbirka vodnikov 198, Ljubljana

1999.19 Slabe (op. 16), str. 14.20 Na primer Flavia solva (Wagna pri Lipnici blizu Gradca) in Carnuntum (Petronell blizu Dunaja).21 Prim. Plesničar Gec (op. 1), str. 68.22 Marjan Mušič, Poročilo referata za arhitekturo in urbanizem. Varstvo spomenikov 3–4, Ljubljana 1949, str. 79–85.23 Cornelius Holtorf, Monumental Past: The Life-histories of Megalithic Monuments in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany). Electronic

monograph. University of Toronto: Centre for Instructional Technology Development. http://hdl.handle.net/1807/245, 2000, poglavje Nostalgia na https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/citd/holtorf/5.4.html, 12. 9. 2007.

24 Marijan Slabe, O vrednotenju nepremične arheološke dediščine, Varstvo spomenikov 28, Ljubljana 1986, str. 121.25 Glej op. 2.26 Marijan Slabe, O vrednotenju nepremične arheološke dediščine, Varstvo spomenikov 28, Ljubljana 1986, str. 126.27 Glej op. 2. 28 Prim. Cornelius Holtorf, Monumental Past: The Life-histories of Megalithic Monuments in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany). Elec-

tronic monograph. University of Toronto: Centre for Instructional Technology Development. http://hdl.handle.net/1807/245, 2000, poglavje Desecration and destruction na https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/citd/holtorf/5.13.html (12. 9. 2007).

29 Prim. Stanley South, Generalized versus literal interpretation, v: John H. Jameson ur., Presenting archaeology to the public, Altamira Press: Walnut Creek 1997, str. 54–62.

30 Robert Lumley, The debate on heritage reviewed, v: Towards the museum of the future: new European perspectives. London, New York : Routledge 1994, str. 62.

31 Glej op. 30; Aylin Orbaşlí, Tourists in historic towns: urban conservation and heritage management, London, New York : E & FN Spon 2000, str. 1–4.

32 Na primer Carnuntum, http://www.carnuntum.co.at/content-en/tales-from-carnuntum/rome2019s-metropolis-on-the-danube-awak-ens-to-new-life-1/rome2019s-metropolis-on-the-danube-awakens-to-new-life/approaching-a-new-era, 17. 8. 2007.

33 V iskanju boljše rešitve zaenkrat uporabljam to skovanko za angleški izraz »heritage industry«.34 Prim. Eilean Hooper-Greenhill, Museum education: past, present and future, v: R. Miles in L. Zavalo ur., Towards the museum of the

future: new European perspectives, London, New York: Routledge 1994, str. 30–33.35 P. T. Newby, Tourism: support or threat to heritage?, v: G. J. Ashworth in P. J. Larkham ur., Building a new heritage. Tourism, culture and

Identity in the new Europe, London, New York: Routledge 1994, str. 216.36 Glej op. 35.37 Graham Black, The Engaging Museum. Developing museums for visitor involvement, London, New York: Routledge 2005.38 G. J. Ashworth in P. J. Larkham, A heritage for Europe. The need, the task, the contribution, v: G. J. Ashworth in P. J. Larkham ur.,

Building a new heritage. Tourism, culture and Identity in the new Europe, London, New York: Routledge 1994, str. 5.39 Glej op. 38.40 Laurajane Smith, The uses of heritage, London, New York: Routledge 2006.41 Glej op. 40.42 Op. 23. 43 Predvsem so zaradi vandalizma kontinuirano ogroženi kamniti arhitekturni členi, razstavljeni v parku poleg obzidja na Mirju, ter po-

gosto tudi kompozicija ob spomeniku Emoncu. 44 Slabe (op. 26), str. 124.45 Glej na primer Richard Sandell, Social inclusion, the museum and the dynamics of sectoral change, Museum and society 1, 2003, str.

45–62; Grahame Black, The Engaging Museum. Developing museums for visitor involvement, London, New York: Routledge 2005.46 Plesničar Gec (op. 11), str. 47.47 Plesničar Gec (op. 11), str. 47.48 Slabe (op. 26), str. 124.49 Bernarda Županek, Dimitrij Mlekuž: GPS v muzeju: poskus izdelave digitalnega vodnika po Emoni, Argo 50/1, 2007.50 Glej John McCarthy, More than just »telling the story«: interpretative narrative archaeology, v: John H. Jameson, Jr., John E. Ehrenhard

in Christine A. Finn ur., Ancient muses. Archaeology and the Arts, Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press 2003, str. 15–24; prim. tudi Predrag Novaković, Refleksija o treh esejih, Arheo 22, 2002, str. 83–90.

278


279


Slika 1. Rimski zid na Mirju, jesen 2007. Foto Bernarda Županek

Figure 1: The Roman wall at Mirje, autumn 2007. Photo: Bernarda Županek

Slika 2: Dela ob konservaciji in prezentaciji zahodnega emonskega obzidja pri Cankarjevem domu leta 1980. Fototeka Mestnega muzeja Ljubljana

Figure 2: Conservation and presentation work at the western wall of Emona near Cankarjev Dom in 1980. Fototeka, City Museum of Ljubljana

Slika 3: Idejni plan ureditve arheološkega parka na Mirju iz leta 1949. Današnji arheološki park Emonska hiša in prezenti-rano južno rimsko obzidje sta označena s puščico; obsežen prezentacijski kompleks na levi strani slike ni bil realiziran (po Mušič 1949, str. 83).

Figure 3: Plan for an archaeological park in Mirje from 1949. The present archaeological park Emonska Hiša and the vis-ible southern Roman wall are indicated with an arrow; the extensive presentation complex on the left-hand side was never realised (Mušič 1949, p. 83).

280


281


Slika 4. Reminiscenca na emonsko rotundo ob Slovenski cesti. Fototeka Mestnega muzeja Ljubljana

Figure 4: Imitation of an Emonan rotunda, Slovenska Cesta. Fototeka, City Museum of Ljubljana

Slika 5: “Živo” rimsko obzidje na Mirju. Fototeka Mestnega muzeja Ljubljana

Figure 5: “Live” Roman wall at Mirje. Fototeka, City Museum of Ljubljana

282


283


Slika 6: Javni programi Mestnega muzeja: Arheopeskovnik in Dan odprtih vrat arheoparkov. Fototeka Mestnega muzeja Ljubljana

Figure 6: The public programme of the City Museum of Ljubljana: Archaeological sandpit and open day for the archaeologi-cal parks. Fototeka, City Museum of Ljubljana

Bernarda Županek

Heritage at the Crossroads: Monuments of Emona Between Yesterday and Tomorrow Key words: Emona, (archaeological) heritage, archaeological park, heritage management, publicinclusion, heritage as social practice

Summary

The architectural heritage of the Roman city of Emona, which can be seen in Ljubljana, was shaped to a large extent in the 1960s and 1970s. In the same period and in a specific social context, its relation to visitors also took on a distinct form. In the past two decades, during which new aspects have been emphasised – increasing access to heritage, the participation of the public in shaping it, and heritage as a marketable product – Emona’s heritage in Ljubljana has become increasingly marginal. In this article, I have tried to understand the reasons why this situation has come about, to evaluate the state of affairs today and to shed light on conceptual guidelines for the future.

Emona and its monuments

The heritage of the Roman city of Emona, presented within modern-day Ljubljana, comprises two ar-chaeological parks, the section of Emona’s southern surrounding wall at Mirje, and several smaller units scattered around the present-day city centre. This heritage is the result of almost a century’s efforts by archaeologists, conservators and other individuals and groups connected with Emona in various ways.1 Despite these efforts, what can be seen nowadays of Emona’s heritage – with the exception of the wall at Mirje – is not likely to be noticed by the untrained eye and is, therefore, not easily accessible.2 That is why it is often overlooked, is always away from the routes used by the inhabitants of Ljubljana, and is noticed and thought about less and less. That is also why it is often vandalised.3 Why are things this way? Above all, it is because the visible heritage of Emona is the product of a spe-cific historic context4 which in the past two decades has been gradually, but thoroughly, changing. For this reason, the situation of Emona’s heritage has also been fundamentally changing. Nowadays, we are faced with a series of new questions: How did the social surroundings determine the role of Emona’s heritage in the past and what can its role be in the altered situation? How should the heritage of Emona be managed nowadays and for whom? How should the role of Emona’s heritage within Ljubljana be conceptualised in a time of intense social changes?

Managing Emona’s heritage

The Roman colony Emona was probably set up at the end of the first century BC or in the beginning of the first century AD, on the site of present-day Gradišče on the left bank of River Ljubljanica.5 The city, inhabited mainly by colonists from northern Italy, flourished from the first until about the beginning of

Mag Bernarda Županek, City Museum of Ljubljana

284


285


the fifth century AD. Emona had a square plan shape with a central square and a system of perpendicular streets, between which stood buildings. The city was surrounded by a wall with towers, but people also lived outside the walls. As was the Roman custom, there were burial grounds along the northern, western and eastern roads leading into the city. The northern burial ground, above all, was studied in depth in the 1960s. After the first half of the sixth century, life in Emona died out.6

The visible remains of Emona are almost exclusively located within the former city walls. The archaeo-logical park Emonska Hiša7 (“house of Emona”) lies in the southeastern corner of the former settlement. In the immediate vicinity, there are the preserved remains of the foundations of one of the towers in the southern wall. The archaeological park Zgodnjekrščansko središče (Early Christian Place of Worship) lies in the northwestern part of the former Roman city, near Cankarjev Dom. A large part of the southern wall of Emona at Mirje is preserved and has been interpreted thanks to conservator Dr Francé Stelé and architect Jože Plečnik.8 Small clusters of visible remains can be found all over the former Roman city: the cloaca near Aškerčeva Cesta, the foundations of a basilica in Jakopič’s Gallery, part of the western wall near Cankarjev Dom, part of the northern wall in the Maximarket passage on Ulica Josipine Turn-ograjske, and the northern gate to Emona where nowadays we find the Bukvarna and the statue of an inhabitant of Emona, which, form part of the funerary aedicula and, together with the exhibited stone sarcophagus, mark the beginning of an extensive burial ground of northern Emona just next to the northern city gate. Individual construction elements can be seen in front of the restaurant Pod Lipo, near where the temple in honour of the Capitoline Triad9 was located, and at the exit from the Maximarket passage. A different kind of reminder of Emona is the copy of a Roman forum, designed by architect Edo Ravnikar10 as part of the so-called Ferantovi Bloki,11 as well as his imitation of an Emonan rotunda and the ground plans of Roman buildings marked clearly in the paving on the square between Cankarjev Dom and the building which houses Nova Ljubljanska Banka. All of the above-mentioned visible objects and imitations are the fruit of almost a century of hard work. The first systematic archaeological investigations of Emona go back to the beginning of the 20th century, when Walter Schmid explored the southern part of the Roman city.12 Schmid wanted to preserve this part of Emona and turn it into a large museum devoted to the Roman city. That is why the Ljubljana City Council at the time reserved and secured the whole complex south of Rimska Cesta for the exca-vation, research and presentation of Emona, and for the planned museum.13 However, after the First World War, when Ljubljana began to expand rapidly, the Ljubljana administrative forum parcelled out the area around the southern part of the former Roman city and began selling off plots of land to private owners for them to build on.14 The Roman wall was located in the very middle of this area of land which was to undergo lively development. Demands for Emona’s walls, located in this area, to be demolished were made, but the efforts of Francé Stelé and Jože Plečnik to preserve the wall had an influence on pub-lic opinion; so as a result of the pressure, the city council abandoned its demolition plans.15

After 1945, research and protective excavations of Emona were managed by the City Museum of Lju-bljana. Work was particularly intensive during the 1960s and 1970s. It encompassed those parts of the Roman city which were threatened by new construction or alterations to the city roads and sewage system. This research was led throughout the second half of the twentieth century for the City Museum of Ljubljana by Dr. Ljudmila Plesničar Gec. During this time, experts in archaeology and conservation again suggested that antique remains should be put on display and included within the framework of contemporary architectural and urbanistic solutions. These suggestions were partly realised and Emona’s heritage was presented at several Ljubljana locations.16 It was presented on more sizeable surface ar-eas in both archaeological parks: Jakopičev Vrt, opened in 196617 (nowadays Emonska Hiša), and in Zgodnjekrščansko Središče, which was opened in 197618.

The heritage of Emona between yesterday... The remains of the Emona buildings were mainly presented during the 1960s and 1970s. Dr. Marijan Slabe’s opinion expressed in an article in this review in 198819 must be approved from today’s point of view, especially when compared with some contemporaneous presentations abroad20: the work done to put these objects on display was on a very high level. Although excavator Dr. Ljudmila Plesničar, who

was almost continuously involved in archaeological investigations in Ljubljana, says that only a small part of the explored areas were put on display, today’s perspective is nevertheless different: considering the circumstances, much was accomplished. We must not underestimate the effort invested in quality and extensive presentation work at a time when these were pioneering projects. Experience was still being gained, legislation was less favourably inclined to such work and the theoretic and conceptual background to the work of conserving and presenting such historical locations in Slovenia was still in its infancy.The period of investigative and presentational work on Emona’s heritage was also a time marked by a specific view of archaeological heritage. In the time leading up to the end of the First World War, a plan was drawn up for projects to present Emona which then remained almost unchanged for the entire twentieth century. The attitude towards the remains of Emona was reflected in the ambitious projects to preserve large areas in situ (e.g. Schmid’s Emona museum,21 then the post-war plan for the development of Mirje22, and later, both archaeological parks). The planned parks reflected the perception of antiquity: nostalgic;23 and elitist: the presented architectural remains, arranged in the form of an archaeological park, are places intended for the cultural pleasure of educated people. The simultaneous plans to prohibit further construction and to present Emona’s heritage on an extensive area show the strong support by the local administration, both in the time after the First World War, when Ljubljana was expanding and aspiring to become a modern city (the development of Mirje), as well as in the 1960s and 1970s, when Ljubljana was in the process of becoming a modern capital of a successful republic (which is when both archaeological parks came about).We have tried to answer the question, how and why Emona’s heritage was preserved and presented; but we are left with the question, which in particular has gained importance in the past two decades (com-pare below, Heritage for visitors), namely, for whom was it presented. Dr Marijan Slabe wrote about this in 1986: “... However, an expert on problems of monument preservation is sometimes asked questions which reveal the common perception of those that study monuments; by this, I do not exclude even that old way of thinking which I also stress here, namely, that the archaeological monument is meant above all or exclusively for study.”24 Although experts intended to present the results and heritage to the public, they actually interpreted and presented this heritage for themselves. In a way, this state of affairs continued until the present day; archaeology kept it alive with a monopoly on the transfer of informa-tion on heritage, and on deciding about the significance of heritage, both in academic as well as in more informal environments such as museums. For these and other reasons,25 the concept and role of Emona’s heritage remained static throughout the entire twentieth century. Emona’s heritage was considered to speak for itself once it was excavated, researched and presented. Despite a different social context, the same concept was valid also at the time of the most intensive excavation and presentation of Emona in the 1960s and 1970s. In this period, the notion of Emona’s heritage gained a solid form, following efforts and pressure both from archaeological as well as conser-vation experts, accompanied by support from the state. During this time, many ideas were mooted on how to incorporate Emona’s heritage into the fabric of Ljubljana. The starting points for how to do this were well-thought-out, but they were still based on the same premise as decades earlier; they understood Emona’s heritage to be a reminder of an antique culture which had remained frozen in time and which was meant for the enjoyment of a narrow group of people who know it well and value it. Even though it was always emphasised that “... suitable ways must be found to give individual items of archaeological heritage, intended for presentation, a suitable function, which is ... one of the basic elements of preserv-ing and protecting an archaeological monument in a set environment”,26 such integration was never achieved. Despite the realisation that “…. presentation is not the final action, but only the initial phase of its revival”, this could not be fully realised for the above reasons. In short, as stated at the beginning, despite many years of intense and well-considered efforts, nowa-days the presented heritage of Emona is on the whole poorly known, difficult to access and difficult to understand.27 Such an experience is relatively common28 and understandable: managing archaeological heritage is normally a long-term experiment founded on changing values and perceptions, and it is very difficult to foresee the results in their entirety.29

286


287


… and tomorrow

In the past two decades, the role of heritage in society has changed fundamentally and continues to change intensively. With rapid technological and social transformations, urban society is becoming in-creasingly disconnected from its past; heritage – which is key to creating an identity, tradition and cultural reference points – is becoming increasingly important. And at the same time, with the tourist industry developing (especially so-called “heritage tourism”), heritage is being transformed into a prod-uct on the market. The concept of heritage is being modelled as a response to the changing needs of society. In the past decades, globalisation has meant that the importance of local identities is growing; so heritage is becoming increasingly important on an international scale.30

In an era of globalisation and the influence of trans-national capital, communications and culture, the search for authenticity and roots is becoming more and more intense.For at least two decades, a valued model of heritage management, known as “heritage industry” has been developing in connection with another steeply growing global economic sector – tourism. The interna-tional nature of tourism is one of the factors which dictate the comparison of touristic, and therefore also historical, locations in the Western world, resulting in changes which conform to the trends of mass tourism.31 We must mention Disneyland as a model of an ultimate space for people to have fun in their free time and a great tourist attraction. This commercially very successful model, which was introduced by the USA, is copied directly by various theme parks, and also more indirectly. The latter option was chosen by European archaeological parks, which reconstruct buildings and historical environments, the design of which is influenced above all by the aim of attracting as many visitors as possible.32 In short, those of us working in the so-called heritage industry are working in an environment in which competition and competitive offers are increasing.33 Market focus, the struggle for profit and the aim to recover the cost of an investment as quickly as possible, which are among the premises of industrial tradition, are both an opportunity and a tangible danger for heritage: quality, authenticity and expertise are rarely in the interest of capital. Those speaking in favour of heritage as a market product (both in the sense of tourism as well as the heritage industry in general) are guided by commercial values, which are often different from cultural values: the former are oriented towards the present and last only as long as there is profit, while the latter reach deeper and wider.34 The tourist product inevitably has a limited lifespan and chooses those aspects of the past that can bring profit. However, in the process of choosing a future product out of all the possibilities offered by the past, commercial values successfully create a new culture, which allows us to slip with ease between the past and the present, and its values are based on the fact that it is necessary to be interesting, not authentic or historically appropriate.35 That is why, as Grahame Black says, probably the greatest challenge for us in these changing times is how to “balance the old elitist aspirations with the populist and market-oriented present”.36 And concretely for the heritage of Emona tomorrow and in the future: how to build a bridge between the past, when this heritage was more difficult to access, less obvious and less emphasised, and the present, which is and will always be more market-oriented. How to retain quality and expertise, and not fall into the trap of populism and trivial explanations of the past? Within this framework, what will be the future of the heritage of Emona? How to balance the value of historical objects with the need to develop the urban environment? How and, above all, for whom should the heritage of Emona be preserved and managed? How should its future appearance be conceptualised?

Heritage as social practice

We can sum up the above by saying that, nowadays, two models for managing Emona’s heritage come into consideration: on the one hand, heritage as “untouchable” which must be preserved at all cost (therefore, the model which has been in use so far), and on the other hand, heritage as a market product, which should be made best use of and even copied to make it more attractive. Debates about heritage in Slovenia and abroad are marked by a fundamental conflict between these two models. The main focus of the first model is on the monument or the site which an individual or organisation has been entrusted

with to look after and protect, and not (or at least not enough) on any existing or possible/potential use thereof. It seems that in this model, visitors are a necessary evil or are tolerated as some kind of marginal, external function connected with the monument itself, and they must be managed in a way which leaves the monument intact.37 The other extreme which – still mainly abroad – is represented by agencies and companies, whose interest is consumable heritage, makes heritage into a leisure activity, a lucrative tour-ist attraction, and an “authentic” product, which must be created from the available sources.38 So, how should the future appearance of Emona’s heritage be conceptualised in the light of the two ac-cepted models? We believe that a third model is also possible; a model which opens up heritage but sticks to authenticity, uniqueness and quality at all costs. Heritage takes shape and lives like a social process and practice, so it must – and this alone makes sense – be managed as such. This means that at the same time as the monument is preserved, quality com-munication with the visitors, cooperation with people, and the importance of breaking down barriers must be emphasised. Why do we place so much emphasis on public programmes, involving the visitor, the experience? Because heritage is more than a monument or collection of monuments: we see it as a social and cultural process, not just the physical presence of monuments. Heritage is actually continu-ously being created in a dynamic process in which the past is used as the starting point for debate and negotiation about what should be valued and preserved and why.39 Such a view of heritage means this is above all communicational practice,40 so it is best realised in pub-lic programmes and projects which involve the public. Only in this sense is heritage something which is alive: it comes alive through experiences, activities, being dealt with, being realised. Such a style of management is also the best safeguard against vandalism41 (which in the past decade has continuously caused damage to Emona’s heritage42) and an important long-term form of preventive conservation of this collection of monuments. The realisation about the tight connection between the living nature of heritage and the possibility of preserving and protecting it are not novel in Slovenia.43

Heritage for visitors

For whom is Emona’s heritage intended? For visitors, of course. It must above all be meant for the people of Ljubljana because it is their heritage, part of their history and identity. In Slovenia – as has been the practice abroad for decades – we are now increasingly emphasising the necessity of bringing heritage closer to the public.44 Public cultural institutions – including the City Museum of Ljubljana, which manages both archaeological parks – are increasingly playing a broad role in society: from protecting heritage to presenting it to the public with a wide spectrum of different activities – support for whole-life learning, increasing access to heritage, involving local communities and so on. All these activities have one common denominator: more communication with the visitor. Achieving more effective communi-cation with the public is also one of the fundamentals of contemporary archaeological practice, which is emphasised both by ethical imperatives as well as, to an increasing extent, by the imperatives set by the investors. How is Emona’s heritage connected with the public, with the people of Ljubljana? Up till now, the man-agement of Emona’s heritage has pretty much followed the model of “untouchable” heritage, which must be protected at all cost. Admittedly, it was desired that it should become a part of the life of the city,45 but above all in connection with other institutions. Cankarjev Dom was expected to help bring life to Zgodnjekrščansko Središče park,46 which, however, did not happen. Not enough has been invested in the communication of Emona’s heritage at most locations. That is why nowadays, practically the only part of Emona’s heritage which is continuously alive and a part of the life of the city is the visible part of the southern wall at Mirje. However, there is no suitable information about the wall on the site itself, and that is also why Mirje lives in a completely different context. However, Mirje is by all means an example of living heritage: this is created when it becomes a part of everyday life. Heritage is not something that happens only on Saturdays. The other parts of Emona’s heritage are more or less stagnating. Why? Like other cities, Ljubljana is also an important historical and archaeological source of buried information, as the buildings, structures and foundations help us study the past and connect us with our history. However, cities must grow and develop; heritage which remains

288


289


shut to the smallest changes, which is not a place where children can play, or where people can sit and relax, where events and performances can be held, remains isolated, removed, lifeless. City life pushes it to the margins of its interests or, as we have known for at least 30 years, “... presentation is not the final pro-cedure in the process of presenting the monument but only the initial phase of making it come alive”.47 Emona’s heritage must by all means be opened more extensively, included as quality public spaces, given a public function and made to be part of the life of the city. The presented heritage of Emona is a space for public programmes, either similar to those already carried out at the City Museum of Ljubljana (Figure 6), or new ones. One of the alternative options is to bring into the historical environment of Emona’s heritage programmes, which are not connected with this context, for example, small concerts of non-Roman music or modern installations. In this way, the historical area welcomes people for whom heritage is not their main interest but whose interest may as a result be whetted. Good examples of reviving heritage are both archaeological parks, to which the City Museum of Lju-bljana has for many years been inviting children from schools and nurseries in Ljubljana, its surround-ings and further away. Through educational programmes connected with the Roman period, open days and other activities, it has succeeded in keeping alive the interest of certain groups for these monuments and for Emona’s heritage as a whole. Both archaeological parks are only a part of the presented heritage of Emona. Only as a whole can it give an adequate historical context to individual monuments presented within it; only as a whole does Emona’s heritage become meaningful even in its less eloquent parts, comprehensible even in its hidden details and imitations. That is why all of Emona’s monuments must be physically united into a whole: with signs, guidebooks, stories and the like.In this way, understanding Emona’s heritage will become simpler and its inclusion in Ljubljana’s urban centre more meaningful; guided tours will no longer be a necessity, but an option – as everyone will be able to visit Emona’s monuments and learn about them on their own. At the City Museum of Ljubljana, we have begun this shift towards individual exploration, which is at the same time a shift towards a more active and more individual involvement with heritage, using the now up-to-date mobile learning method by means of GPS guides to Emona.48

By way of a conclusion

Archaeologists, conservators and other experts dealing with heritage are becoming increasingly respon-sible for the public, for people outside their area of expertise. One of the great challenges of archaeologi-cal practice nowadays is how to explain archaeological concepts and findings in such a way that as many people as possible will understand them.49 As heritage is not just an object, but a social activity, and is therefore continuously in the process of being created, it is not threatened solely in the physical sense. The awareness that heritage is a continuously growing construct is key to searching for a new way of managing it: a way must be found to present the past to as wide an audience as possible in a historically suitable manner which is at the same time understandable; and the visitor must be attracted to taking an active part in the formation of heritage. In short, heritage must be interpreted in a way which can be understood by the broadest public spec-trum, different interpretations must be encouraged and different interest groups must be included in discussions about heritage. For archaeologists, conservators and other experts working to protect monu-ments, these must be the professional obligations which are as important as any other.

Notes1 Cf. Ljudmila Plesničar Gec, Ohranjanje starih vrednot. O antičnih spomenikih v Ljubljani, Prešernov koledar 1986, pp. 66–72; Iva Curk,

Sto zgodb arheoloških spomenikov v Sloveniji, Ljubljana: Prešernova družba, 1995, pp. 72–87.2 Bernarda Županek, Dediščina rimske Emone: med nostalgijo in avtoriteto, in: Dediščina v rokah stroke (ed. Jože Hudales and Nataša

Visočnik). Ljubljana: Faculty of Arts, Department of Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology 2005, Zbirka Županičeva knjižnica, no. 14, pp. 155–163.

3 See 1.4 See 2.

5 M. Šašel Kos, The 15th Legion at Emona-Some Thoughts, in: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 109, 1995, pp. 227–244; Ljud-mila Plesničar Gec, Urbanizem Emone, Ljubljana: Mestni muzej Ljubljana, Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete 1999.

6 Ljudmila Plesničar Gec, Emona v pozni antiki v luči arhitekture, Arheološki vestnik 48, 1997, pp. 359–370.7 When it was created, this park was called Arheološki park Jakopičev vrt (The Jakopič Garden Archaeological Park) due to the artist’s nearby

studio. As the years passed, it became apparent that visitors were put off by the discord between the name of the park and its content – such a name caused misunderstanding. That is why in 2006, we renamed the park Arheološki park Emonska hiša (Archaeological Park Emona House).

8 Cf. Curk (see 1), p. 72. 9 Ljudmila Plesničar Gec, Emonski forum, Koper: Založba Annales, 2006, p. 31.10 Edvard Ravnikar, 1907–1993.11 Cf. Ljudmila Plesničar Gec, Arheološki spomeniki Ljubljane, Varstvo spomenikov 19, 1987, p. 47.12 Walter Schmid, Emona, Jahrbuch für Altertumskunde 7, Dunaj: A. Schroll & Co. 1913.13 Ljudmila Plesničar, Jakopičev vrt. Kulturni in naravni spomeniki Slovenije, zbirka vodnikov 14, 1968, pp. 3–4.14 Curk (see 1), p. 72.15 Curk (see 1), p. 72.16 Compare also the typological classification in Marijan Slabe, Iz izkušenj pri prezentiranju arheološke dediščine, Varstvo spomenikov 30,

1988, pp. 13–21; Plesničar Gec, see 5, pp. 113–118. 17 See 13. 18 Ljudmila Plesničar Gec, Zgodnjekrščanski center v Emoni, Kulturni in naravni spomeniki Slovenije, Zbirka vodnikov 198, Ljubljana

1999.19 Slabe (see 16), p. 14.20 E.g. Flavia solva (Wagna pri Lipnici near Graz) and Carnuntum (Petronell near Vienna).21 Prim. Plesničar Gec (see 1), p. 68.22 Marjan Mušič, Poročilo referata za arhitekturo in urbanizem. Varstvo spomenikov 3–4, 1949, pp. 79–85.23 Cornelius Holtorf, Monumental Past: The Life-histories of Megalithic Monuments in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany). Electronic

monograph. University of Toronto: Centre for Instructional Technology Development. http://hdl.handle.net/1807/245, 2000, chapter Nostalgia at https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/citd/holtorf/5.4.html, 12. 9. 2007.

24 Marijan Slabe, O vrednotenju nepremične arheološke dediščine, Varstvo spomenikov 28, 1986, p. 121.25 See 2.26 Marijan Slabe, O vrednotenju nepremične arheološke dediščine, Varstvo spomenikov 28, 1986, p. 126.27 See 2. 28 Prim. Cornelius Holtorf, Monumental Past: The Life-histories of Megalithic Monuments in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany). Elec-

tronic monograph. University of Toronto: Centre for Instructional Technology Development. http://hdl.handle.net/1807/245, 2000, chapter: Desecration and destruction at https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/citd/holtorf/5.13.html (12. 9. 2007).

29 Prim. Stanley South, Generalized versus literal interpretation, in: John H. Jameson ed., Presenting archaeology to the public, Altamira Press: Walnut Creek 1997, pp. 54–62.

30 Robert Lumley, The debate on heritage reviewed, in: Towards the museum of the future: new European perspectives. London, New York: Routledge 1994, p. 62.

31 See 30; Aylin Orbaşlí, Tourists in historic towns: urban conservation and heritage management, London, New York: E & FN Spon 2000, pp. 1–4.

32 E.g. Carnuntum, http://www.carnuntum.co.at/content-en/tales-from-carnuntum/rome2019s-metropolis-on-the-danube-awakens-to-new-life-1/rome2019s-metropolis-on-the-danube-awakens-to-new-life/approaching-a-new-era, 17. 8. 2007.

33 Cf. Eilean Hooper-Greenhill, Museum education: past, present and future, in: R. Miles and L. Zavalo ed., Towards the museum of the future: new European perspectives, London, New York: Routledge 1994, pp. 30–33.

34 P. T. Newby, Tourism: support or threat to heritage? in: G. J. Ashworth and P. J. Larkham ed., Building a new heritage: Tourism, culture and identity in the new Europe, London, New York: Routledge 1994, p. 216.

35 See 35.36 Graham Black, The Engaging Museum. Developing museums for visitor involvement, London, New York: Routledge 2005.37 G. J. Ashworth and P. J. Larkham, A heritage for Europe. The need, the task, the contribution, in: G. J. Ashworth and P. J. Larkham ed.,

Building a new heritage. Tourism, culture and identity in the new Europe, London, New York: Routledge 1994, p. 5.38 See 38.39 Laurajane Smith, The uses of heritage, London, New York: Routledge 2006.40 See 40.41 See 23. 42 The architectural objects exhibited in the park next to the wall at Mirje, and the composition by the Emonec statue, are continuously

under threat above all from vandalism. 43 Slabe (see 26), p. 124.44 See for example Richard Sandell, Social inclusion, the museum and the dynamics of sectoral change, Museum and society 1, 2003, pp.

45–62; Grahame Black, The Engaging Museum. Developing museums for visitor involvement, London, New York: Routledge 2005.45 Plesničar Gec (see 11), p. 47.46 Plesničar Gec (see 11), p. 47.47 Slabe (see 26), p. 124.48 Bernarda Županek, Dimitrij Mlekuž: GPS v muzeju: poskus izdelave digitalnega vodnika po Emoni, Argo 50/1, 2007.

290


291


49 See John McCarthy, More than just “telling the story”: interpretative narrative archaeology, in: John H. Jameson, Jr., John E. Ehrenhard and Christine A. Finn ed., Ancient muses. Archaeology and the Arts, Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press 2003, pp. 15–24; see also Predrag Novaković, Refleksija o treh esejih, Arheo 22, 2002, pp. 83–90.

Danijela Brišnik

Raz(k)rita CelejaPrimer prezentacije arheoloških najdb v urbanem prostoru – Narodni dom Celje UDK 719:904(497.4Celje)»652«UDK 904:725.1.032.7(497.4Celje)UDK 725.1.025.4(497.4Celje)

Ključne besede: Celje, zavarovalna arheološka izkopavanja, zasebne rimskodobne terme, popularizacija kulturne dediščine, prezentacija in situ, restavriranje

Besedna igra v naslovu strokovnega srečanja konservatorjev 18. in 19. 10. 2007 v Celju, RAZ(K)RITA dediščina, ni naključje, saj se v Celju, tako kot drugod po Sloveniji, veliko »razriva«, naloga stroke pa je, da se vse več tudi razkriva, »na ogled daje«. Na srečanju je bil govor predvsem o nepremični arheološki dediščini Celja, o velikih in dolgotrajnih arheoloških izkopavanjih zadnjih dveh desetletij. O vse večjem pomenu obveščanja javnosti, predstavitvah najvišje ovrednotenih segmentov posameznih najdišč širšemu krogu ljudi in splošno o popularizaciji kulturne dediščine.Vendar predstavitev prezentiranih arheoloških najdb dela zasebnih rimskih term v atriju Narodnega doma tokrat ni bila namenjena vprašanjem problematike same prezentacije v smislu vrednotenja, pose-gov v originalno strukturo, rekonstrukcij, trženja in vzdrževanja prezentirane arheološke dediščine, am-pak vprašanjem, ki se ob odkritju arheoloških najdb zastavljajo strokovnjakom služb za varstvo kulturne dediščine, lastnikom in projektantom, ter dilemam in vzpostavljanju dialogov, ki so nujno potrebni za uspešno vključitev arheoloških ostalin v novozgrajeni objekt.V letu 2001 sta investitorja Nepremičnine, d. o. o., in Ministrstvo za javno upravo Republike Slovenije začela upravni postopek za gradnjo prizidka k stavbi Narodnega doma. Ker leži gradbena parcela v območju zavarovanega kulturnega spomenika Celje – Arheološko najdišče Celje1 –, je ZVKDS, OE Celje, kot kulturnovarstveni pogoj postavil izvedbo zavarovalnih arheoloških raziskav v obsegu pred-videnih gradbenih posegov in varovalnega pasu. V marcu 2001 so bile na območju načrtovane gradnje in atrija stavbe Narodnega doma izvedene geofizikalne meritve z georadarjem,2 septembra istega leta pa so se na območju gradnje prizidka začela arheološka izkopavanja.3 Območje gradnje je ležalo na prostoru rimskega municipija Celeja, tik ob zahodni fronti poznoantičnega in tudi srednjeveškega ob-zidja. V severnem delu izkopnega polja so bili izkopani ostanki zgodnjeantičnega stanovanjskega kom-pleksa iz druge polovice 1. stoletja z deloma ohranjenim frigidarijem – najverjetneje – zasebnih term. V pozni antiki je bilo preko starejših arhitekturnih ostalin postavljeno mestno obzidje s stolpom, ki ga po doslej znanih podatkih datiramo v prvo polovico 4. stoletja. V južnem delu izkopnega polja je bilo poznoantično obzidje v celoti odstranjeno, najverjetneje za potrebe izgradnje obrambnega jarka Knežjega dvora; srednjeveško obzidje pa na podlagi arheoloških in stavbnozgodovinskih raziskav dat-iramo v pozno 14. in prvo polovico 15. stoletja.

Danijela Brišnik, Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, Območna enota Celje

292


293


Zaradi spremembe projektno-gradbene dokumentacije (v tlorisu povečan prizidek) so se arheološka iz-kopavanja v letu 2003 nadaljevala; najdbe pa so se navezovale na odkritja iz preteklih let.4

Iz historične analize obravnavanega prostora so bili v osnovnih potezah razvidni potek in glavne značilnosti arhitekture poznoantičnega in srednjeveškega obdobja, dokumentirane že ob izgradnji Nar-odnega doma leta 1898.5 Na podlagi podatkov, da je na dvorišče Narodnega doma med drugo svetovno vojno padla bomba,6 in na podlagi geofizikalnih raziskav, ki niso izkazovale oz. kot take interpretirale obstoja arheoloških arhitekturnih najdb,7 je bil za gradbena dela na območju atrija Narodnega doma kot kulturnovarstveni pogoj zahtevan stalni arheološki nadzor, z možnostjo začasne ustavitve gradbenih del ob odkritju arheoloških najdb in z dokumentiranjem dejanskega stanja. Pogoji so zajemali tudi klavzulo, da lahko Zavod ob odkritju najdb izjemnega pomena na podlagi valorizacije strokovne komisije zahteva prezentacijo odkritih ostalin in situ, z vključitvijo v projekt prizidka.Investitor/gradbeni izvajalec je gradbena dela na območju atrija začel brez arheološkega nadzora; pri dokumentiranju destrukcije pa smo izkopno polje razširili in ob tem med drugim odkrili dva prostora, ki pripadata večjemu termalnemu kompleksu.8 Bolje ohranjen je bil vzhodni del z manjšim termalnim bazenčkom, v zahodnem delu pa so bili ohranjeni stebrički hipokavsta. Kad je ohranjena v višini pol me-tra nad tlemi, prekritimi z maltnim estrihom, na katerem so temeljili stebrički hipokavsta. Na stebričkih temelji do 0,1 metra debelo dno kadi; ohranjena je tudi klop, zgrajena iz opečnih tlakov. Zunanje stene kadi so obložene s tubuli (votlaki), ki so omogočali kroženje toplega zraka tudi ob stenah. Votlaki so bili ponekod ohranjeni v celotni višini zidov, vendar so se zaradi prhkosti ob odstranjevanju ruševin drobili. Dno kadi je bilo obloženo z marmornimi ploščami, v ruševini pa so bili odkriti odlomki ometa z ohranjenimi freskami in štukaturami. Termalni bazenček s toplozračnim talnim ogrevanjem je bil del zasebnega kopališča bogate zgodnjerimske mestne rezidence. Strokovna komisija Zavoda za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, OE Celje, in Pokrajinskega muzeja Celje je enoglasno odločila, da arhitekturni ostanki zasebnih term ustrezajo vsem merilom vrednoten-ja (ohranjenost, redkost, tipičnost itd.) in da je treba ostaline termalnega bazenčka, poznoantično in srednjeveško obzidje prezentirati in situ ter jih vključiti v projekt prizidka k Narodnemu domu. Inves-titorjema in projektantu je bila predstavljena zahteva po prezentaciji, hkrati pa so bile predložene ocene stroškov čiščenja in utrditve obzidja, statične sanacije termalnega bazenčka in njegovo restavriranje ter delna rekonstrukcija na mestih, ki so bila zaradi krhkosti poškodovana ob arheoloških izkopavanjih ali v obdobju vzpostavitve gradbišča za ureditev atrija. Prvi odziv investitorjev je bil nekoliko negotov, pred-vsem zaradi nerazumevanja, v kolikšni meri prezentacija pomeni preprojektiranje prizidka, kolikšen je strošek statične sanacije in restavriranja, kakšen je časovni okvir izvedbe vseh teh postopkov in s tem zamik dokončanja gradbenih del itd. ter način sklenitve nove pogodbe oz. aneksa k obstoječi pogodbi za izvedbo vseh potrebnih postopkov. Sklicujoč se na sprejet terminski plan izgradnje prizidka in dejstvo, da je treba dela nemudoma oddati in izvesti, ter glede na to, da je bil po takrat veljavnem Zakonu o varst-vu kulturne dediščine9 Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije edini izvajalec, sta se investitorja odločila za izbiro izvajalca na podlagi oddaje javnega naročila po postopku s pogajanji brez predhodne objave.10 Ker so bile ocene stroškov – ponudbe Zavoda – pripravljene po veljavnih cenikih in standardih ter na podlagi zbranih ponudb restavratorja, lončarja ipd., vrednosti del Zavod ni mogel zmanjšati, je pa zaradi nujnosti izvedbe del ponudil strokovno pomoč pri oblikovanju informacijskih tabel; to je zados-tovalo, da je bila Zavodova ponudba sprejeta in da je bila pogodba za dela sklenjena.Naslednji korak k ohranitvi in prezentaciji dela zasebnih rimskodobnih term je pomenil delno spre-membo projektne dokumentacije, ki je bila že v izvedbeni fazi; termalni bazen je ležal znotraj gradbišča, določen je bil datum zaključka gradbenih del. Celoten prostor atrija je namenjen namestitvi delovnih pultov Upravne enote Celje za izdajo dokumentov z natančno določenim in normiranim številom de-lovnih mest. Z arheološko prezentacijo je bila okrnjena uporabna površina atrija, projektant je moral preoblikovati položaj in obliko pultov, sprostiti prostor za prezentacijo, prilagoditi instalacijske vode, svetlobni park (minimalna osvetlitev, ki jo določajo tehnični predpisi) in posledično na novo organizirati sistem izdaje dokumentov. Na tehnični ravni je ohranitev poznoantičnega in srednjeveškega obzidja pomenila posebne tehnične rešitve pri izvedbi temeljne plošče, ker ta ni smela nalegati neposredno na rimski zid, predelni zidovi pa so morali biti od obzidja umaknjeni. Prav tako je bilo treba zaradi zahteve, da ostaja srednjeveško obzidje vidno, spremeniti namembnost določenih poslovnih prostorov. Mnenje projektanta, ki je s postavitvijo krožnih delovnih pultov sledil viziji razgibanosti prostora in

logiki komunikacije obiskovalcev, je bilo, da je avtorski pristop pri oblikovanju notranjega interjerja z zmanjševanjem uporabne površine precej okrnjen. Po večkratnih usklajevanjih med investitorji, projek-tantom in Zavodom je bila sprejeta odločitev o obsegu prezentacije in o nadkritju termalnega bazena s hipokavstom s steklenimi pohodnimi ploščami, o načinu osvetlitve ter prisilnem prezračevanju, za kar naj bi projektant pripravil poseben del projektne dokumentacije. Sledili so restavratorski postopki za sanacijo in zaščito srednjeveškega in poznoantičnega obzidja: ročno čiščenje, injektiranje razpok, fiksiranje odluščenih kamnov, kemijsko utrjevanje kamna in malte, izved-ba zaščitnega premaza proti vlagi in nečistočam11 ter dokumentiranje zidov (fotogrametrični posnetek poznoantičnega in srednjeveškega obzidja). Na termalnem bazenčku, ki je bil ves čas gradnje prizidka izpostavljen negativnim vremenskim vplivom – od dežja in snega do hitrih in velikih temperaturnih razlik –, so bila opravljena sanacijska dela, ki so obsegala delno čiščenje, utrjevanje, lepljenje ometov, ki so odstopili od osnove, injektiranje in statično sanacijo samega bazenčka, ki se je že začel pogrezati.12 V nadaljevanju je bil nad termalnim bazenčkom izveden manjši začasni nadstrešek (tudi zato, ker je zaradi gradbenih del v neposredni okolici prihajalo do manjših fizičnih poškodb, ne glede na to, da so bile arheološke arhitekturne ostaline ves čas zaščitene oz. prekrite z geotekstilom), ki pa je zaradi same izvedbe oteževal delo – bil je prenizek, slabo osvetljen, zaradi nizkih temperatur pa ga je bilo treba tudi ogrevati, ker sicer posamezni postopki restavriranja niso bili izvedljivi. Vzporedno s potekom restavratorskih postopkov je postalo očitno, da je del originalnih tubulov, odkritih pri izkopavanju, v tako slabem stanju, da jih ni bilo moč utrditi in sanirati, zato smo poiskali lončarja, ki se je lotil celovitega procesa izdelave replik tubulov.13 Ker v dosegljivi strokovni literaturi nismo zasledili podatkov o načinu izdelave in žganju tubulov, je lončar na podlagi enega od originalov izdelal skico tubula z merami in z vsemi detajli ter poskusil s preizkušanjem najprej rekonstruirati postopek izdelave oz. oblikovanja tubula. Lončarsko maso (sestavo gline, plastičnost …) je določal na podlagi sestave keramike originala, prav tako način žganja. Izdelal je leseno orodje za oblikovanje tubula; zapletlo pa se je pri načinu zvijanja tubula (oz. gline) čez orodje, kajti odtisi prstov lončarja, zareze, stiki in odebelitve na originalu niso sovpadali s temi na replikah. Šele po večkratnih poskusih je lončar ugotovil pravilno tehniko oblikovanja. Največjo težavo so predstavljali sestava in granulacija peska, ki služi kot podlaga za pripravo in oblikovanje tubula, ter skrček gline; mere novih tubulov po žganju namreč niso ustrezale meram originala. Po večkratnih (neuspelih) poskusih smo uspeli ugotoviti odstotek skrčka, tako da so replike tudi po velikosti primerljive z originali. Na koncu so bile replike tudi postarane z barvnimi pig-menti ter z reverzibilnimi materiali vgrajene v severno stranico termalnega bazenčka, medtem ko smo južno stranico pustili v celoti tako, kot je bila ob odkritju oz. po končanih arheoloških raziskavah. Predvsem zaradi neugodnih vremenskih razmer in zamika terminskega plana gradbenega izvajalca pri zastrešitvi atrija je prihajalo do težav pri restavriranju, ker tudi ogrevanje prezentacijskega prostora ni zagotavljalo ustreznih razmer za dokončanje del; nekatere postopke pa je bilo treba zaradi neugodnih razmer ponavljati. Zaradi razlik med zunanjo temperaturo in tisto v prezentacijskem prostoru se je v prostoru močno dvignila vlaga, zaradi česar je bilo potrebno večkratno razsuševanje.Navkljub zglednemu sodelovanju z investitorjema nam ni uspelo v celoti realizirati zahtevane priprave posebnega dela projekta za prezentacijo z zasteklitvijo, svetlobnim parkom in prisilnim prezračevanjem. Projektant je med samo izvedbo pripravljal parcialne rešitve; projekta v celoti pa ne. Realizacija ure-ditve dela zasebnih term se je žal zaključila z zasteklitvijo, ki v osnovi zadostuje potrebam in zahtevam prezentacije, svetlobni park je okrnjen na sicer zadostno število svetlobnih teles, vendar so ta neprimerna (izbrane so žarnice, ki svetlobo močno razpršijo, posledično pa so določeni deli prezentirane arhitekture povsem zasenčeni) in na neustreznih mestih. Prisilnega zračenja ni, zaradi česar se (tudi zaradi žarnic, ki se preveč segrevajo) v zadnjem letu na dnu prezentacijskega prostora že kopičijo alge oz. plesen (slika 4). Prav tako niso v celoti s podanimi smernicami oblikovane informacijske table, ki so izvedene na prosoj-nem steklu, kar precej krni berljivost informacij. Končni rezultat skupnega sodelovanja investitorjev, projektanta in stroke pa je vendarle predstavitev in ohranitev segmenta bogate materialne kulture rimske Celeje; obogatitev javnega interjerja, kjer se vsa-kodnevno zbira veliko število ljudi, in kocka v mozaiku turistične ponudbe mesta Celje.

294


295


Notes1 Spomenik je skladno z 9. členom Zakona o varstvu kulturne dediščine (Ur. l. RS, št. 16/2008) vpisan v Register dediščine pri Ministrstvu

za kulturo Republike Slovenije in kot kulturni spomenik razglašen z Odlokom o razglasitvi kulturnih in zgodovinskih spomenikov na območju občine Celje (Ur. l. RS, št. 28/86-1364).

2 Izvajalec dr. Branko Mušič, Oddelek za arheologijo Univerze v Ljubljani v sodelovanju z Zorty, d. o. o., Ljubljana; Poročilo o georadarski raziskavi na lokaciji Celje – Narodni dom. Arhiv ZVKDS, OE Celje.

3 Izvajalec podjetje Arhej, d. o. o., Sevnica; Poročilo o arheoloških raziskavah na lokaciji Celje – Narodni dom – prizidek 2001. Arhiv ZVKDS, OE Celje.

4 Izvajalec podjetje Arhej, d. o. o., Sevnica; Poročilo o zaščitnih arheoloških izkopavanjih na lokaciji Narodni dom v Celju 2003. Arhiv ZVKDS, OE Celje.

5 Emanuel Riedl, Baureste der »Claudia Celeja« – Mitteilungen der k.k. Zentral-Kommission zur Erforschung und Erhaltung der Kunst- und historischen Denkmale, N.F. 26, 1900, str. 32–37.

6 Bojan Himmelreich in Jure Miljević, Letalski napadi na Celje med drugo svetovno vojno. Katalog razstave. Zgodovinski arhiv Celje 2005, str. 33 in 47.

7 Glej op. 2.8 Izvajalec podjetje Tica sistem, d. o. o., Brezovica pri Ljubljani; Poročilo o arheoloških izkopavanjih na najdišču Celje – Narodni dom

2004. Arhiv ZVKDS, OE Celje.9 Do 1. 3. 2008 je bil v veljavi Zakon o varstvu kulturne dediščine (Ur. l. RS, št. 7/1999; 20. in 60. člen).10 Zakon o javnih naročilih – uradno prečiščeno besedilo (ZNJ-1-UPB 1, Ur. l. RS, št. 36/2004 z dne 13. 4. 2004; ni več v veljavi od 23.

12. 2006).11 Izvajalec Matej Turnšek, akademski kipar restavrator.12 Izvajalec Aleksander Šiles, akademski kipar restavrator s sodelavci.13 Lončar Igor Bahor, s. p., Topolšica.

Arhitekturne ostaline termalnega bazena ob odkritju (foto: arhiv podjetja Tica sistem, d. o. o.)

The architectural remains of the pool upon their discovery. (photo: Archives of Tica system, d.o.o.)

296


297


Tlorisni načrt raziskanega območja in prezentacijskega prostora. Izris: Robert Krempuš, ZVKDS, OE Celje.

Ground plan of the researched area and the presentation area. Drawing: Robert Krempuš, IPCHS, Celje MU.

Detajl izdelave tubula – zvijanje čez leseno orodje (foto: Igor Bahor)

Detail of making tubules – winding around wooden tool (photo: Igor Bahor)

Atrij Narodnega doma s prezentiranim termalnim bazenom (foto: Robert Krempuš, ZVKDS, OE Celje)

Atrium of the National Hall with the presentation of the pool (photo: Robert Krempuš, IPCHS, Celje MU)

298


299


Danijela Brišnik

Celeja RevealedAn Example of the Presentation of Archaeological Findings in an Urban Space – The Celje National HallKey words: Celje, preservative archaeological excavation, private Roman-era baths, popularisation of cultural heritage, presentation in situ, restoration

The original title of the conservators’ conference held in Celje on 18 and 19 October 2007 (RAZ(K)RITA dediščina) featured a pun in the Slovene language which juxtaposed the words “revealed” (razkrita) and “dug up” (razrita). This was no coincidence, since in Celje as in many other places in Slovenia a lot of places are being “dug up”, while the task of our profession is to continually reveal, to put things on view. The discussions at the conference mainly focused on Celje’s architectural archaeological heritage, the large and long-lasting archaeological excavations of the last two decades. And on the increasing importance of providing information to the public, presentations of the most important segments of individual sites to a wide circle of people and about the popularisation of cultural heritage.However, the presentation of the archaeological sites of parts of private Roman baths in the atrium of the National Hall did not focus on the issues of the problems of presentation with respect to assessment, modifications of the original structure, reconstruction, marketing and maintenance of the presented archaeological heritage, but on the issues which present themselves to the staff of offices for the protection of cultural heritage upon the discovery of archaeological sites, and the dilemmas and establishing of dialogues which are necessary in order to successfully integrate archaeological remains into newly built structures.In 2001, the investors Nepremičnine, d.o.o. and the Ministry of Public Administration of the Republic of Slovenia initiated an administrative procedure for the construction of an addition to the National Hall building. Since the building parcel lies within the area of a protected Celje archaeological monument – the Celje Archaeo-logical Site1 – Celje Municipal Unit of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia (IPCHS) set the carrying out of preservative archaeological research in the area of the planned construc-tion work and the buffer zone as a condition for cultural protection. In March 2001, geophysical mea-surements were made at the planned construction site and the atrium of the National Hall building us-ing georadar,2 and in September of that year an archaeological excavation was begun in the construction site for the addition.3 The construction site lay on the area of the Roman municipality of Celeja, right next to the western facade of the Late Antiquity and also medieval town wall. In the northern section of the excavation area, the remains of an Early Antiquity residential complex from the second half of the 1514 century were unearthed, with a partially preserved frigidarium – most likely private baths. During Late Antiquity, town walls were built over the older architectural remains with a tower which according to the available data is dated to the first half of the 4th century. In the southern part of the excavation area the Late Antiquity wall was entirely removed, most likely in order to build a moat for the Prince’s Hall. On the basis of archaeological and architectural historical research the medieval wall was dated to the late 14th and first half of the 15th century.

Danijela Brišnik, Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Celje Regional Unit

Owing to the changes in the project documentation (expanded ground plan for the addition), the ar-chaeological excavations were continued in 2003, and the findings were connected to discoveries from past years.4 From the historical analyses of the site the progression and main characteristics of the archi-tecture of the Late Antiquity and medieval periods was clear from the initial stages, documented already upon the construction of the National Hall in 1898.5 On the basis of data indicating that a bomb had fallen into the courtyard of the National Hall during the Second World War,6 and on the basis of geo-physical research which did not indicate or interpret the data as archaeological architectural findings,7 continual archaeological monitoring of the area of the atrium of the National Hall was set as a cultural protection condition, with the possibility of temporary halting of construction work upon the discovery of archaeological findings and with the documenting of the current status. The conditions also included a clause that upon the discovery of exceptionally important findings, the Institute could on the basis of valorisation by the professional commission demand the presentation of the discovered remains in situ, and their inclusion in the addition project.The investor/contractor began the construction work in the area of the atrium without archaeological monitoring; in documenting the destruction we expanded the excavation area and among other things discovered two areas which belonged to the larger baths com-plex.8 The eastern part with a small bathing pool was better preserved, while small hypocaust columns were preserved in the western part. The bath was preserved to a height of half a metre above the floor, covered with mortar, on which the foundations for the hypocaust columns lie. The columns support the up to 0.1 metre thick bottom of the bath, and a bench made of brick paving stones. The outer walls of the bath are lined with tubules (hollow bricks), which allowed hot air to circulate around the walls. In some places the tubules are preserved to the entire height of the walls, but owing to their brittleness they crumbled when the ruins were removed. The bottom of the bath was lined with marble tiles, and pieces of plaster with preserved frescoes and stuccoes were found among the ruins. The bathing pool with its hot air heating system was part of the private bathing complex in an opulent early Roman town residence. The professional commission of the Celje Municipal Unit of the Institute for the Preservation of Cul-tural Heritage of Slovenia and the Celje Regional Museum unanimously decided that the architectural remains of the private baths satisfy all of the assessment criteria (degree of preservation, rarity, typicality etc.) and that it was necessary to present the remains of the bathing pool, the Late Antiquity and me-dieval walls in situ, and include them in the project of the addition to the National Hall. The investors and the project planner were presented with a requirement for presentation, and at the same time they received estimates for the costs of cleaning and reinforcing of the walls, static rehabilitation and restora-tion of the bathing pool and partial reconstruction of the places which were damaged due to brittleness during the archaeological excavations or during the setup of the construction site for arranging the atrium. The investors’ initial response was somewhat uncertain, primarily owing to a lack of understand-ing of to what extent the presentation would require a re-planning of the addition, the cost of the static rehabilitation and restoration, the time frame for carrying out these three procedures and with this the delay in completing the construction work etc. and the manner of concluding the new contract or annex to the existing contract for the execution of all of the required procedures. Citing the adopted schedule for the construction of the addition and the fact that the work had to be contracted and performed without delay, and in view of the fact that pursuant to the Cultural Heritage Protection Act in effect at that time9 the Institute for the Protection of Cultural heritage of Slovenia was the sole contractor, the investors decided to select a contractor on the basis of the issuing of a public procurement order follow-ing a procedure of negotiations without prior announcement.10 Since the estimated costs (the Institute’s bids) had been drawn up according to current prices and standards and on the basis of the bids received from the restorer, potter etc. the Institute was unable to reduce the costs of the work, but owing to the urgency of the work offered professional assistance in the design of the information panels; this sufficed so that the Institute’s bid was accepted and a contract for the work was concluded.The next step towards the preservation and presentation of part of the Roman-era baths required a partial alteration of the project documentation, which was already in the implementation phase; the bathing pool lay within the construction site, and the date for the completion of construction had been determined. The entire area of the atrium was intended for the installation of the work counters of the Celje Administrative Unit for issuing documentation, with a precisely determined and normalised number of jobs. With the

300


301


archaeological presentation the usable surface area of the atrium was restricted, the project planner was forced to redesign the location and design of the counters, free up the space for the presentation, modify the installation leads, the lighting design (minimal lighting, as set out in the technical regulations) and consequently reorganise the system for issuing documents. On the technical level the preservation of the Late Antiquity and medieval wall required special technical solutions for the construction of the founda-tion; since it could not lie directly on the Roman wall, the partition walls had to be moved back from the wall. Also, owing to the requirement that the medieval wall remain visible, it was necessary to change the purposes of some of the business areas. The opinion of the project planner, who by installing round work counters followed the vision of the fluidity of the space and the logic of the communication of the visitors, was that his original approach to the design of the interior was significantly restricted by the re-duction of the usable space. After several coordinating sessions among the investors, the project planner and the Institute, a decision was adopted on the size of the presentation, the covering of the bathing pool with hypocaust columns with glass paving stones, the lighting design and the air conditioning, for which the project planner was supposed to have drawn up a separate section of the project documentation. This was followed by restoration procedures for the rehabilitation and protection of the medieval and Late Antiquity wall: hand cleaning, injection of filler into the cracks, securing loose rocks, chemical hardening of stones and mortar, creating a protective coating against humidity and dirt,11 and documen-tation of the walls (photogrammetric recording of Late Antiquity and medieval walls). Rehabilitation was performed on the bathing pool, which was exposed to the negative influences of the weather throughout the time of the construction work – from rain and snow to fast and dramatic chang-es in temperature – which included partial cleaning, reinforcement, affixing of plaster which had become separated from the base, injection and static rehabilitation of the pool itself, which had begun to sink.12 After that, a small canopy was built over the pool (among other reasons, because the construction work in the direct vicinity had caused minor physical damage, despite the fact that the architectural remains had been protected the whole time (covered with geotextile)), the construction of which complicated the construction process – it was too low, poorly lit, required heating due to the low temperatures, since otherwise the restoration procedures could not be carried out. In parallel with the restoration work it became clear that part of the original tubules discovered during the excavation were in such poor shape that it was not possible to reinforce and rehabilitate them, so we sought a potter who performed the complete process of creating replicas of the tubules.13 Since we were unable to find examples of the procedure for creating and firing the tubules, the potter made a sketch of a tubule based on one of the originals including measurements and all details, and through trial and error attempted to reconstruct the procedure of designing and making tubules. The makeup of the clay (clay content, plasticity etc.) was determined on the basis of the composition of the original ceramic, as well as the way it was fired. A wooden tool was created for forming the tubules; complications arose with the technique of wrapping the tubule (i.e. the clay) around the tool, since the potter’s fingerprints, notches, contact points and thickness of the replica did not correspond to those of the original. After many attempts the potter was able to figure out the correct forming technique. The biggest problem was the composition and granulation of the sand which served as a basis for the preparation and form-ing of the tubules, and the contraction of the clay; the dimensions of the new tubules after firing did not match the original. After several unsuccessful attempts we managed to determine the percentage of shrinkage so that the size of the replicas matched that of the originals. At the end the replicas were aged using colour pigments and built in to the northern side of the pool using reversible materials, while the southern side was left exactly as it was when it was discovered, i.e. after the archaeological research had been performed. Primarily owing to the unfavourable weather conditions and the delay in the contractor’s schedule due to the covering of the atrium there were problems with the restoring, since the heating of the presentation area did not provide suitable conditions for completing the work; some procedures had to be repeated due to the poor conditions. Owing to the difference between the exterior temperature and that in the presentation area the humidity rose significantly in the presentation area, so the area had to be dried out repeatedly. Despite our excellent cooperation with the investors we were unable to complete in its entirety the difficult work on the special part of the project for a presentation with glass panels, a light-ing system and forced-air ventilation. During the implementation of the project, the project planner

developed a partial solution, but not the entire project. The completion of the reinforcement of part of the private baths unfortunately concluded with the installation of glass panels, which basically conform to the needs and requirements of the presentation, but the lighting system is restricted to only a sufficient number of light sources, which however are unsuitable (light bulbs were chosen that strongly diffuse the light, as a consequence of which parts of the presented architecture are in shade) and in inappropriate locations. There is no forced-air system, owing to which (also due to the light bulbs, which overheat the space) in the last year a large quantity of algae or mould has formed on the floor of the presentation area. Also the information panels were not designed in total conformity with the guidelines issued; they were made on transparent glass, which significantly reduces the readability of the information. The final result of the cooperation of the investors, project planner and professionals is nevertheless the presentation and preservation of a segment of the wealthy material culture of Roman Celeja; the enrich-ment of the interior of a pubic place where a large number of people gather every day, and another piece in the mosaic of the tourist attractions of the town of Celje.

Notes1 The monument, in accordance with the Cultural Heritage Protection Act (OG RS No 16/2008) is listed in the Heritage Register at the

Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia and was proclaimed a cultural monument through the Decree on the proclamation of cultural and historical monuments in the Municipality of Celje (OG RS No 28/86-1364).

2 Performed by Dr Branko Mušič, Archaeology Dept., University of Ljubljana in cooperation with Zorty, d.o.o., Ljubljana; Report on georadar research at the Celje – National Hall site. IPCHS Archive, Celje MU.

3 Carried out by Arhej, d.o.o., Sevnica, Report on the archaeological research at the Celje – National Hall Site – 2001 addition. IPCHS Archive, Celje MU.

4 Carried out by Arhej, d.o.o., Sevnica, Report on the protected archaeological excavations at the Celje – National Hall Site in 2003. IPCHS Archive, Celje MU.

5 Emanuel Riedl, Baureste der “Claudia Celeja” – Mitteilungen der k.k. Zentral-Kommission zur Erforschung und Erhaltung der Kunst- und historischen Denkmale, N.F. 26, 1900, p. 32–37.

6 Bojan Himmelreich and Jure Miljević, Letalski napadi na Celje med drugo svetovno vojno [Aerial Attacks on Celje during the Second World War]. Exhibition catalogue. Celje Historical Archive 2005, p. 33 and 47.

7 See note 2.8 Carried out by Tica sistem, d.o.o., Brezovca pri Ljubljani, Report on the archaeological research at the Celje – National Hall Site – 2004.

IPCHS Archive, Celje MU.9 Up to 1 March 2008, the Cultural Heritage Protection Act (OG RS No 7/1999; Articles 20 and 60) was in effect.10 Public Procurement Act (official consolidated text) (ZNJ-1-UPB 1, OG RS No 36/2004 of 13 April 2004, not in effect since 23 De-

cember 2006).11 Carried out by Matej Turnšek, academically trained sculptor and restorer.12 Carried out by Aleksander Šiles, academically trained sculptor and restorer, with colleagues.13 Potter: Igor Bahor s.p., Topolšica.

302


303


Pregledi, ocene, predstavitve, zapisi

304


305


In memoriam

Marko Butina (1950–2008)

Nepričakovano nas je zapustil Marko Butina, akademski slikar, magister umetnosti, konservatorsko-restavratorski svetovalec in – do pred kratkim – vodja ateljeja za stensko slikarstvo na Restavratorskem centru v Ljubljani pri Zavodu za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije.Dejaven je bil na mnogih področjih, med drugim tudi kot ilustrator, digitalni grafik, stripar, kritik, ob-likovalec, član sindikata Glosa in sindikalni zaupnik Restavratorskega centra, član Slovenskega restavra-torskega društva in še kje, vendar pa je ravno kot slikar in restavrator zagotovo pustil najizrazitejše sledi v sodobnem slovenskem slikarstvu in v konservatorsko-restavratorski stroki. Njegovo življenje sta izredno intenzivno zaznamovala in bogatila oba poklica hkrati. Rodil se je 28. februarja 1950 v Mariboru. V Ljubljani se je po končani osnovni šoli in gimnaziji vpisal na študij slikarstva na Akademijo za likovno umetnost, in tam po diplomi nadaljeval podiplomski študij restavratorstva. Študijsko je prebival tudi na Poljskem in v Parizu, deloval je kot pedagog na osnovnih šolah, kot predavatelj likovne kompozicije na fotografski smeri Centra strokovnih šol, poučeval likovno teorijo na Fakulteti za naravoslovje in tehnologijo ter predaval kot likovni pedagog na Visoki šoli za slikanje v Ljubljani. Če je na eni strani sodobno slovensko slikarstvo obogatil s svojo izrazito izvirno in edinstveno slikarsko govorico na mnogih odmevnih razstavah, je na drugi strani prav restavratorstvu neprekinjeno posvetil svojih 21 delovnih let. Že v času študija je delal na številnih pomembnih kulturnih spomenikih. Na Restavratorskem centru je bil zaposlen od leta 1987 kot konservatorsko-restavratorski svetovalec in v zadnjih letih kot vodja ateljeja za stensko slikarstvo. Kot slikar je dobil različne likovne nagrade, leta 2001 pa je prejel še priznanje za pomembna umetniška dela na področju restavratorstva. Največ se je ukvarjal s stenskim slikarstvom. Vodil in izvajal je mnoge strokovne konservatorsko-restavra-torske projekte, med katerimi so najbolj odmevni posegi v Sv. Janezu Krstniku v Spodnjem Otoku pri Podvinu, v Sv. Jakobu v Naklo-Rodinah, v Sv. Nikolaju na Kurnu nad Vrhniko, v Sv. Martinu na Šilentaboru nad Zagorjem, v Sv. Nikolaju na Stražnjem Vrhu, v gradu Brestanica, v viteški dvorani dvorca Valburga (Smlednik) – še posebej zaradi zahtevnega čiščenja poslikav po požaru …

V enaindvajsetih letih dela v spomeniškovarstveni službi je kot nepogrešljiv restavrator s svojim stro-kovnih znanjem in dragocenimi izkušnjami veliko pripomogel pri obnovah mnogih pomembnih kul-turnih spomenikov. Njegov pomembni strokovni prispevek pa najdemo tudi na drugih področjih, na primer pri obnovah polihromirane plastike in oltarjev, lesenih poslikanih stropov ter v štafelajnem slikarstvu (na primer poslikan strop iz cerkve sv. Nikolaja na Grebenu, strop iz cerkve sv. Andreja v Gostečah, strop iz cerkve sv. Egidija v Ribjeku, delo na oltarnih figurah iz cerkve v Komendi, sodelovanje pri delu za razstavo »Zlatna doba Dubrovnika«). Ne nazadnje je s svojim praktičnim in teoretičnim strokovnim delom bistveno prispeval k razvoju stroke na svojem področju. Pomanjkanju časa navkljub se je v zadnjih letih posvečal tudi strokovnora-ziskovalnemu delu. Ukvarjal se je z raziskovanjem metod in receptur pri konservatorsko-restavratorskih posegih na oljnih slikah na platnu (Konserviranje in restavriranje oljnih slik na tkani nosilec, 1. del, 2001) in s problematiko uporabe graverskih svinčnikov za odstranjevanje sige s stenskih poslikav (Odstran-jevanje sige z graverji na komprimiran zrak, 2005).Velik prispevek predstavlja njegovo pedagoško delo, saj je v vseh teh letih uspešno posredoval svoje znan-je in izkušnje mlajšim generacijam restavratorjev, študentom in drugim interesentom ter sodelavcem na raznih delavnicah. Neprecenljivo je njegovo večletno uvajanje študentov v praktično restavratorsko delo na terenih po vsej Sloveniji. Kot vodja oddelka za stensko slikarstvo se je izkazal kot premišljen snovalec in usmerjevalec strokovnega dela. Poznali smo ga kot restavratorja, ki se je nenehno ukvarjal s problema-tiko razvoja naše stroke, z vizijo, kakšen naj bi bil razvoj restavratorstva, poklicne etike in integritete ter timskega dela v prihodnje. V času njegovega vodenja ateljeja za stensko slikarstvo so se izvajali eni bolj odmevnih projektov obnov na Slovenskem: samostan Stična, cerkev sv. Nikolaja v Ljubljani, cerkev Marijinega Vnebovzetja v Ljubljani, cerkev sv. Nikolaja na Šilentaboru.Strokovni ugled Marka Butine je poznan tako med kolegi konservatorji in restavratorji kot med študenti, diplomanti in pripravniki s področja restavratorstva in slikarstva. Marko Butina se je vedno zavzemal za precizno strokovno izvajanje projektov z velikim poudarkom na restavratorski etiki. Ni bil samo special-ist enega samega ozkega področja, ampak je njegov široki horizont udejstvovanj in razgledanosti zajemal tudi poznavanje umetnostne zgodovine, sociologije kulture in estetike ter upoštevanje medinstituciona-lnih povezav in interdisciplinarnega sodelovanja.Vsi, ki smo ga poznali, se ga bomo spominjali kot človeka živahnega duha in širokih zanimanj, ki je zaradi svoje komunikativne osebnosti užival vsesplošno priljubljenost. Z razgledanostjo in humorjem je v pogovor vnašal veliko prijetne iskrivosti in bil obenem prava zakladnica anekdot ter svojevrstna enciklopedija svoje generacije. Odlikovalo ga je živo zanimanje za sočloveka. Na delovnem mestu bomo pogrešali njegovo intuicijo in prodornost, s katero je natančno analiziral neizbežne konflikte, pa tudi bojevitost, ki je v razreševanje nesporazumov vnašala edinstveno dinamiko. Širina, s katero je povezoval kompleksna področja strokovnih, pedagoških in socialnih vprašanj, nam bo vedno vzor, prav tako pa tudi njegova estetska dojemljivost, ki je celo v napornem in pretežno tehničnem restavratorskem delu la-hko našla umetniški presežek. Ustvarjalni opus, ki ga je razvijal v prostem času, kaže na iskalca, ki je ostal povezan z razvojem na umetniškem področju, saj se je izkazal z obvladovanjem najnovejših tehnologij, predvsem pa seveda na človeka, ki se nikoli ni odpovedal sanjam.Ko se tako ob nenadni izgubi svojega sodelavca zavemo, da se je njegova življenjska pot za vedno končala in da se ga lahko od zdaj zavedamo le še v spominih in sledeh, ki jih je zapustil, se ob tem zamislimo nad lastno minljivostjo, nad globljim smislom in poslanstvom naših življenj. Utrne se spoznanje, da naši minljivosti navkljub sledi vendarle ostanejo in kako zelo pomembno je, kakšne sledi puščamo za sabo. Vsako življenje je proces, ki se pretaka tako skozi navaden vsakdanjik kot skozi pomembne prelomnice, v iskanju in izbiranju pravih poti, pravih ljudi, prek temeljnih odločitev do ciljev. Marko je imel ogromno ciljev, marljivo in plodovito jih je dosegal in udejanjal, zato je zagotovo eden tistih, ki so pustili pečat. Njegova dela ostajajo. S svojo strokovno zavzetostjo, odgovornostjo in verodostojnostjo, ob tem pa še kreativnostjo in profesionalnim sodelovanjem, bo za vedno zapisan v konservatorsko-restavratorsko stroko na Slovenskem.

V imenu vseh sodelavk in sodelavcev Restavratorskega centra ZVKDS, v Ljubljani 21. maja 2008

306


307


Konservatorsko-restavratorski posegi na poslikavah v prezbiteriju gotske podružnične cerkve sv. Martina v Šilentaborju (foto Marko Butina, 2007)

Markovo dokumentacijsko delo med projektom obnove baročnih poslikav v glavni dvorani dvorca v Smledniku leta 2007 (arhiv RC ZVKDS) Problematično čiščenje po požaru na pred kratkim že restavriranih baročnih poslikavah v glavni dvorani dvorca Valburga;

Smlednik 2006–2007 (arhiv RC ZVKDS)

308


309


In memoriam

Vladimir Knific (1950–2008)

V petek, 24. oktobra 2008, smo na kranjskem pokopališču pokopali prijatelja, sodelavca, konservatorja etnologa Vladimirja Knifica. Njegova smrt kot brezprizivno, dokončno dejstvo še nekaj časa ne bo spre-jeta. Nobenega poslavljanja ni bilo, nobenega odhajanja – samo odhod. Pičlih devetnajst dni bolniške odsotnosti, in nikoli več »Kako si?« – in potem tistega običajnega tolažilnega tarnanja drug drugemu in tiste običajne grenkobe pri nas starejših, ko se iz navdušenja polnih kreatorjev spreminjamo v birokrate. Te grenkobe je bilo tudi pri Ladu obilo. V delavski družini v Kranju, kjer je bil rojen leta 1950, in v srednji tehnični šoli, ki jo je končal, si je pridobil izjemno pozitiven odnos do dela, do reda, do zvestobe dani besedi in do točnosti. Potem ko je eno leto študiral geologijo, se je preusmeril v študij humanistike – etnologije in umetnostne zgo-dovine na Filozofski fakulteti v Ljubljani, kjer je diplomiral leta 1976. Že med študijem se je veliko vključeval v terensko delo kot sodelavec etnologov, umetnostnih zgodovinarjev in tudi arheologov. Svojo redoljubnost je uveljavil najprej kot dokumentarist na Zavodu za spomeniško varstvo v Kranju, kjer se je zaposlil leta 1973. Njegova zasnova ostaja še vedno hrbtenica kvalitetno urejene dokumentacije na ZVKDS, OE Kranj. Disciplina, sistematika pri delu in lasten fizični angažma so bili značilni tudi za njegov pristop pri obravnavi posameznih objektov in kompleksov kulturne dediščine, ki jih je urejal kot konservator etnolog od leta 1979. Sem spada več kot 110 izmer različnih objektov, ureditev 17 fasad z arhitekturnimi in figuralnimi poslikavami, prestavitev lesenih sitarskih hiš v Stražišču in v zasnovanem skansnu v kompleksu gradu Brdo pri Kranju, celostne obnove in prezentacije Primožkove kašče v Pris-tavi pri Tržiču, Liznjekove hiše v Kranjski Gori, kamnitega stolpa Strojeve kovačije v Grabčah, Oplenove hiše v Studorju, Petračeve fužinarske hiše v Kropi, fužinarskega kompleksa na Stari Savi na Jesenicah (ki vključuje vsedalne bazene aglomeracije, parkovno območje Ruard-Buccellinijeve graščine, cerkev Marije Pomočnice, plavž, pudlovko, kolperno in stanovanjski blok – kasarno) in končno Pocarjeve domačije v Radovni. Za ureditev in prezentacijo te domačije je leta 1999 prejel Steletovo priznanje, Triglavski narodni park kot upravljavec pa leta 2007 prestižno nagrado nevladne organizacije Evropa nostra za najboljši primer ohranjanja stavbne dediščine v letu 2006.

Kot prvi konservator etnolog Zavoda za spomeniško varstvo v Kranju je Vladimir Knific povzel, združil in dopolnil delo prejšnjih zunanjih sodelavcev pri oblikovanju osnovnega seznama varovanih objek-tov in temeljnih kriterijev varovanja. Pri svojem delu na posameznih objektih se je vedno trudil, da je najprej do podrobnosti spoznal stare tehnologije in postopke, logiko in zakonitost prostora in način razmišljanja ljudi. Poznal je življenje planšarjev na vseh gorenjskih planinah, življenje kovačev v Kropi in Kamni Gorici, železarjev na Jesenicah, kmetov (od gruntarjev do kajžarjev) od prodnatih polj ob Savi do samotnih kmetij na Jezerskem, življenje meščanov Kranja in sitarjev v Stražišču. Ravno iz poznavanja zakonitosti prostorskih determinant in pretekle modrosti ljudi, ki so se jim znali prilagajati, je črpal svoj kritični odnos do stihijske urbanizacije in arhitekturnega kiča.Burnih deset let neprestanih sprememb in »kriznega menedžmenta« je bil vodja kranjske območne enote ZVKDS. Bil je tudi predsednik Slovenskega etnološkega društva, član IO Slovenskega konservator-skega društva, član ekspertne skupine za nepremično kulturno dediščino pri Ministrstvu za kulturo itd. Dočakal je še podelitev naziva konservatorski svetnik.Vendar mnogo drugega ni dočakal – časa za umirjeno strokovno delo, časa, ko bo tudi nepremična kul-turna dediščina lastnikom v ponos in veselje, časa, ko bomo konservatorji ljudem v pomoč in ne njihova kazen. Pogrešali ga bomo kot prijatelja, pogrešali pa bomo tudi njegovo znanje – posebno v sedanjem času prerazporejanja družbenih moči in pospešene erozije kulturne dediščine. Milan Sagadin

Documents

44 | 2008 · Ključne besede: revija Varstvo spomenikov, spomeniška zakonodaja, Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, varstvo narave, konservatorstvo, restavratorstvo,