Inja Smerdel JARMI SLOVENE ETHNOGRAPHIC MUSEUM LIBRARY 12 Inja Smerdel JARMI YOKES Zbirka Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja The Collection of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum Ljubljana, 2024 Publikacija je izšla s podporo Ministrstva za kulturo RS in Javne agencije za znanstvenoraziskovalno in inovacijsko dejavnost RS. CIP - Kataložni zapis o publikaciji Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana 39:636.083.7(497.4) 069(497.4):636.083.7 SMERDEL, Inja Jarmi : zbirka Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja = Yokes : the collection of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum / Inja Smerdel ; [prevod Romana Mlacak, Andreja Šalamon Verbic ; fotografije Marko Habic]. - Ljubljana : Slovenski etnografski muzej, 2024. - (Knjižnica Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja = Slovene Ethno­graphic Museum library, ISSN 1408-290X ; 12) ISBN 978-961-6388-95-5 COBISS.SI-ID 223770371 O JARMIH – ETNOLOŠKA PRIPOVED O PRAPREDMETIH, NEMI 9 GOVORICI SNOVNEGA IN JEZIKU SIMBOLNEGA Šcepec zacetnih besed 11 Jarmi – temeljna védenja, ki jih dolocajo 12 Se je vse zacelo s palico, privezano na rogove? 19 Z jarmi od Irske do Finske, potem proti vzhodu, jugu in zahodu, 28 malce pa tudi drugam Z jarmi spet doma na Slovenskem 59 Povednost zbirke SEM – o njeni zgodovini in o oblikovnih tipih jarmov 59 na Slovenskem Podrobneje o oblikovnih tipih s kartografskim prikazom 70 Ekskurz v poskus razlag glede vnosa ali izbire nekaterih oblikovnih tipov 86 Nema govorica snovnega 93 Modrosti izdelovanja jarmov – izdelovalci in njihova znanja 98 Bríjevc in Šovágin 103 Tone Brcon 104 David Žiberna 107 Zaróbnjekov Toncek 109 Jarmi v jeziku in simboliki, v porocnih šegah in navadah ter kot vidni 112 glasniki kmecke istovetnosti Jezik 112 Simbolika 113 Šege 115 Glasniki kmecke, podeželske istovetnosti 121 Reference 126 Viri 136 ABOUTYOKES – AN ETHNOLOGICAL NARRATIVE ABOUT 137 PRIMORDIAL OBJECTS, THE SILENT TESTIMONY OF THE MATERIAL AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE SYMBOLIC A few initial words 139 Yokes – the fundamental knowledge that defines them 140 Did it all start with a stick tied to horns? 148 With yokes from Ireland to Finland, then to the east, south and 155 west, and also a little bit further afield Back home in Slovenia with yokes 179 The meaning of the SEM collection – on its history and on the various 179 types of yokes in Slovenia Details of the various types of yokes with a cartographic representation 187 A digression that attempts to explain the introduction or selection of 194 certain types of yokes The silent language of the material 200 The wisdom and art of yoke-making – the makers and their skills 204 Bríjevc and Šovágin 210 Tone Brcon 211 David Žiberna 214 Toncek Zaróbnjek 215 Yokes in language and symbolism, in wedding customs and traditions, 218 and as visible signs of a farming identity Language 218 Symbolism 220 Customs 221 Signs of a rural and farming identity 227 References 230 Sources 240 KATALOG /CATALOGUE Uvodna beseda h katalogu predmetov in zbirki risanih zapisov / Introduction to the catalogue of objects and the collection of drawings 243 Poimenovanja delov jarmov / Terminology of yoke parts 248 Katalog predmetov / Catalogue of objects 253 Katalog risanih zapisov / Catalogue of drawings 441 Kazala / Indexes 485 O JARMIH – ETNOLOŠKA PRIPOVED O PRAPREDMETIH, NEMI GOVORICI SNOVNEGA IN JEZIKU SIMBOLNEGA O JARMIH Leta 2021, kot da bi bilo usojeno ravno v letu vola, sem se po obdobju, ki ga je dolocalo in vodilo življenje, pocasi, a vztrajno, v ritmu volovskih korakov, zacela vracati k snovanju razprave oziroma monografije o razmerjih med ljudmi in delovnimi voli. Slednja je nastajala na podlagi dolgoletnega delovnega procesa: raziskave, temeljece na obsežnem terenskem delu, na preucevanju raznovrstnih virov ter na prebiranju ustreznega domacega in primerjalnega tujega slovstva. Raziskovalna tematika, ki me je v obdobju, preživetem v muzejskem okolju, kot etnologinjo intimno najbolj dolocala, so bila namrec prav razmerja med ljudmi in živalmi. Najprej so v ospredje stopile ovce (Smerdel 1989a, 1989b), potem ptice pevke (Smerdel 1992), v letih, ko se je zavoljo transformacije muzeja raziskoval-no delo moralo osredišciti poleg drugega na urejanje zbirk in na njihove študije, pa so ob zbirki priprav za vpreganje na vrsto prišli tudi voli. Tako sem uspela združiti obe raziskovalni tematiki. Preucevanje tihotnega šepeta snovnega, neme govorice jarmov, ki so s svojo obliko in površino sporocali številne sestavine svoje pojavnosti: od regionalne tipike (in zgodovinskosti, tehnike vpreganja, osebnih tipov individualnih izdelovalcev, izbire lesa in njegove obdelave, zadevnih znanj, sledov rabe ...) – do vidnih znakov skrbi za delovne živali (vrezanih zašcitnih simbolov, skrbno zglajenih ovratnikov, ovitih pocenih kamb, tehtne izbire lesa, teže jarmov). Prav z jarmi pa je bilo ne samo mogoce, temvec tudi neobhodno potrebno povezati živali, ki so te priprave nosile na glavi (oziroma zatilju) ali na vratu (oziroma pred vihrom). In tako so pri snovanju prvih obrisov dela, ki je tedaj vznikalo iz ukvarjanja z muzejsko zbirko, izpod jarmov, v njegovo ospred­je pocasi, a vztrajno stopali voli. Srcika raziskave pa so postala prav razmerja med ljudmi in temi njihovimi delovnimi tovariši, o katerih sem v preteklih letih razpravljala v posameznih študijah; denimo o vlogi vola v vsakdanjem agrarnem življenju na Pivki (Smerdel 2005), o skrbi za zdravje delovnih volov (Smer­del 2007a, 2007b), o kulturi sporazumevanja s temi živalmi (Smerdel 2009a, 2009b), o povednosti volov na likovnih upodobitvah ter o metaforicnih pomenih in vsakdanjih delovnih praksah (Smerdel 2011, 2013), o proucevanju živali na Slovenskem in o razmerjih med ljudmi in voli (Smerdel 2012) ter pred desetlet­jem še v študiji o vzporednicah med ucenjem volov in otrok (Smerdel 2014a). Predstavljanje te tematike per partes pa sem sklenila s prispevkom o posameznih zacetnih spoznanjih o odnosih do živali (do volov), kakršne poraja bližina (Smer­del 2023). Uvodni študiji sledi katalog jarmov, ki jih hrani Slovenski etnografski muzej (v nadaljevanju SEM).1 Za temi vprežnimi živalskimi silaki so namrec ostale vznemirljive, vecplastno povedne snovne kulturne sledi. In slednje pomenijo prav jarmi – predmeti oziroma priprave za vpreganje goveje živine, še posebej volov. Njihova nema pricevanja se ohranjajo vmuzejskih zbirkah SEM in tudi nekaterih pokrajinskih muzejev. Kot prepoznavna znamenja spomina na nekdanje case in kot vidne pricevalce o ruralni istovetnosti pa jih je mogoce še vedno videvati marsikje na podeželju. JARMI – TEMELJNA VÉDENJA, KI JIH DOLOCAJO Jarem, ta vznemirljivi prapredmet – priprava, s katero je nekoc, v noci casa, udomaceno govedo postalo delovno govedo ter tako clovekov pomocnik in de­lovni tovariš pri številnih kmetijskih in drugih opravilih – je skozi case in svetove zgodovine dolgega trajanja, s svojimi v posameznih deželah uveljavljenimi, razno­likimi oblikovnimi tipi, ostajal skorajda nespremenjen, ker ga je takšnega ohranja-la njegova temeljna funkcija. Gre za enega tistih predmetov v dedišcini materialne kulture – sintagme, ki »združuje konkretno in abstraktno«, kot je zapisal Glassie (1999: 41) – ki ga moramo preucevati obcuteno in spoštljivo, ce naj bo naša orientacija abstrakcija, imenovana kultura. In materialna, snovna kultura je kultura, narejena v snovno; je notranja bistroumnost na delu v svetu. Neizogibno zacenja z recmi, vendar z njimi ne koncuje; saj v procesih raziskovanja materialne kulture uporabljamo predmete zavoljo tega, da se približamo cloveški misli in delovanju (Glassie 1999: 41). A o receh se pogovarjamo z besedami; z imeni za posamezne predmete in s tem, da poskušamo razložiti njihov pomen in izvor. In pri tako prvinski ter tako kompleksno pricevalni kulturni sestavini, kakršno pomeni jarem, se krajši filološ­ki ekskurz v maniri »Wörter und Sachen«2 ne zdi nepotreben. V Slovenskem etimološkem slovarju iz leta 1997 si na primer lahko o jarmu pre­beremo naslednje: Járem – jarma, jármiti, podjármiti. Enako je starocerkvenoslovansko jar.m., hrvaško in srbsko járam, sorodno še rusko jarmó in poljsko jarzmo. Praslovansko 1 V katalogu so upoštevani vsi tisti jarmi, ki so bili muzeju podarjeni ali kupljeni za zbirko do leta 2012. V naslednjih letih je prišlo v SEM še nekaj primerkov, ki pa po tipologiji ne odstopajo od jarmov, vkljucenih v katalog. 2 »Besede in stvari« je bilo sicer filološko gibanje v zgodnjem 20. stoletju, uveljavljeno zlasti v Nemciji in v Avstriji, ki je temeljilo na prepricanju, da bi morali izvor besed raziskovati v tesni povezavi s študijem artefaktov in kulturnih konceptov, ki so jih besede oznacevale. O JARMIH *ar.m. (in *ar.m.o) je tvorba na osnovi indoevropskega korena *arH - 'sklopiti; sestaviti tako, da ustreza'. Prvotni pomen besede je torej 'tisto, s cimer se poveže­ta, sklopita (dve vprežni živali)'. (Snoj 1997: 196) Na slovenskem alpskem obmocju pa je bilo za to pripravo za vpreganje goveje živine splošno uveljavljeno drugo ime – igô, o katerem v etimološkem slovarju najdemo naslednjo razlago: Igô – ižęsa, 'jarem'. Enako je starocerkvenoslovansko igo, starejše hrvaško igo, rusko ígo, ceško jho. Praslovansko *j.go se je razvilo iz indoevropskega *Hiugo - 'jarem', iz cesar je še staroindijsko yugá-, grško zygón, latinsko iugum, hetitsko iuga-, gotsko juk, starovisokonemško juch, nemško Joch, vse v pomenu 'jarem'. Indoevropska beseda je tvorjena iz korena *Hieug - 'vpreci', kar je determinirano *Hieu(H) - 'vezati' (Snoj 1997: 181). In vznemirljivo je, da prav ti dve imeni oznacujeta oziroma dolocata dve te­meljni obliki vprege goved: Vihrov jarem, na Slovenskem uporabljan v dveh osnovnih razlicicah, imeno­vanih sredozemski jarem (s kambama, angleško bow yoke) in t. i. slovanski jarem ali tele(n)ge (njegova okvirasta razlicica, angleško frame yoke); francosko le joug de garrot;angleško withers yoke (imenovan tudi neck yoke ali pa shoulders yoke); nemško Widerristjoch. Vihrovjarem (vvseh svojih razlicicah) se naslanja na vrat živali, pociva na vratnih vretencih pred vihrom, ki leži na vrhu, na stiku med lopaticama (Sigaut 1993: 5; Griffin-Kremer 2007: 52). Struktura njegovega delo­vanja je elementarna in potrebne sestavine so vcasih reducirane na le malo stvari: leseno bruno, komaj obdelano (dolgo med 120 in 180 cm), ki sede v ukrivljeni del vratu, dobiva oporo (pred vihrom) in prenaša moc na oje, vcasih le preprost drog. Svoboda gibanja glave je prednost v takšni poziciji, temeljen pa je problem globalnega ravnotežja vprege (Raepsaet 2002: 90). Zatilni jarem, na Slovenskem imenovan igô; francosko le joug de tęte, tudi le joug de corne, le joug de nuque; angleško head yoke, tudi horn yoke; nemško Genickjoch (med jarme za vleko z glavo, Kopfzuggeschirre, pa sodita tudi celni jarem, Stirn­joch, in jarem za vleko z glavo – z rogovi, Hörnerjoch). Zatilni jarem pociva na tilniku, kar pomeni, da mora biti prilagojen prostoru lobanje za rogovi, na vrhu vratnih vretenc živali. Oznacuje ga velika togost, ker je okoli rogov trdno pritrjen z zankasto ovitimi jermeni in potem še cez blazino na celu (ali brez nje), ki naj bi šcitila kožo na glavi in blažila sunke na lobanjo, kadar vleceni objekti zadanejo ob ovire. In prav ta togost temu sistemu uravnovešenja v gibanju omogoca zelo obvladljiv nadzor nad vlecenim objektom; še posebej takrat, kadar je enako toga tudi povezava z ojesom (Sigaut 1993: 5; Griffin-Kremer 2007: 52). Obe imenovani obliki jarma sta sredstvo, pripravi za prenašanje živalske en-ergije na preostali del vprege in na celokupnost vlecnega »stroja« – najsibo pri oranju ali pri vožnji. Ali z drugimi besedami, po definiciji iz nemškega etimološke­ga slovarja, je jarem »priprava, ki združuje minimalno dve živali, da bi se prenesla energija njunega gibanja na vleceni objekt (in ce tako nanesejo okolišcine, za zaviranje ali za stopanje nazaj)« (Kluge v Griffin-Kremer 2007: 53). A poleg priprav za vpre­ganje dveh goved, povezanih skupaj na tak nacin, da je njuna raba bolj ali manj prisilna, neprijetna, obstaja še skupina njihovih »polovic«, priprav za vpreganje posamicnega goveda; pol-jarmov oziroma enojnih jarmov ali jarmicev, ki so prav tako lahko zatilni ali pa vihrovi (v francošcini joguet ŕ tęte, joguet frontal ali pa joguet de garrot). Tem pa se je v stoletjih po srednjem veku (ko je bil povezan le s konjem) korak za korakom pridružil tudi volovski komat (Griffin-Kremer2007: 52; Raepsaet 2002: 111). Brez jarmov bi v stoletjih zgodovine dolgega trajanja, ko so vanje vpregali vecinoma vole, ne bilo mogoce niti orati niti voziti. Zamislimo se še posebej v oranje, ko so živali vlekle rala ali pluge, da so ti prodirali v zemljo – lahko, prhko, pešceno in voljno ali težko, tolsto, ilovnato in »hudo« – in utirali pot semenu, da bi iz njega vsako leto znova vzklilo življenje; hrana, ki je bila cloveku preživetje. Prav o oralih – o teh iz davnine razpetih napravah, ki so bile nedvomno temelj­ne za razvoj civilizacije in so srcika biti besede kultura – so se zlasti v desetlet­jih okrog sredine preteklega stoletja pojavile številne študije (Smerdel 2008: 8). Zato ne preseneca, da so se tudi o jarmih, tako tesno povezanih z orali, zacela že v prvi polovici 20. stoletja pojavljati posamezna dela (npr. Vilkuna 1936; Jacobeit 1948). In tudi ta so se zgostila v desetletjih okoli sredine preteklega stoletja, ko je prodirajoca mehanizacija jarme odnašala s polja na smetišca zgodovine ali pa so jih spravljali v muzejska svetišca spomina. V zacetku šestdesetih let 20. stoletja je na primerv slovenski etnologiji nasto­pilo kratko obdobje, ko so se vsaj v muzejskem strokovnem okolju zaceli posred-no ukvarjati z vprežno živino, tematsko torišce pa je postal na videz neugleden, a starodaven primarni tvarni vir – jarem. In to leseno pripravo za vprego goveje živine (zlasti volov in redkeje krav), so poskušali tipološko dolociti in jo preuciti z vidika njene pokrajinske razširjenosti, izdelave, nacinovvsakdanje rabe in more-bitne druge namembnosti, kar je bilo tematsko v skladu s socasnimi strokovnimi prizadevanji v nekaterih drugih evropskih deželah. Njihov rezultat je bila leta 1969 mednarodna tematska številka ceškoslovaške narodopisne revije Národo pisný vestník ceskoslovenský, ki je izšla pod uredništvom Wolfganga Jacobeita in Jaroslava Kramaríka in je prinesla razprave o jarmih vVeliki Britaniji, na Por­tugalskem, v Izraelu, na Švedskem, ob Baltiku, vVzhodni Evropi, v Jugoslaviji, O JARMIH Bolgariji, na Madžarskem, Moravskem in Slovaškem. Med pisci so bili na primer Alexander Fenton, Ernesto Veiga de Oliveira, John Granlund, Milovan Gavazzi, Jan Podolák in drugi. Kot posebna publikacija je potem v istem letu v Uherskem Hradištu na Moravskem izšla še obsežna študija Mariel Jean Brunhes Delamarre o jarmih v Franciji od 17. stoletja dotlej (Brunhes Delamarre 1969). Vse kaže, da je bil jarem v šestdesetih letih preteklega stoletja resnicno ena izmed središcnih skupnih tem dolocenega kroga evropskih etnologov, še posebej v toku prizadevanj za etnološke in lingvisticne atlase. Iniciativo za njihovo nas­tajanje naj bi bili sprožili raziskovalci oral, ki so na 4. mednarodnem kongresu etnoloških in antropoloških znanosti na Dunaju leta 1952 na sestanku evropske sekcije predlagali, da naj bi prav orala uporabili kot osnovo za prvi poskus izdelave Evropskega atlasa ljudske kulture, Atlas of European Folk-Culture (Smerdel 2008: 11).V Etnografskem muzeju v Ljubljani je bil od leta 1960 »sedež« etnološkega atlasa Jugoslavije za Slovenijo in še istega leta, v zacetku marca, je muzej v prilogi Glasnika Slovenskega etnografskega društva izdal posebno vprašalnico3 »O opremi in vpregi goveje živine«. Iz oktobra leta 1960 je potem nekaj stavkov iz porocila Borisa Orla, tedanjega ravnatelja Etnografskega muzeja, ki sporocajo, da se je na službenem potovanju po Ziljski dolini sicer ukvarjal s preucevanjem ornih orodij, a je obenem zbiral tudi podatke za poskusno vprašalnico (s petimi temami) za etnološki atlas Jugoslavije, kjer je bila druga tema jarem. V naslednjih letih pa sta prav o jarmih nastali prvi poskusni karti etnološkega atlasa Jugoslavije: Karta I, oblici dvojnoga jarma, in Karta II, nacini vezanja jarma z ojem (Smerdel 2005: 343). Na Poljskem so na primer že leta 1971 izdali Polski Atlas Etnograficzny, s tremi mapami, relevantnimi za jarme.4 Sledili so jim Grki, ki so z delom za etnološki atlas zaceli leta 1966, njegov prvi del pa je izšel leta 1975. Imellos ga je objavil brez komentarjev, s štirinajstimi »tablami« fotografij in s štirimi kartami – tretja vse­buje jarme.5Vendar kaže, da so ledino na tem podrocju – najverjetneje po zaslugi Richarda Weissa – orali Švicarji. Kot letnici sprejemanja podatkov za Atlas der Schweizerischen Volkskunde (Atlas de folklore suisse), za karto o jarmih,6 so namrec navedena leta med 1937 in 1942. Zastalo delo na etnoloških atlasih je v nekaterih 3 Odgovore hrani Arhiv Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja v Ljubljani. 4 Poljski atlas je izdal Instytut Historii Kultury Materialnej pri Polskiej Akademii Nauk; 1971; Bd. 4; Warszawa; (Mapy 191–250). 4: Transport i komunikacja ladowa. 5 Atlas hrani Hellenic Folklore Research Centre v Atenah in je bil v casu mojega povpraševanja v procesu digitalizacije. Pri pridobivanju natisnjenih strani kart iz atlasa sta mi pomagala grška kolega iz programa EARTH, Sabine Beckmann in Yorgos Brokalakis. 6 Karto mi je prijazno posredoval pokojni zagrebški kolega Tomo Vinšcak. Nanaša se na 33. vprašanje – Zugvorrichtungen für Rindvieh, Kummet / Halsjoch / Hornjoch (Attelage des boeufs, Le joug / le collier). Podatke sta obdelala Paul Geiger in Richard Weiss. Karto je izdala Schweizerischen Gesellschaft fürVolkskunde. evropskih državah pozneje – v eri digitalizacije – doživelo svojstveni preporod.7 Razen v Grciji je ob koncu prvega desetletja 21. stoletja tudi na Madžarskem že nastala elektronska verzija etnološkega atlasa.8 Jaroslav Kramarík, eden izmed obeh urednikov prej omenjene tematske številke revije o jarmih, evropskem etnološkem podvigu, ki je vtistih casih združil pisce od Škotske, prek Portugalske, Španije, Nemcije, vse do Rusije, je temo živin­ske vprege v svojem zgodnejšem prispevku iz leta 1960 oznacil kakor eno najza­nimivejših etnografskih tem v okviru raziskovanj starih oblik poljedelstva. In kot temo, ki je glede problematike njenega pojava in razvoja ter njenih razlicnih tipov zaposlovala poleg etnografov tudi agrarne zgodovinarje. Ob tem je etnografe še posebej zanimalo vprašanje etnicne pripadnosti posameznih tipov vprege (Kra­marík 1960: 253). Zarisovanju kulturnih mej kot etnicnih pokazateljev na podla­gi posameznih kulturnih prvin pa so bili konec koncev namenjeni prav etnološki (in lingvisticni) atlasi. A pri tako prvinski kulturni sestavini bi se morali osredotocati tudi na »teh­nicne rešitve in na potrebne spretnosti pri uporabi«, ki so lahko prepoznavni oznacevalci kulturnih mej (Barth v Schippers 2014: 277). Tudi posamezna orod­ja, vešcine in znanja namrec lahko vstopijo »v areno razmerij med razlicnimi socialnimi skupinami kot prepoznavni družbeni in kulturni oznacevalci«; pri cemer so lahko »ali cenjene kulturne prakse ali negativni atributi« (Schippers 2014: 276–277). Lahko so celo vir etnicnega prestiža. In tako so bila na prim­er pri prapredmetu, kakršen je jarem, v dolocenem zgodovinskem casu v zraku premišljanja, ki s to snovno prvino – na podlagi enega ali drugega temeljnega tipa – niso skušala le zarisovati kulturnih mej, temvec oznacevati tudi kulturno superiornost ali inferiornost (o slednjem gl. npr. pri Kramarík 1960: 253). Oba temeljna tipa jarma – vihrov in zatilni (oziroma jarem za vleko z gla­vo) – sta izpricana od grško-rimskega anticnega obdobja in o njunih prednostih in slabostih sta razpravljala že Plinij starejši in Columella.9 Slednji je na primer odlocno podpiral rabo vihrovega jarma: Zato ker živina lahko prenese vec napora z vratom in z rameni kakor pa z rogovi; in tako lahko uporablja celotno maso telesa in vso svojo težo; pri drugem nacinu, z nazaj potegnjeno glavo in navzgor obrnjenim obrazom, pa se živali muci inkomajpopraska površino tal z zelo lahkim lemežem. (Columella 1948: 123) 7 Z zadevnim dogajanjem me je seznanil francoski kolega Thomas Schippers. 8 Thomas Schippers me je povezal z madžarskim kolegom Balászom Borsosom, ki je digitaliziral The Atlas of Hungarian Folk Culture. Njegova elektronska verzija takrat še ni bila dostopna, a kolega mi je prijazno posredoval štiri karte, ki vsebujejo: 1. oblike madžarskih jarmov, 2. njihova imena in 3., 4. imena razlicnih sestavnih delov okvirastih vihrovih jarmov na Madžarskem. 9 V Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia, 8.70.179; Columella, De re rustica, 2.2.21–24 (Griffin-Kremer 2010: 56). O JARMIH V naslednjih stoletjih zgodovine dolgega trajanja je sledil vecni pro et contra zagovornikov in kritikov enega ali drugega temeljnega tipa jarma (in debata je še vedno živa). Njuno veljavo je mogoce meriti zlasti glede na ucinkovitost prenosa energije; kar so utemeljevali z argumenti, vkaterih so poudarjali navidezno racio­nalne kriterije za ocenjevanje izvrševanja razlicnih tehnik vpreganja, kakršne so poznali (Griffin-Kremer 2010: 56–57). Na drugem bregu – med tistimi, ki so se nagibali k hvaljenju zatilnih jarmov, se je konec šestdesetih let preteklega stoletja na primer znašla tudi francoska preucevalka teh pripomockov za vpreganje goveje živine, Mariel Jean Brunhes Delamarre, vsaj na podlagi malce presenetljivega zapisa, da »vihrov jarem (joug de garrot), ki nima direktnega prijema na vprežene živali, ne more izpolnjevati vseh funkcij jarma« (Brunhes Delamarre v Griffin-Kremer 2007: 53). Takšno svoje sklepanje je utemeljila na ugotovitvah, da togost zatilnega jarma (joug de tęte) temu sistemu uravnovešenja v gibanju živali podeljuje zelo obvladljivo kontrolo nad vlecenim objektom; in prav ta rigidnost omogoca dve dodatni funkciji – takozaviranjekot stopanje nazaj. Nasprotno pa vihrov jarem obeh omenjenih funkcij ne more izpolnje­vati sam po sebi, brez pomoci dodatnih naprav (Brunhes Delamarre 1969: 15, 22). A dejstvo ostaja, da sta bila oba temeljna tipa jarma vec stoletij razširjena tako v Evropi kot v Aziji; in po naseljevanju obeh Amerik tudi na teh dveh kontinen­tih, zlasti v novejšem casu pa še v Afriki. Ljudje so uporabljali oba in tudi njune številne razlicice, saj so vedeli, zakaj. Toliko razlogovje vedno dolocalo njihovo izbiro. Leta 1993, ob razstavi Jougs, contre jougs, je na primer Sigaut o obeh tipih vprege goveje živine zapisal, da je bil zatilni jarem še v 19. stoletju razširjen po delu Španije, v Franciji (tam, kjer so vpregali vole) in na jugozahodu Nemcije. Potem je nadaljeval – žal z zmotno trditvijo, saj ni razpolagal z dovoljšnimi, us-treznimi podatki: »Le v teh deželah je bilo njegovo obmocje.« (Sigaut 1993: 5) In še dodal, da je v preostanku sveta zatilni jarem popolnoma neznan – ali od nekdaj ali pa je bil po vec stoletjih pozabljen. O vihrovem jarmu pa je ubesedil, da v Italiji, v vzhodni Evropi, severni Afriki, na Bližnjem vzhodu in vvsej Aziji pri vpreganju volov, zebujev in bivolov ne poznajo drugega kakor prav ta tip jarma (prav tam). Ce si preberemo še Kramaríkov zadevni zapis iz leta 1960, se lahko poucimo, da je vihrov jarem tedaj prevladoval v celi Aziji, med slovanskimi narodi tako pri vzhodnih kot pri južnih in zahodnih Slovanih, in da je bil uveljavljen skoraj po celotnem Balkanu, v nekaj primerih pa je bil razširjen tudi v zahodni Evropi. A prevladujoci tip vprege v zahodni Evropi je bil zatilni jarem in njegova raba je bila znacilna za germanske narode. Uporabljali so ga tudi v skandinavskih in v baltskih deželah, v srednji Evropi pa v Avstriji in v južnih in jugozahodnih krajih Ceške (Kramarík 1960: 254–255). Zdaj pa se potopimo še v nekaj vznemirljivih filoloških razlag, ki nas bodo pripeljale do našega »neznanca« – na Slovenskem razširjenega zatilnega jarma – ižęsa (gen. od igô). V to zadnje popotovanje v deželo »besed in reci« me je zva­bil finski etnolog Kustaa Vilkuna s poglobljeno razpravo o rabi vlecnih volov na Finskem iz leta 1936. V njej, poleg vsega drugega, korak za korakom utemeljuje neustreznost oznacevanja zatilnih jarmovz besedno zvezo »germanski jarem« in okvirastih vihrovih jarmov z besedno zvezo »slovanski jarem«. Naj na kratko povzamem njegovo izvajanje: V finšcini je za jarem uporabljana beseda ies, v estonšcini ike in v litavšcini i'gg.z, ki etimološko pripada isti indoger­manski družini kakor na primerv sanskrtu yagá, latinsko jugum, nemško Joch in švedsko ok, vendar ni izposojenka iz teh skupin, temvec je izposojenka neke zelo zgodnje slovanske oblike (kar naj bi bilo filološko z gotovostjo dokazano). Am-pak to se nikakor ne ujema s sedanjimi etnografskimi razmerji (tistimi z zacetka preteklega stoletja), saj imajo namrec Finci »germanski jarem«, nasprotno pa je na obmocju slovanskih in drugih vzhodnih ljudstevv uporabi vihrov – oziroma okvirast jarem, ki ga Braungart (nemški raziskovalec iz prve cetrtine 20. stolet­ja), v nasprotju s prej omenjenim, oznacuje kot »slovanski jarem«. Vendar ni zna-no, kaj za en jarem so v tistih oddaljenih casih uporabljali tisti Slovani, od katerih so vzhodni Finci prevzeli besedo ies – in morda tudi sam jarem. Beseda je že tekla o tem, kako je v zgodovini vihrov jarem prodrl na Dansko, na Švedsko in na gos-poska posestva na Finskem, kjer je izpodrinil stari zatilni jarem. Tako se zdi tudi možno, da se je slednji obdržal. Ob tem Vilkuna na primer omenja Moszynskega, ki je v svojem monumentalnem delu o Slovanih na vec mestih navedel pricevanja, ki sporocajo, da je bil na Poljskem in tudi na drugih zahodnoslovanskih obmocjih nekoc v rabi na rogove privezan zatilni jarem (Moszynski vVilkuna 1936: 87). Vihrov jarem torej ni nic bolj »slovanski« – kot ni zatilni jarem »germanski«. Prvi je samo prastar vzhodni tip, katerega obmocja segajo dalec v Azijo, in je imel v zadnjih stoletjih ekspanzivno lastnost. V nasprotju z njim pa je zatilni jarem pra-star zahodni tip, usihajoca oblika, ki je na obmejnih obmocjih prevzemala dopol­nilne poteze vihrovega jarma. Vilkuna nadalje zapiše še to, da je »staro volovsko obmocje ob Baltiku« v svoji celosti ena izmed vej starega srednje- in zahodno­evropskega obmocja zatilnega jarma, v katerega so spadali tudi zahodni Slovani. (Vilkuna 1936: 87–88, 98) In tu – po vsem povedanem – vznemirja dejstvo, da smo imeli Slovenci na alpskem, severozahodnem delu našega ozemlja tja do sredine preteklega stoletja marsikje še vedno v rabi štiri dognane oblikovne razlicice zatilnega jarma (gl. kata-log zbirke SEM); nekatere sorodne s tistimi iz drugih bližnjih alpskih dežel, ena izmed njih – palicast igô, odkrit na visokogorskih kmetijah nad Ljubnim ob Savinji, O JARMIH ki so ga tam imenovali »ta starinski jége« – pa izpricuje neverjetno oblikovno so-rodnost z zatilnimi jarmi iz Finske in še posebej iz Estonije (prim. Viires 1969: 126, 127). Lahko poleg nespornih ugotovitev o tesnih balto-slovanskih jezikovnih vezeh, ki govorijo o tesnem (skupnem) razvoju teh dveh jezikovnih skupin (Pleterski 1995: 537), v prepoznani oblikovni sorodnosti nekaterih slovenskih zatilnih jar-mov in tistih iz baltskih dežel spregovorimo tudi o novih materialnih pricah v prid prevetrenju védenja o slovenski etnogenezi?10 (Morda bo ta mikavni drobec navdih za nadaljnja zadevna raziskovanja.) SE JE VSE ZACELO S PALICO, PRIVEZANO ZA ROGOVE? A vsa ta védenja, ubesedena o jarmu in njegovih dveh temeljnih oblikah, nam sicer pojasnjujejo marsikaj o njegovi oblikovni pojavnosti, ne pa tudi o zacetkih in nacinih njegove rabe v casu in v razlicnih prostorih zgodovine dolgega trajanja. Ne dajejo nam odgovorov, zakaj se je prav nek dolocen oblikovni tip jarma (in ne katerikoli drugi) uveljavil v neki deželi in tam obstal; ali zakaj je bil morda zamen­jan z drugim. Ob vsej navidezni staticnosti rabe jarmov skozi stoletja je bila ves cas vendarle prisotna dinamika gibanja ljudi; njihovega odhajanja v druge kraje, pokrajine, dežele. Njihovega vracanja domov s fotografskimi odtisi videnega v oceh – morda tudi drugacnih, morda za dolocena delovna opravila boljših jar-mov. In prihajanja ljudi od drugod: sezonskih delavcev, potujocih obrtnikov, tudi vojakov. Svoj pecat z vnašanjem novih ali drugacnih kulturnih sestavin – orodij, znanj in vešcin – so v dolocenih agrarnih okoljih v nekaterih obdobjih pustili tudi samostanski redovi in državne oblasti s svojimi zakoni, ustreznimi šolami, kmetij­skimi družbami. Zlasti slednje so bile v Evropi (še posebej v obdobju razsvetljen­stva) s svojim interesom za gospodarstvo, za poljedelstvo, zelo vpliven dejavnik (Smerdel 2014: 256–257). Po eni strani je šlo tako tudi pri jarmih za tista z njimi povezana znanja in vešcine oziroma za kulturne sestavine, ki so zagotavljale 10 Tako kot se je pokazalo v primeru cupe, morskega drevaka z obal Tržaškega zaliva, s katerim je Bruno Volpi Lisjak, pisec knjige o tem prvem slovenskem plovilu, pogumno dregnil v izmuzljivo vprašanje etnogeneze Slovencev. Vprašanje izvora besede cupa ga je odpeljalo do Novgoroda, proti Baltskemu morju in Finskemu zalivu, kjer so na nekem ožjem podrocju drevake prav tako imenovali cupus in cupa. Na podlagi spoznanj iz študija novejše literature je opozoril, da so se Sloveni – Slovenci v svoji pradomovini zaradi vpadov Gotov (v prvih dveh stoletjih n. št.) razdelili, tako da je en del odšel na sever do jezera Iljmenj, drugi pa je nato pristal na severu Jadrana; po zacetni skupni poti s Cehi in Slovaki, s tistimi Sklaveni, ki so takrat prišli v kraje, kjer še danes živijo (Volpi Lisjak 2004: 68; Granda 2004: 21). nepretrganost in stalnost in so se prenašale iz roda v rod11, in po drugi strani za takšne sestavine, ki so se pojavljale znotraj neke skupnosti ali pa so vanjo »vsto-pale« kot element spremembe ali potrebne inovacije, pregovornih »hcera nuje« (Smerdel 2014: 256). Izbira v posameznih družbenih okoljih pa je lahko temeljila na odlocitvah skupnosti, a je bila morda tu in tam tudi individualna. O konceptu inovacij so prav razsvetljevalne besede Georgesa Raepsaeta. Njegovo premišljanje o negotovem, problematicnem, od nakljucja odvisnem znacaju rojstva ali širjenja tehnicnega napredka, ki – v casu ali prostoru – lahko postane temeljni element gospodarskega napredka na prostranih obmocjih in za številne popu­lacije ali pa je omejen v zaupni marginalnosti ene regije ali enega ruralnega podrocja. (Raepsaet 2002: 16) Njegovo premišljanje, ki je vzniknilo prav ob preucevanju vprege: Linearnost ali nelinearnost tehnicnega napredka, pointilizem, elitizem ali po­sploševanje inovacije, kulturne teže oziroma veljave in družbene prisile, eman­cipacija donosov produkcije, mentalne blokade, prelomi, revolucije [...]. Vse to je mogoce videti v jarmu, v pol-jarmu ali v komatu; v njihovih razlicicah in ino­vacijah, uspelih ali ne, in še v dosti drugih stvareh. (Raepsaet 2002: 16) Zdaj pa se zdi, da se moramo znova potopiti v noc casa – tokrat z jarmi; in za tem, v iskanju bolj ali manj zgovornih primerov, z njimi stopiti še na primerjalno popotovanje po evropskih in nekaterih drugih deželah. Ko je tam nekje v cetrtem tisocletju pred našim štetjem clovek neolitika zrl v mogocno telo goveda, ki ga je uspel udomaciti, si ga na tak ali drugacen nacin pod-rediti, da bi mu karkoli vleklo, skupaj z njim zaoralo prvo brazdo – je nedvomno iskal nacin, kako bi oralo »pripel« na njegovo telo. In verjetno ni potreboval prav dosti casa za spoznanje, da so volovski rogovi ravno pravšnje oporišce za ta namen – a ne samo ene, temvec dveh živali. Zavedal se je namrec, da za tako težko delo potrebuje vlecno moc dveh volov; in vedel je, da mora najti nacin, kako ju povezati. Poskusil je s palico, položeno pred rogovi cez njuni glavi. Tako je nastal jarem za vleko z glavo – z rogovi (nem. Hornjoch), tista vprega, pri kateri jarem leži pred podnožjem rogov (nem. Hornbasis) in je tako vlecna moc nedvomno nastavljena na tem mestu. Jacobeit ga je z vso gotovostjo pre­poznal kakor najstarejšo obliko vprege, o cemer po njegovem pricajo egipcan­ske upodobitve goved, vpreženih v tak tip jarmov (Jacobeit 1948: 14–15, Jacobeit 1957: 124). In ti so nesporno prepoznavni na stenski sliki, upodobitvi oranja (na V okolju »zgodovinskih procesov prilagoditev lokalnim agro-ekološkim pogojem pocasi se razširjajocih 'tendenc'« (Leroi-Gourhan v Schippers 2014: 276). O JARMIH Volovski vpregi z jarmom za vleko z glavo, ki leži pred podnožjem rogov: detajla prizorov mlacve in oranja iz Anijeve Knjige mrtvih, iz obdobja 19. dinastije, okoli 1250 pr. n. št. (iz zbirk Britanskega muzeja, © The Trustees of the British Museum). Oxen harnessed with a head yoke tied to the base of the horns: details of the threshing and ploughing scenes from the Book of the Dead of Ani, 19thDynasty, ca. 1250 BC (British Museum collections, © The Trustees of the British Museum). kateri so štiri volovske vprege), iz groba Khétyja, uradnika vBeni-Hassanu vcasu Srednje države, iz obdobja 12. dinastije, okoli 1990–1797 pr. n. št.12 Ali pa na prim­er na fotografiji detajla iz Anijeve Knjige mrtvih (s prizori življenja v onostran­stvu), iz obdobja 19. dinastije, okoli 1250 pr. n. št. Jarma za vleko z glavo – z rogovi, ki ležita pred podnožjem rogovdveh volovskih parov, sta pri enem paru upodobljena vprizoru mlacve in pri drugem vprizoru oranja. A cepravRaepsaet sicer pravi, da »se zdi, da se je praksa vpreganja pojavila istocasno kot domestikacija in brez dvoma najprej pri oranju z ralom, preden je bila uporabljena pri transportu« ter potem doda – »vendar ne nujno« (Raepsaet 2002: 72), med najstarejšimi upodo­bitvami jarma za vleko z glavo, z rogovi, najdemo tudi bakreni model tovornega voza z vpreženima voloma iz Marasa vvzhodni Turciji, iz zgodnjega 2. tisocletja pr. n. št. (Clutton-Brock 1992: 68). Premišljanj in poskusov ljudi neolitika, kako povezati dve govedi, da bi z njuno mocjo lahko orali, pa je bilo po vsej verjetnosti vec in so se na razlicnih koncih, zaradi razlicnih razlogov lahko tudi razlikovala. Drugace kakor Jacobeit tako na primer Raepsaet o vihrovem jarmu zapiše: »Morda je to najstarejši nacin vprege volov, ce se prizna neposredna zveza med rojstvom vprege in vlecnim oranjem. In je zago­tovo najbolj razširjena. Za uravnoteženje in vlecenje ojesa rala je potreben parvolov, ki delata vzporedno.« (A tudi pri jarmih za vleko z glavo se poudarja prav usklajeno delo dveh vzporedno, tesno povezanih živali.) Raepsaet potem nadaljuje: »Ce se torej prizna, da se je sedentarna agrikultura rodila nekje med Malo in Srednjo Azijo terda je bil prvi tam udomaceni vol vrsta z dolgim vratom (in visokim vihrom, torej zebu), je mogoce reci, da pomeni ta tip vprege – danes še vedno razširjen – izvirno struk­turo vprežne vleke.« (Raepsaet 2002: 89) Najsi je bil najstarejši tip jarma tisti za vleko z glavo – v svojih zacetkih privezan na rogove, ležec pred njihovim podnožjem – najsibo oni, posajen v vdrtino volovskih vratov pred vihrom, pri obeh kljub navidezni preprostosti strukture ni šlo tudi za preprostost delovanja, temvec za celotno okolje, za sku­pek nepogrešljivih znanj za doseganje pravilne, uravnotežene vleke. In tudi znanj glede ustrezne zašcite teles živalskih pomocnikov – njihovih glav in vratov – ter skrbi za zdravje in boljše pocutje delovnih volov, kar se je posledicno nedvom-no odražalo v njihovi delovni pripravljenosti in sposobnosti. Eno izmed takšnih znanj, bolj odlocilno kakor pa tesarske spretnosti izdelovalcev jarmov, v anticnih in poznejših casih najpogosteje samih kmetov, je bila sposobnost izbire prave vrste lesa (ce so le imeli možnost izbire) in prave oblike (Halstead 2014: 58). V tem pogledu moramo poudariti dejstvo, znano in izpricano vvec deželah – tudi 12 Fotografijo te upodobitve in še nekaterih drugih, pricevalnih o rabi goved v starem Egiptu, mi je prijazno poslala francoska egiptologinja Perrine Mane. O JARMIH na Slovenskem ali pa na primerv Španiji (kar bo v nadaljevanju predstavljeno z zgovornimi primeri) –, da so se za razlicna dela uporabljali razlicni jarmi, oblike enega ali drugega temeljnega tipa, kar so naši prednamci nedvomno že zgodaj preizkušali in dovolj dolgo preverjali. Na sledi enega ali drugega temeljnega tipa (in njunih oblikovnih razlicic) skozi cas in prostor se pred selitvijo v Evropo zdaj še enkrat ustavimo na Bližnjem vzhodu, v Mezopotamiji, od koder kakor kaže prihaja najstarejša upodobitev kambastega vihrovega jarma. Zdi se namrec, da je jarem s kambama mogoce prepoznati na prizoru štetja vojnega plena na mezopotamskem reliefu iz palace v Nimrudu, datiranem v cas okoli leta 800 pr. n. št. Še bolj nedvoumno pre­poznaven je na asirskih reliefih iz jugozahodne palace v Ninivah – razstavljenih v Britanskem muzeju, datiranih v cas okoli let 700–692 pr. n. št. – in sicer na posameznih prizorih plena iz Lachischa, na katerih Judje na vozovih z volovskimi vpregami z družinami in z živino odhajajo v izgnanstvo. Morda najstarejša upodobitev kambastega vihrovega jarma, na asirskem reliefu, okoli 700–692 pr. n. št., iz jugozahodne palace v Ninivah (iz zbirk Britanskega muzeja, © The Trustees of the British Museum). Perhaps the oldest depiction of a withers bowyoke on the Assyrian wall relief from Nineveh, South-West Palace, about 700–692 BC (British Museum collections, © The Trustees of the British Museum). Kambast vihrov jarem na vratovih volicev keramicne žanrske figure oraca iz Beocije, iz okoli 600–575 pr. n. št., razstavljene v pariškem muzeju Louvre (foto: Inja Smerdel, 2008). Terra cotta figurine of a Boeotian ploughman with a team of oxen wearing a withers bow yoke, between 600 and 575 BC; Louvre, Paris (photo: Inja Smerdel, 2008). V kambast vihrov jarem vprežena vola oraca iz Etrurije, model bronastega etrušcanskega kipca (iz zbirk Nacionalnega etrušcanska muzeja Villa Giulia, Rim, 2024©Photo Scala, Firence). Bronze statuette of ploughman from Etruria with oxsen harnessed with a withers bowyoke; (from the National Etruscan Museum of Villa Giulia collections, Rome, 2024©Photo Scala, Florence). Ce pa se koncno preselimo na evropska tla ter poskušamo tam najti naj­zgodnejše likovne upodobitve kambastega vihrovega jarma, se zdi, da te prihajajo iz Grcije in iz Etrurije. Prav tak jarem je na primer jasno viden na vratovih vo­licevkeramicne žanrske figure oraca iz Beocije, te grške »dežele goved«, iz okoli 600–575 pr. n. št., razstavljene v pariškem Louvru (Smerdel 2011: 131), in na onih bronastega etrušcanskega kipca (modela) oraca iz Rima (Contini 2000: 46). In v Evropi – tako drugace kakor na Bližnjem vzhodu – tudi ne manjka arhe­oloških dokazov; snovnih pric, ki potrjujejo rabo jarmov. Povecini gre za najdbe zatilnih primerkov (ali le njihovih prepoznavnih delov). Tiste razlicice jarmov za vleko z glavo, ki je pocivala na tilniku za rogovi in je bila okoli rogov trd-no pritrjena z zankasto ovitimi jermeni (in ponavadi še cez blazino na celu). To najverjetneje najpogostejšo prazgodovinsko razlicico jarma za vleko z glavo ne­dvoumno sporocajo oblike arheoloških najdb. Nesporno prepoznavanje enega ali drugega temeljnega tipa jarma v preteklosti, glede na njegovo obliko in izvedbo posameznih strukturnih detajlov, pa je omogocila poglobljena študija Wolfganga Jacobeita, v kateri ta jasno doloci, da ima zatilni jarem – v nasprotju z navpicno O JARMIH izvrtanimi odprtinami na brunu vihrovega jarma, kamor se vtikajo lokaste kam-be, obvratni kraki, letve, vrvice – vodoravno izvrtane odprtine na jarmovem brunu. Na njem pa so izoblikovani tudi zatici in štrline, ki služijo vezanju jarma na celo oziroma na podnožje rogovvprežne živali s pritrjevalnimi jermeni. Bistve-no razlikovanje med vihrovim in zatilnim jarmom je torej v tem, da ima bruno slednjega vodoravno in ne navpicno izvrtane odprtine. (Jacobeit 1957: 122, 124) Kar nekaj najdb prazgodovinskih jarmov se je znašlo v arheološkem slovstvu preteklega stoletja in potem še v nekaterih delih tistih med etnologi, ki so se uk­varjali s preucevanjem vprege. V njih se vedno znova ponavljajo zlasti omembe najdb iz šotišc vVeliki Britaniji in od ponekod drugod. Fenton tako na primer omenja tri jarme – iz Argylla na zahodu Škotske, s Šetlandskih otokov in iz kra­ja Baltigeer v okrožju Meath na Irskem – in vsi trije so zatilni, saj jih dolocajo horizontalne perforacije ter izbokline in žlebici, ki so zadrževali jermene za nji­hovo privezovanje k rogovom (Fenton 1986: 3). Vzporednice tem trem jarmom so bile najdene na Danskem in na Nizozemskem. Danski primerki so iz krajev oziroma najdišc Finderup, Sevel, Deibjerg in Lundgardshede, nizozemski pa je iz najdišca Enzige, vendar je Fenton ob tem spoznal, da je neposredna primerjava z britanskimi primerki nemogoca, ker so neznani njihovi natancni delovni kon­teksti. Glede na namembnost rabe (in navadno tudi na površino zemljišca) so se jarmi namrec razlikovali vsaj po dolžini. In omenjeni jarmi so vsi vecji oziroma daljši kakor britanski; tisti iz Enziga meri 146 cm, danski so dolgi do 180 cm. Ker je Fenton menil, da sodijo jarmi za vleko z glavo in med njimi zatilni jarmi med najzgodnejše priprave »za prilagoditev živali za vlecne namene«, morajo imeti ti visoko starost. V tem pogledu je pritegnil v obravnavo primerljivi jarem, dati-ran v2000 pr. n. št., najden vjezerskem bivališcu vŠvici, v najdišcu Vinelz. Ob vsem svojem razglabljanju pa je vendarle spoznal, da »ni prav lahko kategorizirati starejših primerkov, saj gre pri nekaterih izmed njih za kombinacijo znacilnosti obeh temeljnih tipov jarma« (Fenton 1986: 34–37). Prav ista arheološka najdišca (razen britanskih) poleg nekaterih drugih v svo­jih študijah omenja tudi Jacobeit (1948). V razpravo jih je ponovno pritegnil po seznanitvi z odkritjem jarma na severu Irske, ki ga zaradi pomanjkanja spremlje­valnih najdb že Piggott, pisec clanka o tej najdbi, ni mogel z gotovostjo datirati drugace kakor odkritje »odmaknjenih predstraž keltske železne dobe«. Na podlagi primerjave z že omenjenimi jarmi iz drugih evropskih najdišc – na primer iz En-ziga, Deibjerga in še posebej tistega iz danskega Jordrupa, ki ima horizontalno odprtino na koncu jarmovega bruna – je Jacobeit potem vendarle zapisal, da je lahko severnoirska najdba do tedaj najstarejši znani zatilni jarem v Evropi. (Piag­ott v Jacobeit 1953: 96–97) A nekatera novejša arheološka odkritja iz zacetka našega stoletja so glede zatilnih jarmov prinesla presenetljivo zgodnejše datacije. Omeniti velja zlasti štiri fragmente, predvidoma jarmov, iz neolitskega najdišca La Draga na severovzho­du Katalonije, ki je bilo na podlagi radiokarbonske analize datirano v cas med letoma 5380 in 5045 pr. n. št., torej na konec 6. tisocletja pr. n. št. Za omenjene fragmente se zdi, da bi bili lahko koncni deli priprave za živinsko vleko, saj so po svoji obliki zelo podobni koncnim delom tipa jarmov, uporabljanih za goveda, kakršni so drugace znani iz alpskih regij iz casa med koncem neolitika in bronas-to dobo. Dimenzije fragmentov so omogocile predvidevanje, da bi lahko šlo za volovski jarem,13 ki je sedal za rogove in se je nanje vezal (Tarrús idr.2006: 25, 27). Takšno sklepanje pa je omogocila tudi primerjava z jarmi za vleko z glavo, znanimi na severu Katalonije in drugod v Pirenejih v 19. stoletju in na zacetku 20. stoletja, ki razkrivajo dosti podobnosti z najdenimi fragmenti iz La Drage (Violant vTarrús idr. 2006: 27). Kaj pa vihrovi jarmi in njihove morebitne prazgodovinske najdbe v Evropi? Zdi se, da je kot vihrov jarem mogoce prepoznati najdbo iz najdišca La Tčne, odkrito leta 1911; in sicer prvega izmed dveh izkopanih jarmov, saj naj bi bil drugi, manjši, najverjetneje konjski.14Prvi je narejen iz hrastovine in je dolg 116 cm. Na vsaki strani lokov (oziroma ovratnikov, ki so sedali na zatilje ali pa na vrat živa­ li) sta narejeni dve oziroma po ena ovalna odprtina, vertikalna, rahlo stožcasta (Vouga 1923: 95). Glede na bistveno razlikovanje med obema temeljnima tipo-ma jarmov, kot ga je definiral Jacobeit – in sicer, da ima bruno zatilnega jarma vodoravno narejene odprtine, bruno vihrovega pa navpicne (Jacobeit 1957: 124) –, je torej mogoce v najdbi iz La Tčne z dokajšnjo gotovostjo prepoznati vihrov jarem. A pred omenjeni primerek iz tega švicarskega najdišca, ki sodi v mlajšo železno dobo, lahko nesporno uvrstimo še dva starejša, prepoznana kot vihro­va jarma: primerek iz najdišca Lavagnone, kolišcarskega naselja ob italijanskem jezeru Lago di Garda, ki je na podlagi njegove stratigrafske pozicije datiran v cas med letoma 2048 in 2010 pr. n. št.,15 in nekaj mlajši jarem iz najdišca Fiavé v 13 Avtorji tega prispevka so svoje predvidevanje želeli podkrepiti tudi z osteološkimi dokazi, s tamkajšnjimi najdbami 1365 ostankov kosti goved; z analizo, ki naj bi pokazala, da so med njimi ostanki živali, uporabljanih za vprego. A na kosteh volov skorajda ni bilo mogoce najti sledov mehanicnega pritiska ali dodatnega napora. Prvenstveno ubijanje za meso in nesistematicna praksa kastriranja nakazujeta, da so goveda kot delovne živali uporabljali le obcasno. (Tarrús idr. 2006: 29–30) 14 Tudi drugi, manjši jarem oblikovno pripada istemu tipu kot prvi in so ga interpretirali kot konjski jarem, ker je pri odkopu pocival na lobanji konja, povsem blizu druge konjske lobanje. Vouga pa je potem kljub razlicnim mnenjem skupine na izkopavanjih vendarle zapisal, da je morda le mogoce potrditi, da je bil prvi jarem namenjen volom in drugi – krajši, bolj lahek – konjem; tamkajšnji tedanji konji so bili namrec majhne pasme (Vouga 1923: 95). 15 Opirajoc se na dendrokronološko študijo se zacne poselitev najdišca Lavagnone 2 okoli leta 2048 pr. n. št. (Marzatico 2006: 68). O JARMIH regiji Trentino. Prvi, najden zraven rala, je izdelan iz natancno obdelanega kosa bukovine in ima levo in desno od ovratnih opornikov, narejenih, da sedejo vo­lom pred vihre, pravokotne odprtine, skozi katere se pretaknejo jermeni; in ti naj bi, privezani okoli vratu, zadrževali jarem na mestu (Marzatico 2006: 68). Kot kaže fotografija njegove natancne kopije, so omenjene štiri pravokotne odprtine vrezane vertikalno (nav. delo: 65, Fig. 7), tako da osebno menim, da skoznje niso bili napeljani jermeni, kakor kaže graficna rekonstrukcija vprege (prav tam, Fig. 6), temvec vtaknjeni obvratni kraki – letve, pod vratovi živali povezane z vrvico oziroma z jermenom (kar je bil in je še marsikje pogost nacin pri vpreganju v tovrstne jarme). Vihrovjarem iz najdišca Lavagnone (najden zraven rala) je mogoce datirati v staro, zgodnjo bronasto dobo; mlajši jarem iz najdišca Fiavé, narejen iz javorje-vine, pa spada v srednjo bronasto dobo. Slednji se od starejšega razlikuje zlasti po svojem oblikovanju z dvojnima lokoma oziroma ovratnikoma, ki naj bi vprežni-ma živalma na vratu zagotavljala »udobno podporo« (Marzatico 2006: 68). Ob teh zadnjih besedah na koncu prazgodovinskega »odseka« našega popotovanja z jarmi skozi case in svetove pa navajam zapis, ki je pomemben še posebej z vidi­ka razkrivanja odnosov do delovnih goved, volov, oziroma skrbi za zdravje teh prepotrebnih živalskih pomocnikov. Gre za predstavitev in analizo vznemirljivo okrašenega jarma iz nemškega poznokeltskega najdišca Oppidum Alkimoen­nis / Kelheim. Jarem je dolg 94 cm in glede na njegovo okrasitev z vrezanimi koncentricnimi krogi, ki imitirajo po površini vtolcene bakrene žeblje in okro­gle plošcice, so se pojavila vprašanja o njegovi namembnosti; a njegova oblika in nacin izdelave sta vendarle potrdila predpostavke o delovni rabi. Raziskovanje med restavriranjem pa je potem razkrilo, da je bil jarem bržkone prevlecen z us-njem, kar je še dodatno potrdilo omenjeno predpostavko. Vhalštatu je bilo nam­rec kot kaže znano prevlacenje oziroma oblaganje lesa z usnjem,16 da so tako zašcitili vratove vprežnih živali (Leicht 2000: 87–88). Iskanje prazgodovinskih evropskih jarmov smo s tem sklenili. Zdaj pa se po­dajmo na pot po Evropi (in deloma tudi po nekaterih drugih koncih sveta), z jarmi, kakršne so njihovi preucevalci uspeli spoznavati v desetletjih, preden jih je – ždece na glavah ali vratovih vpreženih volov (in tu in tam krav) – postopoma povsod zamenjal traktor; ali pa so jih ti za tem poskušali odkrivati v razlicnih, ustrezno zgovornih virih. Kot o tem prica tudi primer jarma iz groba v Grosseibstadt, Kr. Neustadt/Saale, na katerem je prav tako mogoce najti ostanke imitacije bakrene krasitve (Leicht 2000: 87–88). Na Irskem, kjer se je ohranilo dosti starih jarmov in pricevanj o njihovi rabi, so poznali oba temeljna tipa – tako vihrove kot zatilne jarme (prve tu imenovane shoulderyokes in druge head yokes). Splošno uveljavljeni skozi stoletja so bili prvi omenjeni v ustnem slovstvu, za zatilne jarme pa so kmetijski strokovnjaki 18. in 19. stoletja zatrjevali, da so bili ti šele nedavno vpeljani v to deželo. Tako imeno-vane »francoske jarme« – skupaj z istocasnim modnim vracanjem rabe volov (v poznem 18. in zgodnjem 19. stoletju), ki jih je sistematicno vpregalo le manjše število velikih zemljiških posestnikov, torej po prestižu hlastajoci »gentlemeni in teoreticni kmetje« – so kakorkaže vpeljali prav slednji (Bell 1983: 25; 1985: 73– 74). Prvotno rabo zatilnih jarmov pa sporoca odlomek iz stare irske povedke The Wooing of Étaíne (Tochmarc Étaíne), srednjeveškega besedila, v katerem je na pravljicen nacin izpricana vpeljava vihrovega jarma na Irskem. Do te je prišlo ob srecanju dveh mitskih kraljev, Eochaida in Midirja, ki sta s svojimi možmi v temni noci izvajala zahtevno opravilo – gradnjo dvignjenega cestišca. Ljudstvo kralja Midirja in njihovi voli, vpreženi vvihrove jarme, so to težko delo z lahko-to opravljali; Eochaidovi ljudje pa so bili manj uspešni, zato je njihov kralj želel izvedeti, zakaj: Zdaj, do tiste noci, so možje Irske imeli navado obremenjevati cela volov, ven­dar je bilo videno, da je ljudstvo škratovskih gomil (folk of the elfmounds) to dajalo na njihova ramena. Eochaid je naredil enako, zato se odtlej imenuje Eo­chaid Eirem (i.e. ploughman), ker je bil prvi izmed mož Irske, ki je postavil jarem na volovske vratove. (Bergin in Best v Bell 1985: 73) In tako je Eochaid v pomoc svojemu ljudstvu vpeljal tehnicno inovacijo; de­janje, ki hipoteticno izvira z zacetkov kršcanske dobe in ima vznemirljivo širši kontekst – prenos inovacije od ene 'etnicne' skupine k drugi (Griffin-Kremer 2007: 62–66). Je mogoce v dopolnitev te datacije opušcanja zatilnega in prevze-ma vihrovega jarma na Irskem premišljati ob podatkih o prisotnosti Rimljanov na britanskem otocju? Rimska okupacija Britanije je namrec trajala od leta 43 do leta 410 našega štetja (v letih 78–84 je na primer Agricola zavzel še severno Anglijo in Škotsko) in po podreditvi plemena Britons (ki so ga tekom britanske železne dobe preplavila druga keltska plemena) se je pojavila prepoznavna rim-sko-britanska kultura (Romano-British culture), ko so Rimljani med drugim vpel­jali tudi naprednejše poljedelstvo.17 Morda je zares z njimi – oziroma s katerim Podatki o Rimljanih v Britaniji so izpisani iz poglavja 'Roman Britain' (Written and fact-checked by the Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/ (31. 1. 2024). O JARMIH izmed plemen, ki je bilo z njimi v stiku in je prišlo do Irske – povezan tudi prihod vihrovega jarma v irske kraje. Ta oblika priprave za vpreganje volov je bila nam­rec na italijanskem polotoku doma vse od antike. Na Irskem so kot kaže dolocene oblike vihrovih jarmov obstajale in ostajale vse do casa njihovega opušcanja. Tako kot marsikod drugod po Evropi so na primer namesto dveh volovv skupnem jarmu med sredino 19. in prvimi desetle­tji 20. stoletja vpregali vsako žival posebej v enojne jarme ali v komate. In dva primerka iz Narodnega muzeja Irske - Podeželsko življenje (National Museum of Ireland – CountryLife) pricata prav o slednjih – o posebno narejenih volovskih komatih.18 Oba sta iz Julianstowna, eden je s posestva, na katerem so vole upora­bljali za oranje do leta 1907. Njuna izvedba – dva lesena kraka, znotraj katerih se prilega debelo oblazinjenje vobliki klobase, narejeno iz vrvi, ponavljajoce se ovite okoli jedra iz sena – pa ponovno razkriva poseben odnos do delovnih živali ozi­roma skrb za njihovo pocutje, za zašcito njihovih z napori obremenjenih vratov. Risba volovskega komata iz Julianstowna z obmocja Duleek Lower, konec 19. ali zacetek 20. stoletja (dokumentacija Narodnega muzeja Irske – Podeželsko življenje). Drawing of an ox yoke or collar from Julianstown from region of Duleek Lower, late 19th or early 20th century (National Museum of Ireland – Country Life). Kolega Seamas MacPhilib iz tega irskega muzeja (njihova zbirka predstavlja tradicijsko življenje na deželi od okoli 1850 do 1950) mi je prijazno posredoval kartotecna lista dveh njihovih enojnih vihrovih jarmov oziroma komatov (collars). V Britaniji so bili glede na posamezne najdbe (zvecine iz šotišc na Škotskem in Irskem, ne pa tudi v Angliji) v noci casa po vsej verjetnosti prav tako v rabi zatilni jarmi. A Fenton je ugotavljal, da »niti enega izmed trinajstih najdenih jarmov ni mogoce vzporejati, primerjati z vihrovimi jarmi, ki so edini poznani v Britaniji od srednjeveškega casa do 19. stoletja« (Fenton 1986: 34). Dokumentarna pricevanja iz zgodnjega srednjega veka namrec sporocajo samo kambaste vihrove jarme, z vertikalnimi odprtinami v brunu jarma, v katere so se vtikale kambe, ki so objele živalske vratove (nav. delo: 3). Tako da je Fenton lahko zapisal, da je tip kambaste­ga vihrovega jarma »popolnoma enoten v vsej Britaniji – le z manjšimi variacijami« (Fenton 1969: 24). Risbi primerkov britanskih kambastih vihrovih jarmov: iz Devonshira (a) in Oxfordshira (b) (Fenton 1969: 25, © Ceško etnološko društvo). Drawings of British withers bowyokes: Devonshire (a) and Oxfordshire (b) (Fenton 1969: 25, © Czech Ethnological Society). O JARMIH Kamen za krivljenje kamb s tremi razlicnimi velikostmi: za zelo mlade, nekoliko starejše in odrasle vole, Muzej ljudske dedišcine Ryedale, Hutton-le-Hole, Severni Yorkshire, Velika Britanija (foto: Martin Watts, 1999). A stone for bow bending, featuring three distinct sizes: one forveryyoung, one for not-so-young, and one for adult oxen, Ryedale Folk Museum, Hutton-le-Hole, North Yorkshire, Great Britain (photo: Martin Watts, 1999). Je mogoce tudi o njem premišljati kot o posledici rimskega casa v Britaniji? O okvirastem vihrovem jarmu, drugi obliki tega temeljnega tipa, ki je razširje­na marsikje v Srednji Evropi in na njenem severovzhodu, v britanskih deželah ne obstaja nobeno pricevanje (Fenton 1986: 2). Nasprotno pa je mogoce odkriti njegove številne, zgovorne sledi na Švedskem. Ko Vilkuna v svoji študiji o rabi vlecnih volovna Finskem omenja »vzhodno prusko-poljski volovski areal«, zapiše, da tam uporabljajo popolnoma drugacen tip jarma kakorv njihovi deželi – in sicer okvirast vihrov jarem (nem. Widerristjoch, Rahmenjoch). Obmocje tega tipa na zahodu sega do Mecklenburga in na Lüne-burger Heide, proti severu pa se cez Baltik razteza na Švedsko; in tam je raba vihrovega jarma izpricana najmanj iz casa 1740-ih let (Vilkuna 1936: 84). Fenton je o »posvojitvi« okviraste razlicice tega jarma na Švedskem na primer ubesedil, da ga je togost njegove konstrukcije naredila še posebej primernega za ucenje mladih in neizkušenih volov v tistih predelih te dežele, kjer so trgovali z napol ali slabo ukrocenimi junci (Fenton 1986: 3). Jacobeit pa je razkril tudi to, kako so na vzhodnem Götlandu uspeli reševati temeljno težavo pri rabi vihrovih jar-mov – zaviranje. Tam so uporabljali njihovo oblikovno razlicico z obvratnimi palicastimi kraki in vrvico pod grlom in so na tistem delu jarmovega bruna, ki je vlecnima živalma ležal neposredno na vratu – torej na sredini ovratnega loka –, dodajali ogrodje z usnjenima zankama, ki so ju natikali oziroma pritrjevali na podnožje rogov.19 In na tak nacin so reševali problem vožnje v hribovskih prede­lih (Jacobeit 1957: 125; prim. Granlund 1969). Na Finskem, kjer so bili sicer skozi stoletja splošno uveljavljeni zatilni jarmi, pa je mogoce v viru iz 18. stoletja zaslediti tudi prvo omembo nekaj vihrovih primerkov. V racunih iz leta 1777 z nekega posestva je zapisanih devet »švedskih jarmov« – nedvomno vihrovih, saj so bili v zadnjih stoletjih samo ti uporabljani na Švedskem – in osem »finskih jarmov z jermeni«. Vihrovi jarmi so bili potem v 19. stoletju v rabi le na gosposkih posestvih; njihova vpeljava je bila torej socialno determinirana. V njihov prid pa je Finska gospodarska družba v 1860-ih letih opravljala izobraževalno delo, ceš da tak tip vprege daje delovnim volom vec svobode kakor za živali naporni, težavni zatilni jarmi. (Vilkuna 1936: 63–64) Toda po finskem izrocilu je bil parvolov pac vprežen v zatilni jarem. Na tilni­ku za rogovi je bil nanje privezan z mocnim jermenom, imenovanim jutta (eston­sko jutt; obe razlicici tega imena bo pozneje mogoce najti tudi pri nekaterih slo­venskih primerkih). Zelo pomembno je bilo, da je bilo vezanje cez rogove tesno oprijeto in da so bili jermeni pri vozlanju mocno zategnjeni – tako da pod napori težke vožnje jarem ne bi niti popustil niti zacel bolece drgniti tilnika. Na Finskem so bili jarmi dolgi povprecno en meter, v celoti malce ukrivljene ali ravne oblike. Izdelani so bili iz brezovega lesa in med starejšimi primerki je bilo mogoce najti tudi take z okrasnim rezljanjem, na primer z vrezanimi križi. V zelo hudih zimah, kadar je bilo na zasneženih, zožanih poteh nemogoce, da bi drug ob drugem hodila skupaj vprežena vola, so morali tudi tisti kmetje, ki so drugace razpolagali z dvema živalma, vpregati le po eno. In takrat so uporabljali enojne zatilne jarme. (Vilkuna 1936: 61–63) Vilkuna o tem pravi, da je tako na švedskih vihrovih jarmih še vedno mogoce slediti vplivu na rogove privezanih zatilnih jarmov (Vilkuna 1936: 85). O JARMIH Primerki estonskih palicastih zatilnih jarmov (Viires 1969: 126, © Ceško etnološko društvo). Estonian head stick yokes (Viires 1969: 126, © Czech Ethnological Society). Zdaj pa se z jugozahodnega finskega »obmocja vlecnih volov« preselimo na za­hodno obalo gozdnega obmocja ob Baltiku, v Estonijo in v Litvo, kjer je bila raba teh živali v 18. in v 19. stoletju dokaj splošno razširjena (in sicer še pose-bej pri oranju s soho in z ralom ter vpreženih v vozove ali v sani v Estoniji tudi pri transportiranju sena, lesa in gnoja), vse doklerv preteklem stoletju ni zacela postopoma usihati. Spomin na delovne vole pa je ostal živvvec sto jarmih, shran­jenih vmuzejskih zbirkah. Med njihovima temeljnima tipoma so bili vomenjenih deželah najbolj široko razširjeni zatilni jarmi, najbolj vsakdanja oblika v celi Es-toniji ter deloma tudi v Litvi, kjer pa sta njen vzhodni in južni del že spadala na obmocje razširjenja vihrovega jarma (ki se je nadaljevalo v Belorusijo in na Polj­sko). Tako kot na Finskem je namrec v 19. stoletju tudi v teh dveh deželah kmetij­sko slovstvo propagiralo vihrov jarem, a na estonskem obmocju se je zatilni jarem kljub vsemu ohranil kot tamkajšnja temeljna, prevladujoca oblika. (Viires 1969: 121–123) Estonski jarmi so bili krajši od litovskih, še posebej kratki so bili na zahodu dežele na otokih, kjer so merili od 80 do 100 centimetrov. Na severozahodu ce­linskega podrocja so bili ti krajši jarmi v rabi zlasti v mrzlih mesecih – kot »zimski jarmi«; daljše – dolge med 110 in 140 centimetri – pa so uporabljali poleti. Na jugu Estonije so bili jarmi navadno dolgi med 100 in 120 centimetri, a najdaljši so bili tisti na severovzhodu dežele; v njej naj bi bila dolžina te priprave za vpreganje predvidoma odvisna tudi od velikosti vprežne živine. (Viires 1969: 123). Bolj ko se potem pomikamo proti evropskemu vzhodu, vedno globlje stopa-mo na obmocja vihrovega jarma in njegovih oblikovnih razlicic. In ceprav naj bi v »staro srednje- in zahodno evropsko obmocje zatilnega jarma spadali tudi zahodni Slovani« – kot je zapisal Vilkuna (1936: 98) –, v desetletjih preteklega stoletja, ko je potekalo delo na evropskih etnoloških atlasih in so se objavljale posamezne študije o vpreganju vlecnih goved, temu vecinoma že ni bilo vec mogoce pritr­diti. V spremnem besedilu k Poljskemu etnološkemu atlasu20 je tako ob omem-bi najbolj razširjene oblike vihrovega temeljnega tipa na poljskem ozemlju – okvirastega vihrovega jarma – zapisano, da je ta oblika jarmov (z razlicicami) razširjena na celotnem podrocju ozemlja zahodnih Slovanov, tudi v Belorusiji in Ukrajini, na Madžarskem, v Romuniji, na Balkanskem polotoku in tu in tam tudi v zahodni Evropi, Aziji, Armeniji in Indiji (Jagiela 1997: 238). Sledi omem­ba kljukastega vihrovega jarma, ki naj bi bil po mnenju nekaterih preucevalcev priprav za vpreganje rezultat medsebojnega vpliva med okvirastim in kambas­tim vihrovim jarmom. O zatilnem jarmu je zapisano, da je na Poljskem »skoraj popolnoma izginil«; na koncu pa sta dodani tudi omembi enojnih jarmov in od njih bistveno manj popularnih komatov, po sestavi podobnih konjskim. Oboji so bili še relativno splošno uporabljani v casu raziskav za etnološki atlas, a so za tem – zavoljo vse bolj redke, obcasne rabe goved za poljska dela in transport – popol­noma izginili (Jagiela 1997: 238). Ce se zdaj premaknemo na Ceško in potem stopimo še na Slovaško, lahko v etnološkem slovstvu (Jancár 1969; Podolák 1969) sledimo le zapisom o ok­virastih vihrovih jarmih z ustreznimi slikovnimi prilogami ali pa likovnim upo­dobitvam volovskih vpreg v tej obliki jarmov na predmetih iz muzejskih zbirk (na primer na majolikah).21 Drugacen pogled pa se nam odpre ob listanju Von­ 20 Polski Atlas Etnograficzny; Instytut Historii Kultury Materialney, Polska Akademia Nauk, 1971; Bd. 4; Warszawa (Mapy 191–250). 4: Transport i komunikacja ladowa. Za jarme so relevantne tri mape: Sheet XIII., Map 229. – Double neck yoke (1 : 2 000 000, compiled by J. Grocholski, scientific supervision by J. Gajek) / Sheet XIV., Map 230. – Variants of a frame- and hook-shaped yoke / Sheet XV., Map 231. – Single yoke, horn yoke and horsecollar. 21 Dve majoliki z motivom volovske vprege sta iz Slovaškega narodnega muzeja v Martinu, tretja je iz privatne zbirke. Vse tri so iz 19. stoletja. Na prvih dveh vprežena para volov na eni vleceta voz in na drugi plug s kolci (Vydra in Kunz 1956: brez paginacije). Volovska vprega v okvirastem vihrovem jarmu je naslikana tudi na keramicnem vrcu iz Tupave, z letnico 1778 (Pastieriková 2005: 139). O JARMIH druškovega slovarja starega poljedelskega orodja in naprav od 1750 do 1914.22 V njem si pod geslom »Jarmo« preberemo, da je bil ta (tip okvirastega vihrovega jarma) v preteklosti uporabljan tudi na Ceškem, v tradicionalnem poljedelstvu predvsem na severu, vzhodu, jugovzhodu in na južnem Moravskem (Vondruška 1989: 370). Ko pa zacnemo brati geslo »Jho« (slovenski igô), dobimo potrditev, da je bil zatilni jarem temeljna oblika vprege vse od prazgodovine dalje; in da je bil še pred tridesetletno vojno (1618–1648) v rabi na skoraj celotnem ceškem ozemlju in tudi na Moravskem (kjer je sicer prevladoval jarmo). V 19. stoletju pa se je ob-držal zlasti na zahodnem in južnem Ceškem23 (Vondruška 1989: 374). Okvirast vihrov jarem, upodobljen na majoliki z naslikano volovsko vprego, Stupava, Slovaška, z letnico 1778 (iz zbirk Slovaškega narodnega muzeja v Martinu, © fotografski arhiv Slovaškega narodnega muzeja v Martinu). Withers frame yoke on a majolica depicting harnessed oxen, Stupava, Slovakia, with inscribed year 1778 (from the collections of the Slovak National Museum in Martin, © Photo archive of the Slovak National Museum in Martin). 22 Podatke iz slovarja V. Vondruške mi je prijazno posredovala in prevedla kolegica Jarmila Pechová, kustodinja zbirke delovnih orodij iz Moravskega muzeja. 23 Kolegica Pechová je k temu dodala, da je bil zatilni jarem v tem delu Ceške v rabi še posebej pri nemškem prebivalstvu, deloma pa tudi na celem Ceškem; na zahodnem Moravskem in na Slovaškem pa nic vec (razen v posameznih primerkih). Palicast zatilni jarem, upodobljen na srednjeveški freski z motivom »Premysl orac« iz druge cetrtine 12. stol., rotunda grajske kapele v Znojmu, Moravska (fotografski arhiv Južnomoravskega muzeja v Znojmu). Head stick yoke on the medieval fresco of the “Premysl the Ploughman”, second quarter of the 12th century; rotunda of the castle chapel in Znojmo, Moravia. (Photo archive of the South Moravian Museum in Znojmo). Srecanje z madžarskimi jarmi sem imela najprej ob drobnem, mikavnem izdelku ljudske umetnosti, ko sem na rezbarsko krašenem pokrovu lesene škat-lice z ogledalom z motivom pluga in volovske vprege iz Szentgála na živalskih vratovih prepoznala okvirast vihrovjarem (Sáfrány2003: 118). Vštudiji o jarmih v regiji Hajdúság, ki leži na vzhodu Madžarske, pa je bilo potem mogoce pre­brati, da so tam vse do zacetka 20. stoletja vpregali vole, in sicer v okviraste vihrove jarme (dokler njihove delovne vloge niso prevzele krave, ki naj bi bile – kot marsikod drugod – za obubožane kmete gospodarsko bolj vzdržne). Do prve svetovne vojne so uporabljali tri razlicice vihrovih jarmov: »jarom« – vihrov okvirast, ki je bil splošno razširjen; »široki jarem«, tudi vihrov okvirast, ki je bil v rabi samo pri opravilih z okopavinami; in enojni jarem, pri katerem je mogoce na slikovnih prilogah prepoznati tudi razlicice clenasto-kambastega vihrovega jarma (Bodó 1966: 564–565, 557). Pozneje sem dobila vpogled vmadžarski etnološki atlas, Magyar néprajzi atlasz, v posnetke še ne povsem dostopne elektronske verzije.24 Na prvi karti – 120., 24 Kolega Borsos Balász, ki je digitaliziral atlas, se je leta 2011 prijazno odzval na mojo prošnjo in mi je poslal pdf dokumente štirih kart, ki vsebujejo jarme, in tudi njihove fotografske posnetke. Relevantni karti sta št. 120 in 121, kjer je kot njihov avtor na vrhu zapisan Barabás Jeno. O JARMIH Vokvirast vihrov jarem vprežena vola, upodobljena na rezbarsko krašenem pokrovu lesene škatlice z ogledalom (Sáfrány 2003: 118). Oxen harnessed with a withers frame yoke depicted on an elaborately carved lid of a wooden box with a mirror (Sáfrány 2003: 118). Oblike jarmov v zacetku 20. stoletja – so predstavljeni naslednji: Povsod na Madžarskem je bil v rabi le okvirast vihrov jarem, dve njegovi razlicici pa sta bili tista z ravnima ali rahlo ukrivljenima notranjima obvratnima letvama in ona z mocno ukrivljenima notranjima obvratnima letvama. Sledi predstavitev ok­virastih vihrovih jarmov razlicnih dolžin glede na njihovo funkcijo – rabo pri oranju, brananju, vleki vozov, sani; in nazadnje enojnih jarmov ter lokacij brez rabe jarmov. Potrebno je le še dodati, da so bili tudi enojni primerki raznovrstne oblikovne razlicice okvirastih vihrovih jarmov (prim. Timaffy 1968: 180–181). Na drugi karti – 121., Imena za jarem – pa sta predstavljeni naslednji dve imeni: »Járom«; to ime je bilo v rabi po celotnem madžarskem ozemlju, razen skrajno na zahodu. In tam, ob meji z Avstrijo in Slovenijo, je bilo v rabi ime »Iga«; a samo ime. Romunske jarme mi je približalo le nekaj fotografij in majcen izdelek ljudske umetnosti, model (ali igraca) v okvirast vihrov jarem vpreženih volov (Berte-Lan­gereau 2000: 132), ki za to deželo – tako kakor fotografije – sporoca rabo prav te oblike vihrovih jarmov. In tudi bolgarske okviraste vihrove jarme sem naj­prej »srecala« na fotografijah, ko sem pred leti na Danskem pregledovala kar­totecne kartone v International Secretariat for Research on the History of Agricultural Implements. Potem pa sem našla ustrezno etnološko študijo s karto v Bolgariji razširjenih tipov, v kateri Marinov, v njenem historicnem delu, predstavi kamnito plošco iz Pliske (prve bolgarske prestolnice), datirano v 9. do 10. st. n. št., in na njej upodobljeno (vpraskano) ralo z jarmom. O slednjem je mogoce z gotovostjo zapisati, da gre za kambast vihrov jarem. In ti so bili – kljub prevladi razlicnih oblik okvirastih, kljukastih vihrovih jarmov in tistih z obvratnimi kraki – ob nastajanju bolgarske tipologije pripomockov za vpreganje goved in ustrezne karte razširjenosti posameznih tipov ponekod še vedno izpricani (Marinov 1969: 164, 166). Kambast vihrov jarem, upodobljen na kamniti plošci, Pliska, Bolgarija, 9. do 10. stoletje (Marinov 1969: 164, © Ceško etnološko društvo). Withers bowyoke on a stone plate, Pliska, Bulgaria, 9th to 10th century (Marinov 1969: 164, © Czech Ethnological Society). Marinov nadalje piše o dveh tipih vihrovih jarmov, ki sta se razlikovala na podlagi razlicne rabe: o jarmih za transport, imenovanih »kolarski jaremi«, in o jarmih za poljedelska dela, za oranje, imenovanih »oratni jaremi«. Prvi so bili na splošno malo manjši od jarmov za oranje. Njihova dolžina je bila med 90 in 140 centimetri, jarmov za oranje pa med 170 in 230 centimetri. In med tem, ko ima bruno jarmov za transport vedno oblikovana, zaobljeno izrezana ovratna loka (kjer ti sedajo na vrat živali pred vihrom), je bruno jarmov za oranje ponavadi povsem ravno. Pomemben dejavnik pri izbiri jarma pa je bilo tudi stanje živine; tako da so morali revnejši kmetje s slabotnejšimi živalmi slednje vpregati v manj­še jarme (Marinov 1969: 164–165). Sorodna tipološka kombinacija, kakršno je bilo moc najti v Bolgariji, je bila, kakor kaže, uveljavljena tudi v Grciji. Sporocajo jo 3. karta Imellosovega et-nološkega atlasa, ki je izšla brez komentarjev (Imellos 1975), in pripadajoce fo­tografske priloge. Na karti celotnega grškega nacionalnega teritorija so izpricani le vihrovi jarmi – in sicer v treh oblikovnih razlicicah: kambast vihrov jarem, okvirast vihrov jarem in razlicica vihrovega jarma z obvratnimi kraki. Vse tri imajo skupaj šestindvajset oblikovnih variacij. Prva razlicica, pogosto imenovana tudi »mediteranski jarem«, je morebiti najstarejša oblika te priprave za vpreganje goved v Grciji. Sporoca jo na primer ocarljiva keramicna figurica oraca iz Beocije, iz okoli 600–575 pr. n. št. (Smerdel 2011: 131). Branje karte jo razkriva še posebej v obmorskih predelih in na otokih, pri cemer me je vznemirila locena karta otoka O JARMIH Krete, na kateri sta vrisana Imellosova »tipa« 25 in 26; prvi oznacuje lokacije okvirastega vihrovega jarma in drugi kambastega. In ta slednji je jarem za tri živali, kakršni so v posameznih primerih izpricani tudi v Španiji in v Italiji. Dru-ga razlicica, okvirast vihrov jarem, je bila uveljavljena zlasti v celinskih predelih Grcije; tretjo, vihrov jarem z obvratnimi kraki (ki so pod vratovi živali povezani z vrvico), pa je mogoce najti še posebej v krajih blizu azijskega dela kontinenta. (Imellos 1975) Zdaj pa nas je popotovanje z volovsko vprego pripeljalo v dežele bivše Jugoslavije, kjer je v šestdesetih letih preteklega stoletja, v obdobju delovnih prizadevanj za Etnološki atlas Jugoslavije, nastala poskusna Karta I, oblike dvoj­nega jarma (Karta I, oblici dvojnoga jarma).25 Že bežen pogled nanjo – s prepozna­vanjem mocno shematiziranih risb in ustreznih znakov – razkrije vsepovsod samo rabo vihrovih jarmov, vvec oblikovnih razlicicah (razen na severozahodu slovenskega ozemlja, kjer je oznacena tudi raba zatilnih jarmov). In dve temeljni obliki tega tipa, ki sta tudi najbolj razširjeni – okvirast in kambast vihrov jarem – segata prva cez vse regije na severovzhodu in druga vzdolž celotne jadranske obale, po otokih in globoko v zaledje oziroma v centralne predele. Ob bolj po­zornem pogledu pa je poleg oblikovnih variant obeh omenjenih temeljnih oblik vihrovega jarma (na primer primerkov ene ali druge z ravnimi ali ukrivljenimi bruni in pri okvirastih jarmih z ravnimi ali ukrivljenimi notranjimi obvratnimi letvami itn.) mogoce najti tudi clenasto-kambaste vihrove jarme na slovenskem zahodnem obrobju, kljukaste vihrove jarme na otokih Krk, Cres, Lošinj in Rab (a njihove simbolne oznake so vidne tudi na košcku slovenskega ozemlja, na ob-mocju Pohorja) in vihrove jarme z obvratnimi kraki na Rabu, Korculi, Mljetu in na vzhodnem obrobju Makedonije. S šrafiranjem so oznacena še tri obmocja rabe enojnih jarmov, dve na Slovenskem (na Gorenjskem in na Krasu) in eno na Hrvaškem (v reškem zaledju). V besedilu ob robu karte pa je zapisanih tudi nekaj besed o delovnem kontekstu tiste oblike okvirastega jarma, ki ima oba konca zgornjega bruna ukrivljena navzgor – kar naj bi pogosto služilo kot pripomocek pri zamenjavi smeri vožnje ali vleke. 25 Etnološki atlas Jugoslavije; Pokusne karte, Mjerilo 1 : 2 000 000. Karta I: Oblici dvojnoga jarma. Ob karti je natisnjenih nekaj vrstic besedila o oblikah jarmov. Tipi jarmov z obmocja nekdanje Jugoslavije (Karta Etnološkega atlasa Jugoslavije, Poskusna karta I, konec šestdesetih let 20. stoletja). Yoke types in formerYugoslavia (Map of the Ethnological Atlas of Yugoslavia, Trial map I, late 1960s). Osnova za omenjeno poskusno karto so bile ustrezne vprašalnice,26 oboje pa je, kot se zdi, služilo Gavazziju, da je lahko po svojih zgodnejših prispevkih o jarmih na Hrvaškem (Gavazzi 1942, 1958) ubesedil tudi bolj kompleksno, zlas-ti tipološko védenje o tem pripomocku za vpreganje goveje živine. V zadevni študiji piše o »petih tipih jarma na podrocju Jugoslavije«: 1. o okvirastem vihrovem jarmu – z njegovimi oblikovnimi, tudi pokrajinsko zaznamovanimi variantami, in z razlicnimi dimenzijami glede na razlicne funkcije (npr. krajši za vožnjo, dal­jši za oranje) –, o jarmu, ki je s svojo rabo najširše razprostranjen na celotnem panonskem obmocju (severno od Kolpe, Save in Donave), potem dalje v porec­ju Morave v Srbiji in koncno, poleg drugih tipov, tudi v Makedoniji (Gavazzi 1969: 151–152); 2. o kambastem vihrovem jarmu, ki kaže prevladujoce sklenjeno razširjenost od Istre in Slovenije vzdolž Jadrana vse do Albanije, kakor tudi na ce­lotnem dinarskem obmocju (Crne gore, Hercegovine, Bosne, zaledja Dalmacije, jugovzhodne Hrvaške) in je jugovzhodno od dinarskega prostora spet raztresen v moravski Srbiji in v Makedoniji (nav. delo: 152–153); 3. o kljukastem vihrovem 26 Za tistimi, ki jih je objavilo Slovensko etnografsko društvo, so bile potem natisnjene »Upitnice« Etnološkega društva Jugoslavije, Komisije za etnološki atlas in Centra za pripremu atlasa na Filozofski fakulteti v Zagrebu. Tretja, v kateri so tudi vprašanja o jarmu, je izšla leta 1966. O JARMIH jarmu – a) z naravno ali b) iz letev sestavljeno kljuko, ki je v prvi razlicici razširjen na severnojadranskih otokih, v bližnjem zaledju, proti severovzhodu v Gorskem Kotarju in v Sloveniji na obmocju Pohorja, vendar je raztresen tudi v Srbiji in v Makedoniji, kjer je (v južni Srbiji in Makedoniji) pogostejša njegova druga ra­zlicica (nav. delo: 153); 4. o vihrovem jarmu z obvratnimi kraki, povezanimi pod živalskimi vratovi z vrvicami – zelo periferno razširjenem tipu, lokalno raztrese­nem na nekaterih jadranskih otokih in nekoliko pogostejšem v Makedoniji (nav. delo: 154); 5. o zatilnem jarmu, povsem nepoznanem na podrocju Jugoslavije – razen na slovenskem alpskem severozahodu, tudi v krajih vzdolž meje z Avstrijo. Poleg navedenih »petih tipov« pa omenja še tu in tam zamejeno razširjeno rabo enojnih kambastih vihrovih jarmov (le na Slovenskem in na Hrvaškem) in enoj­nih zatilnih jarmov (le na Slovenskem) (prav tam). A v zgodnejših Gavazzijevih objavah, relevantnih samo za Hrvaško, je mogoce prebrati tudi kak vznemirljivejši zapis, ki na podlagi prepoznane skrbi za zdravje oziroma za pocutje delovnih volov prica o odnosu do teh živalskih pomocnikov. Tako je na primer po raziskovanju razlicnih kulturnih sestavin in življen­ja na severu Dugega otoka in na manjšem otoku Sestrunj o jarmih na slednjem ubesedil naslednje: »Nekoc se je uporabljal jarem, ki je imel gredo [oziroma bruno] na mestih volovskih vratov [šij] podloženo s kožuhasto kožo, na vsaki strani vratov pa sta bili po dve letvi, spodaj povezani z vrvico« (Gavazzi 1958: 198). Glede skrbi za volovske vratove je soroden tudi terenski zapis iz Valpova blizu Osijeka, iz leta 1967: »Ko si vol ožuli šijo, se mu podloži [pod jarem] ovcje runo.«27 Jarmi pa so lahko skrb za vprežne živali sporocali tudi na drugacne nacine, na primer z apotropejskimi sredstvi. Zašcito pred nadnaravnimi silami – hudici, carovnicami, morami in vsemi drugimi sorodnimi bitji – so volom prinašali košcki tisovine, vstavljeni v njihove rogove in v jarme. Verovanje, da je tisa srecno drevo in da lahko na tak nacin zavarujejo svoje delovne živali pred uroki, je na primer izpricano med pravoslavnimi Srbi vvasi Trnovac na Hrvaškem (Vinšcak 2002: 66). A zdaj je napocil cas, da se z volovsko vprego premaknemo proti zahodu, v Italijo, da bi spoznali tudi tamkajšnje nacine vpreganja delovnih goved. Kakor kažejo dostopno slovstvo in posamezni primerki, na ogled v obiskanih muzejih, je bil v tej deželi – razen na njenem skrajnem severnem in severovzhodnem obrob­ju, v sosešcini nemškega dela Tirolske – doma le vihrov jarem; in sicer s svojo zelo 27 Avtor terenskega zapisa je kolega Zlatko Mileusnic iz Etnografskega muzeja v Zagrebu, kjer so mi v muzej­skem arhivu prijazno skopirali njegovo terensko gradivo, ki mu je pozneje služilo pri pripravi clanka o transportu in transportnih sredstvih, kjer je spregovoril tudi o jarmih (Mileusnic 1999: 145–146). zamejeno, kot se zdi le v Italiji (in v delu njene švicarske sosešcine) razširjeno razlicico – clenasto-kambastim vihrovim jarmom. Priprave za vpreganje goved, ki so sedale na vrat pred vihrom in ne na zatilje za rogove, so posamezni anticni pisci del o agrikulturi propagirali že v starem Rimu; na primer Columella, ki je o nacinu vpreganja v zatilne jarme poleg drugega zapisal, da so pri njem »živali mucene« (Columella 1948: 123). Kot kaže, je na zac­etku 19. stoletja, ob srecanju z italijanskimi pripravami za vpreganje v Piémontu, o zatilnih jarmih zacel drugace premišljati tudi Francoz Charles Pictet, ki je v Aziglianu raziskoval piemontski plug. Najprej je ubesedil, da je jarem, kakršnega uporabljajo »v Piémontu v Italiji, izjemno preprost, ker ne stane vec kakor šest frankov in lahko traja pet ali šest let; ampak ima to pomanjkljivost, da ne ujema rogov: vol vlece vse z ramami oziroma prej z vihrom; in posledicno ima zavoljo tega zagotovo izgubo moci.« A je za tem zamišljeno nadaljeval drugace: »Omenil sem, kako je pomanjkljiv jarem, ki ne ujema rogov, ker pri tem vola, ki vleceta samo z vrha vihra, ne zaposlita vse svoje moci; vendar me mika verjeti, da jim ta svoboda, ki jo ohranjajo glave, da se otresajo muh, omogoca dlje prenašati delo, cesar ne bi zmogli z našim jarmom.« Vendar je kljub temu sklenil z mislijo, da so zacetki oranja, potezanja pluga in delo volov v tistih krajih obcutno težji »kakor pa pri nas« (Pictet 1802: 375–376). Italijanska vihrova jarma: a) dvojni iz Tuenna vTrentinu in b) trojni iz San Chirica v Lukaniji (Scheuermeier 1956: 163, 180). Italian withers yokes: a) double yoke from Tuenno in Trentino, and b) triple yoke from San Chirico in Lucania (Scheuermeier 1956: 163, 180). O JARMIH O geografski razširjenosti obeh temeljnih tipov jarmov v Italiji pa se lahko v besedi in sliki najbolje poucimo pri Scheuermeierju, v njegovi obsežni in pregled­ni publikaciji o kmeckem delu v Italiji ter v italijanskem in retoromanskem delu Švice; na tistih straneh, ki so posvecene kmeckemu orodju. Na njih sicer spregovo­ri tudi o zatilnih jarmih, a le na prej omenjenem severnem in severovzhodnem obrobju, v povezavi s sosešcino nemškega dela Tirolske. In ko pri njih (glede na dele telesa oziroma glave, na katere je položen) loci znane tri razlicice – celni jarem, zatilni jarem in ono razlicico, ko jarem leži pred podnožjem rogov – glede slednje pove, da je na obravnavanem obmocju ni mogoce potrditi. In še doda, da je v tistih krajih bistveno bolj pogost jarem za dve živali kakor pa enojni primerki; in da v vecini krajev, glede na njihovo funkcijo, razlikujejo med daljšimi in bolj preprosto oblikovanimi jarmi za oranje (Pflugjoch) in masivnejšimi jarmi za vož­njo (Wagenjoch) po cestah (Scheuermeier 1956: 160). Razen na Sardiniji, kjer naj bi bil prav tako izprican ta temeljni tip priprav za vpreganje, ni bilo mogoce nikjer drugje na italijanskem polotoku najti jar-mov za vleko z glavo. Povsod so bili uveljavljeni samo vihrovi jarmi. Na podla­gi priloženih risb ali lesorezov (Paula Boescha) se je dalo vecinoma prepozna-ti le njihove clenasto-kambaste razlicice: iz Omignana v Campanii, iz Tuenna v Trentinu, iz Palestrine v Laziu, iz Barberina vToscani, iz Luvis bei v Surselvi, iz Palmolija v Abruzzih (kambast vihrov primerek), iz Formicole v Campanii in iz Cevella v Lombardiji (Scheuermeier 1956: 163–169). Ti jarmi so se po dolžini in obliki gornjega bruna razlikovali glede na krajevno tradicijo in uporabo. Kjer imajo (oziroma so imeli) razlicne jarme, so »tisti za plug, za sani ali za mlatilni kamen daljši kakor navaden jarem za voz« (Scheuermeier 1956: 161). Posebej vznemirljiva zavoljo redkosti takšnih primerkov pa sta besedilo o trojnem vihrovem jarmu in lesorez zadevnega primerka iz San Chirica v Lukaniji. Soroden grški primerek s Krete je bil kambast vihrov jarem, pri italijanskem iz Lukanije pa sta volovske vratove obdajali po dve nazobcani letvi, ki so ju pod vratom povezovali z vrvico. Takšne jarme so uporabljali samo na skrajnem jugu Italije – v Kalabriji, Lukaniji in na Siciliji – ko so pri mlacvi vanje vpregali tri vole. In ti so po žitu vlacili dva mlatilna kamna (Dreschsteine), z ojesi pripeta na jarem skozi goži med levim in srednjim ter desnim in srednjim volom (Scheuermeier 1956: 180). Popotovanje po Italiji, s tamkajšnjimi oblikovnimi razlicicami vihrovih jar-mov, pa naj sklenejo besede o napoleonski anketi iz leta 1805, z vprašanjem glede unicenih, zažganih jarmov. Pricevanje o tem, kako velik je bil pomen priprav za vpreganje goved v ruralnem okolju oziroma za preživetje kmeckega prebivalst­va; in obenem, kako strog je bil nadzor oblasti nad skrbnim ravnanjem z njimi. V odgovorih je med drugim zapisano naslednje: »Stari so se pazili, da ne bi zažgali jarma, ker so vedeli, da bi jim to prineslo hudo kazen.« In v nadaljevanju še besede o »dolgi agoniji«, s katero naj bi bil kaznovan tisti, ki bi zažgal jarem. »Zato naj bi tudi poškodovane jarme, ki niso vec služili, namesto tega raje zakopavali [...]« (Contini 2000: 45). In zdaj koncno stopimo v tiste dežele Zahodne in Srednje Evrope, ki naj bi predstavljale jedrno obmocje zatilnega jarma: v Avstrijo, Nemcijo, Švico in Francijo. Vendar tudi tam, kakor kaže, stanje sploh ni tako enovito. Kar nam raz­krije že prvi pogled na karto razširjenosti priprav za vpreganje krav v Nemciji, ki jo je v svoji študiji o jarmski opremi in mejah vlecnih živali, temeljeci zlasti na pis-nem diskurzu z deli nekaterih predhodnikovv raziskovanju vprege in zarisovan­ju njenih mej, objavil Jacobeit (Steinmetz v Jacobeit 1957: 127). Na tej karti lahko opazimo dokaj prepoznavno razmejitev med severnimi in južnimi predeli Nemci­je – med obsežnima obmocjema obeh temeljnih tipov jarma, vihrovega na severu in zatilnega na jugu (ter tudi njunih enojnih razlicic) –, sicer pa moramo slediti konglomeratu razlicnih, po Jacobeitovem védenju novejših priprav za vpreganje goveje živine (najverjetneje ne samo krav), zlasti raznovrstnih volovskih, kravjih komatov: zgornjenemškega celega komata (Oberdeutsches Vollkumt), kratkega in pol oblazinjenega komata (Kurz und Halb-Polsterkumt), tricetrt in celega oblaz­injenega komata (Dreiviertel und Voll-Polsterkumt), polkomata (Halbkumt), treh razlicic nastavljivega komata (Verstellbare Halb-, Zwei-, Dreipolsterkumte) [...]. Vse omenjene novejše razlicice komata pa so povecini raztresene po severni »polovi­ci« Nemcije in o tem Jacobeit zapiše: »Pomembno je vendarle vedeti, da so se konec koncev razvile iz vihrovega (dvojnega) jarma.« (Jacobeit 1957: 128) A Jacobeita in Nemcijo bomo zdaj zapustili, saj ima njegova kompleksna študi­ja poleg povedanega drugacno ocišce in se je v našem popotovanju z volovsko vprego na tem mestu ne zdi smiselno nadalje povzemati. Ce naš naslednji korak naredimo v Švico – s pogledom, uprtim v zadevno karto švicarskega etnološkega atlasa (Atlas der Schweizerichen Volkskunde – Atlas de folklore suisse), ki sta jo na podlagi posnetega gradiva med letoma 1937 in 1942 pripravila Paul Geiger in Richard Weiss –, se nam glede dolocenega sobivanja obeh temeljnih tipov jarma in poleg njiju tudi komata, razkrije podobno konglomeratno stanje. Ob pregledu te karte,28 naslovljene »Vlecne priprave za goveda, jarem / komat« (Zugvorrich­tungen für Rindvieh, Kummet / Halsjoch / Hornjoch – Attelage des boeufs, Le joug / le collier), je mogoce sklepati, da so bili v zahodnem delu Švice, proti Franciji, splošno uveljavljeni živinski komat (Viehkummet) ter tu in tam skupaj komat in zatilni jarem; v severnem delu, proti Nemciji, in v centralnih predelih dežele 28 Karta ima oznako I 68, Frage 33. Posredoval mi jo je pokojni zagrebški kolega Tomo Vinšcak. O JARMIH vihrov jarem ter skupaj vihrov jarem in komat; vvzhodnem delu, proti Avstriji, pa poleg vihrovega jarma tu in tam skupaj vihrov jarem in komat ter zatilni jarem in komat; in na jugu, proti Italiji, so bili razširjeni vihrov jarem (soroden italijanskim clenasto-kambastim razlicicam), komat ter tu in tam vse tri oblike priprav za vprego. Risbe ob robu karte pa sporocajo, da so bile vse tri namenjene vpreganju enega goveda; tako živinski komat kot enojni vihrov (Halsjoch) in enojni zatilni jarem (Hornjoch).29 In Avstrija? Tudi ta dežela ni bila enovito obmocje zatilnega jarma; vendar je tamkajšnje zadevno stanje prav pregledno – še posebej po zaslugi dveh del. V prvem je Hans Koren spregovoril o oblikah in imenih jarmovv »notranji Avstriji« (Innerösterreich), kamor so historicno spadale Štajerska, Koroška in nekoc tudi Kranjska.30 Kot vire za svojo študijo je navedel opazovanje stanja, ki je bilo izve­deno »morda v zadnjem trenutku pred dokoncno kapitulacijo jarma pred komatom«; in podložniške inventarje, ki so se izkazali kot zelo tehten vir tako po številcnosti kot po dokazani zanesljivosti. Vsi omenjeni viri – poleg teh pa še številni jarmi iz zbirke Štajerskega etnografskega muzeja (Steirischen Volkskundemuseum), ki so povedni za 19. stoletje – so (pozneje) omogocili zarisovanje prej nedolocljivih mej jarmskih oblik in orisovanje pozabljenih znacilnosti priprav za vpreganje goveje živine. In tako je Koren lahko na primer zapisal: »Vdeželi obstajajo – ce se naslonimo na enovito terminologijo iz pomembne monografije Wolfganga Jacobeita – vihrovi in zatilni jarmi (Widderistjoche und Genickjoche) – oboji oblikovani kot dvojni in kot enojni jarmi.« (Koren 1957: 162) Nadaljeval je z zanimivo sporno ugotovit­vijo (na temelju nepoznavanja jarmovv slovenskem sosedstvu), da je s širino ali pa z višino jarmovega bruna povezano, da so lahko na njem na ustreznem mestu razlicni okrasi, vrezani ornamenti, tudi križi in letnice – kar sicer vihrovemu jar-mu le redko pritice. Potem sledijo opisi teh priprav, na primer zatilnega jarma, imenovanega Joch oziroma igô, pri katerem naj bi šlo za »vrsto jasno razlocenega spreminjanja osnovne oblike«. Koren je prepoznal tri, a temeljna je vendarle »jar­movo bruno, med 110 in 130 centimetri dolgo, ki ima levo in desno vrezani okroglini, ki se prilegata živali na tilnik; ob njiju so štiri vodoravne odprtine, skoznje se vtaknejo leseni klini in z njihovo pomocjo je z jermeni, okoli rogov, s podloženo usnjeno blazino, 29 Na švicarski karti je zapisana drugacna, vendar tudi pogosto uporabljena terminologija za oba temeljna tipa jarma: za vihrov jarem namesto Widerrist- Halsjoch, ovratni jarem; in za zatilni jarem ne Nackenjoch, temvec Hornjoch, jarem za vleko z rogovi. V slednjem primeru gre morebiti celo za ustrezno rabo, saj je na risbi na robu karte težko z gotovostjo razbrati položaj tega jarma na živalski glavi. 30 Slednja nekdanja dežela je zavzemala vecinski del današnje Slovenije. Koren je lahko le za Štajersko (kot politicno vodilno deželo med tremi omenjenimi) izvędel podrobne preiskave, ne pa tudi za morda kulturno bolj reprezentativni Koroško in Kranjsko; kar je poskušal dopolniti s površinskim pregledom zadevnega stanja v obeh drugih deželah, a se je modro zavedal, da je lahko tak pregled le površen, morda celo zavajajoc (Koren 1957: 160). igô pritrjen živali na glavo« (Koren 1957: 162). O enojnih jarmih je zapisal, da se ti v inventarjih omenjajo šele v drugi cetrtini 19. stoletja. Njihovo rabo je povezoval z vozovi. O pojavu komata kot pripomocka za vpreganje goved pa je zasledil prvo pricevanje iz leta 1741 (Koren 1957: 166–167). Rožickast zatilni jarem, Breže / Friesach, avstrijska Korška (Koren 1957: 161). Head horned (or hornlet) yoke, Breže / Friesach, Carinthia, Austria (Koren 1957: 161). Drugo delo, poglavje Joch und Jar, »Igô in jarem« spod peresa Seppa Walterja, s pripadajoco karto, objavljeno v Atlasu k zgodovini štajerskega kmeckega stanu,31 je potem nadgradilo Korenova spoznanja na podlagi pricevalnosti uporabljenih virov. Sledi nekaj njegovih dognanj o obeh temeljnih tipih priprav za vpreganje. Pargoved v goratem Oberland-u (Zgornje Štajersko, zahodno štajersko obrobno gorovje in Fischbacher Alpen) je bil vprežen v zatilni jarem in je tako opravljal »delo z glavo«; kadar sta živali vlekli oralo, pa so jima na vzhodnem Štajerskem in na sosednjih obmocjih južne in zahodne Štajerske na vrat polagali vihrov jarem. Enaka geografska razmejitev, kakršna je predstavljena na karti (ki razkriva pre­hoden stadij od zacetka 1930-ih let), je na podlagi Korenovih raziskav izprica­na že od sredine 16. stoletja. Zatilni jarem je vsepovsod imenovan Joch oziroma igô, ime za vihrov jarem pa se menja: na zahodnem Štajerskem in v dolini Mure (Murtal) ga imenujejo Jar – tako kakor je podobno na jugovzhodu in na vzhodu Štajerske razširjeno ime jarem, jaram, jarom ali jarmo. Prvi enojni jarem (Halbjoch, »jöchl«), za vpreganje enega goveda, naj bi se pojavil v dolini Ennstal šele proti sredini 17. stoletja; sredi 18. stoletja pa je zacel stare oblike priprav za vpreganje goved nadomešcati »od konjev prevzeti komat«, ki je »zasijal predvsem vzdolž vecjih prometnih poti« (Walter 1971: 38, 270–271). 31 Vir za njegovo besedilo vAtlas zur Geschichte der steirischen Bauerntums oziroma karto »Joch und Jar in der Steiermark (1 : 150.000, osnutek Sepp Walter) je bil Vprašalnik I. za Atlas der deutschen Volkskunde, z odgovori iz leta 1930. O JARMIH V jedrnem delu Zahodne Evrope nam zdaj ostaja še pot v Francijo; in med našim sledenjem razširjenosti oziroma obmocjem obeh temeljnih tipov – vihro­vega in zatilnega jarma ter njunih oblikovnih razlicic – sem za to deželo že skoraj zapisala, da je v njej enovito kraljeval zatilni jarem. Pred ocmi sem imela namrec slikovno vsebino publikacij Les jougs du Morvan in Le temps des attelages (Berte-Langereau 1996, 2000) in strani iz kataloga razstave Jougs, contre jougs s Sigautovim prispevkom o zatilnem jarmu kot evropski izjemi (Sigaut 1993), ki mu sledijo fotografije trinajstih jarmov (B. n. a. 1993) od sedemdesetih, kolikor jih je v casu razstave štela zbirka tedanjega francoskega nacionalnega etnografske­ga muzeja MNATP (Musée National des Arts et Traditions Populaires),32 z izborom iz pokrajin Alsace, Auvergne, Bourbonnais, Languedoc, Morvan, Provence Rhodanienne in Rouergue, na podlagi kriterija pokrajinske reprezentativnosti. Ta sicer ne pokaže vse topogledne francoske raznolikosti, a daje vsaj okviren vtis. In vsi predstavljeni primerki so le oblikovne razlicice zatilnega jarma. Potem pa sem vendarle ponovno vzela v roke temeljno delo o jarmih v Franci­ji, ki ga je ob koncu šestdesetih let preteklega stoletja spisala Mariel Jean Brunhes Delamarre, Geographie et ethnologie de l'attelage au joug en France du XVIIe sičcle ŕ nos jours. Ob tem sem osvežila svoje pozabljeno spoznanje, da je tudi francoska tipološka sestavljenka o jarmih dokaj pisana. Brunhes Delamarre jo je snovala na podlagi raznovrstnih virov in slovstva – tudi sredi preteklega stoletja nastaja­jocih francoskih lingvisticnih in etnografskih atlasov.33 In tako je lahko ubesedila dognanja o rabi in prevladi zatilnega jarma v Massif Central; o starem pomenu vihrovega jarma med južnim delom te regije in Pireneji; o rabi obeh temeljnih tipov v Gascogne; o zatilnem jarmu v Baskiji; o rabi obeh temeljnih tipov v fran­coskih Pirenejih; o vihrovem jarmu v Alpah in starem tipu zatilnega jarma na predalpskem obmocju; o zatilnem jarmu v dolinah Rhône in Saône; o zatilnih jarmih z razlicnimi nacini vezanja v Franche-Comté, v delu Vogezov(Vosges lor­raines), v Champagne in v pokrajini Morvan (Brunhes Delamarre 1969: 31–51). Med vihrovimi jarmi sta bili v Franciji izpricani še posebej dve razlicici: kambasti primerki in tisti z obvratnimi kraki (ter vrvico pod vratom) – slednji na primerv Provansi in tudi na Korziki. 32 Omenjeni muzej je leta 1996 realiziral kampanjo zbiranja opreme za vpreganje oziroma jarmov in je tekom te akcije dobil donacijo zbirke dvesto tridesetih jarmov z izvorom iz razlicnih francoskih regij. Od tedaj se je muzej ponašal z najbolj reprezentativno zbirko jarmovv Franciji (de Laubrie 1999: 3), ki je bila po zaprtju muzeja v Parizu (2005) prenesena v Muzej evropskih in sredozemskih civilizacij (Musée des Civilisations de l'Europe et de la Méditerranée - MuCEM) v Marseillesu. 33 Prvi je leta 1950 izšel Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Lyonnais, sledili so tisti za Massif Central, za Gascogne in drugi (Brunhes Delamarre 1969: 71). Vola, vprežena v zatilni jarem, ki ga krasi »nadjarem« (le surjoug), in z mrežo proti mrcesu, Lombez, Južni Pireneji, Francija (foto: Paul Mesplé, 1937, Muzej civilizacij Evrope in Sredozemlja MuCEM v Marseillu). Oxen harnessed with a head yoke decorated with an »overyoke« (surjoug), and an insect net, Lombez, Midi-Pyrenees, France (photo: Paul Mesplé, 1937, the MuCEM Museum of the Civilizations of Europe and the Mediterranean in Marseille). Med pregledom francoskih jarmov na slikovnih prilogah (in na številnih fo­tografijah v drugih publikacijah) pa na njihovih brunastih telesih ni bilo mogoce najti morebitnih mest s kakršnimikoli okrasnimi sestavinami. A potem se je po­javilo presenetljivo odkritje dotlej nepoznanega dekorativnega elementa – tako imenovanega »nadjarma« (le surjoug) –, ki je v dolocenih okolišcinah krasil zatilne jarme v Pirenejih in je bil oblikovan iz ustreznega hloda, izrezljan in izvotljen, opremljen z zvoncki in pisano pobarvan (Brunhes Delamarre 1969: 40–41). Prib­ližno od konca 18. stoletja in v 19. stoletju so »nadjarem« pritrjevali na vrh jarma (na njegovo sredino) takrat, kadar so vole zapregli vvoz ob odhodu na sejme ali kadar so svoj del pridelkovvozili vaški gosposki. Njegova funkcija je bila v svojem bistvu razkazovalna in se je manifestirala vvišini »nadjarma« (ki je lahko presegal 60 centimetrov), v bogastvu barv in drugih dekorativnih elementov terv številu zvonckov. Slednji so poleg tega omogocali signaliziranje prihoda voza, še pose-bej na v meglo ujetih planinskih poteh. Imeli pa naj bi tudi »magicno-religiozno vrednost«, saj so kot zašcitniki pred nevihto in gromom, drugimi nesrecami in uroki na svojstven nacin sporocali skrb za vprežene živali. (de Laubrie 1993: 14) In zdaj stopimo še cez Pireneje, v Španijo in na Portugalsko, kjer ne manjka etnoloških del in v njih zgovornih besed o tamkajšnjih oblikah jarmov, o njihovi rabi, izdelovanju in krašenju. V obeh deželah je ponovno mogoce najti preple­tanje obeh temeljnih tipov – zatilnega in vihrovega jarma – ter njune regionalne oblike in razlicice. Vtopoglednih temeljnih delih za Portugalsko, ki so ju spisali O JARMIH de Oliveira, Galhano in Pereira (1969, 1973), pa se pojavi še drugacna delitev – in sicer na podlagi povsem svojstveno oblikovanih jarmov z obalnih obmocij na severozahodu te dežele: delitev na 1. jarme z desko (jugos de tábua) iz omenjenih obmocij in na 2. preproste jarme z brunom (jugos de trave, simples) (de Olivei­ra, Galhano in Pereira 1973: 102). Slednji so bili razširjeni na vsem preostalem portugalskem ozemlju in so izpricani v treh tipskih variantah glede na nacine vpreganja: prva ima preprosto bruno in obvratne krake (z vrvico za povezovanje pod vratom) ter je »združevala podvratni sistem vpreganja in vpreganje na rogove«, torej obenem vihrov in zatilni jarem; k drugi sta sodili usnjeni blazini in je imela le »sistem vpreganja na rogove«, torej sistem zatilnega jarma; tretja, pravtako s pre­prostim brunom in z obvratnimi kraki, samo s »podvratnim sistemom vpreganja«, pa je bila vihrov jarem. Na Portugalskem vznemirja združevanje obeh temelj­nih nacinov vpreganja pri eni pripravi in najverjetneje je le-to tesno povezano s posebno obliko in velikostjo jarmov z desko, ki jih oznacuje bogata dekoracija na celotni deskasti površini. Ti impresivni jugos de tábua z obalnih podrocij na severozahodu namrec vvseh treh oblikovnih razlicicah – tako tista prva iz oko-lice kraja Ovar, ona druga iz Vila da Feira in Maia in tretja iz province Minho – povecini združujejo oba sistema vpreganja. Impozantno deskasto telo jarma je namešceno na vratove živali pred vihrom (s kambami ali z obvratnimi kraki) in obenem tesno privezano z jermeni okoli rogov na njihove glave. (de Oliveira, Galhano in Pereira 1973: 103) Jarmi pa so se tudi na Portugalskem razlikovali glede na rabo – vsaj v dolži­ni. Tisti za oranje (in brananje) so bili na splošno enaki kakor jarmi za vožnjo, vendar ponavadi krajši. Za njihovo izdelovanje so tradicionalno uporabljali ra­zlicne vrste lesa: jesenovino, orehovino in les hrasta plutovca; v novejšem casu, sredi preteklega stoletja, pa zelo pogosto les evkaliptusa in vcasih tudi borovca. Podvratni loki oziroma kambe so bile na splošno iz lesa kostanja ali oreha (de Oliveira, Galhano in Pereira 1973: 105). Deskasti – manj trdni in trpežni ter bo­gato okrašeni jarmi de parada34 pa so bili namenjeni sekundarni, praznicni rabi: na primer pri skupnih obcinskih oziroma vaških delih, pri katerih so se kmetje lahko »postavljali s svojimi živalmi in kazali razkošje s svojimi poljedelskimi orodji« (Mingote Calderón 2005: 13). 34 Pri teh kljub razlicnim hipotezam (npr. vpliv regionalnih motivov iz casa romanike itd.) ostaja dejstvo, da so redko izpricani pred drugo polovico 19. stoletja, vsi znani datirani primerki pa so iz druge polovice 19. stoletja. To podpira dejstvo, da so se po agrarni reformi iz 1834 v regiji pojavile številne velike podeželske hiše, ki so pripadale zelo bogatemu kmeckemu sloju. In ker je to prineslo tudi velik pomen volom, je mogoce verjeti, da so ti novi posestniki, ponosni na svoje hiše, želeli tudi z živino – z njeno spektakularno opremo – demonstrirati svojo pomembnost (de Oliveira, Galhano in Pereira 1973: 106–107). Portugalska »jarma z desko« (jugos de tábua): a) iz okolice kraja Ovar in b) iz province Minho (de Oliveira, Galhano in Pereira 1969: 58, 60, © Ceško etnološko društvo). Portuguese “board yokes” (jugos de tábua): a) from the vicinity of Ovar, and b) from the Minho Province (de Oliveira, Galhano and Pereira 1969: 58, 60, © Czech Ethnological Society). O JARMIH 17. Trojni zatilni jarem za krotitev uporne goveje živine (Mingote Calderon 1992: 15). Triple head yoke for taming stubborn cattle (Mingote Calderon 1992: 15). Kako je bilo pa v Španiji? Obilje etnološkega slovstva o jarmih v tej deželi iz prve polovice oziroma sredine preteklega stoletja so prispevali avtorji,35 ki so jih lahko spremljali in opisovali še v desetletjih njihove vsakdanje rabe. Iz del teh pi-scev je – poleg lastnega raziskovanja – potem lahko v svojih besedilih crpal in jih v dolocenih pogledih povzemal Mingote Calderón (1992, 2005), ki je prispeval poglobljene in v mnogih vidikih metodološko drugace zasnovane študije o pri­pravah za vpreganje goved. V njih je uspel španske jarme dolociti ne le po tipih oziroma oblikovnih razlicicah obeh temeljnih tipov ter geografski razširjenosti njihove rabe (ceprav pravi, da je zadevnih podatkov za Španijo premalo in so pomanjkljivi), temvec je njihovo razlikovanje v oblikah tudi ustrezno povezoval z rabo za razlicna dela in jih na tej podlagi definiral. Njegovo zadevno razmišljanje je silno blizu besedam, ki sta jih o tem (sicerv povezavi z orali in oranjem) zapisala Grith Lerche in François Sigaut. Prva tako pravi, da ce se namesto na sam predmet osredotocimo na delovni proces, pri kate-rem je neko orodje primaren in potreben instrument, je njegovo bistvo v njego­vem delovanju in v kontekstu: kako je to orodje sestavljeno in kakšno delo oprav­lja (Lerche v Smerdel 2008: 21). In drugi, Sigaut, njenemu soroden metodološki pristop dorece kot razlikovanje treh ravni analize v študijah o posameznih orod­jih: preucitev oblike in sestave (forme ou structure), delovanja (fonctionnement) 35 Navedeni so španski raziskovalci, ki so se osredotocali na jarme: Telsforo de Aranzadi za celotno špansko ozemlje, pet clankov med 1906 in 1946; Violant y Simorra za Katalonijo, 1958; Echegaray za Kantabrijo, 1971; in Fernández za Galicijo, 1982 (Mingote Calderón 1992: 3–4). in opravila oziroma rabe (fonction). Ob tem poudarja pomen študij o uporabi orodij oziroma o posameznih delovnih opravilih, saj le te lahko povežejo splošno pomanjkljive podatke, ki omogocajo prehod s sestave v uporabo; »kar pomeni, da pripravijo predmete, da 'spregovorijo'« (Sigaut v Smerdel 2008: 21). Mingote Calderón je pricevanjem o španskih jarmih sledil od 15. in 16. stoletja, ko je bila v centralnem delu dežele, v Kastilji, izpricana raba jarmov za vleko z gla­vo oziroma zatilnih jarmov (yugos de tipo cornal), v perifernih obmocjih Španije, v Galiciji, Kataloniji in v aragonskih Pirenejih pa jarmov za vleko z vratom oziroma vihrovih jarmov (yugos yugulares) v dveh oblikovnih razlicicah – tistih z obvrat­nimi kraki, »de costillas« (nazobcanimi, pod vratom povezanimi z vrvico), in onih s kambami, »de collares« (Mingote Calderón 2005: 11). Torej so tudi v tej deželi skozi stoletja poznali in uporabljali oba temeljna tipa vpreganja – tako v zatilne kot vvihrove jarme. O definiranju teh priprav na temelju rabe za razlicna delov­na opravila pa je ubesedil, da je »jarem skoraj edino poljedelsko orodje, za katero je znacilno, da sta na jasen, prepoznaven nacin združeni njegova oblika in namembnost (funcionalidad)«. In potem je nadaljeval: Ce pretehtamo evidentne izjeme, ki jih je mogoce srecati v pogledu te norme, je mogoce reci, da so se odvisno od opravila, ki so ga nameravali izvesti, odlocali za uporabo enega ali drugega tipa jarma. Zavoljo tega je mogoce govoriti o jarmih, uporabljanih za oranje in za mlacev – ti se uporabljajo tudi pri krotenju oziroma ucenju –, o jarmih za vožnjo z vozom in o posebnih jarmih za krotenje. (Mingote Calderón 2005: 13) Vsi omenjeni so bili uveljavljeni v centralni Španiji (v madridski Sierra Norte), so zatilni in so razlicnih dolžin. Poleg njih so tam poznali še jarme za sejanje oziroma cišcenje žita in za sajenje krompirja, a na splošno je mogoce vsem nave-denim tudi v Španiji dodati še druge tipe, povezane z razlicnimi rabami sekun­darnega znacaja: na primer tako imenovane praznicne jarme (de feria), ki so jih upo­rabljali, da so privedli vpreženo živino na sejme. (Mingote Calderón 2005: 13) Mingote Calderóna pa je še posebej vznemirjal jarem s specificno rabo – in sicer tisti za krotitev uporne goveje živine, katerega najbolj pozornost zbujajoca oblikovna znacilnost je bila ta, da so vanj lahko vpregli tri živali; zato ima tri skle­dicaste ovratnike (oziroma »sklede«, gamellas). Oblikovno se drugace ne razlikuje od jarma za oranje, le da je daljši. Njegova pojavnost vvsakdanjih praksah je bila redka (za krotenje živali z manj voljnim temperamentom so namrec obstajale tudi druge alternative), a na podlagi nekaj zgovornih besedil španska zgodovina potrjuje rabo jarma za tri živali vse od rimskega casa dalje (Mingote Calderón 2005: 16, 19). Njegova geografska razširjenost pa pokaže, da je bil jarem za tri živali edinole zatilnega tipa (Mingote Calderón 1992: 22). O JARMIH Na priprave za vpreganje treh goved smo na našem popotovanju po evropskih deželah drugace naleteli tudi v Grciji in na skrajnem jugu Italije, kjer so bile le-te drugega temeljnega tipa: s Krete je sporocen kambast vihrov jarem za tri živali, iz Kalabrije, Lukanije in s Sicilije pa vihrovjarem z obvratnimi kraki (nazobcanimi, pod vratom povezanimi z vrvico). A na Imellosovi karti Krete poleg oblike ni razvidna tudi raba tamkajšnjega posebnega jarma, za italijanske primerke pa je sporoceno, da so vole vanje vpregali pri mlacvi z dvema mlatilnima kamnoma (Scheuermeier 1956: 180). Namembnost jarmov za tri goveda z juga Italije torej ni bila krotitev uporne živine. Z besedami o tej svojevrstni in le malokje uveljavljeni jarmski obliki smo skle­nili naše popotovanje z volovsko vprego po evropskih deželah. Ostaja nam le še prelet nad ostalimi kontinenti – pregled slovstva, najdenega med sledenjem jar-mom po drugih koncih sveta –, kjer je na delu Bližnjega vzhoda (kot srecevališca treh celin) in v Aziji vsepovsod doma vihrov jarem z obvratnimi kraki, v Afriki oba temeljna tipa vprege – vihrov in zatilni jarem, v obeh Amerikah pa tisti temelj­ni tip, ki je tja prišel z zavojevalci ali z izseljenci iz katere izmed evropskih dežel. Najprej se bomo ustavili v Iranu, v provinci Kermán (ki leži na nadmorski višini 1853 metrov in ima subtropsko klimo), kjer sta leta 1965 raziskovala oranje z ralom Grith Lerche in Axel Steensberg. V bližini mesta Kermán sta opazovala oranje dveh vpreg zebu volov, ki so ralo vlekli z vihrovim jarmom (withers ali neck yoke), položenim pred njihove grbe. Na zunanji strani volovskih vratov sta bila zacepljena lesena klina oziroma kraka in z njunega spodnjega konca je šla pod vratovoma vrvica, ki je bila pritrjena na jarem na notranji strani. Po spoznavanju tamkajšnjih priprav za vpreganje goved sta Lerche in Steensberg zapisala, da so iranski jarmi preprosto oblikovani. Njihov zgornji del – jarmovo bruno – je skoraj Iranski vihrov jarem iz province Kermán (Lerche in Steensberg 1983: 238). Iranian withers yoke from the province of Kermán (Lerche and Steensberg 1983: 238). praviloma v prerezu okrogel (le pri redkih je prerez pravokoten) in je v celoti raven, brez oblo, skledicasto oblikovanih ovratnih delov (Lerche in Steensberg 1983: 224–225). Kot kaže, so sorodno oblikovani tudi jarmi v Afganistanu; tako vsaj sporocata primerka, ki sta bila leta 2003 razstavljena v dunajskem etnološkem muzeju, Mu­seum für Völkerkunde. V katalogu je mogoce najti enega iz zahodnega Afganistana (Jamshidi) in drugega iz jugovzhoda te dežele (Langhman, Pashtunen). Drugace kot iranski primerki in enako kakor na primer sorodni grški in španski imata oba afganistanska vihrova jarma z obvratnimi kraki po dva kolicka na vsaki strani volovskega vratu, spodaj pod njim povezana z vrvico. Bruni obeh sta tudi ravni, le da ima prvi jarem okrogel prerez, drugi pa je bolj plošcat in rezbarsko krašen (Steinmann 2003: 151). In na poti naprej v Azijo lahko sorodne primerke vihrovih jarmov z obvrat­nimi kraki na primer srecamo tudi v Nepalu. Od tam jih sporoca raziskava rala (in poleg njega jarma in vprege), ki je potekala v okraju Jumla – enem od petih okrajevv provinci Karnali v zahodnem Nepalu. Glede na ekstremno višino tam-kajšnjih terasastih polj (regija leži na nadmorski višini med 1800 in 3500 metri) in nagnjenost njihovih strmih pobocij sta jarem in ralo iz Jumle napravi, ki sta dobro prilagojeni naravnim razmeram v tistih krajih (saj sta lahka, prirocna in enostavna za transport, za prenašanje na rami na dolgih razdaljah). Jarem je s 136 centimetri relativno širok oziroma dolg in ima – v skladu s to oblikovno razlicico vihrovih jarmov – pri vsakem volovskem vratu po dva vertikalna kraka, ki ju spodaj povezuje vrvica. Slednja omogoca preprosto vpreganje volov, ko je enkrat jarem položen pred viher. Na njegovi sredini je še vez oziroma gož iz bambusovih vlaken ali iz bivoljega usnja, ki to pripravo za vpreganje povezuje z gredljem rala. Kot najpogosteje uporabljen les za jarme je sporocena orehovina (Juglans regia), Vihrov jarem z obvratnimi kraki, okraj Jumla, Nepal (Lundström-Baudais, Baudais in Upadhaya 2001: 83). Withers yoke with neckside shanks, Jumla district, Nepal (Lundström-Baudais, Baudais and Upadhaya 2001: 83). O JARMIH dokaj pogost je tudi brezov les (Betula utilis) in le redko vrbov (Salix sp.) (Lund­ström-Baudais, Baudais in Upadhaya 2001: 77–79, 81, 86). Naš naslednji postanek je v Afriki. Ceprav so živalsko vleko že stoletja uporabljali v severni Afriki in v Etiopiji, naj bi bila na preostanek kontinenta vpeljana šele nedavno. V Južni Afriki so jo v 18. stoletju zaceli uporabljati Buri in francoski hugenoti, v zadnjem desetletju 19. stoletja pa so francoska vojska ter za njo kolonialne kmetijske in trgovske družbe vpeljali živalsko vleko na Madagaskar in pozneje, okoli 1920, še v zahodno Afriko. Ampak prav tam in na Madagaskarju se je živalska vleka zares razvila šele v šestdesetih letih preteklega stoletja; in sicer na podlagi naporov raznih raziskovalnih organizacij, kmetijskih razvojnih družb, verskih misijonov in nazadnje nevladnih organizacij. A njihovo zadevno znanje je temeljilo na praksah v njihovih domacih evropskih regijah, kar je posledicno pomenilo, da so bili v Afriko vpeljani raznoliki vprežni nacini in oprema. (Le Thiec in Havard 1999: 134) Razen v mediteranski regiji in v Etiopiji v Afriki ne obstaja tradicija živalske vleke, vihrov jarem pa je tam bolj raširjen kakor zatilni. In prav ta prvi tip dobro ustreza grbastemu zebu govedu (Bos indicus) ter je tako uveljavljen na sahels-ko-sudanskem podrocju (z razvitim vlecnim obdelovanjem, draft cultivation), kjer domuje številna populacija teh goved. Zavoljo takšnih razmer se v Afriki tudi ni moglo razviti niti vešce izdelovanje niti raba jarmov. Zatilni primerki so pogosto nepazljivo izrezani in oblikovani ter tako ne sedajo pravilno na glavo za živalskimi rogovi. Na slednje so pona­vadi ohlapno privezani, cesto le s tankimi vrvmi. Vihrovi jarmi pa so pogosto le preprosta lesena bruna, ki jim niso posneli ostrih robov; in ker jarmovi ovrat­niki nimajo pravilno oblikovanih lokov, oglati rob bruna pritiska na viher, ko je žival v gibanju. Kar povzroca, da je vsak napor bolec in je zato delovna goveda težko obvladovati in tudi težko uciti. Živalim neprijetne so tudi kovinske kambe vihrovih jarmov ali pa lesene palice (»krace«, the hames) vihrove oblikovne ra-zlicice z obvratnimi kraki. Pri slednji tanke vrvice, zavezane okoli vratu oziroma pod grlom živali tako, da sta spodaj oba kraka povezana, pritiskajo na sapnik; in ko se med delom tak jarem stalno premika naprej in nazaj, se žival skoraj zadavi. Nezanemarljiv dejavnik je tudi teža teh priprav za vpreganje. Oboji, tako vihrovi kot zatilni jarmi, so namrec izredno težki. Pogosto imajo okoli 15 kil, a naj nebi presegali 10 do 12 kilogramov (Le Thiec in Havard 1999: 135). Tako težko breme za vratom ali na glavi pa živalim nedvomno ne lajša delovnih naporov. In zdaj še na pot cez Atlantik, najprej v Južno Ameriko, vEkvador. Leta 1990 je tam v provinci Imbabura, na pobocjih gore Cotatachi, Helena Meininger razis­kovala poljedelske tehnike in orodja, ki pricajo o poljedelstvu majhnih kmetov, pripadnikov prvotnih skupnosti v Andih. Njihovi glavni orodji za obdelovanje zemlje sta motika in ralo (Meininger 1993: 127) ter poleg njiju jarmi za vleko z glavo razlicnih dimenzij: enega, z dolžino okoli 120 centimetrov, uporabljajo za oranje, za pripravo zemlje za setev; drugi, krajši (ki se razteza med dvema brazda-ma) je lahko v rabi za osipavanje koruze, ceprav to delo vecinoma opravijo z mo-tiko. Oba sta zatilna jarma in sta dobro prilagojena oranju na strmih njivah. Tako vprežena vola trdno držita ralo na mestu med navzkrižnim oranjem navzgor in navzdol po strminah; vendar mora biti jarem zelo trdno, skrbno pritrjen zadaj za rogovi (tako, da med slednjimi in jarmom ni pušcenega nic prostora), da bi se izognili poškodbam rogov ali izgubi vlecne moci. Pritrjevanju služi dolg, plošcat jermen iz surove kože, napeljan skozi odprtine na jarmovem brunu. Tam, kjer ta pripomocek za vpreganje pociva na volovskih glavah, sta na njegovi spodnji strani izrezani dve skledicasti vdolbini, katerih rob šciti živalski glavi. Na sredini jarma so izrezane dve ali tri odprtine, skoznje pa se namešca njegov fleksibilni del – gož, s katero je na jarem pritrjen gredelj rala. In pravta premakljiva gož mehca oziroma blaži šoke, ki jih obcutijo volovski rogovi, kadar lemež rala zadene ob kamne ali korenine. (Meininger 1993: 131–132) Kmetje na strmih pobocjih Cotacachija zelo skrbno ravnajo s svojimi delovnimi živalmi; cesar ne odražajo samo ustrezno izdelani jarmi in njihova pravilna raba, temvec se zdi, da želja tamkajšnjih poljedelcev, da bi svojim volom prizanašali pri najtežjih delovnih opravilih,36 igra pomembno vlogo tudi pri izbiri delovne tehni­ke. Pri oranju je na primer dolg lemež rala ustreznejši za bolj globoko obdelavo, a to pomeni vec napora za vlecne živali. In tako kmetje stalno presojajo sredstva, ki jih imajo na razpolago, in naravne razmere, s katerimi se bodo morali spopadati. (Meininger 1993: 130) VPeruju, v kmeckih skupnostih njegove andske regije, pa je oranje oziroma ralo v Chuquibambi raziskovala Inge Schjellerup in ob tem razkrila enega izmed primerov izvoza posameznih sestavin evropske materialne kulture – uvedbo mediteranskega rala in zatilnega jarma v nove dežele. Ralo v Chuquibambi nam­rec vlece tako imenovana yunta, par volov, vpreženih v »stari tip jarma za vleko z glavo«, privezan za rogovi; torej v zatilni jarem, kakršen je bil še v osemdesetih le­tih preteklega stoletja »povezan z voli v centralni in južni Španiji« (Schjellerup 1986: 181, 183), saj so v ameriške kolonije v prvih dveh stoletjih lahko odšli le kmetje iz Kastilje, Exstremadure in Andaluzije. 36 Kar skoraj zagotovo izvira iz bistva staroselskega dojemanja narave, v katerem se poudarja koncept njene osebnosti. V staroselskih razlagah so namrec osebe tudi živali, rastline, kamenine, ki skupaj s clovekom soustvarjajo enovitost sveta ali kozmosa. (Tercelj 2021: 65–66) O JARMIH Vola, vprežena v zatilni jarem, na razglednici iz Paragvaja, zacetek 21. stoletja (Oddelek za dokumentacijo SEM). Oxen with a head yoke on a postcard from Paraguay, early 21st century (SEM Documentation Department). Tudi v andski regiji Peruja so se jarmi po dolžini (od 130 do 160 centimetrov) razlikovali glede na funkcijo. Na ravninskih predelih je (bil) v rabi krajši jarem kakor na strmih pobocjih, kjer je potrebno za nemoteno hojo vola držati bolj narazen. In potem je tu še krajši jarem, v rabi za prevažanje (ali vlacenje) hlodov (Schjellerup 1986: 183). Zapis iz sredine 16. stoletja o prvem oranju z vpreženimi voli v dolini Cuzca – torej tudi o casu vnosa zatilnega jarma v Peru – pa poleg opisa dogajanja ocarlji­vo prica še posebej o njegovem doživljanju; sporoca odnos presenecenih in malce prestrašenih perujskih staroselcev do volov in obenem do španskih konkvista­dorjev. »Rekli so, da so Španci leni, ker silijo takšne velike živali opravljati delo, ki bi ga morali sami narediti.«37 (Schjellerup 1986: 186) In razumljivo je, da izvoz posameznih sestavin evropske materialne kulture – vnašem primeru jarmov – ni izprican le v Južni, temvec tudi v Severni Ameriki. Kot je o tem ubesedil Conroy, so se oblike oziroma tipi jarmov – tako kakor druge tradicije – prenašali ne samo iz roda v rod, temvec tudi v tiste nove dežele, kamor so se ljudje izseljevali. Kambast vihrov jarem (ki ga Conroy imenuje jarem za vleko z vratom, neck yoke) se je kot angleška tradicija prenesel v Avstralijo in v Združene države Amerike, kjer ga niso uporabljali samo v krajih s prevladujo-co špansko tradicijo. Španski priseljenci so v Ameriko prinesli jarem za vleko z glavo oziroma zatilni jarem, ki ga je mogoce najti vvecini južnoameriških dežel (kot smo že spoznali v Ekvadorju in Peruju, tudi v Paragvaju), razen v Braziliji, 37 Avtor zapisa je mešanec Garcilas de la Vega, ki je odrašcal v Cuzcu, stari prestolnici Inkovv zgodnjem kolonialnem obdobju. »Prvic, ko sem videl orati vole, je bilo to v dolini Cuzca okoli leta 1550 .[...] Množica Indijancev od vsepovsod me je vlekla presenecenega in prestrašenega ob videnju necesa takšnega, kar je bilo grozno in novo zanje in zame« (Schjellerup 1986: 186). kjer sta pod vplivom Portugalcevv rabi oba temeljna tipa – tako zatilni kot vihrov jarem. Francozi pa so v zgodnjo Kanado (early Canada) prav tako prinesli zatilni jarem (Conroy 2004: 3). V dokajšnjem delu svojega pisanja potem Conroy, ki že na zacetku pojasni, da le-to ne temelji na raziskovalnem študiju, temvec »na vseživljenjskih osebnih izkušnjah, pridobljenih pri delu z voli na kmetiji, v gozdu in na tekmovanjih«, nadal­juje z navajanjem prednosti in slabosti enega ali drugega temeljnega tipa jarma, pri cemer ne izvemo nic bistveno novega. Nedvomno vznemirljiv pa je pri tem njegov jasno izražen skrbni odnos do volov, saj je cilj izboljšanje udobnosti pri izvrševanju nalog in blaginje živali z razumevanjem in vrednotenjem sistemov oziroma tipovvolovske vprege (Conroy 2004: 1). Poleg prednosti, ki jih sicer priznava zatilnemu jarmu (lažje obvladovanje živali, zaviranje ali zaustavljanje na strmih cestah), na primer poudarja, da mora biti ta za udobno vpreganje tako izrezljan, da se varno prilega zadnji strani rogov individualne živali; in pri tem pove, da nekateri vodniki volovverjamejo, da istega jarma ne morejo uporabiti na drugi živali brez ustreznih prilagoditev (Conroy 2004: 3–4). Pri kambastih vihrovih jarmih pa poudarja, da se morajo ovratni­ki (oziroma po njegovo »vratni sedeži«) prilegati individualni živali, in opozarja, da vsak vol zahteva kambo, ki se prilega prav njegovemu vratu. Ce so kambe preohlapne, bodo namrec motile gibanje ramen; in ce so pretesne, bodo šcipale, stiskale, žulile vrat. Jarem ima pac pomemben vpliv na živalsko ustrežljivost in na pripravljenost za delo (Conroy 2004: 24, 26). A poleg tega z marsicim razkriva tudi stalno prisotno clovekovo skrb za njegove delovne tovariše, poseben odnos do nepogrešljivih vprežnih živali. Po našem dolgem popotovanju z volovsko vprego po Evropi – najprej od Irske do Finske in potem proti vzhodu, jugu in zahodu – in na koncu še po preletu nad drugimi celinami si morda kaže še enkrat osvežiti ali dopolniti védenje o obeh temeljnih tipih jarmov, vihrovem in zatilnem; z nekaj besedami, ki jih je v tem pogledu domislil François Sigaut: V pogledu tehnike so kot kaže vse prednosti na strani vihrovega jarma. Ta je bolj enostaven, torej manj drag za izdelavo, in dosti bolj preprost za namestitev. Pušca tudi vecjo svobodo v gibanju živali, dovoljujoc vecjo storilnost ob manjši utrujenosti. Edina nadvlada, ki so jo strokovnjaki videli v zatilnem jarmu, je pa v tem, da se z ohranjanjem trdnega vezanja živali druge ob drugi omogoca lažje vodenje. Ampak to pomeni prednost le pri težavnih živalih. (Sigaut 1993: 5) O JARMIH Zdi se, da lahko zdaj malce izprežemo in si oddahnemo po dolgem popoto­vanju z volovsko vprego po prostranstvih Evrope in drugih celin – a ne za dolgo. Spet se bomo »vklenili v jarem« – kot vpreganju pravijo ponekod na Sloven-skem – in ob vrnitvi v našo deželo najprej prisluhnili nemi govorici snovnega, ki jo šepetajo tihotne muzejske zbirke. Cas je, da si pobliže ogledamo pri nas uveljavljene oblike jarmov. V manjšem številu in regionalno zamejene jih je bilo mogoce prepoznavati v zbirkah posameznih pokrajinskih muzejev, vec njihovih oblik – obeh temeljnih tipov – pa hrani številcno bogata in reprezentativna zbir­ka nacionalnega SEM. Najbolj zgovorno predstavitev jarmov pomeni vpogled v samo zbirko. A najprej si poglejmo zapisane drobce o njeni zgodovini in nastali kartografski prikaz regionalne razprostranjenosti obeh temeljnih tipov jarma ter njunih oblikovnih razlicic. POVEDNOST ZBIRKE SEM – O NJENI ZGODOVINI IN O OBLIKOVNIH TIPIH JARMOV NA SLOVENSKEM V okviru zbirk predmetov, pricevalnih o delovnih procesih v kmeckem gos-podarstvu, so bile nekatere, ki so na podlagi razlicnih meril v muzeju veljale za pomembnejše. Ko jih je v šestdesetih letih preteklega stoletja pregledoval nji­hov tedanji kustos Angelos Baš, se je za nadaljnje zbiranje odlocal v skladu s svojo definicijo muzejskega predmeta, ki da mora imeti študijsko ali razstavno vrednost (Baš v Smerdel 1983: 8). Sledenje prvemu kriteriju, zbiranju na podla­gi študijske vrednosti predmetov oziroma dopolnjevanju študijsko pomembnih zbirk, je tako v naslednjem poldrugem desetletju opazno odsevalo v blagi rasti treh takšnih zbirk: ornih orodij, oselnikov in živinske vprege – v okviru slednje še posebej jarmov. A nastajanju zadevne zbirke, ki bi sicer sodila v »skupino« Zug- und Ackergerät, verschiedene bäuerliche Gebrauchsgegenstände ali »vprežno in poljedelsko orodje, razni kmecki uporabni predmeti«, kot jo je leta 1908 v svojem porocilu v prvem letniku Carniole, imenoval kustos Kranjskega deželnega muzeja Walter Schmid,38 ni botroval funkcijski, temvec estetski vidik. Rezljan ali drugace izveden dekor je namrec tudi jarme, tako kakor na primer oselnike – ene in druge sicer pol­ 38 Od leta 1821 ustanovljenega deželnega muzeja se je leta 1923 oddvojil Kraljevi etnografski muzej, po 2. svetovni vojni preimenovan v Etnografski muzej in po letu 1963 v Slovenski etnografski muzej (Smerdel 1994: 10). jedelskemu delu namenjene predmete, izdelke domace obrti ali tako imenovane domace delavnosti39 – umešcal v podrocje ljudske umetnosti (Schmid v Smerdel 1994: 10–11). In tako ne preseneca, da je bilo razen nekaj natresenih drobtin v etnološkem slovstvu in osamljenega tehtnejšega prispevka o volovskih jarmih Kocevarjev (npr. Mrkun 1943; Kundegraber 1967) najbolj izcrpno besedilo o tej pripravi za vpreganje goved objavljeno v delu Slovenska ljudska umetnost (Makarovic 1981). Temeljilo je na muzejski zbirki in na zgodovinskosti v njej zbranih jarmov oziroma zgodovinskosti njihovega krašenja. A Makarovic je v svojem zadevnem poglavju najprej vendarle poskusil zapisati nekaj besed o tem, da so predniki Slovencev »jarme verjetno poznali ob naselitvi ali že prej« (Makarovic 1981: 277), kar danes – po odkritju kolesa dvokolesnega voza v najdišcu Stare gmajne na Ljubljanskem barju, okvirno datiranega vdrugo polovico 4. tisocletja pr. n. št. (Velušcek 2006: 44) – za ljudi, ki so tedaj naseljevali naše kraje, hipoteticno nedvomno drži. In potem je nadaljeval, da »doslej znani viri ne spricujejo podobe jarmov iz casa pred 19. stoletjem« (Makarovic 1981: 277), kar zanika najstarejša znana, jasno prepoznav­na podoba jarma za vleko z glavo oziroma zatilnega jarma ali ižęsa na prizo­ru vožnje kamenja na Tretjem Heminem reliefu iz leta 1515, v katedrali v Krki (Gurk) na Koroškem, iz delavnice mojstra Leinharda Pampstla (Smerdel 2011: 127, 129). Sledi Makarovicevo ugotavljanje, da bi glede na splošni razvoj likovne­ga oblikovanja na kmetijah ne mogli domnevati krašenja jarmov pred sredino 18. stoletja, a da je to verjetno še precej mlajše. »Iz ohranjenega predmetnega gradiva je razvidno, da sodi oblikovni in kolicinski vrh krašenja jarmov šele v cas ob koncu 19. in v prvo cetrtino 20. stoletja,« je zapisal; in med njihovimi primerki je odkril »najstarejši znani okrašeni jarem« iz leta 1845 (Makarovic 1981: 277). Toda poznejše pregle­dovanje predmetnega gradiva iz zbirk pokrajinskih muzejev40 v casu pricujoce raziskave je v škofjeloški zbirki razkrilo lepotca iz 18. stoletja; sicer bolj skromno krašenega, vendar z izrazito, jasno vrezano letnico 1771. 39 Izraz zaradi vsebinske nedolocnosti ni vec v rabi, a je na tem mestu ustrezen, saj so jarme poleg domacih, samostojnih obrtnikov – na primer kolarjev, ki so jih delali za placilo – izdelovali tudi sami kmetje ali njihovi družinski clani (domaci samouški rokodelci); kot predmete, priprave, potrebne pri oranju, vleki, vožnji ... (Bogataj 2004: 95). 40 Slednje so mi prijazno omogocile kolegice Mojca Šifrer Bulovec iz Loškega muzeja Škofja Loka, Tina Novak Pucer iz Pokrajinskega muzeja Koper, Inga Miklavcic Brezigar iz Goriškega muzeja, Karla Kofol iz Tolminskega muzeja, Tatjana Dolžan Eržen iz Gorenjskega muzeja Kranj, Ivanka Pockar iz Posavskega muzeja Brežice, Ivica Križ iz Dolenjskega muzeja Novo mesto, Anita Matkovic iz Belokranjskega muzeja Metlika ter kolega Tone Petek iz Pokrajinskega muzeja Maribor in Vladimir Šlibar iz Pokrajinskega muzeja Celje. O JARMIH Tretji Hemin relief iz leta 1515 (iz delavnice mojstra Leinharda Pampstla) in detajl volov, vpreženih v zatilni jarem, katedrala v Krki / Gurk na avstrijskem Koroškem (foto: Marko Habic, 2011). Hemma relief (1515, from the workshop of Master Leinhard Pampstl), and the detail of oxen with a head yoke, Krka / Gurk cathedral in Carinthia, Austria (photo: Marko Habic, 2011). Najstarejši na Slovenskem znani, skromno krašeni jarem, z vrezano letnico 1771, Staniše, Gorenjska (iz zbirk Loškega muzeja Škofja Loka, foto: Marko Habic, 2012). The oldest yoke known in Slovenia, modestly decorated, inscribed with the year 1771, Staniše, Gorenjska (Škofja Loka Museum collections, photo: Marko Habic, 2012). Makarovic nadaljuje z opisom nacinov krašenja jarmov: z rezljanjem – naj­pogosteje s plitvim vrezovanjem žlebov in drobnih okraskov, luskastih vrezov – in le izjemoma s plasticno izbocenimi rezbarijami. Meni, da so bile oblike posameznih okrasnih prvin najveckrat odvisne od domiselnosti posameznih okraševalcev in kot obcasna nacina krašenja omenja tudi crno polihromacijo ali pa ožiganje pred vrezovanjem, da bi se tako svetli izrezljani okras jasneje locil od temne osnove (Makarovic 1981: 281). A slednje – ožiganje jarmov – pac ne sodi med prvine krašenja, temvec gre za tehniko njihovega izdelovanja. Ta pa temel­ji na posebnih znanjih posameznih izdelovalcev glede znacilnosti razlicnih vrst lesa, glede iskanja nacinov za zmanjševanje teže teh priprav za vpreganje in na potrebi po doseganju njihove cim vecje trdnosti. Nadaljnja Makaroviceva izvajanja poskušajo okrašene jarme umestiti v us-trezen družbeni in regionalni kontekst. V njih namrec zapiše, da ohranjeno pred­metno gradivo prica, da je bilo njihovo krašenje najbolj razširjeno na Dolenjskem ob koncu 19. in v prvi cetrtini 20. stoletja, kjer je bila tedaj govedoreja zelo raz-vita. »Ob sicer zaostalem in majhnem kmeckem gospodarstvu je pomenil par imenitnih volovveliko vrednost in dokazoval umno gospodarjenje. Ustno izrocilo veckrat pomni, da je k takšnim volom sodil okrašen jarem.« (Makarovic 1981: 281) Vse zapisano sicer drži, a sloni na omejenih virih. Toda v zbirki jarmov SEM, v kateri imajo posamezni primerki povecini znan cas in nacin prihoda, slednji pac sporocajo, da so bili v dokajšnji meri pridobljeni med strnjenim terenskim delom osemnajstih muzejskih ekip pod vodstvom Borisa Orla med letoma 1948 in 1961. V Orlovem obdobju pa so kar v devetih, torej v polovici tedanjih ekip, raziskovali in zbirali predmetno gradivo za muzejske zbirke prav na Dolenjskem (in v preostalih de­vetih ekipah tudi v posameznih drugih slovenskih regijah – na Primorskem, v Posocju, v Goriških Brdih, na Cerkljanskem, v Brkinih in na Vipavskem). V zbirki, ki je leta 2012 (ko je bil koncan njen katalog) štela 127 primerkov oblikovnih ra­zlicic vihrovih in zatilnih priprav za vpreganje – 88 jarmov in 39 enojnih jarmov –, jih je 67, torej vec kot polovica, okrašenih; in sicer52 jarmov in 15 enojnih primerkov.41 A med njimi niso le bolj razkošno krašeni kambasti (in tudi okvi­rasti) vihrovi jarmi z Dolenjskega in s širšega osrednjeslovenskega etnološkega obmocja, zbrani še posebej na podlagi estetskega vidika, ki štejejo 28 primerkov (in še 11 enojnih), temvec tudi zatilni jarmi in kambasti vihrovi primerki z alp-skega obmocja z delom mediteranskega, ki štejejo 13 primerkov (in dva enojna), ter tudi okvirasti vihrovi jarmi s panonskega etnološkega obmocja, ki jih je 11 (in Okrašenih primerkov ne manjka tudi med novimi pridobitvami, ki so v muzej prišle po letu 2012 (na primer med sedmimi kambastimi vihrovimi jarmi iz zbirke Svetozarja Frantarja; ali pa okrašen kambast vihrov jarem iz Puciharjeve zbirke ljudske umetnosti). O JARMIH dva enojna). Jarme so torej krasili bolj ali manj povsod na Slovenskem, a kljucna pri okrašenih primerkih je njihova namembnost – saj takšnih primerkov niso kar vsevprek uporabljali. Najverjetneje so tudi pri nas na tistih kmetijah, kjer so si to lahko privošcili, locevali med navadnimi jarmi za vsakdanja delovna opravila in med onimi za sekundarno rabo, za bolj posebne ali praznicne priložnosti – podobno kot je to na primer sporoceno iz Španije glede »praznicnih jarmov« (Mingote Calderón 2005: 13) ali pa iz Francije glede natikanja »nadjarmov« ob praznicnih priložnos­tih (de Laubrie 1993: 14). Premožnejši kmetje so z okrašenimi jarmi – ob takšnih priložnostih in drugace – kazali in sporocali svoj družbeni prestiž. Iz vasi Marno nad Dolom pri Hrastniku prihaja v tem pogledu zgovoren zapis: »To so okraševali zato, ker se je gospodar s tem postavljal. Ce je imel lepe volove, je hotel imeti tudi lep jarem.« (VŠ 1986–87: 139) Ali pa na primer iz Stirpnika na Gorenjskem: »Jarmi premožnih kmetov so bili okrašeni; zato, da je lepše zgledalo, ko so šli po nevesto in vozili balo.« (VŠ 1986–87: 61) Razlicne dekorativne sestavine – rezljane okraske, letnice in »gospodarjevo ime« – so imeli le jarmi premožnejših kmetov, je bilo sporoceno iz Velesovega in Cerkelj na Gorenjskem (VG 1960: 50). Okrašeni jarmi so bili pac pokazatelj družbene pripadnosti gospodarjev volovskih vpreg. Kadar so jih izdelovali kolarji, pravi zapis iz Komende, so se te priprave razlikovale v nasled­njem: bogatejši jarmi so bili lepše izdelani, okrašeni z rezbarijami in iz boljšega lesa; »oprema kajžarjev je bila revnejša in ne tako trdno narejena« (VG 1960: 43). Iz Bele krajine, iz Jugorja pri Metliki, pa je za to bolj ubožno, gospodarsko obrobno družbeno okolje preprosto, zgovorno sporoceno: »Oprema premožnih in revnih se ni razlikovala, saj kajžarji niso imeli vprežne živine.« (VG 1960: s.n.) In tako tudi jarmov ne. Zacetnika zbirke jarmovv SEM sta par excellence primerka zbiranja na podlagi estetskega vidika. Oba sta razkošno rezbarsko krašena kambasta vihrova jarma, z bogato oblikovano krono nad rogljicastim sedežem goži (kat. št. 66 in 69). Leta 1912 ju je Kranjskemu deželnemu muzeju Rudolfinum podaril Fr. Rasenegg iz Šiške, ob ustanovitvi Kraljevega etnografskega muzeja leta 1923 pa sta prešla v njegove zbirke. A ce se ozremo v širši okvir muzejske zbirke »vprega«, v kateri sta bili do leta 2012 poleg stosedemindvajsetih jarmov še dve drugi pripravi za vpreganje goved – in sicerdva volovska komata, poleg njiju pa tudi tri goži, dve deski z modelom za oblikovanje kamb ter nekaj modelov-igrac in spominkov v obliki jarmov –, moramo na njen zacetek postaviti volovski komat (gl. kat. št. 129), ki so ga v Kranjskem deželnem muzeju kupili leta 1896. Vendar motiv za njegov prihod v muzej v tem primeru ni bila lepota, temvec najverjetneje zgodovinska pricevalnost predmeta, o katerem zapis v stari inventarni knjigi Narodnega muzeja (naslednika Kranjskega deželnega muzeja) pravi, da gre za »konjsko opremo savskega vlacilca iz Jesenic pri Mokricah«. Gre torej za materialni pomnik plovbe po reki Savi in ladjarstva, ki se je leta 1849 koncalo z izgradnjo železnice do Ljubljane (Umek 1986: 263; Corel 1999: 47, 81). Ladje so proti toku tam vlekli tako konji kot voli; prvi pridobljeni komat pa so v muzejsko inventarno knjigo skoraj zagotovo napacno vpisali kot konjski, saj njegove mere ne ustrezajo vecjim konjskim primerkom, temvec so primerljive z manjšimi volovskimi, na primer z drugim volovskim komatom iz zbirke SEM (kat. št. 128). Kot naslednjo pridobitev med jarmi je za lepotcema, ki sta prišla iz Šiške, mogoce pojmovati krašen kambast vihrov jarem z vrezano letnico 1888 (kat. št. 54), ki sicerni bil inventariziran, a ga je bilo mogoce prepoznati na fotografiji iz fototeke SEM, z naslednjim opisom: »Lesen volovski jarem. Poslal mežnar v Toplem vrhu pri Cermošnjicah.« Sodec po pisavi je opis ubesedil Franc Kos, umetnostni zgodovinar, kustos v etnografskem muzeju v letih 1937–1943, kar to pridobitev umešca v tisto obdobje. Kot kaže gre za dvojcek jarma iz Dunajskega etnograf­skega muzeja (inv. št. 61.339), iz kraja Pöllandl – kocevarske vasi Kocevske Pol-jane blizu Cermošnjic (Kundegraber 1967: 98). V povojnem casu, ko so leta 1948 zacele odhajati na teren ekipe Etnografske­ga muzeja pod vodstvom Borisa Orla (do leta 1961), pa je njihovemu raziskoval­nemu in zbirateljskemu delu že prepoznavno botroval drugacen pogled na pred­metno gradivo; nad estetskim je prevladal tipološki vidik.42 Prvi štirje kambasti vihrovi jarmi, ki jih je leta 1948 na Terenu 1, Šentjurij-Škocjan, pridobila muzej-ska ekipa, so preprosti, nekrašeni primerki; in trije izmed njih (kat. št. 87, 88, 89) sodijo v oblikovno razlicico, razširjeno na delu Dolenjske, na Notranjskem in na delu Primorske. Z osemnajstimi (tako imenovanimi) Orlovimi ekipami je prišlo v muzej skupaj sedemnajst jarmov in šest njihovih enojnih primerkov, razlicnih oblikovnih tipov in iz razlicnih slovenskih regij, poleg njih pa je nastalo tudi petinsedemdeset risanih zapisov o teh pripravah za vpreganje (gl. katalog risb). A z nekaj vznemirljivimi primerki je zbirko obogatil prav Orel sam, ko je s svojih poti med raziskovanjem rala na Slovenskem – ki se je intenzivneje zacelo leta 1953 (gl. v Smerdel 2008: 14–17) in ga je leta 1960 sklenil v Zgornji Savinj-ski dolini – z gorskih kmetij nad Ljubnim ob Savinji prinesel prve zatilne jarme: preprost, nekrašen, 127 centimetrov dolg rožickast primerek s kmetije »Marout« na Planini, z jasno sporoceno funkcijo – »jęgu za oranje v bregu« (kat. št. 12) in tri »ta starinske« palicaste igôje (kat. št. 17, 18, 19). Prvi med njimi, iz Tera, je izjemno rezbarsko krašen in ima vrezano letnico 1858. 42 Njihovo delo je usmerjal pogled moža, ki je tedaj slovensko etnologijo opredelil kot znanost o »kulturnih tvorbah našega ljudstva« in o zakonih njihovega razvoja (Orel v Smerdel 1994: 12) in ki si je prizadeval zapolniti vsebinske in krajevne (pokrajinske) vrzeli v zbirkah Etnografskega muzeja. O JARMIH »Jarmonosci«, Orlovi sogovorniki in njihovi jarmi: a) Maks Körbler z jarmom, Spodnja Kapla, Štajerska, 1957; b) Florjan Sevšek s telegami, Hudinja, Štajerska, 1956; c) Franc Boltežar z jarmom (jeh.), Lobnik / Lobnig, avstrijska Koroška, 1959; d) Lojz Šiftar, Marout, z igôjem (ta starinski jęge), Planina nad Ljubnim ob Savinji, Štajerska, 1960 (foto: Boris Orel, Oddelek za dokumentacijo SEM). “Yokemen”, Orel’s interlocutors and theiryokes: a) Maks Körbler with yoke, Spodnja Kapla, Štajerska, 1957; b) Florjan Sevšek with telege, Hudinja, Štajerska, 1956; c) Franc Boltežar with yoke (jeh.), Lobnik / Lobnig, Carinthia, Austria, 1959; d) Lojz Šiftar, Marout, with a stick yoke igô (the old-fashioned jęge), Planina above Ljubno in the Savinja Valley, Styiria, 1960 (photo: Boris Orel, SEM Documentation Department). Muzejska zbirka priprav za vpreganje goved je v poznejših letih rasla ali s priložnostnimi nakupi in darovi ali tekom terenskih raziskovanj muzejskih ekip, ki so s takšno obliko dela v manjšem obsegu tu in tam nadaljevale zlasti v šestdese­tih in sedemdesetih letih – in sicerv Loški dolini (1962), na terenu Vitanje (1963), v Škocjanskih hribih (1964), na terenu Drašici (1965), v zamejstvu v Italiji in na Krasu (1967–1969), v Posotelju (1977) in nazadnje še v Jeruzalemskih goricah, v Prlekiji (1971–72, 1973–79) terv zacetku osemdesetih let na Postojnskem. Vecjo pridobitev je potem leta 1990 pomenil nenadejani dar zbiralca Stane­ta Strgarja iz Ljubljane, od katerega je muzej v casu urejanja in študija zbirke oselnikov odkupil pet tovrstnih primerkov iz Zgornje Savinjske doline (Smer­del 1994: 11); in gospod Strgar, ljubitelj vsega lepega, je tedaj v muzej pripeljal tudi svojo zbirko jarmov in jo podaril. Podarjene predmete je v šestdesetih letih preteklega stoletja zbiral na visokogorskih kmetijah v krajih nad Lucami, kamor je hodil na lov na gamse. Strgarjeva zbirka jarmov, po izrocilu »še od prejšnje generacije«, šteje enajst kambastih vihrovih jarmov (kat. št. 11, 21–30); sedem med njimi ima likovno razgibano oblikovano krono (kat. št. 25–30), dva sta tudi rezbarsko krašena (kat. št. 29 in 30). Zadnje pridobitve do leta 2012 v muzejski zbirki priprav za vpreganje goved pa pomenijo trije jarmi in štirinajst njihovih enojnih primerkov, ki so prišli v muzej vletih raziskovanja razmerij med ljudmi in delovnimi voli. Pogovori z mo-jimi pripovedovalkami in pripovedovalci o razlicnih vidikih njihovega delovnega tovarištva in sobivanja s temi živalmi so mi razjasnili tudi marsikatero vprašanje glede jarmov in mi na ta nacin omogocili branje sicer nemih sporocil snovne­ga; kar je mnogim primerkom iz muzejske zbirke dokaj zgovorno orisalo njihov življenjski kontekst. Na svojih poteh, ko sem na stenah nekaterih gospodarskih poslopij nemalokrat opazila vec malce razlicnih, najpogosteje razlicno dolgih jar-mov, pa sem ob pojasnjevanju svojih sogovornikov o razlogih za opažene razlike zacela spoznavati, da jarem pac ni samo jarem – krašen ali nekrašen, tega ali onega regionalnega oblikovnega tipa –, temvec da se te priprave za vpreganje razlikujejo tudi zavoljo svoje namembnosti; rabe pri razlicnih delovnih opravilih oziroma na podlagi razlicnih funkcij, ki jih opravljajo. Tako na primer prvega (kat. št. 40) izmed mojih treh pridobljenih okvirastih vihrovih jarmov, mocno okovane delovne telege iz Reštanja, oznacuje raba za vlacenje hlodov; in drugega (kat. št. 41), turkizno pobarvane telege iz Gradca nad Podbocjem, raba pri ucen­ju juncev oziroma mladih delovnih volov. Na podlagi teh spoznanj sem potem kot posebne jarme, s funkcijo oranja na strminah, v obstojeci zbirki poleg Or-lovega iz Zgornje Savinjske doline (kat. št. 12) prepoznala oziroma našla še štiri tovrstne primerke: tri zavoljo izjemnih dolžin (kat. št. 31, 32 in 33) – 172, 166 O JARMIH Raba dolgega jarma (3,5 m) pri brananju (vlacenju), Dolenci, Prekmurje, 1961, in pri oranju v strmini, Spodnja Kapla, Štajerska, 1957 (foto: Fanci Šarf, Oddelek za dokumentacijo SEM). Long yoke (3.5 m) used in harrowing, Dolenci, Prekmurje, 1961, and slope ploughing, Spodnja Kapla, Štajerska, 1957 (photo: Fanci Šarf, SEM Documentation Department). in 188 centimetrov – in cetrtega, dolgega 166 centimetrov, iz Šobra pri Zgornji Kungoti, na podlagi nedvoumnega pricevanja ob nakupu, da je bil to »tipicen jarm za oranje v strmem bregu s starim lesenim oralom 'plužnico'« (kat. št. 37). Dodatno potrditev o povsem doloceni rabi tako dolgih priprav za vpreganje pa je prineslo tudi besedilo v domoznanski publikaciji iz koroških krajev: »Za oranje na strminah so bili za to prilagojeni jarmi za živino, ki so bili daljši od obicajnih. [...] Jarem je moral biti daljši, da je spodnja žival stopala po brazdi, zgornja pa je zaradi daljšega jarma šla pred njo, da ni zdrsnila v brazdo.« (Glasenicnik 2012: 114) Tudi pri pridobitvah štirinajstih enojnih jarmov – dveh zatilnih in vseh drugih vihrovih primerkov – so bila moja spoznanja v marsicem povezana še posebej z njihovo namembnostjo. In ob tem se je krepila ugotovitev, da lahko le v doloce­ Par goved, vpreženih v enojna kambasta vihrova jarma, ki prevažata oves, Vojsko, Primorska (foto: Boris Orel, 1959, Oddelek za dokumentacijo SEM). A pair of bovines wearing a single withers bow yoke pulling an oats wagon. Vojsko, Primorska (photo: Boris Orel, 1959, SEM Documentation Department). nem obsegu držijo posamezni zapisi o tem, da so enojni jarmi pri vpreganju para volov (ali krav) od konca 19. in v prvi polovici 20. stoletja marsikje na Sloven-skem nadomestili jarme za dve govedi. Zapisi, kakršen je na primer Mrkunov za okolico Velikih Lašc, da »voli in krave vozijo v jarmickih« in da je »taka goveja vprega sedaj (v štiridesetih letih preteklega stoletja) splošno vrabi,« da pa so pred nekaj leti »rabili namesto sedanjih jarmickovjarem, ki se rabi le, ce se vozi s parom živine« (Mrkun 1943: 86); in stavki Marije Kundegraber (1967: 101), v katerih omenja opušcanje dvojnih jarmov v prvi polovici 20. stoletja, ko so bili tudi na Kocevskem vedno bolj v rabi enojni jarmici; ali pa na primer Baševa opomba v inventarni knjigi SEM ob kambastem vihrovem jarmu iz Malih Lipljen v Škoc­janskih hribih (kat. št. 92), da so bili »takšni ob koncu 19. stoletja vvsaki hiši, nato so se uveljavili enojni jarmicki«. Vendar ti zapisi niso tako enoznacni in lahko dajejo napacen vtis, da so se enojne priprave za vpreganje goved pojavile in se uveljavile šele tedaj, ceprav so morale za dolocena dela na kmetijah obstajati že prej; najverjetneje vsaj od post-opnega uvajanja okopavin od 19. stoletja dalje (Smerdel 1991: 33, 35). Res pa je, da je bil ta bolj opazen preskok v tehniki vpreganja morda tudi na Slovenskem – tako kakor na primerv Belgiji in vFranciji43 – pozen odmev številnih poucnih besedil, ki so na temo neustreznega vpreganja živine sredi 19. stoletja izhajala v Kmetijskih in rokodelskih novicah (npr. B. n. a. 1858: 146) in propagirala enojno vpreganje, še posebej v komate (Smerdel 1995: 368–369). Iz enega izmed takšnih 43 Med razpravljanjem o nacinih vpreganja Raepsaet na primer citira iz clanka belgijskega agronoma v reviji Journal de la Société centrale d'agriculture de Belgique iz leta 1858, ki sinteticno povzema vsebino clanka iz francoske revije Journal d'agriculture Pratique iz leta 1857, v katerem se propagira in zagovarja rabo enojnega jarma (zatilnega) ter razkriva neustreznost dvojnega (Raepsaet 2002: 15). O JARMIH Vpreganje enega vola pri vožnji hlodov za drva, Zgornje Gorjuše, Gorenjska (foto: Boris Orel, 1950, Oddelek za dokumentacijo SEM). Harnessing an ox to haul firewood, Zgornje Gorjuše, Gorenjska (photo: Boris Orel, 1950, SEM Documentation Department). Izkopavanje krompirja, Skadanšcina (foto: Inja Smerdel, 2007, Oddelek za dokumentacijo SEM). Potato harvesting, Skadanšcina (photo: Inja Smerdel, 2007; SEM Documentation Department). spisov, v katerem je neki belgijski agronom enojni oziroma pol-jarem oznacil in propagiral kot »inovacijo«, se je na primer v svojem delu o vpreganju v antic­nem, grško-rimskem svetu upraviceno ponorceval Raepsaet: »Ce vemo na podlagi del Palladiusa in Plinija ter ikonografije, da je že pred dvajsetimi stoletji galsko-rimski žetveni stroj poganjal en vol, vprežen v pol-jarem, lahko izmerimo vso pikantnost tega teksta iz leta 1857 ali 1858.« (Raepsaet 2002: 16) Pricevanja iz razlicnih slovenskih krajev rabo enega goveda, vpreženega v enojni jarem, za desetletja okoli sredine preteklega stoletja sporocajo pri števil­nih delovnih opravilih. Le enega vola so vpregali na primer za vlacenje brane, za oranje v vinogradu med vrstami, pri gozdnem delu, pri vlacenju pluga »za vrste delat ali za osipat« krompir, »za razore delat in za ven metat krompir«. PODROBNEJE O OBLIKOVNIH TIPIH S KARTOGRAFSKIM PRIKAZOM Ko je po koncanju terenske raziskave o razmerjih med ljudmi in delovnimi voli nastopil cas za pregled muzejske zbirke jarmov44, za njeno urejanje in analizo, je to pomenilo cudovito priložnost za odkrivanje razlicnih vidikov njene povedno­sti; a najprej je bila na vrsti tipološka razvrstitev. Razprostrtje celotne zbirke po tleh muzejskega depoja je namrec omogocilo nedvoumno prepoznavanje obeh temeljnih tipov jarma (zatilnega in vihrovega) in njunih oblikovnih razlicic ter tlakovalo pot k dolocitvi cim bolj jasne tipologije jarmov, uveljavljenih na Sloven-skem. Slednjo je potrdil tudi pregled zbirk pokrajinskih muzejev (po katerem so najdeni primerki sedali v prepoznane in dolocene regionalne tipe) in na podlagi vsega tega je potem nastala ustrezna kartografska predstavitev.45 Prepoznavanje temeljne oblike celega jarma je najprej omogocilo dolocanje regionalnih tipov – kar je po Leroi-Gourhanovih stopnjah progresivne individu­alizacije predmeta 4. stopnja (Leroi-Gourhan 2004: 32–34) –, tako v evropskem kot v ožjem slovenskem okviru. V slednjem je – še posebej na podlagi razlicnih oblik in izvedb gožinega sedeža – mogoce še bolj nadrobno prepoznavati variacije posameznega regionalnega tipa. A preden bomo zaceli slediti pokrajinskim ob-likovnim razlicicam jarmov po slovenskih etnoloških obmocjih – od alpskega (z delom sredozemskega) prek panonskega in osrednjeslovenskega do mediteran­ 44 Od leta 2012 je SEM pridobil še dva kambasta vihrova jarmica iz kmetije pri Pecevnik iz Zaklanca pri Horjulu, okrašen kambast vihrov jarem iz Puciharjeve zbirke, kambast vihrov jarmic iz Slapnika v Goriških Brdih, sedem jarmov in en jarmic iz zbirke Svetozarja Frantarja, dva jarmica s kmetije Žvabovihv Mercah na Krasu ter komat za vola ali kravo iz Drežnice. 45 Karte oblikovnih tipov jarmov po etnoloških obmocjih spremljajo oziroma uvajajo ustrezne razdelke Kataloga predmetov. O JARMIH Risba tipologije vihrovih jarmov (Jacobeit in Kramarik 1969: 12, © Ceško etnološko društvo). Withers yoke types (Jacobeit and Kramarik 1969: 12, © Czech Ethnological Society). skega – se zdi neobhodno potrebno bolj jasno razrešiti tudi dolocena terminološ­ka vprašanja. Najprej glede samega jarma, ki je vedno ime priprave za vpreganje dveh živali; zato o njem ni potrebno govoriti kot o »dvojnem jarmu«. Slednje poimenovanje, ki je sicer dostikrat v rabi, sem uporabila le pri kartah tipologije jarmov – zavoljo razlikovanja z enojnimi jarmi kot pripravami za vpreganje ene živali. Potem pa se je potrebno zazreti v oba temeljna tipa in njune razlicice, za katere je že pred de­setletji nastala dovolj pregledna tipologija, ki sta jo vsvojem uvodu k mednarodni tematski številki ceškoslovaške narodopisne revije Národopisný vestník ceskoslov­enský objavila njena urednika Jacobeit in Kramarík (1969: 12). Omenjena tipologija je v dokajšnji meri uporabna tudi za slovensko ozemlje, a prevajanje nemških terminov za posamezne oblikovne tipe bi vodilo do rah-lo nerodnih opisnih poimenovanj, ki bi se najverjetneje težko prijela. Zato sem zasnovala cim bolj razumljivo slovensko razlicico, ki z besedami poskuša slediti obliki in jo ustrezno poimenovati. Ob posameznih imenih za jarme ali za njihove sestavne dele pa je še vedno mogoce dodajati od tu in tam sporocena narecna po­imenovanja, ki jih v naših krajih ne manjka. Pri pregledovanju zadevnih odgovo­rov iz dveh oziroma vseh treh fondovvprašalnic o jarmu (VG 1960, VE 1961–62 in VŠ 1986–87) sem namrec dobila vtis, da znani rek »Vsaka vas ima svoj glas« na Slovenskem resnicno drži. Od treh razlicic jarma za vleko z glavo – celnega (Stirnjoch), privezanega pred rogovi (Hörnerjoch) in zatilnega (Genickjoch) – so bili na Slovenskem uveljavlje­ Ovratnikasti zatilni jarmi (Risba 1: EM 9122, Risba 2: EM 6798, Risba 3: EM 6801, risala Ida Murgelj). Head collared yokes (Fig. 1: EM 9122, Fig. 2: EM 6798, Fig. 3: EM 6801, drawn by Ida Murgelj). O JARMIH Kronasto-palicasti zatilni jarem (Risba 6: EM 22790, risala Ida Murgelj). Head crown-topped stick yoke (Fig. 6: EM 22790, drawn by Ida Murgelj). Kambasti vihrovi jarmi (Risba 9: EM 10679, Risba 10: EM 9108, Risba 11: EM 22823, Risba 12: EM 6489, risala Ida Murglej). Withers bowyokes (Fig. 9: EM 10679, Fig. 10: EM 9108, Fig. 11: EM 22823, Fig. 12: EM 6489, drawn by Ida Murgelj). O JARMIH Okvirasti vihrovi jarmi (Risba 13: EM 10683, Risba 14: EM 22798, Risba 15: EM 22833, risala Ida Murgelj). Withers frame yokes (Fig. 13: EM 10683, Fig. 14: EM 22798, Fig. 15: EM 22833, drawn by Ida Murgelj). Kljukast vihrov jarem (Risba 16: EM 8302, Clenasto-kambast vihrov jarem (Risba 17: risala Ida Murgelj). EM 22795, risala ida Murgelj). Withers hook yoke (Fig. 16: EM 8302, Withers jointed bowyoke (Fig. 17: EM drawn by Ida Murgelj). 22795, drawn by Ida Murgelj). ni le zatilni jarmi, igôji (in njihovi enojni primerki); a med njimi je bilo pri nas mogoce prepoznavati in dolociti kar štiri razlicne oblike: ovratnikast (Risbe 1, 2, 3), rožickast (Risbi 4, 5), kronasto-palicast (Risba 6), in palicast zatilni jarem (Risbi 7, 8). Med vihrovimi jarmi (in njihovimi enojnimi razlicicami) pa je mogoce v naših krajih locevati naslednje oblikovne tipe: kambast vihrov jarem ali po Jacobeitovi tipologiji Bogenjoch (Risbe 9 –12), okvirast ali Rahmenjoch (Risbe 13–15), kljukast ali Krummholzjoch (Risba 16) in clenasto-kambast vihrov jarem (Risba 17). Ovratnikasti zatilni jarmi, ki jih vizualno oznacujejo poudarjeni skledicas-ti ovratniki v jarmovem brunu, so sporoceni iz severnega dela sredozemskega etnološkega obmocja in iz zahodnega dela alpskega. O njih pricajo naslednji primerki iz zbirke jarmov SEM: dva igôja iz Posocja (kat. št. 1, 2), »toplš uíga« iz Ziljske doline na avstrijskem Koroškem (kat. št. 3) in dva enojna primerka iz Posocja in iz Gornjesavske doline (kat. št. 4, 5). Njihovo regionalno umešcenost pa potrjujejo tudi štirje ovratnikasti zatilni jarmi in dva enojna tovrstna primerka iz zbirke Gorenjskega muzeja Kranj, iz Ratec in Podkorena vGornjesavski dolini. Kronasto-palicasti zatilni jarmi so igôji s tanjšim palicastim brunom in s kro-no sredi njega – z dvignjenim, kronasto oblikovanim delom, v katerega je izrezan gožin sedež. V zbirki SEM je mogoce najti le en tako oblikovan zatilni jarem (kat. št. 6), brez znanega krajevnega izvora, a soroden štirim primerkom iz zbirke Tolminskega muzeja, dvema iz Loškega muzeja in enemu iz Gorenjskega muzeja, ki so po izvoru skoraj vsi iz Baške grape. Rabo v tistih krajih sporoca tudi risba s Cerkljanskega, »jegó« iz Zakojce (R kat. št. 21). Rožickasti zatilni jarmi so igôji, ki imajo v jarmovo bruno vodoravno vtak­njena po dva para rožicev oziroma krajših palicastih nastavkov, »cvekov«, med O JARMIH Raba ovratnikastega zatilnega jarma za oranje, Mele / Mellach, avstrijska Koroška (foto: Jernej Šušteršic, 1951, Oddelek za dokumentacijo SEM). Head collared yoke used in ploughing, Mele / Mellach, Carinthia, Austria (photo: Jernej Šušteršic, 1951, SEM Documentation Department). Kronasto palicast zatilni jarem, Staniše (iz zbirk Loškega muzeja Škofja Loka, foto: Marko Habic, 2012). Head crown-topped yoke, Staniše (from the Škofja Loka Museum collections, photo: Marko Habic, 2012). katera na glavo živali seda blazina, privezana nanju z ustrezno dolgim jermenom. V zbirki SEM je takih primerkov šest, z znanim krajevnim izvorom so eden iz Gornjesavske doline (kat. št. 7), eden iz Podvolovljeka (kat. št. 10) in dva iz Zgornje Savinjske doline (kat. št. 11, 12). Enojni rožickasti zatilni jarmi pa so štirje, »ježés s pouštrom in jermenom« iz Loma pri Tržicu (kat. št. 13), »ajnfoh uíga« iz Ziljske doline na Koroškem (kat. št. 14), in dva »ígovca« z Gorjuš in Koprivnika (kat. št. 15, 16). VTolminskem muzeju sta tovrstna enojna primerka dva, oba iz Baške grape, in v Gorenjskem muzeju eden, »ježés s cvekoma« iz Krnice; v njihovi zbirki pa so poleg slednjega še štiri zadevne priprave za vpreganje para goved, dve z znanim izvorom sta iz Mojstrane in iz Zgornje Radovne. In iz štajerskega alpskega konca, iz Belih vod nad Šoštanjem, prihaja še edini rožickast igô v zbirki Pokrajinskega muzeja Celje. Rožickasti primerki so sicer zelo razširjen oblikovni tip zatilnega jarma vvecjem delu naše avstrijske sosešcine (gl. Koren 1957). Zavoljo svoje izjemnosti na Slovenskem in v bližnjih alpskih deželah vznemir­jajo palicasti zatilni jarmi. Ti so imeli krajevno zelo zamejeno rabo, a obenem jih je na podlagi njihove oblike – tanjšega palicastega jarmovega bruna (z oz-kima skledicastima ovratnikoma in med njima, na sredini, s sedežem oziroma odprtinama za jermenasto gož) – tako mikavno primerjati s sicer oddaljenimi, vendar izzivalno podobnimi finskimi in estonskimi zatilnimi jarmi. V zbirki SEM so štirje njihovi primerki (kat. št. 17–20), vsi iz visokogorskih kmetij iz krajev Ter in Planina nad Ljubnim ob Savinji. Darovalec dveh izmed njih (kat. št. 18, 19) jih je imenoval »ta starinski jęge«. Dva palicasta zatilna jarma iz ne prav oddal­jenih krajev, iz Šmihela nad Mozirjem in Florijana pri Gornjem Gradu, pa hranijo v Pokrajinskem muzeju Celje. Ker se mi je zdelo, da bi pol stoletja za Orlovim srecanjem s temi posebneži morda vendarle kazalo oditi v kraje nad Ljubnim in v njih poiskati potrditev o obstoju tega oblikovnega tipa, sem po koncanju ure­janja zbirke na svojo zadnjo terensko pot stopila pravv tiste vasi – najprej vTer. Od tam pa so me napotili v Primož pri Ljubnem, k gospodarju samotne kmetije Kumprej, ki mi je ponosno pokazal morda prav zadnji palicasti zatilni jarem v Zgornji Savinjski dolini, spomin na prejšnje generacije z njihove domacije. Ceprav smo še vedno na alpskem etnološkem obmocju (in v severnem delu sredozemskega), se moramo že tam ozreti k vihrovemu jarmu, na Slovenskem najbolj uveljavljenemu temeljnemu tipu priprav za vpreganje, in k njegovim ob-likovnim razlicicam. Najbolj razširjena med slednjimi je kambast vihrov jarem; in dokajšnje število tovrstnih primerkov (tudi enojnih) v zbirkah Tolminskega in Loškega muzeja Škofja Loka prica o rabi te tipske razlicice tudi v tistih krajih: na primer na podrocju Gornje Trebuše, Šentviške gore, v Baški grapi, na Cerk­ljanskem in vŠkofjeloškem hribovju. Nekaj kambastih vihrovih jarmovv zbirki Gorenjskega muzeja pa prihaja iz Moravške doline. Med slednjimi so tudi taki, ki imajo likovno razgibano oblikovano krono s sedežem jermenaste goži razpo­tegnjeno med ovratnikoma vzdolž vrha jarmovega bruna oziroma telesa (kar je zavoljo njegove masivnosti ustreznejše poimenovanje) in so sorodni nekaterim Strgarjevim primerkom iz Zgornje Savinjske doline v zbirki SEM (zlasti kat. št. 28, 29 in 30). Iz te doline prihajajo tudi štirje kambasti vihrovi jarmi podobne oblike v zbirki Pokrajinskega muzeja Celje. O JARMIH Volovska vprega v rožickastem zatilnem jarmu, Gorenjska (foto: Vekoslav Kramaric, med obema vojnama, Oddelek za dokumentacijo SEM). Team of oxen wearing a head horned (or hornlet) yoke, Gorenjska (photo: Vekoslav Kramaric, interwar period, SEM Documentation Department). Palicasta zatilna jarma, iz Zgornje Savinjske doline in Šmihela nad Mozirjem (iz zbirk Pokrajinskega muzeja Celje, foto: Marko Habic, Oddelek za dokumentacijo SEM). Head stick yokes, from Upper Savinja Valley and Šmihel above Mozirje (from the Regional Museum Celje collections, photo: Marko Habic, SEM Documentation Department). Kambast vihrov jarem z letnico 1878, okolica Kranja (iz zbirk Gorenjskega muzeja v Kranju, foto: Drago Holynski, fototeka Gorenjskega muzeja v Kranju). Withers bowyoke inscribed with year 1878, vicinity of Kranj (from the Gorenjska Museum in Kranj, photo: Drago Holynski, photo library of the Gorenjska Museum in Kranj). Ko se premaknemo proti koroškim krajem alpskega etnološkega obmocja, pa se najprej srecamo s kljukastim vihrovim jarmom (in skoraj obenem, na po­drocju Pohorja, tudi z okvirastimi primerki tega temeljnega tipa). Gre za tipsko razlicico vihrovega jarma, pri kateri sta vratova vprežnih živali namesto kamb z notranje strani in spodaj objemali najpogosteje naravno oblikovani kljuki, »kruki« (lahko tudi sestavljeni iz dveh lesenih letev), z zunanje strani pa najpogosteje leseni palicasti zapori, »šprunclja«. Gožin sedež sredi jarmovega bruna ima pona­vadi tri odprtine za pretikanje jermenaste goži s pregljem. Od štirih tovrstnih pri­prav za vpreganje v zbirki SEM so trije z znanim krajevnim izvorom, vsi iz oko-lice Mute v Dravski dolini (kat. št. 33, 34, 35). Njihovo regionalno umešcenost v tisti del slovenskega ozemlja potrjujejo risbe iz petdesetih let preteklega stoletja, ki so nastale v vaseh na Pohorju, v casu terenskega dela ekip iz Pokrajinskega muzeja Maribor.46 Na štirih so opisani kljukasti primerki, na sedmih pa se pojavi­jo okvirasti vihrovi jarmi (a z enakim sedežem jermenaste goži). In bolj ko se pomikamo proti vzhodu – na Štajersko in na panonsko etnološko obmocje –, bolj je prisotna prav ta tipska razlicica. Okvirasti vihrovi jarmi tam skoraj popolnoma prevladujejo: od Slovenskih goric in Prekmurja, prek Haloz, Kozjanskega in dela Posavja do Bele krajine. Zanje je s Pohorja in s Kobanskega še sporoceno ime jarem oziroma »jarem na klop«, ob spušcanju vzdolž hrvaške meje proti jugu pa je vedno bolj pogosto mogoce zaslediti ime »telege«47. V zbirki 46 Risbe mi je prijazno posredoval mariborski kolega Tone Petek. Terenske ekipe Pokrajinskega muzeja Maribor je v tistem casu vodila njegova predhodnica Toncica Urbas. V muzejski zbirki sicer hranijo le štiri primerke jarmov, v arhivu pa bogat fond njihovih fotografij, ki jih je posnel Borut Belec. Eden izmed jarmov (z inv. št. E1082) je izjemne dolžine, 226 cm, s sporoceno funkcijo: »jarem za oranje ali vlacenje«. 47 Telega je sicer »v ruskem okolju kmecki voz na štirih kolesih zlasti za prevažanje tovora« (SSKJ 1991: 50). O JARMIH Risbi kljukastega in okvirastega vihrovega jarma, Kumen nad Lovrencem na Pohorju, Štajerska, petdeseta leta 20. stoletja (Pokrajinski muzej Maribor, arhiv terenskih ekip). Withers hook yoke and withers frame yoke, Kumen above Lovrenc on Pohorje, Štajerska, 1950s (Regional Museum Maribor, Field teams’ archive). Vola, vprežena v kljukast vihrov jarem, Strojna, Koroška (foto: Marija Makarovic, 1975, Oddelek za dokumentacijo SEM). Oxen wearing a withers hook yoke, Strojna, Koroška (photo: Marija Makarovic, 1975, SEM Documentation Department). SEM jih je šest (kat. št. 37–42). Kot poleg okvirastih priprav za vpreganje prica tudi nekaj primerkov kambastih vihrovih jarmovv zbirki Belokranjskega muzeja v Metliki – iz vasi Dragatuš, Zapudje in Stari trg ob Kolpi –, pa se na podroc­ju kocevarske poselitve in na prehodu na osrednjeslovensko etnološko obmocje zacenjata druga ob drugi pojavljati obe omenjeni tipski razlicici vihrovega jarma. Na tem središcnem slovenskem obmocju je raba teleg – na Dolenjskem naj­pogosteje imenovanih »telenge« – na podlagi predmetnega gradiva v muzejskih zbirkah izpricana v krajih vse do preddverja Ljubljane. V zbirki SEM je okviras­tih vihrovih jarmov iz dolenjskih vasi osem (kat. št. 43–50), a vsi so oblikovno bolj podobni primerkom kambaste tipske razlicice vihrovega jarma, prevladujoce Okvirast vihrov jarem (telege), Raka, Volovska vprega med vinogradi, Kunšperk, Dolenjska (foto: Boris Orel, 1952, Oddelek Štajerska (foto: Sreco Habic, 1977, Oddelek za dokumentacijo SEM). za dokumentacijo SEM). Withers frame yoke (telege), Raka, Team of oxen in the vineyards, Kunšperk, Dolenjska (photo: Boris Orel, 1952, SEM Štajerska (photo: Sreco Habic, 1977, SEM Documentation Department). Documentation Department). na osrednjeslovenskem etnološkem obmocju, kakor pa telegam s panonskega ob-mocja. Jarmovo telo ima narejeno višjo in enkrat širšo, drugikrat ožjo krono, ki obdaja rogljicast gožin sedež; in podvratna zapornica pri tej oblikovni razlicici ni ravna, temvec je na mestu pod živalskim vratom konkavno zaobljena. Kam­basti vihrovi jarmi z masivnim telesom, z izrazito zaobljenima ovratnikoma in z razgibano oblikovano krono z rogljicastim gožinim sedežem na sredini so bili de­jansko vladarji osrednjeslovenskega etnološkega obmocja, o cemer dokaj zgovo­rno prica kar enaintrideset takšnih primerkovv zbirki SEM (kat. št. 55–85). Le na delu Dolenjske, na Notranjskem in na delu Primorske so bili jarmi te tipske razlicice drugace oblikovani: z nizko, komaj opazno krono, vkateri je na sredini izdolben gožin sedež v obliki crke U, ki je – kadarni obrabljen od goži – skoraj pravokoten. V zbirki SEM je takih primerkov enajst (kat. št. 86–96), sicer pa to tipsko razlicico potrjujeta tudi dva kambasta jarma iz zbirke Pokrajinskega muzeja Koper in dva iz Goriškega muzeja. Z njo smo na jugozahodu naše dežele, na sredozemskem etnološkem obmoc­ju, sklenili krožno pot dolocanja regionalnih tipovin njihovih variacij. V kra­jih tega obmocja je domacin prav tako le vihrov jarem (kar zgovorno potrjujejo primerki iz obeh tamkajšnjih pokrajinskih muzejev), a poleg prevladujocih kam­bastih priprav za vpreganje je bilo tam ponekod mogoce najti tudi snovne prim­ O JARMIH Prevoz žitnih snopov z voloma, vpreženima v kambast vihrov jarem, Velike Loce, Primorska (foto: Boris Orel, 1955, Oddelek za dokumentacijo SEM). Transporting sheaves of wheat with a team of oxen wearing a withers bow yoke, Velike Loce, Primorska (photo: Boris Orel, 1955, SEM Documentation Department). Clenasto-kambast vihrov jarem, Goriška Brda (iz zbirk Goriškega muzeja, foto: Marko Habic, 2012, Oddelek za dokumentacijo SEM) Withers jointed bowyoke, Goriška Brda (from the Gorica Regional Museum collections, photo: Marko Habic, 2012, SEM Documentation Department). erke in ustna pricevanja o clenasto-kambastih vihrovih jarmih – tako imeno­vanih »laških jarmih«. Ti bližnji sorodniki onih iz Furlanije imajo namesto kamb na jarmovo bruno na vsaki strani ovratnikov pritrjena po dva in dva clena oziroma železni plošcici, ki sta spodaj pod vratom živali povezani z vrvjo ali s kovinsko verižico (lahko tudi s polkrožnim clenom) in tako tvorita svojstveno clenasto kambo. V zbirki SEM se hrani samo en tak primerek (kat. št. 97), in sicer iz Križa (St. Croce) pri Trstu, v zbirki Goriškega muzeja je mogoce prepoznati tri ali štiri (najverjetneje iz Goriških Brd) in vTolminskem muzeju imajo prav tako le en clenasto-kambast primerek (iz vasi Volarje). Kaj pa lahko dodamo o regionalni tipiki enojnih jarmov? Pravzaprav nic posebnega. Njihove enojne razlicice smo odkrivali pri ovratnikastih in rožickas­tih zatilnih jarmih na alpskem etnološkem obmocju, pri okvirastih vihrovih pri­pravah za vpreganje na panonskem in v najvecji meri pri kambastih vihrovih jarmih na osrednjeslovenskem in mediteranskem etnološkem obmocju. Never-jetno številna pa so še posebej na obeh slednjih obmocjih njihova raznolika imena, kakršna so na primer: zlasti dolenjske variacije imena jarmic – »jármc« (okolica Mokronoga, Šentjernej), »jár.mc.k« (Lokve pri Dobrnicu, Žužemberk), »jarmíc.k« (Šmarje Sap, okolica Velikih Lašc), »jár.mc« (Šmartno pri Litiji) in »jęr.mc« ali »jęrmic« (vasi na Pivki); »žíl, žílo« (Šentvid pri Sticni) – ime, ki se po­javi ponekod na Dolenjskem, na Notranjskem (v Cufariji) in na Pivki; od tam je sporocena tudi »trójka« (Selce, Jurišce); s Krasa, iz Brd in z Vipavskega prihajajo »kómat«, »rogajn« in »humat«; in s Tolminskega »samec« (najsibo vihrov ali zatil­ni). Na vzhodnem robu alpskega etnološkega obmocja je za enojne kljukaste, a tudi kambaste vihrove jarme izpricano ime »ajnšpaniger jarem« (Kumen na Pohor­ju); s panonskega obmocja, kjer so doma zlasti okvirasti vihrovi jarmi, pa sta na primer iz Slovenskih goric za njihove enojne razlicice sporoceni imeni »hómat«, »hólbjarem« (ali pol-jarem; iz nem. halb = pol) in iz okolice Ptuja »kleštrjak«. Ce se iz tega kratkega ekskurza v razlicna poimenovanja enojnih jarmov vrnemo nazaj k tovrstnim predmetom iz zbirke SEM, je bilo teh do leta 2012 – z vseh štirih slovenskih etnoloških obmocij – skupaj devetintrideset: iz severnega dela sredozemskega in zahodnega dela alpskega obmocja dva že omenjena ovrat­nikasta (kat. št. 4, 5) in štirje rožickasti zatilni enojni primerki (kat. št. 13–16); in s panonskega obmocja (iz Gaja nad Mokricami in Bistrice ob Sotli) trije okviras-ti, klešcasto kambasti vihrovi enojni primerki (kat. št. 51–53), kakršne oznacuje dvodelna letvena kamba, ki se spodaj lahko sklene ali razklene (podobno kot komat, zato zanje ne preseneca marsikje izpricano ime »hómat« ipd.). To tipsko razlicico potrjujeta tudi risbi iz arhiva SEM z dolenjskega obrobja tega obmocja (R kat. št. 16, 29) in primerka iz zbirke Posavskega muzeja v Brežicah. Vseh dru­gih enojnih jarmov v zbirki SEM je trideset in vsi so kambasti vihrovi primerki (kat. št. 98–127) z osrednjeslovenskega in mediteranskega etnološkega obmocja; od robustnega, preprostega, nekrašenega jarmica (kat. št. 98), izdelanega iz ploha, brez znanega krajevnega izvora, a z oblikovnim dvojckom iz Osojnika v zbirki Belokranjskega muzeja v Metliki – do inovacije iz Merc nedalec od Divace, O JARMIH primerka splošno uveljavljene oblike, vendar na sodoben nacin, na podlagi mizarskih znanj izdelanega »kómata«, trpežnejšega, kot so bili »ta stari« (kat. št. 127). Od takšnih, ki so bili narejeni iz naravne krivine, z bolj odprtimi ovratniki (npr. kat. št. 116), do onih, izrezanih iz ploha po modelu, z bolj stisnjenim, ozkim ovratnim delom (npr. kat. št. 101); od tistih s preprosto izvrtanima odprtinama za pritrjevanje ojnic (najverjetneje iz vrvi) na obeh koncih jarmicevega telesa (npr. kat. št. 102) do takšnih s kovaško zahtevno izvedenim okovjem s kavljema za ojnici na obeh koncih (npr. kat. št. 52, R kat. št. 29). In bolj kot neke regionalne oblikovne razlicice je pri nekaterih enojnih primerkih tu in tam mogoce prepoznavati ose­bne tipe individualnih izdelovalcev (enako kakor pri nekaterih jarmih) – kar je po Leroi-Gourhanovih stopnjah progresivne individualizacije predmeta 5., zad­nja stopnja (Leroi-Gourhan 2004: 32–34). A lahko se nam primeri, da nekatere takšne osebne tipe – »beroc« le njihove oblike, ne da bi poznali kontekst njihove­ga nastanka – v dolocenih primerih (kadar gre za vec primerkov) zmotno doloci-mo celo kot regionalno tipsko razlicico (na primer na podlagi nacinov in izvedbe krašenja z rezbarsko ploskovno in plasticno izvedenim okrasjem, zlasti jarmove krone). Možno pa je tudi, da nekateri izmed takih jarmov, uveljavljenih oziroma iskanih v širšem lokalnem ali regionalnem okolju, dejansko prerasejo v regionalni ali vsaj v lokalni oblikovni tip. O tem so na neki nacin zgovorne besede mojega sogovornika Toneta iz Jelše pri Kostrevnici, ki je za zbirko SEM podaril enojni kambast vihrov primerek (kat. št. 114). Napravil ga je pokojni oce, ki je v preteklem stoletju izdeloval jarme za vso okolico, saj so bili prav njegovi cenjeni in iskani. In Tone na svojih poteh pogosto prepozna na kakšni hiši za okras ali spomin obešen ocetov jarem ali jarmic – njuni oblikovni razlicici, doma v tistih krajih. Kljub prepoznanju obeh temeljnih tipov in njunih oblikovnih razlicic na Slovenskem ter dolocitvi njihove cim bolj jasne regionalne tipologije ne morem zamolcati spoznanja, kako poseben, enkraten oziroma individualen je vendar­le vsak posamezni jarem. Sorodno premišljanje sem zaslutila v nekaj stavkih Leroi-Gourhana (2004: 15), iz katerih je bilo mogoce povzeti, da gre lahko pri sestavinah materialne kulture za identicne tehnike, oblike, vendar brez stvarne sorodnosti in dejstev (torej brez znanega konteksta) – kakršnakoli že je njihova geografska bližina – ostajajo predmeti enkratni, individualni. Bistveno je torej, da se karseda poglobimo v kontekst njihove pojavnosti. Na ta nacin si poskušajmo ogledati in razumeti nekaj primerov – predviden­ega »uvoza« nekaterih regionalnih tipskih razlicic jarma od drugod ali pa vnosa posameznih izboljšav priprav za vpreganje –, ki so po vsej verjetnosti posledi-ca dolocenih historicnih dogajanj in imajo tako, vsaj hipoteticno, prepoznaven zgodovinski kontekst. Kot sem že zapisala v tem besedilu, je bila ob vsej navidezni staticnosti jarmov, skozi stoletja vendarle prisotna dinamika gibanja ljudi; njihovega odhajanja in vracanja – na primer prevoznikov in potujocih obrtnikov – ter prihajanja ljudi od drugod, med njimi tudi vojakov. In primera, ki sporocata takšen morebitni »uvoz«, sta geografsko zamejena oblikovna tipa ovratnikastih zatilnih jarmov v gornjem Posocju, še posebej vTrenti, v Ziljski in v Zgornjesavski dolini, in kro­nasto-palicastih zatilnih jarmov zlasti v Baški grapi. (V njuni slovenski in bližnji avstrijski sosešcini so sicer razširjeni le rožickasti zatilni jarmi.)48 A tudi ce se zdi, da je zgodovinski kontekst njunega tamkajšnjega pojava znan, razpolagamo s premajhnim številom primerkov omenjenih dveh tipskih razlicic v zbirkah SEM, Tolminskega, Loškega in Gorenjskega muzeja, da bi nam to lahko omogocilo trdne ugotovitve. Torej si poglejmo vsaj mikavna predvidevanja. Tako pri naših ovratnikastih kot pri kronasto-palicastih zatilnih jarmih je namrec mogoce opaziti oblikovno sorodnost z nekaterimi tirolskimi, bavarskimi in pri prvih – vsaj v enem ali dveh primerih – celo s posameznimi francoskimi primerki zatilnih jarmov. Oblikovno sorodne prvim (s tirolskimi) in drugim (s podrocja Lindberga in Augsburga) sem na primer zagledala na spletni strani Joche und Kummete Elke Treitinger z Bavarskega,49 glede obojih pa mi je odgovo­ 48 Iz Ratec v Zgornjesavski dolini pa prihaja vznemirljiv zapis (VE 1961: 6), ki sporoca srecevališce obeh oblikovnih razlicic (ovratnikaste in rožickaste), imenovanih »mutást jegu, mutáuc« in »káukouc« – a žal v njem ni omenjeno, v cem se je morda razlikovala njuna raba. 49 https://kuh-und-oxn-schule.de/Joche [17. 2. 2023]. O JARMIH rila Herlinde Menardi iz Tiroler Landesmuseen v Innsbrucku, da sami podobnih primerkov sicer nimajo v zbirki, a da imajo zatilni jarmi iz Pustertala prav takšno obliko s širokimi ovratniki. Glede te doline na Tirolskem pa je splošno znano, da so predniki današnjih prebivalcev Baške grape v 13. stoletju prišli na Slovensko iz tamkajšnje vasi Innichen; in z njimi najverjetneje tudi oba omenjena oblikovna tipa zatilnega jarma. Kraji v zgornjem Posocju in na Bovškem so bili že od 10. stoletja dalje zaradi precej živahne trgovine prometno povezani s Srednjo Evropo; s pomembnima cestama, ki sta imeli izhodišce v Beljaku in sta povezovali Cedad z južnonemškimi deželami ter sta potekali prek s Slovenci poseljenega ozemlja. V kulturno-gospo­darskem pogledu pomemben dejavnik je bila v teh krajih, od 12. stoletja, najver­jetneje tudi zemljiška posest velikih cerkvenih institucij s Koroškega in iz južne Nemcije (Šumrada 1987: 313). S cestnimi povezavami, nastalimi v zacetku 16. stoletja, pa so se od kmetov, gozdarjev, ovcarjev in pastirjev zaceli družbeno odmikati prvi prevozniki, ki so obcasno odhajali z vozovi v svet (Sedmak 2004: 145). In vsa ta zgodovinska dejstva in dogajanja nedvomno predstavljajo možen kontekst za postopno pronicanje ovratnikastih zatilnih jarmovv Posocje. Drugo možnost pa ponuja Napoleon; v letih treh velikih habsburško-fran­coskih vojn – 1797, 1805 in 1809 –, ki so zajele tudi slovensko ozemlje, je imelo namrec Posocje pomembno strateško vlogo (Ferle 2009: 63). Del njegove vojske so bili tedaj tudi voli (izpricane so zahteve za oves za konje in seno za vole) in ti so njegovim divizijam sledili v spremstvu, sestavljenem iz skupin žensk, vozov z ranjenci, številnih pripreg s topovi (katere so najverjetneje vlekli v zatilne jarme vpreženi voli), vozov z živežem itn. (Klavora 2006: 64, 101). Da so v tistem casu nekateri francoski vojaki ostajali na slovenskih tleh, pricajo priimki in hišna ime­na francoskega izvora. Poroka in ustalitev sta namrec pomenili rešitev pred po­novno vojsko (Ferle 2009: 65; Klavora 2006: 177, 183). In ce so s Francozi prišli v Posocje in tam ostali njihovi priimki ali pa hišna imena – na primer v Borjani Mandot in Jeron50 –, ni prav nic nemogoce premišljati, da so s seboj prinesli tudi dolocena znanja in tehnike ter posledicno rabo dolocenih oblik ovratnikastih za­tilnih jarmov. Po pregledu zadevnega francoskega slovstva na primer pogled na jarem iz regije Bourbonnais iz zbirke MNATP (B. n. a. 1993: 32–38) vidno raz­kriva doloceno oblikovno sorodnost s slovenskima jarmoma iz Trente iz zbirke 50 Za ti dve francosko zveneci hišni imeni sem slišala v župnem uradu v Breginju. Leta 2010 sem namrec zavoljo francoskih priimkov opravila manjšo »raziskavo« v župnišcih v Bovcu in Breginju, kjer sem pregledovala: Krstno knjigo Bovec 1785–1810 (v njej nisem našla nic z gotovostjo prepoznavnega), Status animarum, Libro de matrimoni ab anno 1785–1819 (nic z gotovostjo prepoznavnega) in Libro de nati (v tej je iz leta 1799 zapis francosko zvenecega priimka Clincon). SEM, zlasti s tistim iz Koritnice (kat. št. 2), in s primerkom iz Ratec iz zbirk Gorenjskega muzeja.51 Podoben zgodovinski kontekst, ki je botroval »uvozu« ovratnikastih in kro­nasto-palicastih zatilnih jarmovv Baško grapo in njeno bližnjo okolico z nemškimi priseljenci iz Pustriške doline (Pustertal), doloca tudi naselitev nemško govo­recih priseljencev iz vzhodne Tirolske in zahodne oziroma gornje Koroške na Kocevsko v 14. stoletju (okoli leta 1330). A ti v svojem novem okolju niso nada­ljevali z rabo domace oblike priprav za vpreganje goved – vprege z glavo oziroma zatilnega jarma, ceprav so ga bili ob naselitvi tja morda prinesli –, temvec so v novi domovini (najverjetneje postopoma) prevzeli kambasto oblikovno razlici-co vihrovega jarma. »Z uporabo vihrovega jarma se torej Kocevarji umešcajo v svojo okolico in vveliko sredozemsko in južno-evropsko obmocje, na katerem je razširjen ta tip jarma« (Kundegraber 1967: 97). Ustno pricevanje mojih sogovornikov Gocevih iz Prevol v Suhi krajini jih celo razkriva kot iskane mojstre za izdelovanje jarmov v tej okolici. Zdaj pa si poglejmo primer vnosa oblike in tehnike vpreganja, ki sta bili po­sledica izboljšav, kakršne so tudi na Slovenskem v 19. stoletju propagirala števil­na poucna besedila (npr. v Kmetijskih in rokodelskih novicah) na temo mucenja in neustreznega vpreganja živine (Dular1894; Jancar 1869). Veterinar Bleiweis je o tem na primer zapisal, da vpreganje volov za roge, kjer vlece le z glavo in vra-tom, ni primerno, saj mora vol napeti vse svoje moci in kri mu udarja v možgane. Za zdravje delovne živine najbolj ustrezna vprega je bil zanj nepreklicno komat (Bleiweis 1871: 66). In ta, zlasti v Nemciji uveljavljena oblika volovske in kravje vprege (prim. Jacobeit 1957; Minhorst 1990), se je v slovenskem kulturnem pros-toru zacela uporabljati od sredine 19. stoletja, po vecini le na alpskem obmocju, še posebej v nižinskih predelih Gorenjske. Njena predmetna prica je na primer volovski komat starejše oblike, »klobasa in kleštre« iz Suhe pri Škofji Loki iz zbirke SEM (kat. št. 128), zgovorne pa so tudi posamezne likovne upodobitve iz teh krajev. Vpreganje v komat je na primer sporoceno na veduti Kranja s pastoralnim prizorom in kapelico, iz prve polovice ali najverjetneje iz sredine 19. stoletja. Slikar Anton Hayne je v njenem ospredju upodobil vola, ki vlece voz z gnojnim (ali listnim) košem, in je prepoznavno vprežen v komat (Smerdel 2011: 127). In ceprav shematicno, a vendarle vidno vpreženi vkomate so potem tudi trije voli, naslikani na panjski koncnici z letnico 1897, najdeni na Lokovici nad Libucami na Koroškem (Rogelj Škafar in Makarovic v Smerdel 2011: 127). Za Gorenj­sko so usnjeni volovski komati sporoceni tudi v ustnih pricevanjih iz Komende, Francoski arbiterv zadevah z voli in jarmi, ki sem mu poslala fotografiji omenjenih primerkov, mi je sicer odgovoril, da v Franciji ne pozna jarmov, dovolj podobnih našima dvema, da bi se lahko postavile vzporednice. O JARMIH Preddvora, Naklega z okolico, Velesovega in Cerkelj na Gorenjskem (VG 1960: 43, 53, 23, 50). V slednjih dveh krajih je bilo na primer zapisano, da so v nižini vpregali v komate in vvišjih legah v jarme. Na drugih etnoloških obmocjih pa je komat, kot smo že omenili, povecini spolzel le v jezik; tu in tam kot ime za tiste lesene primerke enojnih vihrovih jarmov (na primer klešcasto kambaste), ki so se mu z obliko poskušali približati. A drug pomen poucnih besedil, ki so morda šele desetletja pozneje tudi miselno širše odmevala, je bilo vendarle postopno uvajanje enojnega vpreganja v paru goved; ne le v redke, drage komate, podobne konjskim, ki so »sicer nekoliko dražji memo jarma« (B. n. a. 1858: 146), temvec tudi v jarmice. Sogovornice in sogovorniki na mojih pivških poteh so o tem pac menili, da je »lažje delala žival vsaka zase; en vol je bil zmeri lahko malo bolj živ – ko clovek« (Smerdel 2005: 368). Slika Antona Hayneja »Pastoralni prizor z volovsko vprego in kapelico«, prva polovica ali sredina 19. stoletja, ter detajl volovske vprege v komat (iz zbirk Narodne galerije, foto: Janko Dermastja, © Narodna galerija, Ljubljana). Anton Hayne, “Pastoral scene with a harnessed ox and a chapel”, first half or mid-19th century, and a detail with the collar harness (from the National Gallery collections, photo: Janko Dermastja, © National Gallery, Ljubljana). Komat na panjski koncnici »Delo na polju« z letnico 1897, Lokovica / Lokowitzen, avstrijska Koroška (iz zbirk SEM, foto: Marko Habic, 2010). Collar on a beehive panel called “Field work”, year 1897; Lokovica / Lokowitzen, Carinthia, Austria (from the SEM collections, photo: Marko Habic, 2010). Kravi, vpreženi vkomata, Kal-Koritnica, Primorska (foto: Boris Orel, 1952, Oddelek za dokumentacijo SEM). Cows harnessed with a collar, Kal-Koritnica, Primorska (photo: Boris Orel, 1952, SEM Documentation Department). Vol, vprežen v komat, Gorje / Göriach, avstrijska Koroška (foto: Jernej Šušteršic, 1951, Oddelek za dokumentacijo SEM). Ox harnessed with a collar, Gorje / Göriach, Carinthia, Austria (photo: Jernej Šušteršic, 1951, SEM Documentation Department). O JARMIH Sporocilnost glede vnosa oziroma prevzemanja neke oblikovne tipske razlicice priprav za vpreganje pa ima tu in tam tudi geografski kontekst. Do odlocanja o izbiri enega ali drugega oblikovnega tipa jarma je najverjetneje pogosto prihajalo na njunih sticišcih oziroma v krajih njunih srecevanj. Na Slovenskem o tem na primer prica v tem besedilu že omenjen pojav clenasto-kambastih vihrovih jar-mov na zahodu naše dežele, v bližini meje z Italijo (v Brdih in v zamejskih kraških vaseh), ceprav ti kraji sicer sodijo v sredozemsko obmocje pri nas uveljavljenih kambastih vihrovih primerkov. In kakšni naj bi bili razlogi za izbiro italijanskih, tako imenovanih »laških jarmov«, priprav za vpreganje, ki imajo namesto kamb na jarmovo bruno na vsaki strani ovratnikov pritrjena po dva in dva clena oziroma železni plošcici, ki ju pod vratom živali povezuje vrv? Morda je teh razlogovvec, a moja sogovornica iz Fojane v Brdih mi je izbiro pojasnila z besedami, da je pri njih, kjer so »sami bregi, ta tip jarma moral imeti spodaj štrik, da so ga lahko prerezali in rešili vprežena vola, ce sta se v vpregi prevrnila«. In zato so jih raje vpregali v takšne jarme. Drugo takšno geografsko sticišce – v tem primeru dveh temeljnih tipov jar-ma, zatilnega in vihrovega – pa je koroško štajersko srecevališce ižęs in kljukas­tih vihrovih jarmov. V krajih Mežiške doline in tistimi »za Dravo« – od Žvabeka do Dravograda, kjer je vecina kmetij »v bregeh« in ima »kar omoticno strme njive« – so vole vpregali v igô,kar ljudje pomnijo. Pri njihovih vzhodnejših štajerskih sosedih pa naj bi bil že od nekdaj v rabi jarem, ki je postopoma polzel tudi na Koroško. Ljudje so se tam radi šalili, »da Štajerci tega ne vedo, da celi vol laže vlece kakor pol vola, zato so Korošci vezovali vole rajši v igô, ki je privezano volu na glavo, torej vlece celi vol, pri jarmu pa polovica vola, glava in vrat skozi moli, torej vlece samo zadnja polovica« (VG 1960: 17). A raba jarma je vendarle, že v šestdesetih letih preteklega stoletja, izpricana tudi na Koroškem. In kot razlog za takšno izbiro so ljudje jedrnato navajali bolj enostaven nacin vpreganja: jarmu »ni treba podižev in dežes« – blazin za volovske glave in usnjenih jermenov za privezovanje. V jarem vpreženim volom pa so vcasih rekli kar »štajerski voli« (VG 1960: 17, 49). Naš ekskurz v poskus razlag glede vnosa ali izbire posameznih oblikovnih tipov priprav za vpreganje pa naj sklene premišljanje o pojavu palicastih zatilnih jarmov na Slovenskem, ki so jih tja do prve polovice preteklega stoletja ohranjali v rabi na visokogorskih kmetijah v odmaknjenih krajih Zgornje Savinjske doline in njene bližnje okolice; o pojavu, ki plaho dreza v problematiko slovenske etno­geneze (kot je bilo že omenjeno na prejšnjih straneh) in bo morda kdaj vznemiril tudi njene preucevalce. Glede izjemnosti palicastih zatilnih jarmovv tem delu Evrope sem želela dobi-ti nesporno potrditev. Iskala sem jo v avstrijski alpski sosešcini, kjer so sicer prav tako uporabljali zatilne jarme, a njihove palicaste oblikovne razlicice, kot kaže, zagotovo niso poznali. Potrditev, kakršno sem cakala, je prinesla korespondenca s kolegi iz avstrijskih muzejev na Dunaju, v Gradcu in v Celovcu. 52 Iz slednjega je nazadnje prispel nedvoumen odgovor tamkajšnjega kustosa, da se ne spominja, da bi kjerkoli vvaseh med Železno Kaplo in Pliberkom (torej v krajih, ki so naj­bližji našemu domovanju palicastih zatilnih primerkov) videl jarme, kakršni so slovenski iz Zgornje Savinjske doline. In tako se je moj miselni pogled nehote znova usmeril proti evropskemu seve­ru. Proti »staremu volovskemu obmocju ob Baltiku«, o katerem je Vilkuna dognal, da je bilo v svoji celosti del starega srednje- in zahodnoevropskega obmocja za­tilnega jarma, vkaterega so spadali tudi zahodni Slovani (Vilkuna 1936: 98). (A ne tudi južni Slovani, med katere se po veljavni zgodovinski doktrini umešca Slovence.) In ponovno se je usmeril tudi k zatilnim jarmom s Finske in iz Estoni­je, o katerih je bilo že dognano, kako prepoznavno oblikovno sorodni so palicas­tim igôjem iz naših krajev. Toda k tem mikavnim oblikovnim vzporednicam moramo dodati še eno – v tem primeru jezikovno. Besedo, ki je morda nekdaj davno, skupaj s palicastimi pripravami za vpreganje, spolzela do naših krajev. Po finskem izrocilu je imel par volov zatilni jarem od tilnika na rogove privezan z mocnim jermenom, imeno­vanim »jutta«; in v Estoniji z jermenom s sorodnim imenom »jutt« (Vilkuna 1936: 61–62, 98). Na našem alpskem obmocju zatilnega jarma, na primer na Koroškem, te jermene oznacuje ime »dege«, »dežesa« (VG 1960: 17, 40); a v duhu razisko­vanja »besed in reci« se je pojavilo osupljivo odkritje, da je tudi na Slovenskem mogoce v povezavi z jarmi zaslediti besedo »juta«. Prvikrat sem jo leta 2006 zaslišala na pobocjih pod Bohorjem, na kmetiji v Mrzli Planini nad Sevnico, kjer so tedaj še delali s parom volov; pri svojem sogovorniku Antonu, ki mi je med pri­povedovanjem o vpreganju v telege, v okvirast vihrov jarem, za njegova ovratnika omenil ime »juta«. In zdi se, da se je morda ta beseda – finsko in tudi estonsko ime za jermen, ki je povezoval zatilni jarem okoli volovskih rogov – na Sloven-skem tekom casa prenesla na tiste sestavne dele okvirastih jarmov, ki so sedali na volovske vratove oziroma okoli vratov med zatiljem in vihrom; torej še posebej na ovratnike, tu in tam na celo gornje bruno in ponekod tudi na spodnje, na podvratno zaporo. »Juti« in drobnim razlicicam tega imena, kakršne so na primer »uta«, »üta« in »utiše«, pa je bilo mogoce slediti cez vzhodno Posavsko 52 Na moje povpraševanje (na podlagi poslanih fotografij) so prijazno odgovorili dr. Margot Schindler iz dunajskega Österreichisches Museum fürVolkskunde, dr. Roswitha Orac-Stipperger iz Universalmuseum Joanneum v gradu Stainz in dr. Heimo Schinnerl iz Landwirtschaftmuseum Schloss Ehrental v Celovcu. O JARMIH hribovje do Bocko-Maceljskega hribovja, tudi do Vitanjsko-Konjiških Karavank in do Pohorskega Podravja; skozi zamejeno podrocje razloženih naselij, zaselkov in samotnih kmetij, od koder je bilo to ime z razlicicami nesporno sporoceno (v VG 1960 in VE 1961–62).53 Beseda (j)uta na risbi jarma osnovnošolke iz Slovenskih Konjic med odgovori na etnološko vprašalnico o jarmu iz leta 1986/87 (Arhiv SEM, fond Jarem). The word (j)uta in a drawing by a pupil from Slovenske Konjice, ethnological questionnaire on yokes from 1986/87 (SEM archive, Yoke fond). NEMA GOVORICA SNOVNEGA Kakšna sporocilnost pa se še skriva v jarmih iz zbirke SEM? Ko namrec uma­knemo pogled z njihovih oblik, po katerih smo dolocali regionalno tipologijo, in ga usmerimo na njihovo površino – takrat nema govorica snovnega postane bolj zgovorna; bolj subtilna in bolj individualna. Najbolj opazno spregovorijo nacini in izvedbe krašenja – z barvno poslika­vo ali z rezbarsko ploskovno in plasticno izvedenim okrasjem, še posebej krone jarma – in na njihovi podlagi je mogoce celo prepoznati nekaj primerkov istih izdelovalcev.54 Na površini sta tu in tam vrezani inicialki, ki ponavadi sporoca­ta ime in priimek gospodarja vprežnega vola ali volovskega para, vcasih pa tudi izdelovalca jarma. In tu in tam so vrezane letnice, ki najverjetneje, najpogoste­je sporocajo cas nastanka posameznega jarma. Od skupaj stosedemindvajse­ 53 Arhiv SEM, Fond jarem (VG 1960 in VE 1961–62): – »Juta« (gornja in spodnja) iz Koprivnice pri Brestanici, Zgornjega Gabrnika, Šmarij pri Jelšah, Tekacevega. – »Uta« iz Kalobja, Šentjurja pri Celju, Gornjega Kebla in Šmartnega na Pohorju nad Slovensko Bistrico. – »Üta« (gornja in spodnja) iz vasi Slake in Lesicno. – »Utiše« iz Skomarij pri Slovenskih Konjicah. 54 Osebni tipi individualnih izdelovalcev so na primer na alpskem etnološkem obmocju primerki kat. št. 19 in 20; na panonskem obmocju primerki kat. št. 43 in 44; št. 45 in 46; in na osrednjeslovenskem obmocju primerki kat. št. 55 in 56; št. 60 in 61; št. 71 in 72; št. 74 in 75; št. 76, 77 in 78; št. 90 in 91. Med slednjimi je tudi nekaj primerkov osebnih tipov enojnih jarmov: kat. št. 109 in 110; št. 115 in 116; št. 117 in 118. tih jarmov in njihovih enojnih primerkov, zbranih v SEM do leta 2012, ima vrezane inicialke devet jarmov in dva enojna primerka z vseh štirih etnoloških obmocij; in letnice osemindvajset jarmov in trije njihovi enojni primerki. Drugacno sporocilnost pa imajo na površini vrezani zašcitni simboli, naj­pogosteje križi raznovrstnih oblik – latinski (crux ordinaria), grški (crux quadrata) in Andrejev križ (crux decussata) –, ki jih tu in tam spremlja tudi Kristusov mono­gram. Razkrivajo vero v posredništvo teh vseobsegajocih, najsplošnejših sim-bolov (Chevalier in Gheerbrant 1993: 271–272) pri zašciti delovnih živali pred morebitnimi poškodbami in boleznimi. Njihova lega – ali so bili vrezani na primer nad obema ovratnikoma jarma; nad samo enim, levim ali desnim; na hribcu roglji-castega gožinega sedeža ipd. – sporoca, ali naj bi varovali oba vprežena vola ali le enega, vodilnega (tu in tam levega, a najpogosteje desnega). Apotropejsko funk-cijo pa imajo najverjetneje tudi razlicne veclistne rozete, stilizirane svastike (po svojem prapomenu soncevi simboli), krogi in zvezde, ceprav je ta namembnost pri njih manj prepoznavna kakor pri križih, saj na videz delujejo zgolj okrasno. V muzejski zbirki je jarmov s križi kot zašcitnimi simboli iz vseh etnoloških ob- Primeri zašcitnih simbolov, vrezanih na jarmih (iz zbirke SEM, foto: Marko Habic, 2012, Oddelek za dokumentacijo SEM). Examples of protective symbols inscribed on yokes (from the SEM collection, photo: Marko Habic, 2012, SEM Documentation Department). O JARMIH Vola, vprežena vkambast vihrovjarem, izdelan leta 1947, Lopar, Primorska; proti desni strani jarma prestavljena gož prica o prelaganju teže dela na mocnejšega vola (foto: Milko Maticetov, 1950, Oddelek za dokumentacijo SEM). Oxen harnessed with a withers bow yoke made in 1947, Lopar, Primorska. The rope pole ring was moved to the right, indicating that the weight was shifted to the stronger ox (photo: Milko Maticetov, 1950, SEM Documentation Department). mocij dvainštirideset (in štirje enojni), tistih z raznovrstnimi rozetami petindvaj-set in takih z nekaterimi drugimi okrasnimi ali simbolnimi elementi deset. Naslednji korak je sledenje govorici snovnosti jarmov in razumevanje nemih pricevanj predmetov: o izbiri lesa, o njegovi obdelavi (na primer gladkosti ovrat­nikov), o pomenih ožiganja oziroma o obdelavi z ognjem in o vseh zadevnih znanjih, v katera se bo potrebno poglobiti v naslednjem poglavju. V zbirki SEM obdelavo z ognjem razkrivajo en primerek z alpskega etnološkega obmocja, štir­je s panonskega in enajst jarmov z osrednjeslovenskega obmocja. Pri izbiri lesa izstopa priljubljenost in pogostnost rabe javorjevine (z gotovostjo triinštirideset primerkovv zbirki), ki ji sledijo brezov les, orehovina in jesenovina; nekaj je tudi jarmov iz lesa bukve, lipe, bresta, gabra in kostanja, pri nekaterih primerkih (pri osemindvajsetih) pa izbranega lesa ni bilo mogoce z gotovostjo prepoznati. Kaj pa sledovi rabe na nemih predmetnih pricevalcih? Teh ni prav malo in so povedni zlasti o silah vlecne moci in o prelaganju teže dela na mocnejšega vola. O prvih zgovorno pricajo odkrhnjene odprtine za kambo, pocene in posledicno okovane leve ali desne strani jarmovega telesa. O drugem so na primer povedni od drgnjenja vdrti stiki jarma in ojesa. Okovani deli priprav za vpreganje pa v nekaterih primerih po vsej verjetnosti sporocajo tudi želje po ohranjanju dobrih jarmov ali pa o njihovi ceni; o tem, da so bili jarmi pri posameznih izdelovalcih dragi in da jih je bilo potrebno dlje casa vzdrževati oziroma ohranjati. In še o branju vidnih znakov skrbi za delovne vole (in tudi krave). O slednji so na primer povedni: vrezani zašcitni simboli, na pocenih mestih s krpo ovite kambe, gladko obdelana notranja površina ovratnikov (ko so ti celo pri bolj ro­batih primerkih opazno, skrbno zglajeni) in tehtna izbira lesa. Skrb sporoca tudi razlicna izvedba ovratnikov pri levi in desni živali, prilagojena njuni velikosti oziroma širini njunih vratov (takih primerkovje v zbirki kar štiriintrideset). En odtenek skrbi, ki ga razkriva konstrukcija jarma, pa sporocajo odprtine na let-venih obvratnih zaporah pri okvirastih vihrovih jarmih, namenjene višanju ali nižanju odprtin za živalske vratove. Gre za detajl, katerega namembnost – poleg regulacije zavoljo razlicnega obsega vratov vpreženih goved – je bila na podlagi ustnih pricevanj spoznana šele po urejanju in analizi muzejske zbirke. Iz krajev v bližini Murske Sobote (Dolenci, Petrovci, Šalovci) je v zapisu iz šestdesetih let preteklega stoletja namrec sporoceno, da so živalim z od vprege oguljeno kožo pod ovratnike teleg podlagali »kako kožo ali pa mehko blago«. In v ta namen so na vsaki »ranci«, letveni obvratni zapori s štirimi ali celo šestimi odprtinami za vti­kanje klinov, s »klinci« po potrebi zviševali okvirasto odprtino za vrat oguljenega goveda (VE 1961: 21). Jarmi iz zbirke SEM pa o skrbi za delovne vole ne šepetajo le z nemo, tem­vec tudi s skrito govorico snovnega: z ugotavljanjem teže posameznih jarmov vseh oblikovnih tipov z vseh etnoloških obmocij. S podatki, ki ne morejo biti nepomembni in zanemarljivi za bitja, ki so delala »kot crna živina« (kot pravi znani slovenski rek), veckrat od jutra do noci; za bitja, ki so orala, vlacila, vozila – vprežena v priprave, ki so jim z vso svojo težo sedale na glavo na zatilju ali na vrat pred vihrom. In nedvomno so živali vsaj malce lažje opravljale svoje delo, ce ta teža ni bila prevelika. Najprej si poglejmo podatke o teži jarmov na alpskem etnološkem obmocju: • ovratnikasti zatilni jarmi: okovani 3,92 kg, neokovani 2,74 kg, • palicasto-kronasti zatilni: 1,88 kg, • rožickasti zatilni: povprecno 3,60 kg (najtežji 4,12 kg, najlažji 2,90 kg), • palicasti zatilni: povprecno 1,85 kg (najtežji 2,20 kg, najlažji 1,40 kg), • kambasti vihrovi: povprecno 6,25 kg (najtežji 14,48 kg, najlažji 5,30 kg), • kljukasti vihrovi: povprecno 4,19 kg (najtežji 7,38 kg, najlažji 3,96 kg), • ovratnikasti in rožickasti enojni jarmi: povprecno 2,35 kg. Sledi teža jarmov na panonskem etnološkem obmocju: • okvirasti vihrovi jarmi z vsemi sestavnimi deli: povprecno 27,51 kg (najtežji 42,42 kg) in • okvirasti klešcasto-kambasti enojni jarmi: povprecno 8,42 kg. In na koncu še teža jarmov in jarmicev na osrednjeslovenskem in sredo­zemskem obmocju: •kambasti vihrovi jarmi (z obema kambama): povprecno 13,73 kg (najtežji 15,96 kg, najlažji 11,68 kg), O JARMIH • kambasti vihrovi (brez kamb): povprecno 12,86 kg (najtežji, mocno okovan 19,40 kg, najlažji 7,32 kg), •clenasto-kambast vihrov (edini v zbirki): 11,20 kg, • enojni kambasti vihrovi (s kambo): povprecno 4,29 kg (najtežji, mocno oko-van 6,77 kg, najlažji 2,22 kg) in • enojni kambasti vihrovi jarmi (brez kambe): povprecno 6,76 kg (najtežji, mocno okovan 6,76 kg, najlažji 1,38 kg). Ce po prebranih podatkih priklicemo v misli nekaj stavkov o zatilnih jarmih iz jugovzhodne Francije, iz Gaskonje – o tem, kakšne morajo biti njihove mere, kakšne so »tisocletne izkušnje pri uporabi in obdelavi lesa« in o tem, da tamkajšnji »jarem ponavadi tehta 10 do 12 kilogramov«55 –, lahko primerjalno zelo splošno skle­nemo, da povprecna teža primerkov iz muzejske zbirke SEM le redkokdaj (le v treh primerih), preseže omenjeni francoski podatek. A v mislih moramo imeti tudi vso relativnost takega sklepanja; tako glede na oblikovno drugacnost vecine naših tipskih razlicic kot na drugacnost uporabljenih vrst lesa – kar se je posle-dicno po vsej verjetnosti poznalo tudi pri teži. Skrb, da bi delovnih živali ne bremenila še prevelika teža priprav, v katere so jih vpregali, je sicer prepoznavna. Najtežji jarmi so pac tisti, ki so bili zavoljo razlicnih razlogov okovani. Eni, ker so zaradi poškodb med delovnimi opravi­li na dolocenih mestih pocili ter so jih z okovanjem popravljali, in drugi zaradi namembnosti – da bi bili za dolocena opravila trdnejši in bolj trpežni. Kot taki so izpricani vecinoma tisti, ki so jih uporabljali pri napornih, zahtevnih gozdnih delih. In med njimi se je znašel prav najtežji primerek iz zbirke SEM (kat. št. 40), mocno okovane, dvainštirideset kilogramov težke telege iz Reštanja na Vetrniku, ki jih je muzeju podaril moj pripovedovalec Martin, vulgo Bríjevc. Za vlacenje hlodov iz grap jih je uporabljal še v zadnji cetrtini preteklega stoletja. 55 Ustrezne odlomke besedila iz dela La Harde (Libraire Plon, Paris 1936) sta mi v letih raziskovanja poslala Cozette Griffin-Kremer in François Sigaut. Njegov avtor je Joseph de Pesquidoux in lokacija opisane prakse izdelovanja jarma je najverjetneje grad Pesquidoux, avtorjev dom v Gaskonji med mestoma Bayonne in Toulouse, blizu Pirenejev in španske meje (Pesquidoux 1936: 176). Kdo pa so bili mojstri, ki so znali izdelovati jarme? Ustna pricevanja, zbrana na podlagi vprašalnic z zacetka šestdesetih in s konca osemdesetih let pretekle­ga stoletja, kot njihove izdelovalce od vsepovsod v najvecji meri sporocajo ali kolarje ali same kmecke gospodarje. Tu in tam se omenjajo samouški kolarji in tesarji, na Koroškem naj bi jih najvec izdelovali »bajtarji, da so kaj zaslužli« (VG 1960: 17), iz Zgornje Kokre pa je odgovor, da so jarme pac izdelovali »v tem poslu izurjeni možje« (VE 1961: 7). Kolarje in same kmecke gospodarje povecini spo­rocajo tudi pricevanja, ki sem jih v casu raziskave zbrala na svojih poteh. A v tistih zgodnejših zapisih, nastalih v letih, ko so ponekod posamezniki jarme in njihove enojne primerke morda še izdelovali ali pa so s tem delom šele ne dolgo tega prenehali, je bilo mogoce najti – še posebej v primerih, ko so bili izdelovalci poklicni mojstri – tudi podatke o cenah jarmov, zgovorno povedne o njihovem družbenem vidiku; o dražjih krašenih in cenejših nekrašenih jarmih. Toda poleg cen si kaže ogledati tudi nekaj krajših zapisov o procesih izdelo­vanja jarmov in o drugih nacinih placevanja kot v denarju. Posebno pozornost pa velja posvetiti izbiri (in pripravi) lesa, saj je bila slednja za izdelovalce temeljnega pomena. S Koroškega, iz Leš, je tako na primer sporoceno (VŠ 1986–87: 118), da so jarme izdelovali iz malo ukrivljenega drevesa, in sicer iz brezovega lesa. Okrašen je stal toliko kot moška obleka – 150 dinarjev, neokrašen toliko kot en par cev­ljev – 100 dinarjev, furmanska placa pa je bila takrat 300 dinarjev. Iz Razbora prihaja spomin oceta zapisovalke (VŠ 1986–87: 134), kako je na ustreznem kosu lesa najprej zarisal obliko in potem zacel izdelovati z žago. »Potrebno je bilo dosti oblanja, vrtanja, brušenja – veliko volje, da nastane lep jarem. Bolj pa sem krasil jarme velikih kmetov. In to po lastni zamisli. Tedaj pa je jarem stal šest dni dela.« Izdeloval jih je v letih od 1946 do 1949. Sledi pricevanje iz Jakobskega dola v Slovenskih goricah (VŠ 1986–87: 33), izucenega kolarja, ki je vcasu potreb zacel izdelovati tudi jarme. Navedel je svoje osnovno orodje – dleto, sveder, hoblic, sekiro – in še posebne nože, ce jih je še okrasil. »Vsak mojster je naredil svoj okras; vedel si, kdo je izdelovalec.« Telege je izdeloval po narocilu in leta 1937 je bila njihova cena okoli 50 dinarjev, škornji so tedaj stali 99 dinarjev, dnevni zaslužek delavca pa je znašal 8 do 10 dinarjev. Iz Bistrice ob Sotli pa že prihaja zapis (VŠ 1986–87: 123), kako so tam names-to z denarjem lahko placevali kolarjem. Za volovski (ali kravji) enojni jarem – pet litrov vina in lasten les; in za telege za dve živali deset litrov vina in lasten les (vcasih so tudi odslužili z delom ali z vožnjo). O JARMIH Iz Globokega pri Brežicah so spomini kolarja (VŠ 1986–87: 144), ki se je za svoj poklic izucil leta 1939. Od leta 1948, ko je izdelal prvi jarem, do konca 1980­ih let, ko jih je delal le še za tiste kmete, ki svojih njiv na strmih pobocjih niso mogli obdelovati s traktorjem, je ta možak napravil dosti, dosti jarmov – tistih za eno govedo in onih (teleg) za dve. V petdesetih letih jih je na leto izdelal okoli trideset (za enega je potreboval dvanajst ur), v zadnjem obdobju kako leto tudi po deset; vcasih vse rocno, proti koncu vedno vec s stroji. Zanje pa je potreboval mehek, suh les (oreha, breze, bresta). Mehak je moral biti zato, da živali ni peklo na vratu. Les mu je priskrbel kmet, kateremu je po želji, poleg okrasa, vrezal tudi letnico in njegove inicialke. A jarmi so bili vcasih razmeroma dragi in vsak gospo­dar si ga ni mogel kupiti. Placal ga je ponavadi šele jeseni, ko je prodal pridelek. Z Dolenjskega, iz Mirne Peci in okoliških vasi, je na primer sporoceno (VŠ 1986–87: 50), da je kolar v zaselku Globodol, ki je jarme izdeloval do okoli leta 1960, zanje – zaradi trdnosti – najraje uporabljal les orehovih korenin. In ker je bilo v tistem casu rokoldelsko delo slabo placano, je moral za en par cevljev izde­lati dva ali celo tri jarme. Naslednji zapis o cenah prihaja s Pivke (VŠ 1986–87: 125), kjer so tja do 1960­ih let vole vpregali v enojne kambaste vihrove jarme. Ce so bili ti okrašeni, so v obdobju med svetovnima vojnama stali 25 lir in neokrašeni 20 lir; cevlji so takrat stali 30 lir, hlace 20 lir, dnevni zaslužek, »žrnada«, pa je bil 5 lir. Sledi pricevanje iz Šmarij pri Kopru (VŠ 1986–87: 132), o možaku, ki je jarme izdeloval v Koštaboni in je zanje potreboval suh hrastov ali orehov les. Železno okovje jim je dodal kovac, a jarem je slednje dobil šele s popravili. Iz tistih vasi so jih drugace hodili kupovat v hrvaško Istro. Leta 1950 je jarem stal 500 jugolir in s tem denarjem so si lahko kupili plašc ali par cevljev. Malce drugacne številke cen pa so sporocene iz okolice Solkana (VŠ 1986–87: 2) in iz Dutovelj oziroma iz Pliskovice (VŠ 1986–87: 7). V prvem primeru so okrašeni enojni jarmi stali 15 lir, ko je bilo treba za cevlje imeti okoli 50 lir; v dru-gem primeru je krašen enojni jarem stal 8 lir, nekrašen pa 3 lire. In še zapisi iz vasi Škocjan in Orehek pri Materiji (VŠ 1986–87: 152). V prvi je enojne kambaste vihrove jarme izdeloval kolar, »bognar«, ki je za navadne racunal po 5 lir; takrat je par cevljev stal 10 lir, kilogram soli pa 20 »cintežmov«. V drugi vasi jih je iz lesa breze izdeloval mojster, ki je za okrašen primerek potreboval dvajset ur in je zanj racunal 20 lir; neokrašenega je napravil vdvanajstih urah in je stal 12 lir. Za eno uro dela je torej racunal 1 liro. Zdaj pa še nekaj besed o drugih nacinih placevanja kakor z denarjem. S Koroškega je na primer iz Prevalj in okolice sporoceno (VG 1960: 17), da so jarme placevali v naravi – z zabelo, žitom, moko, kruhom. V Komendi na Gorenjskem (VG 1960: 43), kjer so kolarji in tesarji samouki hodili kar po kmetijah, so jim placevali »z denarjem pa tudi z blagom« – z živežem in lesom. Podobno je sporoce-no tudi iz Zgornje Kokre (VE 1961: 7), kjer je zadnji domacin, ki se je ukvarjal z izdelovanjem jarmov, hodil »v štero« od gospodarja do gospodarja. V Cerkljah na Gorenjskem in vVelesovem (VG 1960: 50) so pri kmetu izdelan jarem zamenjali za živila ali za povracilo z delom. V Hrenovicah, na Razdrtem in v Hruševju (VG 1960: 26) so izpricani domaci samouki, katerim so jarme in enojne »žile« prav tako placevali v naravi – s kosom lesa, s pomocjo pri delu ali z vožnjo. V Dobravljah vVipavski dolini pa so mi na primer pri Možinovih pri­povedovali, kako so kupovali »jaremce« od tistih, ki so jih delali »gor na Gori, gor nad Ajdovšcino – so jih prinesli dol za vino al za moko«. Za enojni jarem so dali »en flaškónc vina; récmo – to je blo l.hko pet al pa deset litrov vina«. A kmetje so jarme za vpreganje svojih goved kupovali tudi na sejmih, saj ponekod ni bilo nikogar niti v domaci vasi niti v bližnji okolici, ki bi jih znal izde­lovati. Iz Škofij pri Kopru je tako na primer sporoceno (VE 1962: 49), da jih tam ni nikoli prav nihce delal in zato so jih kupovali na sejmih, kamor so jih pripeljali kolarji, »bognarji« iz Brkinov. Na sejmih v Gorici ali pa pri prodaji po hišah so jih kupovali tudi kmetje v vaseh v bližini Sežane: v Dutovljah, Avbru, Kobjeglavi in v nekaterih drugih (VE 1962: 51, 52), ceprav so enojne kambaste vihrove jarme nekateri izdelovali tudi sami in so zanje po gozdu iskali posebno oblikovan, ustrezno krivo rašcen les. In taki, ki jih je naredil gospodar sam, so veljali za najboljše. Kupljeni enojni jarmi so bili namrec pogosto obžagani in so se zaradi tega radi kmalu prelomili; delali pa so jih »hribovci s Tolminskega«. Izdelovalci iz krajev, kjer so bile doma lesne obrti, so kot prodajalci »jaremcov« sporoceni tudi iz Vipavske doline, na primer iz Vipavskega križa in Budanj pri Ajdovšcini (VE 1961: 55, VE 1962: 54). Njihovi izdelki so bili iz bukovega lesa, prepoznavno krašeni (gl. npr. R 50) in neokovani, tako da jih je moral vsak kmet sam odnesti še h kovacu. In ti »gorjani s Crnega vrha in Otlice« so jih nosili naokoli in prodajali po hišah; pri nakupu pa so vsakega najprej pomerili na vrat živali, ki je bila potem vanj vprežena. Po vsem povedanem v nanizanih krajših zapisih o izdelovalcih jarmov, o nji­hovih delovnih procesih in o nacinih prodaje ter placila njihovih izdelkov, je zdaj cas, da se prav posebej posvetimo še vrstam lesa, ki so jih posamezni gospodarji in samouški ali izuceni mojstri izbirali za izdelovanje svojih jarmov. In v tem po­gledu gre še posebej za znanja, za razloge, ki so botrovali njihovim odlocitvam pri izbiri dolocene vrste lesa in ne morda neke druge; izbiri, ki je v enem kraju ali lo-kalnem okolju pomenila pravo in v drugem napacno, slabo odlocitev. Posamezna O JARMIH med temi znanji – zlasti ona o pravilni pripravi lesa pred obdelavo – najverjetneje sodijo med izrocene modrosti, zakoreninjene v nekem okolju. Izbiro lesa pa so nenazadnje v dolocenem obsegu pogojevale tudi drevesne vrste, ki so bile v enem ali drugem kraju, na tem ali onem obmocju na razpolago. Najprej bomo spet sledili ustnim pricevanjem, zbranim na podlagi vprašalnic iz zacetka šestdesetih in potem še s konca osemdesetih let preteklega stoletja. Ce znova zacnemo na alpskem etnološkem obmocju, je od tam na primer iz Veleso­vega in Cerkelj na Gorenjskem sporoceno (VG 1960: 50), da so za jarme upora­bljali les crnega gabra, »ki je najmocnejši les«. In iskali so tako drevo, ki je bilo že »naravno vzboceno, ker je imelo vecjo moc«. Pricevanje iz Bohinjske Bistrice, iz Bohinja pravi (VG 1960: 14), da so tam »íguci« iz bukovega lesa, ker »mora bit trd les«. Skoraj enak je tudi zapis iz Sel in Borovelj na Koroškem (VG 1960: 47), da je igô »navadno iz bukovega ali sploh trdega lesa«. Iz koroških vasi na slovenski strani, Hodiš in Sel, pa je sporoceno (VG 1960: 45, 48), da so tam igôji iz brezovega lesa, jesenovega in tudi bukovega. Na gorenjskem koncu, v Mojstrani (VE 1961: 5), so za »ježęsa« rabili lipovino, brezovino in tudi bukovino; a slednja »ni najbolj cenjena, ker jo rada muha nacenja (crv) in ker je težka«. In spodaj pri Medvodah, v Žlebeh (VE 1961: 1), je izpricano, da so tam »jarmi najvec brezovi ali orehovi, za jarmice pa je najlaže dobiti les iz orehove korenine«. V zapisu beseda tece tudi o kambah, vecinoma iz kostanjevega lesa, ki so jih tako oblikovali, da so svežo palico segreli v peci, jo nato skrivili, zvezali z vrvjo ter pustili, da se je posušila in ohranila obliko. V starejših zapisih iz šestdesetih let je iz Podlehnika pri Ptuju (VE 1962: 24) tudi za panonsko obmocje izprican brezov les kot tisti pravi, iz katerega je moralo biti vedno gornje bruno teleg; zato, »ker je najbolj žilav les in ne pretrd za vrat«. Z osrednjeslovenskega etnološkega obmocja pa je na primer z Rakitne in Preserij (VG 1960: 22) sporoceno, da so bili tam jarmi povecini »iz javorja, ker je najlažji«; iz Postojne z okolico (VG 1960: 27), da so bili ti vecinoma iz brezovega lesa; ter iz Hrenovic, Hruševja in Razdrtega (VG 1960: 26), da so za izdelavo jarmov uporabljali »jesen, bukev, tudi gaber, kambe so bile pa leskove«. In za jarem so že »mlado rasteco 'odrastovko' upognili v obliki jarma in s trajnim obrezovanjem tekom let vzgojili« v pravo obliko. Za enojni »žil« pa so v gozdu poiskali »že po naravi tako ukrivljeno deblo«. V ustnih pricevanjih s konca osemdesetih let je bilo mogoce najti vznemirljiv zapis iz Stranic na obronkih Pohorja (VŠ 1986–87: 28) – in sicer glede rabe jese­novine. Kolar iz tega kraja, ki je zadnje telege napravil leta 1978, jih je izdeloval iz brezovega lesa. »Jesen ni bil dober, ker je živino pekel – iz brezovega pa so bile lahke in elasticne«. Podobno je bilo sporoceno v enem izmed zgodnejših zapisov s Pohorja, iz Ribnice na Pohorju in Podvelke (VE 1961: 12), da je bil za gornje bruno najbol­jši brezov les ali javorjevina in ne jesenov. S slednjim je v teh krajih povezano celo verovanje, da »gornji les ne sme biti jesenov, ker pije volu kri; ko jarem zavržejo in ga sežgejo, tece iz njega kri«. S konca osemdesetih let pa prihaja še ustno pricevanje z osrednjeslovenske­ga etnološkega obmocja, iz vasi Marno nad Dolom pri Hrastniku (VŠ 1986–87: 139), in temu sledi tudi nekaj zapisov s sredozemskega obmocja, iz Solkana in Košane (VŠ 1986–87: 2, 38), iz Koštabone (VŠ 1986–87: 132) in iz Gracišca z bližnjimi vasmi Pregara, Socerga, Kubed ... (VŠ 1986–87: 149). Kolar, ki je delal jarme vvasi Marno, jih je izdeloval »iz debelih brezovih plohov, ker je ta les lahek in mehak, da goveda ne žuli«. Iz Solkana in Košane je podobno sporoceno, da so ponavadi iskali les, ki se je že v naravi ustrezno izoblikoval; in potem so ga morali posušiti. Jarme so na-jveckrat delali iz klena, gabra, bukve, rešeljike, tudi jesena – a najprimernejši les je bil javorjev. Moral je biti mehek, kakršni sta javorjevina in brezovina. Zapis iz Koštabone pravi, da je možak, ki je pri njih delal jarme, zanje uporabljal suh hrastov ali orehov les. Iz Gracišca in sosednjih vasi pa sta kot najboljša sporocena brest in ponovno jesen. Les se je potem moral sušiti približno eno leto; »posušen je lažji in žival ga je lažje prenašala«. Kambe so tam izdelovali »iz drnulje (drena) in jesena, ker sta se lepo zvila«. Gaber, brest, bukev, hrast, lipa, rešeljika, oreh, jesen, breza, javor ... Ob tem bi bilo skoraj mogoce zapisati – kolikor mojstrov, toliko modrosti – oziroma da je imel vsak mojster, vsak možak, ki je kdaj izdeloval jarme, zavoljo razlicnih razlo-gov in na podlagi podedovanih ali priucenih znanj, svoje najbolj cenjeno drevo za snovanje teh neobhodnih priprav za vpreganje; najsibo s trdim ali bolj mehkim lesom, s prožnim, bolj težkim ali bolj lahkim – a med njimi so bili vendarle na­jpogostejša izbira breza, javor in jesen. Zato si kaže pobliže ogledati nekaj védenja o teh drevesnih vrstah, kakor so ga zapisali njihovi poznavalci: – Navadna breza (Betula pendula Roth). Brezovina je sicer neodporen, vendar elasticen les; je srednje težka, srednje trda in jo je lahko obdelovati. Poleg drugega je uporabna tudi v mizarstvu, v kolarstvu ... (Kotar in Brus 1999: 106). – Gorski javor (Acer pseudoplatanus). Med vsemi javorji ima ta najboljši les. Je srednje težek, srednje trd, srednje elasticen in težko cepljiv ter se lepo oblikuje. Javorjevino so uporabljali že v neolitiku, v bronasti in železni dobi, zlasti za izde­lovanje rocajev za orodje; pozneje so jo cenili rezbarji in kolarji (Kotar in Brus 1999: 218). O JARMIH – Veliki jesen (Fraxinus excelsiorL.). Jesenovina je žilav, trden ter nenavadno elasticen les. Iz jesena so na primer Kelti izdelovali svoje loke, sulice in kopja, pozneje pa je bil cenjen v kolarstvu pri izdelavi koles za vozove in zahtevnejših rocajev rocnega orodja (Kotar in Brus 1999: 297, 300). Glede na predstavljene lastnosti lesa navedenih drevesnih vrst tako njihovo favoriziranje pri izdelovanju jarmov nikakor ne preseneca. Zlasti breza in javor, ki so ju številni izdelovalci najbolj cenili, sta si namrec tudi anatomsko zelo podobna. Javor in jesen pa sta sicer oba ustrezno žilavi lesni vrsti, vendar imata razlicno teksturo. In pravv slednji, ki je pri prvem zelo fina – javorjevina je nam­rec izjemno homogena, se enakomerno obrablja –, pri drugem pa bolj groba, se najverjetneje skriva modrost posameznih izdelovalcev glede rabe jesenovine.56 Skrivajo jo besede, kakršne so na primer: »Jesen ni bil dober, ker je živino pekel« in podobne; besede, ki sporocajo, zakaj možaki, ki so delali jarme, zanje niso radi segali po jesenovini ter so to lesno vrsto morda celo odlocno odklanjali. Toda zdaj se koncno zdi, da bi pricujoce poglavje o modrostih izdelovanja jar-mov (ter tu in tam tudi njihovih posameznih sestavnih delov, na primerkamb in goži) lahko nadaljevali ter sklenili z besedami nekaj mojih sogovornikov; z malce bolj gostobesednimi pripovedmi o tehnikah izdelovanja in o ustreznih znanjih tistih izmed njih, ki so priprave za vpreganje goved še sami izdelovali ali pa so pri delu spremljali oziroma opazovali svojega oceta, deda. Bríjevc in Šovágin Na panonskem etnološkem obmocju sem nekaj drobnih modrosti o izdelo­vanju okvirastih vihrovih jarmov slišala pri Bríjevcu z Vetrnika nad Kozjim in pri Šováginu iz Gradca nad Podbocjem, ki sta si znala oba sama napraviti telege. Prvi, ki je zgornje bruno ponavadi delal iz bresta (in le spodnjo podvratno zaporo iz jesena), je poudaril, kako zelo pomembno je oblikovanje ovratnikov oziroma »skleck«; tistih delov, s katerima telege sedajo voloma na vrat. »Tega ne zna vsak« – saj se morajo lepo prilegati volovskemu vratu. Razkril je tudi potrebo po uporabi železnih goži v njihovih krajih in pri težkem delu: »Tuki more bit železna gožka – je huda zémla.« Drugi, Šovágin, pa se je spominjal: »Ja, ja – sam, sam; nájdu sem tako krivino od drevesa pa sem razklal; ce pa ni se dalo razklat, da je zgledalo bolj tako žilavo, 56 Telefonska kozultacija s profesorjema dr. Robertom Brusom z Oddelka za gozdarstvo in dr. Katarino Cufar z Oddelka za lesarstvo Biotehniške fakultete mi je pomagala razumeti, zakaj ustno izrocilo pravi, da »jesen pece«. Ta lesna vrsta namrec drugace nima reaktivnih sestavin, ki bi med rabo jarmov živali lahko pekle. A njena bolj groba tekstura po dolgotrajnejši uporabi lahko povzroci – podobno kakor je to opazno pri ladijskem podu iz jesenovine –, da en del lesa bolj grobo izstopi iz površine in tako z drgnjenjem na živalskih vratovih povzroca bolecine in skelece odrgnine. sem ga pa razrézou.« Iskal je vecinoma brezo ali pa gaber. »Breza je blo jako dober ...« Pomembno je bilo namrec, kateri les boš izbral, da ne pece vola vvrat; »po brezi ne pece pa javor je tud dober«. In sicer od korenine gor; »od zémle – meter, meter dvajset; do tíst je bil najbolj dober les (mocen); pol gor je pa že ták krhki, da bi že zacel pokat ...« A gledalo se je tudi na težo priprave za vpreganje; »túd, da je blo lákše, ker mi smo dal kovat«. Vendar – »ce so bli težki vól (kakšen par je lahko tehtal po dve toni), je blo treba tud težo ...«. Tone Brcon Posebno zgovorno pricevanje pa sem potem uspela zapisati pri Tonetu Brconu z Jelše pri Kostrevnici, razloženi slemenski vasi v zasavskem delu osrednjeslo­venskega etnološkega obmocja.Jarme in jarmice je izdeloval njegov oce Jože, ki se je na manjšo kmetijo (10 ha) priženil po 1. svetovni vojni iz bližnjega zaselka Rodni Vrh. Oce je bil kljub revšcini dober gospodar, saj je bil spreten rokodelec – kolar. Z zaslužkom od njegovega dela so pokrivali vse, kar je bilo treba kupiti in davke. (Mama je h kmetiji prispevala s pletiljstvom.) Ob njegovem prihodu so imeli na kmetiji enega vola in en dvokolesni voz, imenovan »volovska šajtrga« pa tudi »volovska mátrnca«, ker »so se mátral voli ...«. Take dvokolesne vozove so v teh krajih opušcali okoli leta 1950. Z njimi so vozili gnoj, seno in drugo. A oce je že kmalu po svojem prihodu za kmetijo napravil dva štirikolesna voza. In takrat, po 1. svetovni vojni, je zacel izdelovati tudi jarme. Najprej le za vpre­ganje dveh živali in pozneje še enojne. Najprej le zase, potem pa so zaceli hoditi k njemu »in je cele zime delal«. Ko je bil že v letih in je leta 1975 nehal, so ljudje rekli: »Kdo bo pa zdaj delal, ko on ne more vec delat ...« Vendar so takrat tudi v njihove kraje postopoma prihajali traktorji in potem ni bilo vec nobenega povpraševanja. Njegov delovni proces je bil naslednji: Kambaste vihrove jarme in njihove enojne primerke je izdeloval povecini iz brezovega lesa. Vse so doma nažagali. Kot napravo za žaganje je imel »kobilo«, ki se je razmikala in je potem vanjo dal hlod. Otroci (pripovedovalec Tone je imel še brata in sestro) so mu pri delu pomagali. »Dvometrski hlod«, tako dolg za dvojni jarem, so mu držali, da ga je prežagal na pol; da je naredil dve polovici, ki ju je potem obtesal, zarisal, sekal, žagal ... Imel je »múšter«, izrezan iz kartona – »pa je lepo gor polóžil, obrísal, pol je pa obdeloval ...«. A za enojne jarme je raje iskal nara­vne krivine. »Ja, jarmici so pa vsi iz klúk narejeni.« Te je iskal povsod po gozdu. Tja je hodil ob nedeljah, ko je prišel od maše. In ko je našel kakšno ustrezno krivino, se je odlocil. Vcasih je moral kopati korenino, jo odžagati in potem prinesti domov. Korenine je iskal razlicne – bukove, gabrove, jesenove ... Najvec jih je nabiral po O JARMIH kakšnih grabnih, kjer je erozija odnašala zemljo, drevo je drselo in je zavoljo tega navzgor raslo ukrivljeno. A tudi krivine so bile razlicne, zato »je s seboj vzel svoj múšter – al bo šlo tisto al ne«. Ce je bil namrec jarmic preširok, »ce je bil prevec odprt, ni bil dober; ce preozek pa tudi ne«. Oce je vedno govoril, da »konj je s prsi peljal, da vol pa s hrbtom pelje«. In tako je tudi »štránge (ojnice) napravljal, da je bilo težišce na zgornji polovici trupa vola, da je vresnici z vratom rinil – kerkonj je pa s prsmi rinil«. »Tista kamba ni nic nosila; je samo toliko, da se ni snel.« In vrvaste ojnice niso smele biti ne previsoko ne prenizko – temvec na pravem mestu. Tone se je spomnil, kako je eden izmed kupcev rekel ocetu: »Ja, ja, na tvojih jarmih zmeraj lahko vozijo ...« Ljudje so cenili njegova zadevna znanja. Z jarmi za dvoje goved je bilo pa drugace. Te je moral napraviti iz ploha, saj zanje ni mogel poiskati oziroma najti naravne krivine. »Zato so se pa ti vec lomili – ko je prišel kakšen rúker.« Nekatere je dal tudi okovati, a kupci so jih povecini sami nesli h kovacu.Tone je vcasih slišal katerega reci: »Ja, jaz po hosti vlacim, moram imet ...« in ga je dal okovati. Tak jarem se potem skoraj zagotovo ni mogel prelomiti, »ker ga je železna vez držala«. Jarme pa je otrdilo predvsem ožiganje. Tonetov oce jih je »pálu zato, je dejal, da je les skup potegnilo in da je boljše držal; bolj trden, da je postal«. Najprej jih je sušil, potem mazal s svinjskim salom, da je »tisto gorelo gor po njem; pol je pa tisto obracal«. V primerljivem francoskem zapisu iz Gaskonje (Pesquidoux 1936: 180) Kovac Jože Kodric iz Brezja v Podbocju pri okovanju okvirastega vihrovega jarma (foto: ekipa študentov etnologije pod mentorstvom Janeza Bogataja, 1977, Oddelek za dokumentacijo Posavskega muzeja v Brežicah). Blacksmith Jože Kodric from Brezje in Podbocje working on a withers frame yoke (photo: team of ethnology students under the mentorship of Janez Bogataj, 1977, Documentation of the Posavje Museum Brežice). pa je ta kolarska tehnika navedena tudi kot nacin hitrega sušenja in zmanjševanja teže jarma, ne le kot povecanja njegove trdnosti. Poleti je to delal, kjerkoli so kurili, pozimi pa vsvinjski kuhinji. Poleg tega, da je jarme ožiganje naredilo bolj trdne, so posledicno postali tudi crni. »No, in pol je bil crn, in pol je imel pa tak en majhen dlet – na polkrog – in je s tistim ga krasil: recimo skoz po tri je naredil na obe strani, da je bil uštíkan ...; za onega, ki je bil pa za dva (vola), je pa še na sred svoj mono­gram dal.« JB – Jože Brcon in letnico izdelave. In za zašcito živali je vrezal tudi posamezne apotropejske simbole, »kervol je bil takrat moc in tako rekoc bogastvo tiste kmetije; ker s tistim se je vse delalo ...«. – Kambe je delal vecinoma iz kostanjevega lesa. Zakaj? »Najlepše se je krivil.« Ustrezne palice je še sveže paril v peci. Ko jih je v gozdu nasekal, so morale biti debele (v premeru) od tri do pet centimetrov. Za krivljenje take palice v kambo je imel Tonetov oce poseben model in »je okoli tistega ukrivil, pa privezal, pol pa sušit dal«. Potem jo je z modela pobral, »precej dol vzel in drugo dal«; tako jih je vec pripravil. Ko je oblika obstala (ko se je kamba posušila), jo je pozneje »obdelal pa opasal not v jarem«. Pred parjenjem v peci namrec lubja ni olupil. »Pol se je pa lubje sam odstópil, ko je bila toliko sparjena; pol pa je obelil, tako da ni bilo pol treba toliko oblat pa púcat.« Nekaj lubja je samo odstopilo, drugo je posnel z rezilnikom. Model za kambe je naredil s kanali. Vanje je pritisnil palico za kambo in to je bila »nekako ta prava širina«. Na koncih jo je privezal – »vcasih kar z lubjem al pa s špago«. Iz kanala je ukrivljeno palico potem takoj vzel ven; samo toliko jo je pustil notri, da jo je cisto tocno oblikoval. Ce bi jo namrec samo rocno ukrivil, bi se lah­ko zvila postrani. Tako jo je pa po »tistem privezal in je tisto nekako tako obstalo«. In Tone je to oznacil kot ocetovo »fineso« oziroma prav njegovo vešcino izdelovanja. – Goži, »gožke« pri jarmu, je njegov oce delal iz trte in »vcasih kateremu je trto dal zraven – al so pa samí ...«. Nekateri so uporabljali tudi kovane goži, a tukaj so »skoz imeli lesene; je take šibe našel – in to bukove vhosti«. V gošcavi mladih bukovih drevesc, ki so zrasla tam, kjer so prej posekali. Odrezal je šibe, dolge tri do štiri metre. Potem jih je paril v peci – »toliko casa, da se je dobro sparila; pol je pa vvírštat dal pa zacel uvíjat ...«. Zvil je najprej eno, nato še drugo in potem ju je prepletel; toliko, kolikor je morala biti gož dolga. Nato jo je tako skrivil, da je lepo sedla v jarem, jo še posušil in jo nazadnje dal v jarem na njeno mesto (v gožin sedež). V peci je šibe paril na toploti – in sicer sveže, takoj ko jih je prinesel iz gozda. »To je moralo fríšno bit; précej, ko je iz hóste prinesel – in se je zmehcal tisti les; tako, da ga je cisto enostavno zavil (uvil), da so bile same šprínklce ...« In te se je dalo lepo obliko­vati v gož. V desetletjih med svetovnima vojnama in potem vse do prihoda traktorjevv njihove vasi je Tonetov oce stalno delal jarme in njihove enojne primerke. »Otroci O JARMIH so spali zraven in okoli, oce je pa žagal, sekal ...« Enojnega je delal »kar tri dni najmanj, dvojnega pa dlje«. A ce bi prištel tudi tisti cas, ko je po gozdu iskal pravi les in ga pripravil, »bi bilo pa še vec kot toliko ...«. Pred 2. svetovno vojno, ko so najcenejši cevlji Bata stali 19 dinarjev, je enojni jarem racunal 30 dinarjev, »ta velik je bil pa 60; pa tudi na 50 se je zglíhal ...«. In kerso k ocetu vsa tista leta prihajali po jarme iz širše okolice – iz vasi Trebeljevo, Prežganje, Polšnik, celo iz Sticne, »vse so hodili gor« k njemu – s tem njegovim dokaj stalnim zaslužkom niso slabo živeli. »S tem je on malo dvigoval ..., ker sama kmetija ni dala toliko.« So bili le otroci pri hiši in tako »smo pa kruh imeli skoz ...« David Žiberna Na sredozemskem etnološkem obmocju mi je med pogovorom na domaciji pri Žvábovihv Mercah na Krasu nekaj svojih znanj o izdelovanju kambastih vihrovih jarmov pritresel tudi gospodarjev sin David Žiberna, izucen mizar. Pripovedo-val mi je o tistih, povezanih s starimi nacinih izdelovanja – ta je vsrkaval v svoji okolici in temeljijo na zadevnih modrostih njegove none ter nekaterih drugih »ta starih« – in o onih sodobnih, ki jih je pridobil v casu šolanja. Za izdelavo enojnih jarmov ima sam vsa potrebna znanja, da bi jih lahko izdeloval »po starinsko«, iz rešeljike (Prunus mahaleb L.) – da bi bil »rešelíkov kómat in rešelíkova kamba ...«; a on se jih je odlocil delati »po moderno«, iz furnirjev, ki jih krivi na modelu, stiska karvvinski stiskalnici in potem obdeluje. David je pripovedoval, da stari, »ce so dobili rešelíko, so nardíli iz rešelíke; in ce ne – pa je bil hrastov al jesenov«. Ob tem je dodal izroceno modrost – prav takšno, kakršno sem zasledila v francoskem Morvanu (Berte-Langereau 1996: 7) –, da je za jesenov les pravi cas od velikega šmarna (15. avgusta) do male maše (8. sep- David Žiberna iz Merc, Primorska, izdelovalec jarma na moderen nacin (fotogram iz video posnetka Inje Smerdel, 2011, Kustostodiat za etnografski film SEM). David Žiberna from Merce, Primorska, modern-day yoke maker (photogram from a video by Inja Smerdel, 2011, Department of Ethnographic Film SEM). tembra). »Ko ga secete pozimi, je prec crviv«, ce pa je posekan v omenjenem casu, je lahko »star deset let ali manj, je trd ku kost«.57 Že oce je delal za sina, in sicer tako, »da je že on ukrivljal v naravi kómat; on je naredil takšen kalúp in en droben jesen je upognil po temi kalúpi; in on je rasel zmérom bol debel, zmérom bol debel, zmérom bol debel ... in pol on je šel, sam odrezal in je naredu kómat«. Iskali so tudi naravne krivine, a bolj zanesljiva priprava ustrezno obliko­vanega kosa lesa za enojni jarem je bila taka, da »so delali po kalúpih«. Oziroma po šablonah, kot jih je imenoval Davidov oce Ivan, ki je še pojasnil, da so teh morali imeti vec ter v razlicnih velikostih. Dodal je tudi pomembno modrost, da »vsak vol mora imet svoj kómat, ne; eden ima mocen vrat – recimo naš Pepo mora imet odprt kómat, ne; ta mickenmu ne moreš dat odprtega, ker pol mu leti ...«. Kako pomembna je bila njegova oblika, pa prica še naslednje znanje: »kómat« mora biti oprijet, a ne sme stiskati volovega vratu; ne sme biti pretesen, saj potem vol trpi, ker mu stisne žile ... »Se mora oprijet in ne sme tíšat žile ob strani vrata«, drugace žival lahko kar poklekne. V takem primeru so morali volu dati »drug kómat – in pol je pélou« ... Nona Lea je njuni pripovedi dopolnila še z znanjem o tem, kakšna mora biti kam­ba: »Kamba ne sme bit grljíva« (grcasta, od veje, iz katere so rasle vejice), temvec »mora bit gladka.« Delalo se jih je tako iz bolj mehkega, vendar trdnega, prožnega lesa; iz rešeljike, tudi iz jesena. David pa se je kljub svojemu znanju in obvladovanju vseh izrocenih vešcin izdelovanja enojnih kambastih vihrovih jarmov vendarle odlocil »za moderen nacin« – preprican, da je slednji bolj zanesljiv ... »Zatú, ker je ta bolj siguren. Ta stopostó ne bo pócu. Tam pa lahko dobiš grco glih tuki (je pokazal je na vrh ovratni­ka), kamor je najbolj šibka tocka – in bo zlómu. Recimo – tega (pokazal je na svoj nov izdelek) garantiram brez okovanja, ne bo se zlómu. Ga ni vola, da ga zlómi ...« »Kómat« naj bi bil nacelno iz parjenega lesa in tudi starejši ljudje naj bi »glih takú parli kómate; so ga šli pac u naravo iskat in so ga parli; les rata bol plasticen in so ga lažje obdelovali; furnir je pa že parjen ... problem je u naravi, ker láhko dobiš in dobro – in slabo ...«. Pri Davidovem nacinu izdelovanja pa naj bi takšne težave ne obstajale. In tako je domislil svojo inovacijo – zasnoval je enojni kambast vihrov jarem iz furnirja. Prav ta njegov primerek je našel mesto v zbirki SEM (kat. št. 127), z bolj podrobnim opisom postopka izdelave v njenem katalogu. Stari kolar iz Morvana je na primer prav enako povedal, da je najboljši cas med 15. avgustom in 8. septembrom. »Ves les, posekan v tem casovnem obdobju – hrast, bukev –, se ohrani dolgo, in hrastov les, posekan v tem casu, je neobrabljiv, neunicljiv.« (Berte-Langereau 1996: 7) O JARMIH Zaróbnjekov Toncek Ko sem med raziskovanjem razmerij med ljudmi in delovnimi voli krog svojih poti sklenila na alpskem etnološkem obmocju, na Pokljuki, sem sogovornikom na Koprivniku – poleg vseh drugih vprašanj – zastavila tudi tista o izdelovanju in izdelovalcih jarmov, v katere so vpregali svoje živali. Ne da bi morali kaj do-sti premišljati, so me takrat z zgovornimi napotki poslali na bližnje Gorjuše; k Zaróbnjekovemu Toncku, ki je slovel dalec naokoli po bohinjskih vaseh kot eden izmed najboljših, najbolj iskanih izdelovalcev »ígovcev« – enojnih rožickastih za­tilnih jarmov. In tako sem stopila do njega, na njegovo majhno kmetijo (5 ha), kjer so pred leti redili po osem kravin za delo rabili vole. »Tud po dva sem imel,« se je zadovolj-no spominjal. Po vrnitvi iz vojske, ko je bil oce že star, je Toncek delal »vse sorte«. Poleg službe je poskušal »kmetijstvo gnat naprej«, a je bilo iz leta v leto težje, saj »ni bilo dohodka ...«. Pomagal si je tudi z izdelovanjem ígovcev. Delati jih je zacel proti koncu štiridesetih let preteklega stoletja – takrat ko se mu je njegov ígovc, ko je z volom delal »pri gozdni«, med vožnjo polomil. Stopil je do enega možaka z Gorjuš, ce bi mu naredil novega. A ta je bil že star in mu je lahko samo še pokazal, kako se temu streže. »Skoz to sem jaz prišel v prakso, da sem jih zacel delat ...« Vendarmu najprej ni šlo pravdobro. Ko je prvega naredil in dal volu na glavo, temu ni lepo sedel; in drugi tudi ne ... »Je bilo ko novínc, ki je cevlje delal. Pol, skoz to, sem pa prakso dobil ...« Vola je bilo treba najprej dobro pogledati in pomeriti. Eden je imel na primer 800 kil, »en pa samo 400 pa je že vozil ...«. Za prvega, težjega, je moral imeti ígovc 12 col (32 cm), za lažje vole le 10 col. In s cim je meril volu glavo? »Z navadnim metrom; takim, ki je mel cole gor.« Natancno merjenje je bilo potrebno zlasti zavoljo tega, ker »eden (vol) ima rog bol nazaj, eden pa naprej; zdaj pa – ce ti ne znaš tisto pomerit, je glíh tako ko cevelj, ce ne paše na nogo ...«. In tako je bilo treba razlicno delati. »To je kakor clovek: kér (kateri) ima manjšo nogo pa je rabil manjši cevelj, kér pa véc (vecjo) ...« Toncek je bil preprican, da je za izdelovanje ígovcev najboljši bukov les – in sicer korenina. »Ce boš samo vzel bukov les – bo pocil ...« V gmajni si je odžagal malce daljši kos, »ker na koncu razpoka, da si lahko še odžagal stran, z obeh strani po meri«. Potem je obdeloval s sekiro, »da je ta prava moc«, nadaljeval z rezilnikom, z rašplo, nazadnje pa še s šipo – »ce ni bilo glájs papirja«. »Ce smo imeli kakšno šipo, je bilo najboljše (za zgladit).« Odprtine za »cveke« oziroma za rožice je bilo potrebno postopoma izdelati s tremi svedri: najprej z manjšim, srednjim, vecjim ... »Ta cvek je mocen ene tri centimetre (v premeru).« In ponavadi je bil jesenov; saj »vol, ce je bil težek ene 800 kil pa mu ígovc ni prav pasal, je cveke takoj polomil ...«. Iz takega lesa, kot je Toncek izdeloval ígovce, so lahko zdržali tudi po trideset let – se je spominjal. Kadar je šel v svoj gozd, je moral znati gledati: »Ta bi pa bila.« Ce je torej videl pravo bukev, jo je odžagal. »Ampak to mora bit star les; bukov les, starega meseca sekan (ob polni luni); kakor je mlaj, je že slabši ...To so vse ták hákelc ...« Oziroma modrosti, kakršne sem tudi v tem primeru zasledila v francoskem Morvanu (Berte-Langereau 1996: 7).58 »Bukev, ce jo boš ti mladega meseca ali pa, ko gre mesec gor – karvodo tišci gor. Ko je pa star mesec, je pa tisti sok vse noter. To moraš met prakso ...« S posekano bukovino je še malo pocakal, ceprav se mehkejši les lažje obdeluje. »Na prvo roko je nájbolj, zato ker je mehek les. Ampak za ígovc nardit je moral biti pa prav suh.« Rožici so bili najboljši iz jesenovega lesa, ker so bili bolj trpežni. Vendar so morali biti tudi ti že malo suhi; »surovega pa ne smeš dat ...«. Za en ígovc je porabil dva dni; in bilo je »dva dni dela cez glavo; pa moraš imet material na licu mesta«. Delal jih je najvec pozimi, saj so bili voli poleti vecinoma na paši; Toncek je pa moral od gospodarja do gospodarja in pomerit vola ... Za enega je racunal tri tisoc dinarjev, ceprav je po »par dni delal; kaj je bilo tri jurje – u Titovi Jugoslaviji; kar si mogel dat, si pa dal ... najvec je bilo, da si cloveku ustregel«. In zato jih je – poleg želje oziroma potrebe po dopolnilnem zaslužku, da je »mogel kmetijo gnat naprej« – tudi rad izdeloval ... Spominjal se je, da jih ni v tolikšni meri delal za domaco vas, kakor za Bohinj. Njegovi ígovci so šli po deset do štirinajst kilometrov dalec z Gorjuš – na primer v Bohinjsko Bistrico in na Nemški Rovt. Toncek je bil znan naokoli. »A veste, da nas je bilo vec takih pa niso vse upošteval. Kakšen ga je naredil pa se je hitro zlomil. Jaz sem ga pa res iz tiste korenine naredil, da je bil trden.« In tistega gospodarja, ki je bil z njim zadovoljen, je potem kak drugi zacel spraševati: »Kdo pa ta íguc dela, da ga bo še meni naredil; in skozi to sem jaz malo zaslužil ...« Toncek svojih ni krasil, jih je pa pobarval z zeleno barvo. »Zelena barva je najbolj ta prava. Tud rdece so jih štrihal, pa ni tako lep; ni ta prava barva.« (Zeleno so v pokljuških vaseh radi obarvali tudi oselnike in kosišca.) A poleg povedanega je razkril tudi en izkustven razlog: namrec, ce je deževalo, je po pobarvanem ígovcu voda lepo odtekala ... Za Tonetom ga je najprej dobil v roke kovac. »To se je lastnik sam pozanimal.« Njegovo delo je bilo okovanje obeh koncev, kjer je na obeh straneh v zanki dodal ovalna clena, »nárbe«. Slednje so sedle v odprtine na ojnicah in se pricvrstile z bukovim zaticem, »žábco«. Potem je prišel na vrsto »pa še zótlar«, ki je moral narediti »kapo«, blazino za volovsko glavo, in jermen. 58 Stari kolar iz Morvana je Berte-Langereauju pripovedoval (1996: 7), da se les v gozdu poreže oziroma poseka, ko gre luna dol (lune descendante) ali ob »trdi luni« (lune dure), zato da potem ne zbada, ne pika. Ob polni luni (en bonne lune) je zato pravi cas, kervelja, da je okrogla luna dobra za les, ki potem ne postane šopast (otepast). O JARMIH Zaróbnjekov Toncek z Gorjuš, Gorenjska, izdelovalec jarmov (fotogram iz video posnetka Inje Smerdel, 2010, Kustostodiat za etnografski film SEM). Zaróbnjek’s Toncek from Gorjuše, Gorenjska, yoke maker (photogram from a video by Inja Smerdel, 2010, Department of Ethnographic Film SEM). Svoje pripovedovanje o izdelovanju enojnih rožickastih zatilnih jarmov pa je Zaróbnjekov Toncek sklenil z demonstracijo: na dveh kolih – kakor da sta volov-ska rogova – mi je pokazal vezanje ígovca. Z njim je koncal na sredini, »glíh tako, kakor ima ženska pri laseh«,potem pa je imaginarnega vola še »razvézal«. Na koncu je ígovc prijel z levo roko, nanj lepo ovil jermen, da je bil pospravljen, kot je bilo v navadi, ter ga obesil na klin ob vratih hleva ... In zdaj je cas, ko lahko tudi sama »obesim na klin« pripovedovanje o modros­tih izdelovanja jarmov in o njihovih izdelovalcih. Po nepricakovano vecplastni sporocilnosti neme govorice snovnega, ki so jo o jarmih tihotno šepetali njihovi primerki iz muzejske zbirke, je ta govorica še tolikanj bolj zaživela, ko jo je bilo mogoce dopolniti s pricevanji ljudi, ki so poslušali pripovedi o zadevni izroceni dedišcini ali pa so bili celo sami njeni nosilci in nadaljevalci. Z njimi je povezano spoznanje – pravzaprav slikovito videnje nekakšnega potujocega podeželja – o poteh izdelovalcev jarmov in njihovih iskalcevvolovskih gospodarjev, o stopanju po sejmih, od vasi do vasi, od kmetije do kmetije ...; vse na podlagi potrebe po ustreznih, dobro narejenih, pravih jarmih ... Svet teh prapredmetov, o katerih so se skozi stoletja dolgega trajanja ohranjala, a tudi razvijala posamezna znanja, morda nekatera nova spoznanja in raznovrstne modrosti, je bil neverjetno din­amicen ... In bil je vse od noci casa do preteklih desetletij do obisti tesno povezan s clovekovim bivanjem ... KOTVIDNI GLASNIKI KMECKE ISTOVETNOSTI V tej tesni povezanosti so jarmi globoko proniknili v cloveško zavest; svoje sledi so pustili tudi v jeziku in v simboliki, v šegah in v istovetnosti. Jezik V jezik so se naselili z besedo za svoje poimenovanje, ki je bila marsikje v rabi pri štetju volov. Postala je sinonim za dvojico oziroma par. Sintagma »jarem volov« je bila tako številcno dolocilo za par teh živali oziroma za dva vola. Pr-vikrat sem jo zasledila pri prebiranju Jurcicevega romana Sosedov sin, v pogovoru med dvema njegovima junakoma na semanji dan, ko zadolženi (a nekoc pre­možni) Brašnar vpraša bogatina Antona: »Koliko jarmovvolov pa danes kupiš?« in od slednjega dobi odgovor: »Kakšnih pet jarmov pravim, da bi jih ...« (Jurcic 1969: 12). Potrditev, da je bila sintagma »jarem volov« dejansko v rabi vvsakdanjem gov-oru, ob omenjanju števila volovvstvarnem življenju, ki ga Jurcicevo pisateljsko pero ocitno ni le slikovito, temvec tudi dovolj realisticno opisovalo, sem pozneje iskala in našla v muzejskem rokopisnem arhivu, v nekaj odgovorih iz etnoloških vprašalnic iz šestdesetih in osemdesetih let preteklega stoletja (Fond Jarem), iz razlicnih slovenskih krajev. Z jarmom so tako dvojico volov oznacevali na primer v Žlebeh pri Medvodah (VE 1961: 1), vVrhu nad Rovtami nad Logatcem (VG 1960: 57), vVelikem Orehku pri Novem mestu (VE 1961: 45) in v Budanjah pri Ajdovšcini (VE 1962: 54). Ko so v Podgorju pri Kamniku rekli: »Imam pet jarmov volov,« je to pomenilo pet parov delovnih volov (VE 1962: 3). V odgovoru iz Vrha nad Rovtami pa je bilo še pomensko zgovorno dodano, da je biti brez jarma – brez para volov – pomenilo revšcino; in v takem primeru je znal kak oce reci: »Hcere ne dam tja, kjer nimajo jarma pri hiši ...« (VG 1960: 57) Poleg sinonima za dvojico ali par se je jarem – a le njegova okvirasta vihrova razlicica – v jeziku pojavil tudi kot prispodoba za nerodnico, nerodneža ... (ki je prav tako izpricana v omenjenih vprašalnicah). V Hrastniku oziroma v okoliških krajih so na primer takega cloveka »zmerjali s telego« ... (VG 1960: 10); v okolici Slovenske Bistrice so tistemu, ki je bil neroden, pravili »preklet teleženk« ... (VE 1962: 20); iz Krke in Ivancne Gorice z okolico je zapis iz leta 1962, da tam nerod­nemu cloveku ali živali pravijo: »Ta je pa prava telenga (ali telengar)« ... (VE 1962: 36); in iz Dobove so sporoceni še naslednji stavki: »Tako si nerodna kot stare telege ... Ti si pravi teležjenk (ce si neroden) ... Nisi za drugo kot da bi te vpregel v telege ...« (VŠ 1986–87: 39). O JARMIH V Mackih nad Robom pri Velikih Lašcah se je našla tudi uganka o jarmu: »Skljucen Peter, zvit Matevž, kaj je to?« – Peter je jarem, Matevž pa kamba ... (VE 1960: 42, zapis je prispeval Boris Orel). S svojo bipolarno metaforiko, v kateri jarem ni samo zelo pogosta metafora za suženjstvo in trpljenje, temvec tudi za harmonijo, za ubrano življenje in delo v dvoje, se je ta prapredmet znašel tudi v simboliki. A preden se tej pobliže posveti-mo – najsibo pozitivni (harmonija, skupno delo ...) najsibo negativni (podrejanje, trpljenje ...) –, si poglejmo še nekaj s slednjo poveznanih rekov: V Dolencih in Šalovcih na Gorickem so imeli na primer navado reci: »Rešil se je jarma,« ce se kdo reši skrbi ali težav ... (VE 1961: 21). Iz Dobove je sporoceno za nevesto, ki gre na kmete, da »gre v težki jarem« ... (VŠ 1986–87: 39). V Ciginju na Tolminskem je bilo zapisano: »Sem sit tega jarma!« – »Dovolj jarma imam že!« – »Pretežak je moj jarem ...« (VE 1962: 60). In še reki iz Dutovelj: »Vpregla sta se v jarmi.« – »Ce si v jarmu, moraš vlec ...« – »Gorje kmetu, ki nima zadosti glav za jarm ...« (VŠ 1986–87: 7). Simbolika Ce nadaljujemo z jarmovo negativno simboliko podrejanja, trpljenja in drugih podobno slabih stanj, se je treba najprej umestiti v širši evropski kulturnozgodovinski prostor, kjer je bilo spoznano, da »ima izbira jarma (oziroma vsaj njegove podobe, njegovega poimenovanja) kot simbola podreditve nekega sovražnika, dolgo zgodovinsko tradicijo, ki presega meje srednjega veka« (Mingote Calderón 2005: 287). Vkršcanski tradiciji je bil simbol gospostva, oblasti, po­dreditve. V Španiji je na primer jarem s takšno simboliko59 postal prepoznavni znak katoliškega kralja Ferdinanda (Fernando el Católico) in se je v ikonografiji zacel pojavljati kmalu za koncem državljanske oziroma dinastijske vojne. Kot simbol podreditve je bil namrec ustvarjen prav v casu vrenja domacih bojev, ki sta jih izvajala s kraljico Izabelo, da bi premagala anarhijo plemstva (Min-gote Calderón 2005: 153). Šcepec k pomenu podrejanja so pritresle tudi besede anonimnega španskega pesnika, vkaterih so kastiljski uporniki, pred katerimi naj bi Ferdinand ob zmagi dvignil jarem, opisani kot ukroceni biki ... (Mingote Calderón 2005: 255). Zdaj pa se iz španskega kraljevskega okolja Kastilje in Aragona 15. in 16. sto­letja preselimo na Slovensko, kjer je šlo sicer za enaka sporocila jarma kot simbo-la podrejanja in gospostva, a ta so bila od vekomaj in povsod povezana z nami; s Gre za tako imenovani »trojni jarem«, jarem s tremi ovratniki, s katerim so v Španiji krotili neposlušno živino – in v simbolnem pomenu uporno plemstvo (Mingote Calderón 2005: 258). prebivalci naše dežele, ki so si jih dolga stoletja podrejali tuji oblastniki ali zavoje­valci. Bili smo »na drugi strani« zadevne simbolike; ne tisti, ki so druge vklepali v jarem, temvec podložniki, ki so ga morali nositi ... In tako je postal jarem s svojim imenom in simbolnim pomenom zelo prisoten v slovenski literaturi – v poeziji in v proznih delih. Bil je kar dostikrat uporabljena metafora za podrejenost. Slikovi-to povedno poeticno ilustracijo naše podjarmljenosti nam na primervtreh svojih pesmih ponuja že Anton Aškerc (1856–1912): – V pesmi Cuj, veter piše razdivjan pravi: Pradedov glasovi vzdihujejo, jocejo in stocejo / ... / Sedaj tod tujec širi se, / ošabno nam šopiri se ... / Premehki pac mi bili smo, / da zemljo mu pustili smo ... / Tedaj pa je nasilnik naš / pod jarem upognil tilnik naš ... (Aškerc 1968: 20. Poudarek I. S.). – V Božicni pesmi siromakovi se ta meni z božjim sinom: Imeli radi bi, da ti igó, / vkatero vklepajo nas siromake, / bi blagoslavljal jim, pomagal jim / goniti nas na truda polne tlake ... (Aškerc 1968: 26. Poudarek I. S.). – In v Kralju Matjažu spregovori o pravljicnem slovenskem rešitelju: Spasivši svoj narod iz jarma, / naredi med narodi mir ... / V ocini svobodni pirujta / s kraljico stoletni svoj pir! (Aškerc 1968: 159. Poudarek I. S.). Kaj pa drugi, prav tako mocen simbolni pomen jarma kot cudovite metafore za harmonijo? Za ubrano delo in vsakdanje življenje v dvoje, ki so ga ljudje dolga stoletja, dan za dnem, hote ali nehote nedvomno opažali med oranjem, vožnjo in vleko – pri mnogih parih svojih delovnih volov. Živali, tako navajenih dru­ga na drugo in na složno premagovanje naporov pod skupnim jarmom, da je ohranjenih nemalo pricevanj, kako je vol, ki so mu zavoljo tega ali onega razloga zamenjali pogosto vecletnega delovnega tovariša, neznanega prišleka odklanjal ter z njim ni maral biti vprežen, ni hotel delati. S takšnim simbolnim pomenom pa je jarem marsikje na Slovenskem (in tudi ponekod drugod – na primer v Franciji)60 spolzel najprej v metaforiko, potem v porocne šege ... In pravnenavadno se zdi, da njihove raziskovalke in raziskovalci v tem okviru prisotnosti jarma niso zaznavali ali je morda samo niso razlagali. V zadevnem etnološkem slovstvu namrec ni bilo mogoce skoraj nikjer zaslediti61 niti omembe njegovega zadevnega simbolnega pomena niti kakršnekoli s sled-njim povezane rabe v porocnih šegah in navadah. 60 S tem pomenom so na primer jarmi sporoceni iz francoske pokrajine Vendée (Hongrois 1997: 59). 61 Razen v diplomskem delu o slovesu Ljubljancanov od samskega stanu – o fantovšcinah in deklišcinah med 1995 in 2001, kjer sta jarem in njegova simbolna vloga (zakonski jarem) omenjena v »programu na fantovšcinah«, ko so ženinu okoli vratu nadeli jarem ali pa komat (Cokl 2002: 48). O JARMIH Šege A prav pri porocnih šegah ne moremo govoriti samo o pozitivni simboliki jarma kot metafore za harmonijo, temvec tudi o njegovi negativni simboliki kot metafore za podreditev; ceprav je bila slednja najveckrat ovita v šaljiva obredna dejanja ali reke. V tem primeru se tako jarmova simbolicna bipolarnost pojavlja v isti kulturni sestavini; kar na primer v evropskem kulturnem okolju mikavno ilustrirata pricevanji iz Španije in Grcije. Prvo, špansko, o negativni simboliki, sodi v 15. stoletje. Omembo podreditve porocene žene moževemu jarmu (v skladu z dominantno katoliško doktrino) je mogoce najti v Universal Vocabulario, ki ga je leta 1491 dokoncal Alonso de Palen­cia (Mingote Calderón 2005: 175). Drugo, grško, pa zgovorno sporoca najverjet­neje zelo zgodnjo, morda celo anticno povezavo jarmove simbolike z zakonskim stanom ter prica o (želenem) harmonicnem sobivanju moža in žene; in sicer na podlagi grške besede sízigos, ki pomeni soproga oziroma zakonca, moža in ženo. Gre za spoj dveh besed: za jarem – zygos – in za skupaj – syn, iz cesar je nastala zloženka syn-zygos ali sízigos.62 Gre torej za harmonicno združitev moža in žene, skupaj, v jarmu ... Na Slovenskem ne manjka pricevanj o vpetosti jarma v porocne šege – niti z njegovo negativno niti s pozitivno simboliko. Zapise o tovrstni rabi tega kmecke­ga orodja oziroma priprave za vpreganje sem ponovno odkrivala v muzejskem rokopisnem arhivu, v posameznih odgovorih iz etnoloških vprašalnic iz šestdese­tih in osemdesetih let preteklega stoletja (Fond Jarem), nekaj pa jih je dodal tudi spomin mojih sogovornic in sogovornikov. Iz zapisanega gradiva je bilo mogoce izlušciti naslednje: Zdi se, da simbolika jarma kot metafore za podreditevv slovenskih krajih, pri porocnih šegah in navadah, ni imela tako negativne konotacije, kakršno sporoca prej omenjeni španski primer. Izpricana je v šaljivih obrednih dejanjih svatov, svojskih rites de passage (obredih prehoda), na gostijah in v posameznih rekih. V Markovcih pri Ptuju se je tako na primer reklo: »Zakonski jarem ga žuli ...« (VG 1960: 11). V Kalobju pri Šentjurju pri Celju so imeli navado reci: »Kdor se poroci, se je oteležil ...« (VG 1960: 16). In v Dolencih, Cepincih-Šalovcih so o novoporocencu pravili: »Navezal si je jarem« (VE 1961: 21). V novejšem casu so ponekod zaceli to pripravo uporabljati na fantovšcinah, kar se je kot kaže preneslo celo v mestno okolje Ljubljane (Cokl 2002: 48). Iz Cankove v Prekmurju pa je na primer spo-roceno, da so med pojedino in obilnim pitjem fantu, ki se je poslavljal od sams­kega stanu, že poroceni prijatelji nataknili jarem (VŠ 1986–87: 19). Šale na racun 62 Pricujoco zloženko in njeno razlago mi je leta 2008 poslal grški kolega Yorgos Brokalakis. moške podrejenosti in še posebej izgube moške svobode, na kar je opozarjalo »podjarmljanje« na fantovšcinah, so po vsej verjetnosti temeljile na ne prav red-kih stanjih v zakonskih odnosih med možmi in ženami, v katerih ni vedno vlada-la harmonija, temvec so se poleg gospodovalnih mož našle tudi gospodovalne žene. Spomnimo se samo Tavcarjeve povesti Gricarjev Blaže s konca 19. stoletja, ko glavnemu junaku Ance pravi: »Vprežen si,«[...]»in v jarem te je vtaknila Luca, da vse poka« (Tavcar 1968: 127). A najbolj oprijemljivo – v svoji snovni podobi – se je jarem v okviru porocnih šeg in navad pojavljal na gostijah; vsaj v zadnjih desetletjih preteklega stoletja. Najsi so se vanj vpregali svatje in uganjali norcije najsi so ga natikali na vrat god-cem, vanj vpregali ženina in nevesto ali ga obešali na slavolok (na kolono, na mlaj) pred ženinov ali nevestin dom. Bil pa je tudi pogosto in priljubljeno porocno dari-lo, še posebej na Koroškem in na Štajerskem. Najprej si poglejmo nekaj pricevanj o dogajanjih na svatbah. Iz vasi Bresnica v Slovenskih goricah je na primer zapis družabnega prizora na gostiji, v katerem se ponavadi zastavi vprašanje: »Kaj delata prici med porocnim obredom?« ali pa: »Zakaj novoporocenca potrebujeta prici?«, cemur sledi odgovor: »Prici držita jarem, v katerega stopata novoporocenca ...« (VŠ 1986–87: 12). V Razboru pri Slovenj Gradcu so imeli navado, da »so na vsaki ohceti muzikante vpregli v jarem. Dva sta se Venojni jarem vklenjeni ženin na poroki leta 2008 (osebni arhiv M. Š.). Groom in a single yoke at a wedding in 2008 (M. Š. personal archive). O JARMIH vpregla, eden pa je vodil plug. In tako so šli orat ...« (VŠ 1986–87: 134). In simbolno klicati plodnost. Šášel v Spodnjem Razboru pa mi je pripovedoval o vpreganju muzikantov – za fotografiranje – in o šaljenju fantov, ki so ponoci med svatbo prišli kakšno zapet. Ko je prišel k njim ženin, so dobili vino, se malo napili in »tisti so se tudi vcasih dali v jarem«. Tako naj bi bilo v šestdesetih letih preteklega stoletja »in zgleda, da je bilo že prej ...«. O podobnem dogajanju z vpreganjem v plug se je v Vetrniku nad Kozjem razgovoril moj sogovornik Rajgel. Ko se je možila njegova sestra, so vpregli v telege prici, ki sta potem vlekli plug. Rajgel je kot glasbenik sam pogosto igral na porokah, kamor je za svoj program nosil s seboj manjše telege. Z njimi je malo pred polnocjo izvajal šaljiv program. Vanje je vpregal ženina in nevesto, za njima pa sta morala stati starša enega in drugega: da sta pazila, da bosta mladoporocenca dobro skupaj vozila. In še eno zgovorno pricevanje, ki ga je pritresel moj pripovedovalec Kondi, Pecník iz Marija Reke nad Preboldom. Z ženo Ido sta se porocila leta 1958 in po tem, doma na ohceti, ko so že celo noc Šaljenje svatov na poroki, Marija Reka nad Preboldom, Štajerska, 1958 (Oddelek za dokumentacijo SEM). Wedding guests playing pranks, Marija Reka above Prebold, Štajerska, 1958 (SEM Documentation Department). Jarem z vrezanim napisom »Srecna vožnja«, ki ga je lastnik gostilne Pri Mariu v Gonjacah v Goriških Brdih na svatbah natikal na vrat neveste in ženina, 70. leta 20. stoletja (Oddelek za dokumentacijo SEM). Yoke inscribed with “Bon voyage”; the owner of the inn Pri Mariu in Gonjace, Goriška Brda, used to put it on the bride and groom’s necks at weddings, 1970s (SEM Documentation Department). Pomanjšan kljukast vihrov jarem, porocno darilo sinu in snahi, Libeliška Gora, Koroška, 1999 (foto: Inja Smerdel, 2007). Scale model of a withers hook yoke, a wedding present to the son and daughter-in-law, Libeliška Gora, Koroška, 1999 (photo: Inja Smerdel, 2007). rajali, sta se dva svata, njuna sorodnika, vpregla v jarem in sta na dvorišcu zacela poganjati mlatilno napravo, gepl. Šlo je za šaljivo zamisel Kondijevega bratranca, ki že ni vec vedel, cesa še bi se lahko spomnil. Ob tem naj bi bil rekel: »Danes smo pravi voli; smo se ga prevec napili, zdaj gremo pa u jarem ...« In sklenil: »Jarem, da bosta oba enako vlekla, saj ne more eden bolj ko drugi v zakonu ...« O šaljenju svatov na vse mogoce nacine – tudi z vpreganjem v jarem – na ohceti, ki je vcasih trajala po dva dni, sta mi podobno pripovedovala Jezerníka z Libeliške gore na Koroškem. Ce so skupaj vpregli ženina in nevesto, so ponavadi rekli: »Zdaj bosta pac vkup vózla ...« Njun sin in snaha sta takrat dobila za darilo zelo realisticno izdelan, pomanjšan kljukast vihrov jarem (z gožjo in pregljem), z vrezanima imenoma obeh in z datumom poroke. V tistih krajih je to pogosto po-rocno darilo, izdelek kakega mizarja, prinesejo ga pa »vecinoma óknarji«, vasovalci oziroma fantovska drušcina. O tem, da ga mladoporocenci dobijo v dar pri poro­kah, prica tudi pripoved gospodinje z domacije Ajnžik s Tolstega vrha. Pozneje ga imajo v hiši za okras s pomembnim simbolnim sporocilom, in sicer: »Ce dva vola vleceta pa ne vem kak težek tovor, pa uštímana lepo, oba glíh ... Ce dva vola vleceta vsak na svoj kraj pa je cist láhko nekaj – je katastrofa! In tak je zakon ...« Ce se glede jarma v njegovi snovni podobi – vendar kot nosilca ustreznih simbolnih sporocil v okviru porocnih šeg in navad oziroma takratnega praznicnega dogajanja – ozremo po slovenskih pokrajinah, se dokaj prepoznavno izriše razmejitev med tistimi obmocji, kjer je bilo v navadi podarjanje jarmov kot porocnih daril, in onimi drugimi, kjer so jih obešali na slavoloke kot oznacevalce ženinovega ali nevestinega doma. Med pr vimi so to še posebej alpsko etnološko obmocje ter tu in tam panonsko, osrednjeslovensko in sredozemsko; med drugimi sta vecinoma sredozemsko ter tu in tam osrednjeslovensko etnološko obmocje. O JARMIH Jarmi so kot priljubljena porocna darila sporoceni še posebej iz vec koroških krajev. Na primer iz Vitanja, kjer je bila poleg poteka dogajanja zapisana tudi pri­poved staršev neveste, zakaj sta njej in ženinu ob tej priložnosti podarila telege: »Zato, da bi dobro peljala svoj zakon skozi življenje in da ne bi zašla vsak na svojo pot ...« Bile so manjše kot prave – z njunima imenoma in datumom poroke –, ampak dovolj velike, da so ju lahko vpregli vanje. Dobila sta jih opolnoci, ker je taka navada; ker takrat nevesta postane žena in ženin mož. Ko sta darilo pred ljudmi razvila, ju je vpregel eden izmed svatov, po tem sta morala izpiti vsak kozarec vina, po fotografiranju pa so ju izpregli (VŠ 1986–87: 36). Tudi v Selah nedalec od Slovenj Gradca so imeli navado, »da mladoporocenca dobita med darili tudi jarem, ki si ga morata nadeti ob polnoci in s tem zaprežena zaplešeta v skupno življenje« (VŠ 1986–87: 120). Podarjanje jarmov oziroma teleg je nato na Koroškem izprica-no še v Prevaljah (VŠ 1986–87: 52), v Lešah (VŠ 1986–-87: 118) in v Razboru pri Slovenj Gradcu (VŠ 1986–87: 134). Na njih se poleg imen ženina in neveste ter datuma poroke pojavljajo tudi razlicni napisi, kakršni so na primer: »Da bi novoporocenca srecno vozila v tem jarmu!«, »Srecno v zakonski jarem!«, »V dvoje gre lažje.« in podobni. Kot pogosta in priljubljena darila so z alpskega etnološkega obmocja jarmi sporoceni še iz Doba pri Domžalah. Tam so jih dobivala »dekleta, ki so se porocala na kmetije, ali pa fantje, ki so se ženili in prevzemali domacijo« (VŠ 1986–87: 59). V Polhovem Gradcu, kjer je bila zapisana navada, da jarem obesijo nad vrata, s sim-bolnim pomenom, »da sta ženin in nevesta vprežena, da nista vec svobodna«,pa naj bi ga v starih casih za porocno darilo dobivale neveste (VŠ 1986–87: 135). Drugace je njihovo podarjanje tu in tam izpricano tudi v posameznih krajih panonskega ter le redko osrednjeslovenskega in sredozemskega etnološkega ob-mocja. S prvega je na primer zapis iz Hoc, da jih dobijo novoporocenci, da bi se tako spominjali, da so se vpregli v jarem, da niso vec svobodni in imajo nove obveznosti (VŠ 1986–87: 10). Sledita omembi iz Jurija ob Pesnici pri Zgornji Kun­goti o podarjenem jarmu z napisom »V dvoje je lepše.« (VŠ 1986–87: 48) in iz vasi Bresnica v Slovenskih goricah, kjer sta ga ženin in nevesta dobila od sorodnikov s Pohorja, saj pri njih takšno darilo drugace ni bilo v navadi (VŠ 1986–87: 12). In še zapisa iz Suhorja in iz Berece vasi v Beli krajini, ki sporocata, da se v prvem kraju nihce ni spominjal, da bi komu dali jarem za porocno darilo, v drugem pa jih je dobilo vec zakoncev. K tamkajšnjim primerkom so sodile tudi diplome s šaljivimi, socnimi besedili, kakršno je na primer naslednje iz leta 1986: »Diploma se podeljuje Janezu in njegovi ženi Zalki za opravljen zakonski izpit, ki sta ga položila z odlicnim uspehom na vrhu Govc v topli zvezdnati noci. Izpit se jima dovoli koristiti ob vsakem casu, vvsakem kraju, kakor tudi vvsaki vremenski priliki in nepriliki!« (VŠ 1986–87: 13) Z drugega, osrednjeslovenskega etnološkega obmocja je jarem kot porocno darilo izprican le v okoliških krajih Šentjurja pri Celju, na primerv Kostrivni­ci, kjer je bilo takšno obdarovanje v navadi in priljubljeno – kljub njegovemu pomenu: »Telege za mladoporocenca pomenijo križ, ki si ga nadaneta ob poroki. Iz teleg, vkatere sta vprežena, se ne moreta izsneti ...« V bližnji Blagovni je na podar­jenih telegah na primer pisalo: »V dvoje se lažje vlece ...« in v takem darilu so ljud­je prepoznavali vrednoto in dober namen (VŠ 1986–87: 53). Ce pa pritresemo še drobec s sredozemskega etnološkega obmocja, je iz Ajdovšcine in okoliških vasi zapis, da je bil tudi na Krasu jarem pogosto in priljubljeno porocno dari-lo. Sporocen je na primer iz Lokavca, z napisom: »Srecno peljita na vajini skupni poti!«; kar ljudem pomeni, »da morata mož in žena v zakonu skupno delati in deliti dobro in slabo« (VŠ 1986–87: 143). Pri cemer gre zagotovo za pozitivno simboliko vpreženosti v jarem. In zdaj poglejmo še k slavolokom z uporabo jarma v njegovi snovni podobi ter z ustreznimi simbolnimi sporocili. Na podlagi zapisanih pricevanj z zahodnega obrobja osrednjeslovenskega etnološkega obmocja – na primer iz vasi v okolici Vrhnike in na Pivki – ter iz vec krajevv sredozemskem obmocju je mogoce temu pojavu slediti prek Brkinovvse do Šavrinskih brd v Slovenski Istri. Iz vasi Podlipa in Smrecje pri Vrhniki je tako iz osemdesetih let preteklega stoletja sporoceno, da so imeli navado jarem obešati na mlaj pred ženinovo hišo, s simbolnim pomenom, da bo življenje v zakonu težko in nesvobodno (zraven so namrec obešali še valjar, copate in metlo). Toda ceprav so to navado ponekod že Slavolok (kolona) z jarmom na ženinovi domaciji, Pristava pri Ribnici, Notranjska, 1995 (iz družinskega albuma). Triumphal arch (portal) at the groom’s homestead, fitted with a yoke; Pristava near Ribnica, Notranjska, 1995 (from a family album). O JARMIH opustili, so jo zaceli potem ponovno obujati – celo na Vrhniki (VŠ 1986–87: 54). S Pivke prihaja nekaj pricevanj generacije tistih, ki so se porocali v devetdesetih letih preteklega stoletja in po letu 2000. Jarme so obešali na kolone na domacem dvorišcu pri ženinu ali nevesti – pri tistem, ki je odhajal zdoma – in so izpricani na primerv Zagorju na Gornji Pivki ter malce bolj zahodno v Pristavi pri Ribnici in v Danah pri Divaci. Vaški fantje in dekleta jih ponavadi okrasijo s predmeti, ki oznacujejo znacaj, poklic ali druge dejavnosti ženina in neveste. Tako naj bi bili delali »od zmérej«, le da je ena generacija po 2. svetovni vojni to opustila; navado so zaceli oživljati rojeni po letu 1960 (Smerdel 2005: 376). S Pivke pa priha­ja tudi zapis, kaj pomeni jarem, obešen na »kalono, ko se kdo poroci; ... zakonsko življenje, življenje v dvoje, kot so nekoc vpregali živino ...« (VŠ 1986–87: 125). Slavoloki oziroma kolone z jarmi so potem sporoceni še iz Košane (VŠ 1986– 87: 38), iz Hrpelj pri Kozini in bližnjih vasi – na primer iz Materije (VŠ 1986–87: 152) – in iz Koštabone (VŠ 1986–87: 132). O tej navadi mi je pripovedoval tudi moj sogovornik Kasárnov iz Skadanšcine. Na slavoloku je bil ponavadi tak ali drugacen zapis, vKošani na primer: »Obilo srece mladoporocencema!«. Na jarem pa so ponekod še kaj obesili – na primervMateriji, kjerje ta nosil napis »Srecno v zakonu!«, so na eno kambo dali ženski, na drugo pa moški cevelj. Ob tem je bilo povedano, da je to stara šega oziroma navada, ki sporoca, »da novoporocenca jarem trdneje veže v skupnem življenju ...«. Ali – ce ponovimo, kar so rekli na Pivki – v življenju »v dvoje, kot so nekoc vpregali živino ...« Z uporabo jarmov v porocnih šegah in navadah – najsibo v njihovi snovni podobi ali z njihovim simbolnim pomenom – se nedvomno odpira vznemirlji­vo poglavje v razmerjih med ljudmi in delovnimi voli. V tovrstni rabi je nam­rec mogoce prepoznavati eno izmed sestavin istenja med clovekom in njegovimi delovnimi tovariši. A da bi razumeli, zakaj je do tega prihajalo in v cem vse je mogoce slednje odkrivati, bi bilo treba v nadaljevanju stopiti k volom in v case njihovega vecplastnega sobivanja z ljudmi. Glasniki kmecke, podeželske istovetnosti Na podlagi premišljanja o jarmu kot kulturni sestavini in o razvejani spo-rocilnosti tega primarnega tvarnega vira pa moramo spisati še nekaj neobhodnih besed o njegovem prepoznavanju kot glasnika kmecke, podeželske istovetnosti. Jarmi, ti prapredmeti, v stoletjih zgodovine dolgega trajanja neobhodne pri­prave za vpreganje živali, ki so ljudem pomagale pri pridelovanju hrane, pri preživetju in pri številnih drugih težkih delih, se namrec v spominu cloveštva ne ohranjajo le v muzejskih zbirkah. Poleg v slednjih so se zaceli ob koncu svoje vsakdanje rabe na kmetijah ali drugod na podeželju pojavljati (in tako ohranjati na drugacne nacine) tudi v novih funkcijah. Pritrjeni na procelja kmeckih domov ali gospodarskih poslopij, viseci na stenah gostiln ali pocitniških hiš in še kje, so nekaterim ljudem postali dragi in zgovorni nosilci spomina, spet drugim le okras. Med popotovanjem od vasi do vasi po slovenskih pokrajinah (in ponekod v hrvaški sosešcini) jih lahko oko zdaj tu, zdaj tam marsikje zagleda na zgoraj omenjenih mestih. A tudi pricevanj o enem ali o drugem ali o obeh odnosih do jarmov na Slovenskem ne manjka. Tista na primer, ki so bila zbrana na podlagi vprašalnice iz osemdesetih let preteklega stoletja, jih tako sporocajo prav z vseh etnoloških obmocij. Z alpskega je iz Podklanca pri Dravogradu zapis, da imajo »jarm kot spomin na cas, ko smo še vozili z voli ...« (VŠ 1986–87: 37). Na Prevaljah, kjer jim visi na steni hleva, jih spominja na preteklost (VŠ 1986–87: 52). Iz Sel pri Slovenj Gradcu je sporoceno, da imajo v tem kraju manjše jarme povecini za okras, vecje pa hranijo »za slabše case«. Tiste za okras imajo ponavadi na procelju hleva in po neka­terih gostilnah (VŠ 1986–87: 120). V Razboru pri Slovenj Gradcu velja jarem za okras, na katerega so ponosni; okras in obenem spomin na stare case (VŠ 1986–87: 134). Iz Doba pri Domžalah prihaja zapis, da je »lahko zelo lep okras v hiši, gostilni, vikendu. Pomembno mesto ima v naši zgodovini. Odkriva nam nekdanje življenje, navade ...« (VŠ 1986–87: 59). V Polhovem Gradcu pa ga imajo nekateri kmetje za okras vsvojem domu in drugi »kot spomin na življenje svojih prednikov« (VŠ 1986–87: 135). S panonskega obmocja je iz Suhorja in Berece vasi v Beli krajini sporoceno, da na nekaterih kmeckih hišah in hlevih visijo jarmi; vendar le še kot »okras in spomin na živino, ki so jo zamenjali traktorji ...« (VŠ 1986–87: 13). V Moravskih Toplicah nedalec od Bogojine pa obešeni pri pocitniških hišah in v objektih kmeckega tur­izma visijo le za okras; a ponekod so ostali po domovih za »spomin na stare case in otroštvo« (VŠ 1986–87: 22). Na osrednjeslovenskem obmocju, na primer v Štorah in okoliških krajih, jih za okras obešajo na vidnih mestih pocitniških hišic ali prizidkov ob stanovanjskih hišah (VŠ 1986–87: 49). V Stranicah na obronkih Pohorja so se v bifeju nad tocilno mizo znašle manjše telege, ki gospodarju pomenijo »spomin na kmetovanje. Je ponosen nanje in s tem pokaže svoj odnos do zemlje – vez med vsakdanjim življenjem in zemljo« (VŠ 1986–87: 28). V Žužemberku na Dolenjskem krasijo vikende in senike, ker se ljudem »zde starinski predmeti imenitni« (VŠ 1986–87: 138). V Mirni Peci in okoliških krajih imajo jarme za spomin ali okras v kmeckih sobah (VŠ 1986–87: 50). In v Mokronogu je gostilna, ki je zunaj, na steni gospodarskega poslopja, in znotraj okrašena z najrazlicnejšimi jarmi. Nekaj jih ima tudi novodo­ O JARMIH ben namen – služijo na primer kot nosilci stropnih svetilk. Razlaga starega gos­tilnicarja pa je bila naslednja: jarmi so mu »spomin na pretekle dni, ko so se ljudje na moc trudili in garali, da bi preživeli sebe in svoje otroke«. Toda v sodobnem casu jih mestni ljudje išcejo le zavoljo tega, da bi si z njimi okrasili svoje vikende (VŠ 1986–87: 150). In še sredozemsko etnološko obmocje, od koder je na primer iz Solkana ozi­roma Lokvice na Krasu sporoceno, da jarme hranijo za spomin na case, ko so morali ljudje trdo delati (VŠ 1986–87: 2). Ali pa iz Lokavca pri Ajdovšcini, kjer ga ima eden od vašcanovv vinski kleti, ker mu je »zelo pri srcu. Na sedanje mesto sem ga postavil predvsem zato, ker me spominja na mojo mladost.« (VŠ 1986–87: 143). Tudi v Dobrovem v Goriških Brdih so izpricani jarmi, obešeni na hlevu ali na hiši kot »spomin na stare case in kot okras«; ter v vasi Gonjace za okras v tamkajšnji gostilni (VŠ 1986–87: 18). Jarem krasi zunanjost domace gostilne še vPodgradu blizu Materije, v vasi Kovcice pa je hiša, kjer ga imajo »v dnevni sobi na steni kot okras. Imajo ga zato, ker je zelo star in lepo okrašen« (VŠ 1986–87: 152). In za konec prihaja zapis iz vasi Zakriž pri Cerknem, kjer je razlaga namena jarma, obešenega kot okras, naslednja: »Zato, da se vidi, da je kmecka hiša« (VŠ 1986–87: 55). Jarmi kot nosilci za luci v gostilni Dev, Jarem nad vrati ženskega in moškega Mokronog, Dolenjska (foto: Inja Smerdel, stranišca v hodniku gostilne Dev, Mokronog, 2007). Dolenjska (foto: Borut Križ, 1991, Oddelek za etnologijo, Dolenjski muzej Novo mesto). Repurposed yoke chandeliers at the Dev inn, Mokronog, Dolenjska (foto: Inja Smerdel, Yoke above the doors of the men's and 2007). women's toilets in the inn's hallway, Mokronog, Dolenjska (photo: Borut Križ, 1991, Ethnology department, Museum of Dolenjska, Novo mesto). Ni težko razumeti, da so bile te priprave za vpreganje goveje živine, še posebej volov, s patino starodavnosti, marsikje in za marsikoga priljubljen okrasni pred-met. Poleg drugega tudi zato, ker spadajo med redka poljedelska in druga kmecka delovna orodja, ki so bila zavoljo razlicnih razlogov dostikrat bolj ali manj bogato krašena (kakor na primer oselniki in nekatera druga) ter so v desetletjih spre­memb v nacinu življenja na podeželju dobivala nov namen. V okvir teh sprememb sodijo tudi prizadevanja za razvoj turizma na vasi, ki naj bi ga »naš kmecki clovek« vkljucil kot »novo dejavnost v svoje kmecko gospo­darstvo« (Šušteršic, Jelnikar in Kumer 1976: 3). Del teh prizadevanj so bili nasve-ti, kako naj bi bila za takšno dejavnost opremljena kmecka hiša. V šopku izbranih, za ta namen najbolj ustreznih domacijskih predmetov, pa se je skoraj neizogib-no znašel tudi jarem: »Stene v veži prenesejo, da nanje obesimo kak lep komat, jarem, burklje, omelo, [...] in ob njih postavimo tudi skrinjo ali stol« (Šušteršic, Jelnikar in Kumer 1976: 82, poudarek I. S.). In morda je mogoce kot odsev takšnih nasvetov razumeti tudi iskanje jarmov kot okrasnih predmetov za stene podeželskih pocitniških hiš mešcanov ali na podeželje obcasno preseljenih nekdanjih vašcanov. Nekaj podobnega temu ali pa ustvarjanju novodobnih funkcij jarmov (celo transformiranih, prilagojenih so­ O JARMIH dobni rabi) se je kot kaže dogajalo tudi ponekod drugod – na primerv Franciji.63 A najsibo tam ali na Slovenskem – zdi se, da kjerkoli – so takšne ali drugacne no-vodobne tradicije (obešanje jarmov s spominsko ali z okrasno, dostikrat z obema funkcijama in tudi z novim casom prilagojeno rabo) pri enih odsevale nostalgijo in pri drugih morda iskanje kmeckih, podeželskih korenin. Iskanje izgubljene, morda pozabljene, izginevajoce istovetnosti. 63 V Franciji je namrec od zacetka sedemdesetih let preteklega stoletja obstajalo pravo gibanje spreminjanja starih predmetov oziroma njihovega prilagajanja bolj sodobni rabi. Jarme so na primer transformirali v obešalnike za plašce. Kar naj bi vse odsevalo nostalgijo ali iskanje kmeckih, podeželskih korenin (de Laubrie 1999: 5). AŠKERC, Anton 1968 Izbrano delo. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. BELL, Jonathan 1983 The Use of Oxen on Irish Farms since the Eighteenth Century. Ulster Folk life 29, str. 18–28. 1985 Note: Illustrations of the use of oxen in Ireland. Ulster Folklife 31, str. 73–75. BERTE-LANGEREAU, Philippe 1996 Les jougs du Morvan. Nevers Cedex: Camosine. 2000 Le temps des attelages. Lormes: Nourrices du Morvan. BLEIWEIS, Janez 1851 Nauk zdrave in bolne kopita podkovati in kopitne bolezni ozdravljati: Pervi del »Živinozdravništva«. Ljubljana: Kmetijska družba kranjska. 1871 Nauk o umni živinoreji. Ljubljana: Kmetijska družba kranjska. B. n. a. 1858 Da bi jarmi pri vprežni živini šli vsi rakom žvižgat. Kmetijske in rokodelske novice 16 (19), str. 146. B. n. a. 1993 Jougs des provinces de France au Musée National des Arts et Tiaditions Populaires. V: Jean-René Trochet (ur.), Jougs, contre jougs: Catalog de l'ex position du 20 novembre 93 au 15 mars 94. Savigny-le-Temple: Ecomuséecde Savigny-le-Temple, str. 32–38. BODÓ, Sándor 1966 Jármok a Hajdúságban. Ethnographia 77 (4), str. 538–565. BOGATAJ, Janez 2004 Domaca delavnost. V: Angelos Baš (ur.), Slovenski etnološki leksikon. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, str. 95. BRUNHES DELAMARRE, Mariel Jean 1969 Geographie et ethnologie de l'attelage au joug en France du XVII sičcle ŕ nos jours. Uherské Hradišt. : Národopisná spolecnost ceskoslovenská pri CSAVv Praze, Slovácke muzeum v Uherském Hradišti. O JARMIH CLUTTON-BROCK, Juliet 1992 Horse Power: A history of the horse and the donkey in human societies. London: Natural History Museum Publications. COLUMELLA, Lucius Junius Moderatus 1948 On Agriculture: In Three Volumes I: Res Rustica I–IV. London: William Heinemann Ltd; Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. CONROY, Drew 2004 Ox Yokes: Culture, Comfort and Animal Welfare. TAWS Workshop 15 April 2004, Silsoe Research Institute, UK (World Association forTransport Animal Welfare and Studies, Common ground: Moving forward with animals). New Hampshire: University of New Hampshire, str. 1–31. CONTINI, Carlo 2000 Segni di un mondo perduto, Il Museo delle Tradizioni Popolari di S. Martino diCorreggio. Reggio Emilia: Edizioni Tecnograf. COREL, Anton 1999 S pesmijo in harmoniko. Podgrad: Kulturno društvo. COKL, Andreja 2002 Slovo Ljubljancanov od samskega stanu: Fantovšcine in deklišcine v Ljubljani 1995–2001: Diplomsko delo. Ljubljana: [A. Cokl]. De LAUBRIE, Eduard 1993 Un élément décoratif: Le surjoug. V: Jean-René Trochet (ur.), Jougs, contre jougs: Catalog de l'exposition du 20 novembre 93 au 15 mars 94. Savigny-le-Temple: Ecomusée de Savigny-le-Temple, str. 14–18. 1999 L'attelage au joug: Petit journal d'exposition »Du joug au tracteur: Histoire d'un révolution agricole«. Paris: Musée national des Arts et Traditions populaires, Conservatoire de l'agriculture, Chartres, str. 3–6. De OLIVEIRA, Ernesto Veiga, GALHANO, Fernando in PEREIRA, Fernando 1969 L’attelage des boeufs en Portugal. Národopisnývestníkceskoslovenský 3–4 (36–37), str. 55–78. 1973 Sistemas de atrelagem dos bois em Portugal. Lisboa: Instituto de alta cultura, Centro de estudos de etnologia. FENTON, Alexander 1969 Draught Oxen in Britain. Národopisný vestník ceskoslovenský 3–4 (36– 37), str. 17–53. 1986 The Shape of the Past 2: Essays in Scottish Ethnology. Edinburgh: John Donald. FERLE, Mojca 2009 Še sedaj vedo ljudje o Francozih. V: Irena Žmuc in Gregor Moder (ur.), Napoleon rezhe Iliria vstan: Ob 200-letnici ustanovitve Ilirskih provinc. Ljubljana: Muzej in galerije mesta Ljubljane, Mestni muzej, str. 63–72. GAVAZZI, Milovan 1942 Etnografijski sastav (hrvatskoga sela). V: Zemljopis Hrvatske. Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, str. 639–673. 1958 Prilog jadransko-dinarskom kulturnom profilu zadarskog podrucja (Dugi otok, Sestrunj – sela oko Benkovca). Zbornik Instituta za historijske nauke u Zadru: Knjiga II. Zadar: Institut za historijske nauke, str. 193–227. 1969 Das Joch in Jugoslawien. Národopisný vestník ceskoslovenský 3–4 (36– 37), str. 151–162. GLASENICNIK, Andrej (ur.) 2012 Tu smo doma. Razbor: Kulturno društvo. GLASSIE, Henry 1999 Material Culture. Bloomington in Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. GRANDA, Stane 2004 Cupa – simbol slovenstva vTržaškem zalivu. V: Volpi Lisjak, Bruno, Cupa, prvo slovensko plovilo, in drevaki: Prispevek k etnologiji in vprašanju etnogeneze Slovencev. Trst: Mladika, str. 19–22. GRANLUND, John 1969 Rinderanspannung und Joche in Schweden, Národopisnývestník ceskoslovenský 3–4 (36–37), str. 99–120. GRIFFIN-KREMER, Cozette 2007 Du joug de tęte au joug de garrot: Récit mythique et changement technique? Ethnozootechnie 79, str. 51–67. O JARMIH 2010 Wooings and works: An episode on yoking oxen in the Tochmarc Étaine and the Cóir Anmann. Eolas: The Journal of the American Society of Irish Medieval Studies 4, str. 54–85. HALSTEAD, Paul 2014 Two Oxen Ahead: Pre-Mechanized Farming in the Mediterranean. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. HONGROIS, Christian 1997 Jougues de Vende. V: F. Sigaut, J. M. Duplan in N. Bochet (ur.), Les boeufs au travail. Rambouillet: AFMA, str. 49–60. IMELLOS, Stefanos 1975 Atlas tę-i Il Lęnikę Laographia (AHL). Kentrôn Ereunęs tęs Hellęnikęs Laographias tęs Akadęmias Athęnon, 1. volume, 4 cartes. JACOBEIT, Wolfgang 1948 Das Joch: Entwicklung, Alter und Verbreitung dargestellt vornehmlich für den mitteleuropäischen Raum: Dissertation. Göttingen: Philosophischen Fakultät, Georg-August-Universität. 1953 Ein eisenzeitliches Joch aus Nordirland. V: Kothe H. in Otto K. H. (ur.), Ethnographisch-archäologische Forschungen1. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag derWissenschaften, str. 95–97. 1957 Jochgeschirr- und Spanntiergrenze. Deutsches Jahrbuch fürVolkskunde 3, str. 119–144. JACOBEIT, Wolfgang in KRAMARIK, Jaroslav 1969 Einleitung. Národopisnývestník ceskoslovenský 3–4 (36–37), str. 11–13. JAGIELA, Kazimierz 1997 Jarzmo, jarzmica, chomato bydlece. V: Bohdanowicz Janusz (ur.), Komentarze do Polskiego Atlasu Etnograficzneg, t. IV. Transport i komunikacja ladowa.Wroclaw:Polskie Towarzystwo Ludoznawcze, str. 198–238. JANCAR, France 1869 Umni gospodar ali gospodarsko berilo. Ljubljana: Družba sv. Mohora. JANCÁR, Josef 1969 Das rindergespann in Ostmähren, Národopisnývestník ceskoslovenský, 3–4 (36–37), str. 205–212. KLAVORA, Fedja 2006 Bonaparte ob Soci – 1897: Prvi pohod Francozov iz Verone do Leobna. Tolmin: Samozaložba. KOREN, Hanns 1957 Jochformen und Jochnamen in Innerösterreich. V: Bericht über den 4. Österreichischen Historikertag in Klagenfurt. Wien: Verband Österreichischer Geschichtsvereine, str. 160–168. KOTAR, Marijan in BRUS, Robert 1999 Naše drevesne vrste. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica. KRAMARIK, Jaroslav 1960 Záprah skotu v Pošumaví. Ceskoslovenská etnografie 8 (3), str. 253–272. KUNDEGRABER, Maria 1967 Ein Kapitel aus der Gottscheer Gerätekunde: Die Ochsenjoche. Jahrbuch für ostdeutsche Volkskunde 10, str. 97–119. LEICHT, Matthias 2000 Die Wallanlagen des Oppidums Alkimoennis/Kelheim: Zur Baugeschichte und Typisierung spätkeltischer Befestigungen. Leindorf: Rahden/Westf. LERCHE, Grith in STEENSBERG, Axel 1983 Tools and Tillage in Iran: Observations made in 1965 in the province of Kermán. Tools and Tillage 4 (4), str. 217–248. LEROI-GOURHAN, André 2004 [1943] L'homme et la matičre. Paris: Éditions Albin Michel. LE THIEC, Gérard in HAVARD, Michel 1999 Developing suitable yokes for draft oxen in sub-Saharan Africa. V: Starkey, P. in Kaumbutho, P. (ur.), Meeting the challenges of animal traction: A resource book of the Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA). Harare: The Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA), str. 134–139. LUNDSTRÖM-BAUDAIS, Karen, BAUDAIS, Dominique in UPADHAYA, Nawaraj 2001 L'araire de Jumla: Un araire archaďque en Himalaya. Techniques & kulture 37, str. 77–108. O JARMIH MAKAROVIC, Gorazd 1981 Slovenska ljudska umetnost: Zgodovina likovne umetnosti na kmetijah. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije. MARINOV, Vasil 1969 Zur Ethnographie des Joches in Bulgarien. Národopisný vestník ceskoslovenský 3–4 (36–37), str. 163–177. MARZATICO, Franco 2006 L'araire et le joug de Lavagnone et de Fiavé (Italie). V: Pétrequin, P. Arbogast idr. (ur.), Premiers chariots, premiers araires: La diffusion de la traction animale en Europe pendant les IV et III millénaires avant notre čre. Paris: CNRS Éditions, str. 63–73. MEININGER, Helena 1993 Form and functioning of the Cotacachi – ard canton Cotacachi (province Imbabura) – north of Ecuador during soil-preparation on maiz fields. V: Barraca de Ramos, Pilar (ur.), Primeras jornadas internacionales sobre tecnologia agraria tradicional. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura, Dirección General de Bellas Artes y Archivos, Museo Nacional del Pueblo Espańol, str. 127–136. MILEUSNIC, Zlatko 1999 Transport i transportna sredstva. Etnološka istraživanja 6, str. 137–156. MINGOTE CALDERÓN, José Luis 1992 Yokes for three cows: A vanished technique for breaking in cattle in la Sierra Norte of Madrid. Tools and Tillage 7 (1), str. 3–28. 2005 Los orígenes del yugo como divisa de Fernando Católico: La presencia de yugosparatresanimalesenlaiconografía. Zaragoza: Institución Fernando el Católico. MINHORST, Rolf 1990 The Evolution of Draft Cattle Harness in Germany. Small Farmer's Journal 15 (1), str. 37–46. MRKUN, Anton 1943 Etnografija velikolaškega okraja: 1. zvezek, Kmetijstvo. Videm-Dobrepolje: Knjižnica »Etnografija velikolaškega okraja«. PASTIERIKOVÁ, Marta 2005 Die Keramiksammlung des Slowakischen Nationalmuseums in Martin. V: M. Beitl in V. Plöckinger (ur.), Keramik 3. Kittsee: Ethnographisches Museum Schloss Kittsee, str. 106–139. PESQUIDOUX, Joseph de 1936 La Harde. Paris: Libraire Plon. PICTET, Charles 1802 Agriculture: De la Charrue du Piémont, et de la Culture d'Azigliano. Bibliothčque britannique: Agriculture anglaise 7 (10), str. 357–396. PLETERSKI, Andrej 1995 Model etnogeneze Slovanov na osnovi nekaterih novejših raziskav. Zgodovinski casopis 49 (4), str. 537–556. PODOLÁK, Ján 1969 Beitrage zur Rinderanspannung in der Slowakei. Národopisnývestník ceskoslovenský3–4 (36–37), str. 213–244. RAEPSAET, Georges 2002 Attelages et techniques de transport dans le monde gréco-romain. Bruxelles: Le livre Timperman. SÁFRÁNY, Zsuzsa 2003 A tükrös. Budapest: Néprajzi Múzeum. SCHEUERMEIER, Paul 1956 Bauernwerk in Italien, der italienischen und rätoromanischen Schweiz, Band II: Eine sprach- und sachkundliche Darstellung häuslichen Lebens und ländlicher Geräte. Bern: Verlag Stampfli & Cie. SCHIPPERS, Thomas 2014 Skills as Identity Markers. V: Van Gijn, A., Whittaker, J. C. in Anderson, P. (ur.), Exploring and Explaining Diversity in Agricultural Technology. Oxford in Philadelphia: Oxbow Books, str. 276–277. SCHJELLERUP, Inge 1986 Ploughing in Chuquibamba, Peru. Tools and Tillage 5 (1), str. 180–189. SEDMAK, Drago 2004 Bovško in njegovi ljudje. V: Stanko Sivec idr. (ur.), Bovški zbornik: Ob 800-letniciprvepisneomembežupnijeBovec:1192-1992.Tolmin:Tolminski muzej, str. 143–162. O JARMIH SIGAUT, François 1993 Le joug de cornes: Une exception européenne. V: Jean-René Trochet (ur.), Jougs, contre jougs: Catalog de l'exposition du 20 novembre 93 au 15 mars 94. Savigny-le-Temple: Ecomusée de Savigny-le-Temple, str. 1–7. SMERDEL, Inja 1983 Ljudsko gospodarstvo. Slovenski etnograf 33, str. 1–26. 1989a Ovcarstvo na Pivki: Transhumanca od srede 19. do srede 20. stoletja ali trije „ovcarji“: Etnološka razprava. Koper: Lipa. 1989b Trije „ovcarji“: (Transhumanca na Pivki v casu kapitalizma). Traditiones 18, str. 137–146. 1991 Prelomna in druga bistvena gospodarska dogajanja v zgodovini agrarnih panog v 19. stoletju na Slovenskem. Slovenski etnograf 33–34, str. 25–60. 1992 Med smrtjo na krožniku in jecarsko ljubeznijo ali o pticjem lovu v Brdih. Etnolog 2 (1), str. 29–78. 1994 Oselniki: Zbirka Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja = Whetstone Holders: The Collection of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum. Ljubljana: Slovenski etnografski muzej. 1995 Pastirji se vracajo (ali res?). Etnolog 5, str. 105–130. 2005 »Bol si pámet.n ku clóvk,« je rekel volu?: O razmerju clovek – vol v vsakdanu in kulturi pivškega kmeta. V: Boštjancic, Janko (ur.), Slavenski zbornik. Slavina: Kulturno društvo Slavina, Galerija 2, str. 341–380. 2007a »Les gens ressentent plus de compassion ŕ la mort d'un boeuf que lorsque meurt un homme ...«: Sur les soins pour la santé des boeufs de travail en Slovénie (aux 18e, 19e et jusqu'au dernier quart du 20e sičcle). Ethnozootechnie 79, str. 141–154. 2007b O skrbi za zdravje delovnih volov na Slovenskem od 18. do konca 20. stoletja. Etnolog 17, str. 193–208. 2008 Orala: Zbirka Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja = Ploughing Implements: The Collection of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum. Ljubljana: Slovenski etnografski muzej. 2009a Le son des mots, la voix des sons: Sur la culture de communication avec les boeufs de travail en Slovénie. Ethnozootechnie 84, str. 49–71. 2009bZvok besed, glas zvokov: O kulturi sporazumevanja z delovnimi voli na Slovenskem. Etnolog 19, str. 37–77. 2011 Kaj nam lahko povedo voli na likovnih upodobitvah: O metaforicnih pomenih in vsakdanjih delovnih praksah. Etnolog 21, str. 103–138. 2012 Étudier les animaux en Slovénie: Des hommes et des bśufs. Ethnologie française 42 (2), str. 281–290. 2013 What Images of Oxen Can Tell Us: Metaphorical Meanings and Everyday Working Practices. Folk Life 51 (1), str. 1–32. 2014a Training Oxen Meant Training for the Children. V: van Gijn, A., Whittaker, J. C. in Anderson, P. C. (ur.), Explaining and Exploring Diversity in Agricultural Technology. Earth 2. Oxford, Havertown: Oxbow Books, str. 258–268. 2014b Aquiring Skills and the Transmission of Knowledge: Introduction. V: van Gijn, A., Whittaker, J. C. in Anderson, P. C. (ur.), Explaining and Exploring Diversity in Agricultural Technology, Earth 2. Oxford, Havertown: Oxbow Books, str. 255–257. 2023 Prvi koraki na poti med delovne vole – ali o posameznih zacetnih spoznanjih o odnosih do živali, kakršne poraja bližina. Svetovi 1 (2), str. 94–105. SNOJ, Marko 1997 Slovenski etimološki slovar. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. STEINMANN, Axel 2003 Afganistan: Eine Ausstellung des Museums fürVölkerkunde Wien. Wien: Kunsthistorisches Museum mit MVK und ÖTM. SSKJ 1991 Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika, 5. knjiga T-Ž. Ljubljana: SAZU, DZS, str. 50. ŠUMRADA, Janez 1987 O popravilu bovške ceste na prelomu iz 14. v 15. stoletje. Zgodovinski casopis 41 (2), str. 313–319. ŠUŠTERŠIC, Jernej, JELNIKAR, Marko in KUMER, Jurij 1976 Pocitnice na kmetih. Ljubljana: Kmecki glas. TARRÚS, Josep idr. 2006 La Draga (Banyoles, Catalogne): Traction animale ŕ la fin du VI millénaire? V: Pétrequin, P. idr. (ur.), Premiers chariots, premiers araires: La diffusion de la traction animale en Europe pendant les IV et III millénaires avant notre čre. Paris: CNRS Éditions, str. 25–30. O JARMIH TAVCAR, Ivan 1968 [1888] Gricarjev Blaže. V: Izbrano delo 3: Med gorami. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, str. 119–134. TERCELJ, Marija Mojca 2021 Staroselske kozmologije v okviru novih epistemoloških in politicnih teženj globalnega juga. Poligrafi 26 (103–104), str. 63–91. TIMAFFY, László 1968 A kisalföldi egyesigák. Ethnographia 79 (2), str. 170–182. UMEK, Ema 1986 Plovba po Savi v 18. stoletju. Zgodovinski casopis 40 (3), str. 233–268. VELUŠCEK, Anton 2006 Une roue et un essieu néolithiques dans le marais de Ljubljana (Slovénie). V: Pétrequin, P. idr. (ur.), Premiers chariots, premiers araires: La diffusion de la traction animale en Europe pendant les IV et III millénaires avant notre čre. Paris: CNRS Éditions, str. 39–45. VIIRES, Ants 1969 Rinderanschirrung im Baltikum. Národopisný vestník ceskoslovenský 3–4 (36–37), str. 121–136. VILKUNA, Kustaa 1936 Verwendung von Zugochsen in Finnland. Studia Fennica 2, str. 55–98. VINŠCAK, Tomo 2002 Vjerovanja o drvecu u Hrvata: U kontekstu slavistickih istraživanja. Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap. VOLPI LISJAK, Bruno 2004 Cupa, prvo slovensko plovilo, in drevaki: Prispevek k etnologiji in vprašanju etnogeneze Slovencev. Trst: Mladika. VONDRUŠKA, Vlastimil 1989 Slovník starého zemedelského náradi, nástroju a stroju (1750–1914). Praga: Stredoceské muzeum v Roztokách u Prahy. VOUGA, Paul 1923 La Tčne: Monographie de la station publiée au nom de la commission des fouilles de la Tčne. Leipzig: Karl W. Hiersemann. VYDRA, Josef in KUNZ, Ludvík 1956 Malerei auf Volksmajolika. Prag: Artia. WALTER, Sepp 1971 Weitere Ackergeräte in der Steiermark: Joch und Jar. V: Posch, Fritz (ur.), Weitere Ackergeräte in der Steiermark, Joch und Jar. Graz: Akad. Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, str. 38, 270–271. VIRI Rokopisni viri Arhiv (S)lovenskega (E)tnografskega (M)uzeja, Ljubljana. Fond jarem, etnološke vprašalnice: • VG 1960, Odgovori na Vprašalnico Etnografskega muzeja »O opremi in vpregi goveje živine«, ki je leta 1960 izšla v Glasniku Slovenskega etnografskega društva 2 (2). • VE 1961–62. Odgovori na taisto vprašalnico, ki so jih v navedenih letih prispevali posamezni slovenski etnologi in etnologinje. • VŠ 1986–87. Odgovori na »Etnološko vprašalnico o jarmu« (iz stoštiriinpetdestih slovenskih osnovnih šol), ki sem jo objavila v mladinski reviji Pionirski list 1986/87, 39 (4), str. 15. Arhiv SEM, Fond terenskih zapisov tako imenovanih Orlovih terenskih ekip. Arhiv SEM, TZ Inje Smerdel (I. S.) 2001–2008. Moji pripovedovalci o izdelovanju jarmov Tone Korošec, vulgo Zaróbnjek, roj. 1928, kmet in gozdni delavec, Gorjuše 67. Martin Friedl, vulgo Bríjevc, roj. 1937, kmet-delavec, Reštanj 77. Jože Onetic, vulgo Šovágin, kmet in živinski mešetar, Gradec 3. Tone Brcon, roj. 1925, kmet-delavec, Jelša 9. David Žiberna, roj. 1984, izucen mizar; Ivan Žiberna, roj. 1956, polagalec kamna; Lea Žiberna, roj. 1928, gospodinja, vulgo Žvábovi, Merce 11. ABOUTYOKES – AN ETHNOLOGICAL NARRATIVE ABOUT PRIMORDIAL OBJECTS, THE SILENT TESTIMONYOF THE MATERIAL AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE SYMBOLIC In 2021, by coincidence or destiny the Year of the Ox, and after a period deter­mined and guided by life, I slowly but steadily, in the rhythm of an ox’s footsteps, began to return to the task of drafting a discussion or monograph on the rela­tionship between humans and working oxen. This was the result of a long-term process: research based on extensive fieldwork, the study of a wide variety of sources and the reading of relevant domestic and comparative foreign literature. The research topic that most intimately defined me as an ethnologist during my time spent in the museum environment was preciselythe relationship between humans and animals. First, sheep came to the fore (Smerdel 1989a, 1989b), then songbirds (Smerdel 1992), and in the years when the transformation of the muse­um meant that my research work had to, among other things, focus on the organ-isation of collections and their studies, oxen also became a focus of my attention alongside the collection of various harnesses. I therefore managed to combine both research topics. Studying the quiet whisper of the material, the silent lan­guage of the yokes, which by their form and surface communicated abundant manifestations of their various stories: from regional typology (and historicity, the technique of yoking, the specific designs of individual makers, the choice of wood and its treatment, the relevant skills, the traces of use...) to the visible signs of concern forworking animals (carved protective symbols, carefully smoothed collars, wrapped cracked bows, the meaningful choice of wood, the weight of the yokes themselves). It was with the yokes that it was not onlypossible, but also essential, to also study the animals that wore these items on their heads (or the nape) or on their necks (or in front of their withers). And so it was that, in the first outlines of the work that was at the time emerging out of the museum’s col­lection, from under the yokes, the oxen slowly but steadily came to the forefront of mywork. The core of the research became the relationships between people and theirworking animals, which I have already discussed in several studies over the years, such as mywork on the role of the ox in everyday agrarian life in the Pivka region (Smerdel 2005), the concern for health of working oxen (Smer­del 2007a, 2007b), the culture of communication with these animals (Smerdel 2009a, 2009b), the significance of oxen in art and metaphor, as well as in every­day work practices (Smerdel 2011, 2013), the study of animals in Slovenia and the relationship between humans and oxen (Smerdel 2012), and a decade ago a study on parallels between the learning of oxen and children (Smerdel 2014a). I concluded my presentation of this topic, at least to date, with a paper on my own initial insights into the relationships with animals (and specificallywith oxen) that arise from working and living closely together (Smerdel 2023). Exciting and multifaceted traces of material culture have been left behind by these strong draft animals and the people who work with them, and in particular yokes, the objects or items used to harness cattle, especially oxen. Their silent testimonies are preserved in the SEM museum collections and some regional museums. Moreover, they can still be seen in many places in the countryside, as distinctive reminders of the past and as visible witnesses of rural identity. The introductory study presented below is followed by a catalogue of yokes held by the Slovene Ethnographic Museum (hereinafter “SEM”).1 YOKES – THE FUNDAMENTAL KNOWLEDGE THATDEFINES THEM The yoke, that fascinating primordial object – the item bywhich, once upon a time, overnight, domesticated cattle became working cattle, and thus our help­er and workmate in many agricultural and other tasks – has remained almost unchanged throughout the long-duration of world history, despite the various forms established in different countries, because its basic function has kept it that way. It is one of those objects in the heritage of material culture – a phrase that “unites the concrete and the abstract”, as Glassie (1999: 41) puts it – that must be studied with sensitivity and respect if our orientation is to be the abstraction called culture. Moreover, material, tangible culture is culture made tangible, hu­man intelligence at work in the world. It inevitably starts with things, but it does not end with them, because in the processes of exploring material culture we use objects for the sake of getting closer to human thought and action (Glassie 1999: 41). Before going further, it should be noted that we talk about things with words, with specific names for individual objects and also by explaining their meaning and origin. And with a cultural component as primal and as complexly testimoni­al as the yoke, a short philological excursion in the manner of Wörter und Sachen2 seems warranted. 1 The catalogue includes all the yokes that were donated to the museum or purchased for the collection until 2012. In the following years, a few more specimens arrived at the SEM, but their typology does not differ from the yokes included in the catalogue. 2 “Words and things” was a philological movement in the early 20th century, particularly in Germany and Austria, based on the belief that the origins of the words should be investigated in close connection with the study of the artefacts and cultural concepts that the words signified. For example, the 1997 Slovenian Etymological Dictionary says the following about the yoke (jarem in Slovenian): Járem – jarma, jármiti, podjármiti. The same as the Old Church Slavonic jar.m., Croatian and Serbian járam, and also related to the Russian jarmó and Polish jarzmo. The Proto-Slavic *ar.m. (and *ar.m.o) is a formation based on the In-do-European root *arH-, 'to fold; to assemble so as to fit'. The original meaning of the word is therefore 'that bywhich (two draft animals) are joined together, coupled' (Snoj 1997: 196). In the Slovenian Alpine area, however, another name for this item was com­monly used, igô, which is explained in the etymological dictionary as follows: Igô – ižęsa, jarem. The same as the Old Church Slavonic igo, older Croatian igo, Russian ígo, Czech jho. The Proto-Slavic *j.go evolvedfrom the Indo-Euro­pean *Hiugo- jarem, from which also comes the Old Indian yugá-, Greek zygón, Latin iugum, Hittite iuga-, Gothic juk, Old High German juch, and German Joch, all meaning 'yoke'. The Indo-European word is formed from the root *Hieug- 'to yoke', which is determined by*Hieu(H)- 'to bind' (Snoj 1997: 181). It is fascinating that these two names denote or define the two basic forms of cattle-drawn yokes: Vihrov jarem, used in Slovenia in two basic variants, called the Mediterranean yoke (with bows, bow yoke in English) and the so-called Slavic yoke or tele(n)ge (its frame version, frame yoke in English); French le joug de garrot; English withers yoke (also called neck yoke or shoulders yoke); German Widerristjoch. The withers yoke (in all its variants) rests on the neck of the animal, on the cervical vertebrae in front of the withers, which lies on top, at the junction between the shoulder blades (Sigaut 1993: 5; Griffin-Kremer 2007: 52). The structure of its operation is elementary and the necessary components are sometimes reduced to only a few things: a wooden beam, barely worked (between 120 and 180 cm long), which sits on the curved part of the neck, receives support (in front of the withers) and transmits power to the drawbar, sometimes just a simple pole. The freedom of head movement is an advantage in such a position. There is a fundamental prob­lem of the global balance of the yoke (Raepsaet 2002: 90). Zatilni jarem, called igô;in Slovene; French le joug de tęte, also le joug de corne, le joug de nuque; English head yoke, also horn yoke; German Genickjoch (head-pulling yokes Kopfzuggeschirre also include the forehead yoke, Stirnjoch, and the horn yoke, Hörnerjoch). The head yoke rests on the nape of the neck, which means that it must be adapted to the space of the skull behind the horns, on top of the animal’s cervical vertebrae. It is characterised by a high degree of rigidity because it is firmly fastened around the horns by looped straps and then also over a pad on the forehead (or without it), which is supposed to protect the skin on the head and cushion the impact on the skull when the drawn objects hit obstacles. It is this rigidity that allows this balancing system in motion to have verygood control of the object being pulled, especiallywhen the connection to the drawbar is equally rigid (Sigaut 1993: 5; Griffin-Kremer 2007: 52). Both forms of the above-mentioned yokes are a means of transferring the ani­mal’s energy to the rest of the harness and to the whole of the traction “machine” – whether ploughing or driving. In otherwords, according to the definition in the German etymological dictionary, a yoke is “a device that joins together at least two animals in order to transfer the energy of their movement to the object being drawn (and, if circumstances so require, to brake orto step back)” (Kluge in Griffin-Kremer 2007: 53). But in addition to the items for harnessing two cattle, tied together in such a way that their use is more or less coercive and rather unpleasant, there are also their “halves” – i.e. items for harnessing individual cattle – half yokes or single yokes, which can also be either head yokes or withers yokes (in French, joguet ŕ tęte, joguet frontal or joguet de garrot). These were graduallyjoined in the centuries after the Middle Ages (during which theywere only associated with horses) by the ox’s collar (Griffin-Kremer 2007: 52; Raepsaet 2002: 111). Without yokes, which were mostly used with oxen, neither ploughing nor driving would have been possible. Let us think especially of ploughing, when ani­mals pulled ards or ploughs to dig into and turn the soil – light, sandy and friable, or heavy, thick, clayey and “harsh” – and thus make it possible for seeds to sprout anew each year, and ultimatelyprovide the food to support human life. Plough­ing implements are ancient devices, which were undoubtedlyfundamental to the development of civilisation and so are at the heart of the various cultures of the world, and they have been the subject of numerous studies, especially in the mid­dle of the last century (Smerdel 2008: 8). It is thus not surprising that yokes, so closelylinked to ploughing implements, were also the subject of individual works around this time (e.g. Vilkuna 1936; Jacobeit 1948). However, it was also in this period that mechanisation took yokes out of the fields and into the dustbin of history, unless theywere saved as curiosities or put into museums. In the early 1960s, for example, there was a brief period in Slovenian ethnol­ogy when, at least within the professional museum environment, scholars began to deal indirectlywith draft animals, and so a seemingly unremarkable, but an­cient primary material resource – the yoke – became a thematic focal point for much work. Scholars turned to these wooden items for harnessing cattle (mainly oxen, and more rarely cows) and attempted to typologically define and study them in terms of regional distribution, manufacturing, methods of everyday use and so on, which was all thematically in line with contemporary professional efforts in some other European countries. The result was the 1969 internation­al thematic issue of the Czechoslovak ethnographic journal Národopisný Veestník Ceskoslovenský, edited byWolfgang Jacobeit and Jaroslav Kramarík, which pub­lished discussions of yokes in Great Britain, Portugal, Israel, Sweden, the Baltic, Eastern Europe, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Moravia and Slovakia, and in­cluded works bywriters such as Alexander Fenton, Ernesto Veiga de Oliveira, John Granlund, Milovan Gavazzi, Jan Podolák and others. In the same year a comprehensive study by Mariel Jean Brunhes Delamarre on the yokes in France from the 17th century to the present was published as a special publication in the town of Uherské Hradište in Moravia (Brunhes Delamarre 1969). It appears that the yoke was indeed one of the central common themes of a certain circle of European ethnologists in the 1960s, especiallyin the course of the efforts to produce ethnological and linguistic atlases. The initiative for their creation is said to have come from the researchers on ploughing implements, who, at the 4th International Congress of Ethnological and Anthropological Sci­ences in Vienna in 1952, at a meeting of the European Section, proposed that the ploughing implements should be used as the basis for the first attempt to produce an Atlasof EuropeanFolk-Culture (Smerdel 2008: 11). The Ethnographic Museum in Ljubljana had been the de facto headquarters of the Ethnological Atlas of Yugoslavia for Slovenia since 1960, and in the same year, at the beginning of March, the Museum published a special questionnaire3 “On the equipment and harnesses of cattle” in a supplement to The Bulletin of the Slovene Ethnological So­ciety. Then, in October 1960, there are a few sentences in a report by Boris Orel, then Director of the Ethnographic Museum, who reveals that while he was on a business trip in the Zilja Valley studying ploughing implements, he was also col­lecting data for a pilot questionnaire (with five topics) for the Ethnological Atlas of Yugoslavia, where the second topic was the yoke. In the following years, the first pilot maps of the Ethnological Atlas of Yugoslavia were made on yokes: Map I, the types of double yoke, and Map II, the methods of tying the yoke with the drawbar (Smerdel 2005: 343). In Poland, for example, the Polski Atlas Etnograficznywas published as early as 1971, with three maps related to yokes.4 The Greeks followed, starting work on an ethnological atlas in 1966, the first part of which was published in 1975 3 The responses are kept in the archives of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum in Ljubljana. 4 The Polish atlas was published by Instytut Historii Kultury Materialnej at the Polska Akademia Nauk; 1971; Bd. 4; Warszawa; (Maps 191-250). 4: Transport i komunikacija ladowa. by Imellos without comments, with fourteen “tables” of photographs and four maps, the third including yokes.5 However, it seems that the Swiss blazed the trail in this field – most likely thanks to Richard Weiss. The years between 1937 and 1942 are given as the years of data reception for the Atlas der Schweizerischen Volkskunde (Atlas de folklore suisse), for the map on the yokes.6 Although work eventually came to an end on such ethnological atlases, it started once again in some European countries with the coming of digitisation.7 In addition to the Greek atlas, at the end of the first decade of the 21st century, an electronic version of an ethnological atlas had already been created in Hungary.8 In 1960, Kramarík, one of the two editors of the aforementioned thematic col­lection of papers on yokes—a European ethnological undertaking that at the time brought together writers from Scotland, Portugal, Spain, Germany, and even as far away as Russia—identified in an earlier article the subject of the cattle yoke as one of the most interesting ethnographic topics in the context of research on old farming practices. In addition, as an item that, with regard to the problems of its emergence, development and various types, engaged not only ethnographers, but also agrarian historians. Ethnographers were particularlyinterested in the ques­tion of the ethnicity of the individual types of yokes (Kramarík 1960: 253). After all, ethnological (and linguistic) atlases were intended to draw cultural boundar­ies as ethnic indicators on the basis of individual cultural elements. But with such a primordial cultural component we should also focus on “tech­nical solutions and the necessary skills in their use”, which can be distinctive markers of cultural boundaries (Barth in Schippers 2014: 277). In fact, partic­ular tools, skills and knowledge can also enter “the arena of relations between different social groups as distinctive social and cultural markers”, where they can be “eithervalued cultural practices ornegative attributes” (Schippers 2014: 276–277). They can even be a source of ethnic prestige. This, for example, with a primordial object such as the yoke, at a certain historical time there were re­flections in the air that sought to use this material element – on the basis of one 5 The Greek atlas is held by the Hellenic Folklore Research Centre in Athens and was in the process of being digitised at the time of my enquiry. I was assisted by my Greek colleagues from the EARTH programme, Sabine Beckmann and Yorgos Brokalakis, in obtaining printed pages of maps from this work. 6 The map was kindly forwarded to me by my late colleague from Zagreb Tomo Vinšcak. It refers to question 33 - Zugvorrichtungen für Rindvieh, Kummet / Halsjoch / Hornjoch (Attelage des boeufs, Le joug / le collier). The data was processed by Paul Geiger and Richard Weiss. The map was published by the Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Volkskunde. 7 I was informed of these developments by my French colleague Thomas Schippers. 8 Thomas Schippers connected me with my Hungarian colleague Balász Borsos, who digitised The Atlas of Hungarian Folk Culture. His electronic version was not available at that time, but my colleague kindly provided me with four maps containing: 1. the types of Hungarian yokes, 2. their names and 3., 4. the names of the various components of the withers frame yokes in Hungary. or another fundamental type – not only to draw cultural boundaries, but also to indicate cultural superiority or inferiority (on the latter, see, for example, Kra­marík 1960: 253). The two basic types of yokes – the withers yoke and the head yoke (or head-pulling yoke) – are attested since Greco-Roman antiquity, and theiradvan­tages and disadvantages were discussed as far back as Pliny the Elder and Col­umella.9 The latter, for example, strongly supported the use of the withers yoke: This is because the cattle can bear more strain with their necks and shoulders than with their horns; and so, they can use their entire body mass and all theirweight; but in the otherway, with their heads pulled back and their faces turned upwards, the animals are tortured, and can barely scratch the surface of the ground with a verylight plough-share. (Columella 1948: 123) In the following centuries there was a recurrent push and pull ofproponents and critics of one or the other fundamental type of yoke, and the debate is still ongoing. The validity of their arguments could be assessed in terms of the effi­ciency of energy transfer, and thus based on seemingly rational criteria for evalu­ating the execution of the various known harnessing techniques (Griffin-Kremer 2010: 56–57). Among those who tended to favour the head yoke in the late 1960s was, for example, the French researcher of cattle harnessing implements, Mariel Jean Brunhes Delamarre, at least in part on the basis of the somewhat surprising observation that “a withers yoke (joug de garrot), which does not have a direct grip on the animals being harnessed, cannot fulfil all the functions of the yoke” (Brunhes Delamarre in Griffin-Kremer2007: 53). She based this reasoning on the observation that the rigidity of the head yoke(joug de tęte) gives this balanc­ing system with regard to the animal’s movement a very manageable control over the object being pulled, and it is this rigidity that enables two additional function­alities – braking and stepping backwards. In contrast, the withers yoke cannot fulfil both of these functionalities by itself, and thus additional devices need to be used (Brunhes Delamarre 1969: 15, 22). But the fact remains that both basic types of yokes were used for many cen­turies in both Europe and Asia, and, after the settlement of the Americas, on these two continents too, then in more recent times in Africa. Both types were employed for specific reasons. For example, in 1993, on the occasion of the exhi­bition Jougs, contre jougs, Sigaut wrote of the two types of cattle yokes and noted that, even in the 19th century, the head yoke was still widespread in parts of Spain, In Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia, 8.70.179; Columella, De re rustica, 2.2.21-24 (Griffin-Kremer 2010: 56). in France (where oxen were yoked) and in the south-west of Germany. He then went on to say – unfortunately erroneously, as he lacked sufficient and relevant data: “Only in these lands was its [the head yoke’s] domain” (Sigaut 1993: 5). He then claimed that in the rest of the world the head yoke was completely unknown – either from time immemorial or because it had been forgotten after many cen­turies. As for the withers yoke, he wrote that in Italy, Eastern Europe, North Af­rica, the Middle East and all over Asia, there is no other type of yoke known than this one when it comes to harnessing oxen, zebus and buffalos (ibid.). If we also read Kramarík’s account from 1960, we can learn that the withers yoke was then prevalent throughout Asia, among the Slavic peoples of the East as well as the South and West Slavs, and that it was established almost throughout the Balkans, and in some cases was also widespread in Western Europe. But the predominant type of yoke in Western Europe was the head yoke, and its use was characteristic of the Germanic peoples. It was also used in Scandinavia and the Baltic countries, and in Central Europe in Austria and in the southern and south-western parts of Bohemia (Kramarík 1960: 254–255). Now, let us delve into some more exciting philological explanations that will lead us to the odd one out in this context – the widely used Slovenian head yoke, or igô. I was lured into this latest journey to the land of “words and things” by the Finnish ethnologist Kustaa Vilkuna’s in-depth discussion on the use of draft oxen in Finland from 1936. In it, among otherthings, he makes a step-by-step case for the inappropriateness of labelling head yokes with the phrase “Germanic yoke” and frame withers yokes with the phrase “Slavic yoke”. Let me briefly summarise his rationale: in Finnish, the word ies is used for yoke, in Estonian ike and in Lithuanian i’gg.z, which etymologically belongs to the same Indo-Germanic familyas, forexample, the Sanskrit yagá, Latin jugum, German Joch and Swedish ok, but is not a loanword from these groups, and in­stead a loanword from a very early Slavic form (which is supposed to be philo­logically proven with certainty). But this does not at all correspond to the current ethnographic relations (those from the beginning of the last century), since the Finns have a “Germanic yoke”, while on the contrary, in the area of the Slavic and other eastern peoples, the withers – or frame yoke – is in use, which Braun-gart (a German researcher of the first quarter of the 20th century), in contrast to the aforementioned, refers to as a “Slavic yoke”. However, it is not known what kind of yoke was used in those distant times by those Slavs from whom the eastern Finns took the word ies – and perhaps also the yoke itself. There has already been talk of how, historically, the withers yoke penetrated into Denmark, Sweden and the Finnish estates, where it superseded the old head yoke. It thus seems possible that the latter persisted. In this connection, Vilkuna mentions, for example, Moszynski, who in his monumental work on the Slavs cited testimonies in several places which indicate that in Poland and in otherWest Slavic areas, the head yoke tied to the horns was once used (Moszynski in Vilkuna 1936: 87). The withers yoke is therefore no more “Slavic” than the head yoke is “Germanic”. The former is merely an ancient eastern type, whose territories extend far into Asia, and it has had an expansive character in recent centuries. In contrast, the head yoke is an ancient western type, a withering form, which has taken on the com­plementary traits of the withers yoke in the border areas. Vilkuna further notes that the “old oxen area along the Baltic” is, in its entirety, one of the branches of the old Central and Western European area of the head yoke, which also includ­ed the Western Slavs (Vilkuna 1936: 87–88, 98). And here – after everything that has been said – it is exciting to note that until the middle of the last century in the Alpine, north-western part of our territory, Slovenians in many places still had fourwell-developed variants of the head yoke (see the catalogue of the SEM collection). Some of them are related to those from other nearby Alpine countries, and one of them – a stick igô discovered on the high-mountain farms above Ljubno in the Savinja Valley, which was called there “this antique jége”, shows a remarkable similarity in form to the head yokes from Finland and especially Estonia (cf. Viires 1969: 126, 127). In addition to the undisputable findings of close Balto-Slavic linguistic links, which speak of the close (common) development of these two linguistic groups (Pleterski 1995: 537), can we also speak of new material witnesses in favour of the re-evaluation of the knowledge of Slovenian ethnogenesis, in the light of the recognised typological similarity of some Slovenian head yokes with those from the Baltic lands?10 Perhaps this intriguing fact will serve as an inspiration for further research in this regard. 10 As was the case of the cupa, a marine dugout canoe from the shores of the Gulf of Trieste, with which Bruno Volpi Lisjak, the author of a book on this primordial Slovenian vessel, boldly delved into the elusive question of the ethnogenesis of the Slovenians. The question of the origin of the word cupa led him to Novgorod, towards the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Finland, where in a certain narrow area these dugout canoes were also called cupus and cupa. Based on the findings of the study of recent literature, he pointed out that the Sclaveni / Slovenians had split up in their ancestral homeland as a result of the Gothic invasions (in the first two centuries AD), so that one part had gone north to Lake Ilmen, while the other had landed in the north of the Adriatic, thus following an initial common path with the Czechs and Slovaks, with the Sclavenes moving to the places where they still live today (Volpi Lisjak 2004: 68; Granda 2004: 21). All this verbalised knowledge about the yoke and its two basic forms explains a lot about its formal manifestation, but not about the origins and the ways in which it was used over time and in different places in its long history. It does not provide us with answers as to why a particular type of yoke (and not any other) became established in a particular countryand persisted there, or whyit may have been replaced by another. For all the apparent static nature of the use of yokes over the centuries, there has always been the dynamic of people moving to other places, regions and countries, and of their returning home with memories of what they had seen while away, including, perhaps, different types of yokes, perhaps ones better suited for certain tasks. People coming from elsewhere also brought new knowledge with them, such as seasonal workers, travelling crafts­men, and even soldiers. Monastic orders and state authorities, with their laws, corresponding schools, and agricultural societies, also left their mark in certain agrarian environments at certain times, bybringing in new or different cultural components – tools, knowledge and skills. The latter institutions in particular were a very influential factor in Europe (especially during the Enlightenment) with their interest in the economy and agriculture (Smerdel 2014: 256–257). Yokes were thus on the one hand part of the skills, knowledge, and cultural com­ponents that ensured continuity and permanence and were passed on from gen­eration to generation,11 and on the other hand also among those elements that emerged within a community or “entered” it as a factor of change or necessary innovation, the proverbial “daughters of necessity”. (Smerdel 2014: 256). The choices made in particular social settings may have been based on community decisions, but sometimes they may also have been made by individuals. Georges Raepsaet’s words on the concept of innovation are enlightening in this context, noting the uncertain, problematic, chance-dependent character of the birth or spread of technical progress, which – in time or space – can become a fundamental element of economic progress over vast areas and for many populations, or be confined to the confidential marginality of one region or one rural area. (Raepsaet 2002: 16) In an environment of “historical processes of adaptation to local agro-ecological conditions of slowly spreading 'trends'” (Leroi-Gourhan in Schippers 2014: 276). Moreover, this reflection arose preciselywhen studying the yoke: The linearity or nonlinearity of technical progress, pointillism, elitism or the generalisation of innovation, cultural weight or value and social coercion, the emancipation of production outputs, mental blocks, ruptures, revolutions [...]. All this can be seen in the yoke, the half-yoke or the collar; in theirvaria­tions and innovations, successful or not, and in many other things. (Raepsaet 2002: 16) Now, it seems, we must go back once again into the mists of time in our ex­ploration of yokes, and – in search of more or less telling examples – embark on a comparative journey through Europe and beyond. Somewhere in the fourth millennium BC, when Neolithic man gazed at the mighty body of the cattle he had managed to domesticate, and was looking for a way to further subdue it in one way or another so as to pull something for him, or to plough the first furrow with it, he was undoubtedly looking for a way to “attach” a ploughing implement to the animal. Moreover, it probably did not take him long to realise that ox horns were well suited for this purpose, and not with just one, but two animals. For he knew that for such a difficult job he needed the power of two oxen, and he knew that he had to find a way to connect them. He thus had the idea of placing a stick in front of the horns of the animals. This gave rise to the yoke for pulling with the head – with the horns (German: Hornjoch) – where the yoke lies in front of the base of the horns (Hornbasis) and the traction power is set at this point. Jacobeit identified this form as the oldest kind of yoke, and presented as evidence Egyptian depictions of cattle harnessed to such a yoke (Jacobeit 1948: 14–15, Jacobeit 1957: 124). Indeed, this kind of yoke can be clearly seen in a wall painting, a depiction of ploughing (showing four ox teams), from the tomb of Khéty, an official at Beni-Hassan during the Middle Kingdom, from the period of the 12thdynasty, around 1990–1797 BC12. Or, for example, in a photograph showing of a detail from Ani’s Book of the Dead, with scenes of life in the afterlife, from the 19th dynasty, around 1250 BC. The yokes for pulling with the head – with the horns – lie in front of the base of the horns of two oxen pairs, with one pair depicted in a scene of threshing and the other one in ploughing. But although Raepsaet says that “the practice of harnessing seems to have emerged at the same time as domestication, and no doubt first in plough­ing with the ard, before being used in transport”, he then adds “but not necessar 12 The photograph of this depiction and other images testifying to the use of cattle in ancient Egypt was kindly provided to me by the French Egyptologist Perrine Mane. ily”(Raepsaet 2002: 72), as among the earliest depictions of a head yoke we also find a copper model of a cart with two oxen attached to it, from Maras, eastern Turkey, from the early second millennium BC (Clutton-Brock 1992: 68). However, Neolithic people likely made multiple attempts to connect two cat­tle so that they could plough with their combined strength, and these probably occurred in several different places, for different reasons. Unlike Jacobeit, for example, Raepsaet writes of the withers yoke: “This is perhaps the oldest way of ox-teaming, if a direct connection between the birth of the yoke and pull-plough­ing is acknowledged. And it is certainly the most widespread. It takes a pair of oxen working in parallel to balance and pull the beam of the ard.” Although it should be noted here that even with head yokes it is the coordinated work of two parallel, closely connected animals that is emphasised. Raepsaet then goes on to say: If it is therefore accepted that sedentary agrarian culture originated somewhere between Asia Minor and Central Asia, and that the first ox domesticated there was a long-necked (and high withers, i.e. zebu) species, it can be said that this type of team - still widespread nowadays - constitutes the original structure of the draft team. (Raepsaet 2002: 89) Whether the oldest type of yoke was the one for pulling with the head – at first tied to the horns, lying in front of their base – or the one planted in the hol­low of the oxen’s neck before the withers, both, despite the apparent simplicity of the structures, were closely related to the whole environment and dependent on a set of indispensable skills to achieve the correct and balanced traction. These skills also included knowledge of the proper protection of the bodies of the ani­mals – their heads and necks – and how to take care of their general health and welfare, as this undoubtedly impacted their fitness and ability to work. One such skill, more decisive than the carpentry skills of the yoke makers – and one that in ancient and later times was most often obtained by the farmers themselves – was the ability to choose the right type of wood (if they had a choice) and the right form (Halstead 2014: 58). In this respect, we must stress the fact, known and attested in several countries – including Slovenia, as well as Spain (which will be presented below with illustrative examples) – that different yokes, of one or another basic type, were used for different jobs, something which our ancestors undoubtedly tested early on and continued to experiment with for a long time. Following the traces of one or the other basic types (and their variants) through time and space, we now stop once more in the Middle East, in Mesopo­tamia, where the oldest depiction of the withers bowyoke seems to come from, before moving to Europe. It appears that the bowyoke can be recognised in the scene of the counting of the spoils of war on a Mesopotamian relief from the palace in Nimrud dated to around 800 BC. It is even more clearly recognisable in the Assyrian reliefs from the south-western palace in Nineveh – on displayin the British Museum, dated around 700–692 BC – showing individual scenes of the spoils from Lachisch, in which Jews, with their families and livestock, go into exile in ox-drawn carts. But if we finally move to European soil – and try to find the earliest artis­tic depictions of the withers bowyoke – then they seem to come from Greece and Etruria. For example, just such a yoke is clearlyvisible on the neck of the oxen that is part of a ceramic genre figure of a ploughman from Boeotia, that Greek “land of cattle”, from around 600–575 BC, exhibited in the Louvre in Par­is (Smerdel 2011: 131), and on the neck of a bronze Etruscan statuette (model) of a ploughman from Rome (Contini 2000: 46). And in Europe – unlike in the Middle East – there is no shortage of archae­ological evidence, with many material witnesses testifying to the use of yokes. Most of the finds are of head specimens (or just their recognisable parts), a ver­sion of the head-pulling yoke that rested on the nape of the neck behind the horns and was firmly attached around the horns by looped straps (and usually also over a pad on the forehead). The shapes of the various archaeological finds clearly indicate that this was probably the most common prehistoric version of the head yoke. The undisputable identification of one or the other basic types of yokes in the past, depending on its form and the execution of individual structur­al details, was made possible by the in-depth study of Wolfgang Jacobeit, in which he establishes that the head yoke – in contrast to the vertically drilled openings on the beam of the withers yoke, where arched bows, shanks (staves) on both sides of the neck, laths and ropes are inserted – has horizontally drilled openings on the beam of the yoke. It also features bolts and protrusions for attaching the yoke to the forehead or to base of the horns of the draft animal by means of fastening straps. The essential difference between a withers and head yoke is therefore that the beam of the latter has horizontally rather than vertically drilled openings (Jacobeit 1957: 122, 124). Quite a few finds of prehistoric yokes found theirway into the archaeological literature of the last century, and then also into some of the works of ethnologists who studied yokes. In particular, there are recurring references to finds from peat bogs in Great Britain and elsewhere. For example, Fenton mentions three yokes – from Argyll in the west of Scotland, from the Shetland Islands and from Baltigeer in County Meath, Ireland – all three of which are head yokes, as they are defined by the horizontal perforations, protrusions and grooves that held the straps to tie them to the horns (Fenton 1986: 3). Parallels to these three yokes were found in Denmark and the Netherlands. The Danish specimens are from the sites of Finderup, Sevel, Deibjerg and Lundgardshede, and the Dutch one is from Enzige, but Fenton realised at the time that direct comparison with the British specimens was impossible because their exact working contexts were unknown. In fact, depending on their intended use (and usually also on the location of the land), the yokes differed at least in length. Moreover, these yokes are all larger or longer than the British ones, as the one from Enzige measures 146 centimetres, while the Danish ones are up to 180 centimetres long. Since he considered that head-pulling yokes and, among them, head yokes, were among the earliest devic­es “for the adaptation of animals for draft purposes”, they must be extremely old. In this context he was drawn to a comparable yoke dated to 2000 BC, found in a lake dwelling in Switzerland, at the Vinelz site. In all his deliberations, however, he realised that “it is not easy to categorise the older specimens, since some of them combine features of both basic yoke types”(Fenton 1986: 34–37). The same archaeological sites (apart from the British ones) are also men­tioned by Jacobeit in his studies (for example in his 1948 dissertation), along with a few others. He drew them back into the related debates after learning of the dis­covery of a yoke in the north of Ireland, which, due to the lack of accompanying finds, Piggott, who wrote an article on it, was already unable to date with certain­ty other than the discovery of “remote Celtic Iron Age outposts”. However, on the basis of a comparison with the aforementioned yokes from other European sites – for example from Enzige, Deibjerg and especially the one from Jordrup in Denmark, which has a horizontal opening at the end of the yoke’s beam – Jacobe-it then nevertheless wrote that the Northern Irish find could be the oldest known head yoke in Europe up to that time (Piggott in Jacobeit 1953: 96–97). But some more recent archaeological discoveries from the beginning of this century have yielded surprisingly earlier dates for the head yokes. Special men­tion should me made of four fragments, presumably of yokes, from the Neolithic site of La Draga in north-eastern Catalonia, which were dated between 5380– 5045 BC, i.e. to the end of the sixth millennium BC, on the basis of radiocarbon analysis. The fragments in question appear to be the ends of a cattle-traction device, since they are very similar in form to the end parts of a type of yoke used for cattle, as otherwise known from Alpine regions from the period between the end of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age. The dimensions of the fragments sug­gested that it could have been an oxen’s yoke13 that sat on the horns and was tied to them (Tarrús et al. 2006: 25, 27). Such an inference was also made possible by comparison with the head-pulling yokes known in northern Catalonia and elsewhere in the Pyrenees in the 19th and early 20th centuries, which have many similarities with the fragments found at La Draga (Violant and Simorra in Tarrús et al. 2006: 27). What about the withers yokes and their possible prehistoric finds in Europe? It seems that the first of the two excavated yokes from the La Tčne site, discov­ered in 1911, can be identified as a withers yoke, the second, smaller one, was probably a horse yoke.14 The first is made of oak and is 116 centimetres long. On each side of the arches (or collars/neck or nape seats, which sat on the animal’s nape or neck), two or one oval, vertical, slightlyconical openings are made (Vou­ga 1923: 95). Given the essential distinction between the two basic types of yokes as defined by Jacobeit – namely, that the beam of the head yoke has horizontal openings, while the withers yoke has vertical openings (Jacobeit 1957: 124) – it is therefore possible to identify the withers yoke in the La Tčne find with a fair degree of certainty. However, in addition to the aforementioned specimen from this Swiss site, which belongs to the Early Iron Age, we can undoubtedly include two older specimens identified as withers yokes: a specimen from the Lavagnone site, a pile dwelling on the shores of Lake Garda in Italy, which, on the basis of its stratigraphic position, was dated to between 2048 and 2010 BC,15 and a slightly youngeryoke from the site of Fiavé in the region of Trentino, Italy. The first, found next to the ard, is made of a preciselyworked piece of beechwood and has rectangular openings to the left and right of the collar braces, made to seat the oxen in front of the withers, through which the straps pass; and these, tied around the neck, are supposed to have held the yoke in place (Marzatico 2006: 68). As the photograph of its exact replica shows, the four rectangular openings are incised vertically(cited work: 65, Fig. 7), therefore I personallybelieve that it was not the straps that were passed through them, as the graphic reconstruction 13 The authors of this paper also wanted to substantiate their assumption with osteological evidence, with the local finds of 1,365 cattle bone remains, with an analysis that would show that among them were the remains of animals used for harnessing. But the bones of the oxen showed almost no traces of mechanical pressure or extra effort. The primary killing for meat and the unsystematic practice of castration suggest that cattle were only occasionally used as working animals (Tarrús et al. 2006: 29-30). 14 The second, smalleryoke is of the same design type as the first and was interpreted as a horse yoke because it rested on the skull of a horse when it was excavated, quite close to the second horse skull. However, despite the different opinions of the excavation team, Vouga then wrote that it could only be confirmed that the first yoke was for oxen and the second – shorter, lighteryoke – for horses. The horses that lived at the La Tčne site at the time were small breeds (Vouga 1923: 95). 15 Based on a dendrochronological study, the settlement of the Lavagnone 2 site begins around 2048 BC (Marzatico 2006: 68). of the yoke shows (ibid., Fig. 6), but rather the shanks (staves) inserted on both sides of the neck – laths connected by a rope or a strap under the animal’s neck (which was, and still is in many places, a common method of harnessing to such yokes). The withers yoke from the Lavagnone site (found next to the ard) can be dated to the old, Early Bronze Age; whereas the youngeryoke from Fiavé, made of maple wood, dates to the Middle Bronze Age. The latter differs from the old­er one in particular in its design, with its double arches or collars, which are said to provide “comfortable support”for the draft animals’ necks (Marzatico 2006: 68). With these last words at the end of the prehistoric section of our journeywith yokes through times and worlds, I would like to quote a record that is particularly important from the point of view of revealing the attitudes towards working cattle, oxen, and the concern for the health of these vital work­ing animals. It is the presentation and analysis of a fascinatingly decorated yoke from the German Late Celtic site of Oppidum Alkimoennis/Kelheim. The yoke is 94 centimetres long and, given its decoration with carved concentric circles imitating copper nails and round plates hammered into its surface, questions have been raised as to its purpose, although its form and method of manufacture have confirmed the assumptions of a working use. Moreover, research during the restoration then revealed that the yoke was probably covered with leather, which further confirmed this assumption.16 In the Hallstatt period, it seems that covering orcoating of wood with leatherwas known to protect the necks of draft animals (Leicht 2000: 87–88). This concludes our search for prehistoric European yokes. Let us now set off on a journey across Europe (and to some extent to other parts of the world), and explore the yokes as had been studied by scholars in the decades before they were gradually replaced everywhere by the tractor. As evidenced by the example of the yoke from the tomb in Grosseibstadt, Kr. Neustadt/Saale, which also shows remnants of imitation copper decoration (Leicht 2000: 87-88). WITH YOKES FROM IRELAND TO FINLAND, THEN TO THE EAST, SOUTH AND WEST, AND ALSO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AFIELD In Ireland, where many old yokes and accounts of their use survive, both basic types were known – the withers yoke and the head yoke (the former called shoulder yokes and the latter head yokes). Widely established over the centuries, the former were mentioned in oral tradition, while 18th- and 19th-century agri­cultural experts claimed that the head yoke had only recently been introduced to the country. The so-called “French yokes”, along with the simultaneous fash­ionable return of the use of oxen (in the late 18th and early 19th centuries), which were systematically adopted only by a small number of large landowners, i.e. prestige-hungry “gentlemen and theoretical farmers”, seem to have been intro­duced for the same reasons by the same people (Bell 1983: 25; 1985: 73–74). The original use of head yokes is, however, signalled by a passage from an old Irish tale The Wooing of Étaíne (Tochmarc Étaíne), a medieval text which gives a fairy­tale account of the introduction of the withers yoke in Ireland. According to the story this occurred when two mythical kings, Eochaid and Midir, met with their men on a dark night to carry out a difficult task – the construction of an elevated roadway. King Midir’s men and their oxen, harnessed to withers yokes, were able to do this difficult work with ease; but Eochaid’s men were less successful, and their king wanted to knowwhy. Now, until that night, the men of Ireland used to put the strain on the foreheads of oxen, but it was seen that the folk of the elfmounds were putting it upon their shoulders. Eochaid did the same, and henceforth he is called Eochaid Eirem [i.e. ploughman], because he was the first of the men of Ireland to put a yoke on the necks of oxen. (Bergin and Best in Bell 1985: 73) In this wayEochaid was said to have introduced a technical innovation to help his people, an act that hypothetically dates from the beginnings of the Christian era and has an interesting, wider context – the transfer of an innovation from one “ethnic” group to another (Griffin-Kremer2007: 62–66). To complement this dating of the abandonment of the head yoke and the adoption of the withers yoke in Ireland, let us reflect on the Roman presence in the British Isles. The Roman occupation of Britain lasted from AD 43 to 410 (for example, Agricola conquered northern England and Scotland in 78–84), and after the subjugation of the Britons (who had already been overrun by other Celtic tribes during the British Iron Age), a distinctive Romano-British culture emerged, with the Roman introducing, among other things, more advanced agricultural techniques.17 Per­haps the arrival of the withers yoke in Ireland was indeed linked to the Romans, or to one of the tribes that came into contact with them and reached the island. Regardless of how it arrived in Ireland, this form of yoke was already feature of the Italian peninsula in antiquity. In Ireland, it appears that some forms of the withers yoke existed and had persisted until the time of its abandonment. For example, as in many other parts of Europe, between the mid-19th and the first decades of the 20th century, instead of two oxen being yoked together, each animal was harnessed separately in single yokes or collars. Two specimens from the National Museum of Ireland – Country Life are evidence of the latter, being specially made oxen collars.18 Both are from Julianstown, one from an estate where oxen were used for tilling until 1907. Their design – two wooden shanks, inside which fits a thick sausage-shaped padding made of rope repeatedlywrapped around a hay core – again reveals a caring atti­tude towards working animals, as expressed in a concern for theirwell-being and for the protection of their straining necks. In Britain, according to individual finds (mostlyfrom peat bogs in Scotland and Ireland, but not in England), head yokes were probably also in use in the distant past. However, Fenton noted that “not one of the thirteen yokes found can be paralleled, or compared, with the withers yokes, the only ones known in Britain from the medieval period to the 19th century” (Fenton 1986: 34). Indeed, documentarytestimonies from the earlyMiddle Ages report onlywithers bow yokes, with vertical openings in the yoke’s beam, into which the bows were in­serted, encircling the animal’s necks (op. cit.: 3). Fenton was thus able to claim that the withers bowyoke type was “absolutely uniform throughout Britain – with only minorvariations” (Fenton 1969: 24). Is it also possible to think of this as a consequence of the Roman period in Britain? There is no evidence of a withers frame yoke – anotherform of this basic type, and one that was widespread in much of central and north-eastern Europe – in the British Isles (Fenton 1986: 2). By contrast, numerous and telling traces of it can be found in Sweden. 17 Information on Romans in Britain is taken from the chapter “Roman Britain” (Written and fact-checked by the editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/ (31 January 2024). 18 My colleague Seamas MacPhilib from this Irish museum – which houses a collection of items representing traditional life in the country from about 1850 to 1950 – kindly provided me with the index sheets of two of their single withers yoke or collars. When Vilkuna, in his study of the use of draft oxen in Finland, mentions the “East Prussian-Polish ox area”, he writes that there they use a completely differ­ent type of yoke from that used in their country – namely, the frame yoke (Germ. Widerristjoch, Rahmenjoch). The area of this type extends west to Mecklenburg and Lüneburger Heath, and northwards across the Baltic into Sweden, where the use of the withers yoke is attested at least as far back as the 1740s (Vilkuna 1936: 84). Regarding the “adoption” of a frame version of this yoke in Sweden, Fenton, for example, stated that the rigidity of its construction made it particu­larly suitable for the training of young and inexperienced oxen, in those parts of that countrywhere half- or badly tamed steers were traded (Fenton 1986: 3). Jac­obeit also explained how in East Götland they managed to solve a fundamental problem in the use of the withers yoke – braking. There, they used a version of the yoke design with stick-like shanks on both sides of the neck and a rope under the throat, and added an attachment with leather loops on the part of the yoke beam that lay directly on the neck of the draft animals, i.e. in the middle of the collar arch, which were put orfastened to the base of the horns.19 This was how they solved the problem of driving in mountainous areas (Jacobeit 1957: 125; cf. Granlund 1969). In Finland, where head yokes were widely used for centuries, the first mention of a fewwithers specimens can also be found in an 18th century source. In the ac­counts of 1777 from an estate, nine “Swedish yokes” are recorded – undoubtedly withers yokes, as these were the only kind used in Sweden at the time – along with eight “Finnish yokes with straps”. The withers yokes were then used only on the manorial estates in the 19th century, and their introduction was therefore socially determined. However, in the 1860s the Finnish Economic Society did educational work to promote their wider use, arguing that this type of harness gave the working oxen more freedom than the animal-intensive, cumbersome head yokes (Vilkuna 1936: 63–64). But according to Finnish tradition, the pair of oxen was simplyyoked at the head, with the yoke tied to them at the nape behind the horns with a strong strap called a jutta (Estonian: jutt; both versions of this name will also be found later on with regard to some Slovenian specimens). It was very important that the tying over the horns was tight and that the straps were fastened firmlywhen knotted, Vilkuna says on this subject that the influence of the head yokes tied to the horns can still be traced on the Swedish withers yokes (Vilkuna 1936: 85). so that under the strain of one heavy ride the yoke would neither come loose nor start to rub painfully on the nape. In Finland, yokes were on average one metre long, with a slightly curved or straight shape throughout. They were made of birch wood, and among the older specimens one can also find ones with orna­mental carvings, for example incised crosses. In very severe winters, when it was impossible for two oxen to walk side by side on the snow-covered, narrow paths, even those farmers who otherwise had two animals had to harness only one, and this was when they used single head yokes (Vilkuna 1936: 61–63). Moving nowfrom the south-western Finnish “draft oxen area” to the west­ern shores of the Baltic forest area, to Estonia and Lithuania, where the use of these animals was fairlywidespread in the 18th and 19th centuries (especially in ploughing with the sokha and the ard, and also in transporting hay, timber and manure in carts or sledges in Estonia), until it gradually began to decline in the last century. The memory of the working oxen, however, remains alive in the hundreds of yokes preserved in museum collections. The most widespread of their basic types in these countries were the head yokes, the most common form in the whole of Estonia, and partly also in Lithuania, where its eastern and southern parts already fell within the area of the expansion of the withers yoke (which continued into Belarus and Poland). As in Finland, in the 19th century the agricultural literature in these two countries promoted the withers yoke, but in the Estonian area the head yoke nevertheless survived as the basic and predom­inant form (Viires 1969: 121–123). Estonian yokes were shorter than Lithuanian ones, and theywere particularly short in the west of the country on the islands, where they measured between 80 and 100 centimetres. In the north-west of the mainland, these shorteryokes were used mainly in the cold months, as winteryokes, while the longer ones, measuring between 110 and 140 centimetres, were used in the summer. In south­ern Estonia, yokes were usually between 100 and 120 centimetres long, but the longest were those in the north-east of the country, where the length of the yoke is also thought to have depended on the size of livestock being harnessed (Viires 1969: 123). The further east we move in Europe, the deeper we go into the areas of the withers yoke and its typological variants. But although the “old Central and Western European head yoke area was supposed to include the Western Slavs” – as Vilkuna (1936: 98) wrote – in the decades of the last century, when work on European ethnological atlases was underway and individual studies on the yok­ing of draft cattle were being published, this was no longer the case for the most part. Thus, in the accompanying text to the Polish Ethnological Atlas,20 when men­tioning the most widespread form of the basic type of withers yoke on Polish territory– the withers frame yoke – it is stated that this form of yoke (along with its variants) is widespread throughout the entire territory of the Western Slavs, including Belarus and Ukraine, Hungary, Romania, the Balkan Peninsula, and here and there also in Western Europe, Armenia, India and Asia (Jagiela 1997: 238). This is followed by a reference to the withers hook yoke, which, according to some scholars of harnessing devices, is the result of an interaction between the withers frame and the withers bowyoke. The head yoke is said to have “al­most completely disappeared in Poland”, and at the end there are two references to single yokes and the much less popular collar, similar in composition to the horse yoke. Both were still in relatively common use at the time of the research that was conducted for the ethnological atlas, but have since disappeared alto­gether – due to the increasingly rare and occasional use of cattle for field work and transport (Jagiela 1997: 238). If we now move to the Czech Republic and then step into Slovakia, we can find in the ethnological literature (Jancár 1969; Podolák 1969) only records of withers frame yokes with corresponding pictorial attachments or artistic repre­sentations of ox teams in this form on objects from museum collections (e.g. on maiolica).21 A different perspective is opened up by turning through Vondruška’s Dictionary of Old Agricultural Tools and implements from 1750 to 1914.22 Under the entry jarmo, we read that this – a type of withers frame yoke – was also used in the past in Bohemia, in traditional agriculture, mainly in north, east, south-east and southern Moravia (Vondruška 1989: 370). However, when we start reading the entry jho (Slovenian: igô), we get confirmation that the head yoke has been the basic form of harnessing since prehistoric times, and that even before the ThirtyYears’ War (1618–1648) it was in use in almost the whole of the Czech 20 Polski Atlas Etnograficzny; Instytut Historii Kultury Materialnej, Polskia Akademii Nauk.; 1971; Bd. 4; Warszawa; (Maps 191-250). 4: Transport i komunikacija ladowa. Three maps are relevant foryokes: Sheet XIII., Map 229. - Double neck yoke (1 : 2 000 000 000, compiled by J. Grocholski, scientific supervision by J. Gajek) / Sheet XIV., Map 230. - Variants of a frame- and hook-shaped yoke / Sheet XV., Map 231. - Single yoke, horn yoke and horse collar. 21 Two of the maiolica with an ox team motif are from the Slovak National Museum in Martin, and the third is from a private collection. All three date from the 19th century. The first two show a pair of oxen pulling a cart on the first and a plough with wheels on the second (Vydra and Kunz 1956: not paginated). An ox team in a frame yoke is also painted on a ceramic jug from Tupava, with the year 1778 (Pastieriková 2005: 139). 22 The information from V. Vondruška’s dictionarywas kindly provided and translated by my colleague Jarmila Pechová, curator of the collection of working tools at the Moravian Museum. territory and also in Moravia (where the jarmo was otherwise predominant). However, in the 19th centuryit persisted especiallyin western and southern Bo­hemia23 (Vondruška 1989: 374). My first encounter with Hungarian yokes was with a tiny, fascinating piece of folk art, when I recognised a withers frame yoke resting on the animals’ necks on the beautifully carved lid of a wooden box with a mirror with a motif of a plough and ox team from Szentgál (Sáfrány 2003: 118). In a study of yokes in the region of Hajdúság, in eastern Hungary, it was then possible to read that they were still in use in the region until the beginning of the 20th century, with oxen being harnessed to withers frame yokes (until theirworking role was taken over by cows, which – as in many other places – were more economicallyviable for impoverished farmers). Until WWI, three variants of the withers yoke were used: the jarom, a withers frame yoke, which was in widespread use; the wide yoke, an­other withers frame yoke, which was used only forwork with root crops; and the single yoke, where variants of the withers jointed bowyoke can also be identified in the related images (Bodó 1966: 564–565, 557). Later, I was able to take a brief look at the Hungarian ethnological atlas, Mag­yar néprajzi atlasz, the form of an electronic version that is still being prepared.24 The first map, number 120 and titled “Types of yoke at the beginning of the 20th century”, indicates that only the withers frame yoke was in use throughout Hun­gary, although in two variant forms – one with straight or slightly curved inner laths on both sides of the neck, and the other with strongly curved inner laths on both sides of the neck. This is followed in the atlas by a presentation of withers frame yokes of various lengths according to their function, and thus their use in ploughing, harrowing, pulling carts, and sledges, and then a presentation of single yokes and areas without the use of yokes. Moreover, it should be noted that the single yokes represented a variety of different types of withers frame yokes (cf. Timaffy 1968: 180–181). On the second map, number 121 and titled “Names foryokes”, the following two names are presented: járom, which was in use throughout the Hungarian territory, except in the far west, and iga, which was used along the border with Austria and Slovenia. I only encountered Romanian yokes through a few photographs and a tiny product of folk art, a model (or toy) of a withers frame yoke harnessed to oxen 23 My colleague Jarmila Pechová has noted that the head yoke was used in this part of Bohemia, especially by the German population, and sometimes also in other parts of Bohemia, but was only used in isolated cases in western Moravia and Slovakia. 24 In 2011, the Hungarian colleague Borsos Balász, who digitised The Atlas of Hungarian Folk Culture, kindly responded to my request and sent me PDF documents of the four maps containing the yokes, as well as their photographic images. The relevant maps are nos. 120 and 121, where Barabás Jeno is written as their author. (Berte-Langereau 2000: 132), which together indicate the use of this particu­lar form of yoke in this country. And I first came into contact with Bulgarian withers frame yokes in photographs when I was in Denmark a fewyears ago examining the index cards held by the International Secretariat for Research on the History of Agricultural Implements. Later I found an ethnological studywith a map of the types of yokes in common use in Bulgaria, in which Marinov, in her historical section, presents a stone tablet from Pliska (the first Bulgarian capital), dated to the 9th to 10thcenturies AD, with a depiction of an ard with a yoke, one that is clearly a withers bowyoke. Moreover, these yokes – despite the preva­lence of various forms of withers frame or hook yokes and those with shanks on both sides of the neck – were still in use in some places when the Bulgarian typology of cattle-drawing implements and the corresponding distribution map of the individual types were being drawn up (Marinov 1969: 164, 166). Marinov further writes about two types of withers yokes, which were dis­tinguished on the basis of their different uses: yokes for transport, called “wheel yokes”, and yokes for agricultural work, for ploughing, called “ploughing yokes”. The formerwere generally slightly smaller than ploughing yokes. Their length was between 90 and 140 centimetres, while ploughing yokes were between 170 and 230 centimetres long. And while the beam of a transport yoke always has shaped, rounded collar arches which sit on the animal’s neck before the withers, the beam of a ploughing yoke is usually completely flat. The condition of the live­stock was also an important factor in the choice of a yoke, which is why poorer farmers with weaker animals had to harness them to smalleryokes (Marinov 1969: 164–165). A similar typological combination to that found in Bulgaria seems to have been established in Greece. This follows from Map 3 of Imellos’s ethnological atlas, published without commentary (Imellos 1975), and the corresponding pho­tographic appendices. The map of the entire Greek national territory shows only withers yokes, in three forms: the withers bowyoke, the withers frame yoke and the variant of the withers yoke with shanks on both sides of the neck, with a total of 26 design variants for all three. The first variant, often called the “Medi­terranean yoke”, is perhaps the oldest form of this cattle-harnessing implement in Greece. It is revealed, for example, through a charming ceramic figurine of a ploughman from Boeotia, dating from around 600–575 BC (Smerdel 2011: 131). The map shows that this was especially common in coastal areas and on islands, and I was struck by a separate map of the island of Crete, on which Imellos’ types 25 and 26 are plotted, the first indicating the locations of the withers frame yoke and the second of the bowyoke (Smerdel 2011: 131). The latter is a yoke for three animals, of the type also attested in individual cases in Spain and Italy. The sec­ond variant, the withers frame yoke, was established especially on the mainland parts of Greece, while the third, the withers yoke with shanks on both sides of the neck (connected bya rope underthe animal’s neck), is found particularlyin places in Greece that are close to Asia (Imelos 1975). Now our journey by ox team has taken us to the lands of the former Yugoslavia, where the pilot Map I, showing the types of the double yoke (Karta I, oblici dvojnoga jarma)was created in the 1960s, during the period of the work on the Ethnological Atlas of Yugoslavia.25Even a cursoryglance at this work, with heavily schematised drawings and the corresponding signs, reveals only the use of withers yokes throughout the territory, in several typological variants (except in the north-west of the Slovenian territory, where the use of head yokes is also indicated). The two basic forms of this type, the withers frame and the withers bowyoke, are also the most widespread, with the first extending across all the re­gions in the north-east and the second along the entire Adriatic coast, the islands and deep into the hinterland or central areas. On closer inspection, however, in addition to the design variants of the two basic forms of the withers yoke (for example, specimens of the first and second types with straight or curved beams and, in the case of the frame yoke, with straight or curved inner laths on both sides of the neck), one can also observe the withers jointed yokes on the Slo­venian western periphery, the withers hook yokes on the islands of Krk, Cres, Lošinj and Rab (although theirsymbolic markings can also be seen on a piece of Slovenian territory, in the Pohorje area), and the withers yokes with shanks on both sides of the neck on Rab, Korcula, Mljet and on the eastern periphery of Macedonia. Three other areas where single yokes were in use are also marked with hatching, two in Slovenia (in Gorenjska and the Karst) and one in Croatia (in the Rijeka hinterland). In the text at the edge of the map there are also a few words about the working context of the type of the frame yoke, with both ends of the upper beam curved upwards, which is said to have been used as an aid for changing the direction of travel or traction. The basis for the above-mentioned pilot map was a set of questionnaires,26 which seem to have helped Gavazzi, following his earlier contributions on yokes in Croatia (Gavazzi 1942, 1958), to formulate a more complex, especially typo­ 25 Ethnological Atlas of Yugoslavia; Pilot maps, Scale 1 : 2 000 000. Map I: The types of double yoke. A few lines of text on the shapes of the yokes are printed next to the map. 26 The questionnairesof the Ethnological Society of Yugoslavia, the Ethnological Atlas Commission and the Centre for Atlas Preparation at the Faculty of Arts in Zagreb were printed after those published by the Slovene Ethnographic Society. The third one, which also contains questions on yokes, was published in 1966. logical, knowledge of this device for harnessing cattle. In this study, he writes about “five types of yokes in the area of Yugoslavia”: 1. The withers frame yoke, along with regionallyspecific variants and with different dimensions according to different functions (e.g. shorter for driving, longer for ploughing), was the yoke in most widespread use in the entire Pan-nonian region (north of the Kolpa, Sava and Danube Rivers), then further on in the Morava basin in Serbia and finally, in addition to other types, also in Macedonia (Gavazzi 1969: 151–152). 2. The withers bowyoke and a more or less continuous distribution from Istria and Slovenia along the Adriatic as far as Albania, as well as in the en­tire Dinaric area (Montenegro, Herzegovina, Bosnia, the Dalmatian hinterland, south-eastern Croatia), and is again scattered southeast of the Dinaric area in Moravian Serbia and in Macedonia (op. cit: 152–153). 3. The withers hook yoke, with a) a natural hook, or b) a hook made of laths, which in its first variant is widespread in the northern Adriatic islands, in the nearbyhinterland, to the north-east in the Gorski Kotar region and in Slovenia in the Pohorje area, but is also scattered in Serbia and Macedonia, where (in southern Serbia and Macedonia) its second version is more common (op. cit: 153). 4. The withers yoke with shanks on both sides of the neck connected under the animal’s neck by ropes, which is a very peripherally distributed type, locally scattered on some Adriatic islands and slightly more common in Macedonia (op. cit.: 154). 5. The head yoke, which is completely unknown in the territory of Yugo­slavia, except in the Slovenian Alpine north-west and in some places along the border with Austria. In addition to these “five types”, Gavazzi also mentions the limited widespread use of single withers bowyokes here and there (only in Slovenia and Croatia) and of single head yokes (only in Slovenia) (ibid.). However, in Gavazzi’s earlier publications, relevant only to Croatia, it is pos­sible to read a more colourful account, which is based on a recognised concern for the health orwell-being of working oxen, and testifies to the attitudes famers had towards their animal helpers. For example, after researching various cultur­al components and aspects of life in the north of the island of Dugi otok and on the small island of Sestrunj, he wrote the following about the yokes on the latter: “In the old days, a yoke was used which had a beam (or bruno) lined with a furry skin at the neck (šija) of the ox, and on each side of the neck were two laths, con­nected at the bottom by a rope”(Gavazzi 1958: 198). Another related field record from Valpovo, near Osijek, and written in 1967, shows the concern farmers had for the necks of oxen: “When an ox chafes its neck, a sheep fleece is put under [the yoke].”27 However, yokes can also show the concern of farmers for their draft animals in otherways, forexample byapotropaic means. Protection from supernatural forces – devils, witches, plagues and all other related creatures and phenomena – was brought to oxen by pieces of yewwood inserted into their horns and yokes. The belief that the yewtree is a lucky tree and that this is howpeople can protect theirworking animals from spells is, for example, still attested among Orthodox Serbs in the village of Trnovac in Croatia (Vinšcak 2002: 66). But now the time has come to move westwards, by ox team, to Italy, to learn how working cattle were harnessed there. As the available literature and indi­vidual specimens on display in the museums I have visited show, this country – apart from its far northern and north-eastern periphery, in the neighbourhood of the German part of Tyrol – was home only to the withers yoke, and only to one particular version, which seems to be widespread onlyin Italy (and part of its Swiss neighbourhood), the withers jointed bowyoke. The practice of harnessing cattle with implements mounted on their necks in front of the withers, rather than on the nape behind the horns, was already promoted in ancient Rome by some writers on agrarian culture, for example Columella, who commented on the method of harnessing with head yokes and – amongst other things – wrote that it “tortures the animals” (Columella 1948: 123). As it turns out, at the beginning of the 19th century, when he encountered Italian harnessing implements in Piedmont, the Frenchman Charles Pictet, who researched the Piedmontese plough in Azigliano, also began to think differently about the head yoke. First, he wrote that the yoke as used “at Piedmont in Italy is extremely simple, because it does not cost more than six francs and can last for five or six years; but it has the disadvantage of not grabbing the horns: the ox pulls everything with its shoulders, or rather with its withers; and consequently it is definitelylosing strength.” But after this he added a caveat to this criticism: “I mentioned the defect of a yoke which does not grab the horns, because in do­ing so the two oxen, pulling only from the top of the withers, do not employ all their strength; but I am tempted to believe that this freedom, which their heads preserve in shaking off the flies, enables them to endure the labour longer, which they could not do with ouryoke.” Nevertheless, he concluded by suggesting that 27 The author of the field notes is my colleague Zlatko Mileusnic from the Zagreb Ethnographic Museum, where the museum archives kindly copied me his field material, which later served him in the preparation of an article on transport and means of transport, where he discussed yokes (Mileusnic 1999: 145-146). the beginnings of ploughing, plough pulling and oxen work were considerably more difficult in those places “than they are with us [the French]” (Pictet 1802: 375–376). The geographical distribution of the two basic types of yokes in Italy is best illustrated in words and images by Scheuermeier, in his comprehensive and ex­tensive publication on farm work in Italy and in the Italian and Rhaeto-Romance parts of Switzerland, in the pages devoted to farm tools. He also discusses head yokes, but only in the aforementioned northern and north-eastern periphery, in connection with the neighbourhood of the German part of Tyrol. Moreover, when he distinguishes between the three known variants of the yoke (according to the parts of the body or head on which it is placed) – the forehead yoke, the head yoke and the variant where the yoke lies in front of the base of the horns – he says that the latter cannot be confirmed in the area under consideration. He adds that in those places a two-animal yoke is much more common than a sin-gle-animal one, and that in most places, according to their function, a distinction is made between the longer and more simply shaped ploughing yokes (Pflugjoch) and the more massive yokes for driving (Wagenjoch) on the roads (Scheuermeier 1956: 160). Apart from Sardinia, where this basic type of harnessing implement is also said to be attested, no head-pulling yokes could be found anywhere else in the Italian peninsula. Everywhere else, only the withers yokes were used. Mostly only the jointed bowvariants could be identified from the accompanying draw­ings orwoodcuts (by Paul Boesch): from Omignano in Campania, from Tuenno in Trentino, from Palestrina in Lazio, from Barberino in Tuscany, from Luvis in Surselva, from Palmoli in Abruzzo (a withers bow specimen), from Formicola in Campania and from Cevello in Lombardy(Scheuermeier 1956: 163–169). These yokes differed in length and design of the upper beam according to local tradi­tion and use. Where theyhave (orhad) different yokes, “those forthe plough, for the sledge orfor the threshing stone are longer than the ordinarywagon yoke” (Scheuermeier 1956: 161). Particularly exciting because of the rarity of such specimens is the text on the triple withers yoke and the woodcut of the specimen in question from San Chirico in Lucania. The related Greek specimen from Crete was the withers bowyoke, while with regard to the Italian one from Lucania the oxen’s necks were surrounded by two serrated laths, which were connected by a rope below the neck. Such yokes were used only in the southernmost part of Italy – in Calabria, Lucania and Sicily – when three oxen were yoked together during the threshing process. The animals dragged two threshing stones (Dreschsteine) through the grain, attached to the yoke by a drawbar, through the beam ring between the left and middle and right and middle ox (Scheuermeier 1956: 180). Let us conclude our journey through Italy, and the local design variants of the withers yokes, with the words of the Napoleonic survey of 1805 and the issue of destroyed and burnt yokes. This is a testimony to the importance of yokes for harnessing cattle in the countryside, and forthe survival of the farmers, while at the same time demonstrating how strict the control of the authorities was over the careful handling of these implements. As the survey says: “The elders were careful not to burn the yoke, knowing that this would bring them severe punish­ment”, with the text later mentioning the “long agony” that would be inflicted on those who did such a thing, and noting that “for this reason, even damaged yokes that were no longer in service were to be buried instead [...]” (Contini 2000: 45). Finally, let us enter those countries of Western and Central Europe that are supposed to represent the core area of the head yoke: Austria, Germany, Swit­zerland and France. But even there, it seems, the situation is not at all uniform. This can be seen quite clearly in the distribution map of cow-harnessing imple­ments in Germany published byJacobeit in his study of yoke equipment and the boundaries of draft animals, based mainly on written texts from the author’s predecessors in researching the yoke and delineating its boundaries (Steinmetz in Jacobeit 1957: 127). On this map, we can see a fairly distinctive demarcation between the northern and southern parts of Germany – between the vast areas of the two basic types of yoke, the withers yoke in the north and the head yoke in the south (and also their single yoke variants) – but otherwise we have to follow a conglomeration of different, and to Jacobeit’s knowledge more recent, imple­ments for the yoking of cattle (probably not only cows), in particular the various types of oxen and cow collars, which were used in the past. These include the Upper German full collar (Oberdeutsches Vollkumt), short and half-padded col­lar (Kurz und Halb-Polsterkumt), three-quarter and fully-padded collar, half collar (Dreiviertel und Voll-Polsterkumt), and three variants of adjustable collars (Verstell-bare Halb-, Zwei-, Dreipolsterkumte). All of these newer collarvariants were mostly scattered throughout the northern “half ” of Germany, and as Jacobeit wrote on the subject: “It is important to remember, however, that they ultimately evolved from the (double) withers yoke” (Jacobeit 1957: 128). But we will leave Jacobeit and Germany for now, as his complex study has a different focus to the current work and it does not seem worthwhile to sum-marise it further at this point in our ox team journey. If we take our next step to Switzerland – with eyes fixed on the relevant map of the Swiss ethnological atlas (Atlas der Schweizerichen Volkskunde - Atlas de folklore suisse), compiled by Paul Geiger and Richard Weiss on the basis of material recorded between 1937 and 1942 – a similar situation is revealed with regard to the coexistence of the two fundamental types of yokes and, in addition to them, of the collar. An exam­ination of this map,28 entitled “Cattle traction devices, yoke/collar” (Zugvorrich­tungen für Rindvieh, Kummet / Halsjoch / Hornjoch - Attelage des boeufs, Le joug / le collier), suggests that in the western part of Switzerland, towards France, the cat­tle collar (Viehkummet) and, here and there, jointly the collar and the head yoke, were in general use. In the northern part, towards Germany, and in the central parts of the country, the withers yoke and the withers yoke and collarwere used together; in the eastern part, towards Austria, in addition to the withers yoke, in some places the withers yoke and collarwere used jointly, as well as the head yoke and collar; and in the south, towards Italy, the widespread forms were the withers yoke (akin to the Italian jointed bowvariants), the collar, and in certain places all three of these kinds of harnessing implements were used. The drawings on the edge of the map, however, indicate that all three were intended for use with a single animal – the cattle collar as well as the single withers yoke (Halsjoch) and the single head yoke (Hornjoch).29 Austria, too, was not a homogenous area with regard to the head yoke, and the situation there is quite clear, especially thanks to two works. In the first, Hans Koren discussed the forms and names of the yokes in “Inner Austria” (Inneröster­reich), which historicallyincluded Styria, Carinthia and, at one time, Carniola.30 He cited as sources for his study the observation of the situation, which was carried out “perhaps at the last moment before the final capitulation of the yoke to the collar”, as well as the serfs’ inventories, which proved to be a very valid resource, both in terms of numbers and proven reliability. All of these sources – in addition to the numerous yokes in the collection of the Styrian Ethnographic Museum (SteirischesVolkskundemuseum), which are indicative of the 19th century – made it possible to (later) draw the previously undefinable boundaries of the yoke types and to outline the forgotten features of the cattle harnessing imple­ments. Thus, Koren could write, for example: “In the country, there are – to use the uniform terminology of Wolfgang Jacobeit’s important monograph – withers 28 The map is marked I 68, Frage 33. It was forwarded to me by my late Zagreb colleague Tomo Vinšcak. 29 The Swiss map shows a different, but also frequently used terminology for the two basic types of yokes: for the withers yoke, instead of Widerrist, Halsjoch, the collaryoke; and for the head yoke, not Nackenjoch, but Hornjoch, the horn-pulling yoke. In the latter case it may even be the correct usage, since the position of this yoke on the animal’s head is difficult to discern with certainty from the drawing on the edge of the map. 30 The latter is the land now occupied by most of today’s Slovenia. Koren was only able to conduct detailed investigations for Styria (as the politically dominant land among the three mentioned here), but not for the perhaps more culturally representative Carinthia and Carniola. He tried to make up for this with a brief overview of the situation in the two other lands, but he wisely realised that such an overview could be superficial, perhaps even misleading (Koren 1957: 160). and head yokes (Widderistjoche und Genickjoche) – both designed as double and as single yokes” (Koren 1957: 162). He continued with an interesting and con­troversial observation, due to his lack of knowledge of yokes in the Slovenian neighbourhood, that the width or height of the yoke’s beam was associated with the ability to bearvarious decorations and incised ornaments, including crosses and year marks – something that in fact is rarely the case for the withers yoke. He then offered descriptions of these implements, such as the head yoke, called Joch or igô, which is said to be “a type of clearly distinguishable modification of the basic type”. Koren identified three, but the fundamental one is said to be “the yoke beam, between 110 and 130 centimetres long, which has left and right incised arches, which fit on the animal’s nape; next to them are four horizontal openings, through which wooden pegs are inserted, and with their help, the igô is attached to the animal’s head by means of straps, around the horns, with a leath­er pad underneath”(Koren 1957: 162). He wrote about single yokes that they are mentioned in inventories onlyin the second quarter of the 19th century, and associated their use with carts. The earliest evidence of the use of the collar as a means of harnessing cattle dates back to 1741 (Koren 1957: 166–167). The second work, the chapter “Joch und Jar”, “Igô and yoke” by Sepp Wal­ter, along with an accompanying map, published in the Atlas to the History of the Styrian Peasantry,31 built on Koren’s findings on the basis of the testimony of the sources used, with some of his conclusions on the two basic types of harnessing implements summarised as follows. In the mountainous Oberland (Upper Styria, the western Styrian border mountains and the Fischbacher Alpen) a pair of cattle was yoked via the back of the head and neck to do the “headwork”, and when the animals were drawing a ploughing implement the withers yoke was placed around their necks in eastern Styria and in the neighbouring areas of southern and western Styria. The same geographical demarcation as shown on the map (which reveals a transitional stage from the early 1930s) was attested since the mid-16th century on the basis of Koren’s research. The head yoke is called every­where Joch or igô, but the name for the withers yoke varies: in western Styria and in the Mura Valley (Murtal) it is called Jar, just as the names jarem, jaram, jarom or jarmo are similarlywidespread in south-eastern and eastern Styria. The first single yoke (Halbjoch, jöchl), for harnessing single cattle, is said to have appeared in the EnnstalValley only towards the middle of the 17th century. By the mid­18th century, however, the old types of implements foryoking cattle began to be The source for his text in the Atlas zur Geschichte der steirischen Bauerntums, or the map “Joch und Jar in der Steiermark (1 : 150,000, draft by Sepp Walter), was Questionnaire I for the Atlas der deutschen Volkskunde, with answers from 1930. replaced by the “collars taken from horses”, which “shone especially along the major transport routes” (Walter 1971: 38, 270–271). In the core of Western Europe, we now still have to go to France, and in the course of tracing the distribution or areas of the two basic types of yokes – the withers yoke and the head yoke and theirvariants – I almost wrote that the head yoke reigned supreme in this country. I had before my eyes the images from the publications Les jougs du Morvan and Le temps des attelages (Berte-Langereau 1996, 2000) and the pages of the catalogue of the exhibition Jougs, contre jougs with Sigaut’s article on the head yoke as a European exception (Sigaut 1993), followed by the photographs of 13 yokes (B. n. a. 1993) out of 70 that at the time were exhibited and formed the collection of the then French National Ethno­graphic Museum MNATP (Musée National des Arts et Traditions Populaires),32 with a selection from the provinces of Alsace, Auvergne, Bourbonnais, Languedoc, Morvan, Provence-Rhodanienne and Rouergue, on the basis of the criterion of provincial representativeness. While this does not show all the French diversity in this regard, it does give at least a rough impression, and all the specimens that are presented are merely design variants of the head yoke. So, I was ready to write that the head yoke dominated in France, but then I once again picked up the standard work on yokes in this countrywritten at the end of the 1960s by Mariel Jean Brunhes Delamarre, Geographie et ethnologie de l’attelage au joug en France du XVIIe sičcle ŕ nos jours. It reminded me that the ty­pological puzzle with regard to French yokes is a rather interesting one. This text was drawn up by Brunhes Delamarre on the basis of a wide variety of sources and literature, including the French linguistic and ethnographic atlases that were being produced in the middle of the last century.33Thus she was able to put into clear statements the findings on the use and predominance of the head yoke in the Massif Central; on the ancient meaning of the withers yoke between the southern part of this region and the Pyrenees; on the use of the two basic types in the Gascogne; on the head yoke in the Basque Country; on the use of the two basic types in the French Pyrenees; the withers yoke in the Alps and the old type of the head yoke in the pre-Alpine area; the head yoke in the Rhône and Saône Valleys; and the yokes with different methods of tying in the Franche-Comté, 32 In 1996, the aforementioned museum launched a campaign to collect harnessing equipment oryokes, and as a result received a donation of a collection of 230 yokes of provenance from various regions of France. Since then, the museum has boasted the most representative collection of yokes in France (de Laubrie 1999: 3), which was transferred to the Musee des Civilisations de l’Europe et de la Mediterranee (Museum ofEuropean and Mediterranean Civilisations) in Marseille after the closure of the museum in Paris (2005). 33 The first was the Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Lyonnais, published in 1950, followed by those for the Massif Central, for Gascogne and others (Brunhes Delamarre 1969: 71). the Vosges lorraines, Champagne and the area of Morvan (Brunhes Delamarre 1969: 31–51). Among the withers yokes, two variants in particularwere recorded in France: bow specimens and those with shanks on both sides of the neck (and a rope under the neck) – the latter, for example, in Provence and also in Corsica. However, the examination of the French yokes in the pictorial appendices (and in many photographs in other publications) did not reveal any places on their beamed bodies with any decorative components. But then came the surpris­ing discovery of a hitherto unknown decorative element – the so-called “overy­oke” (le surjoug) – which, in certain circumstances, adorned the head yokes in the Pyrenees and was formed from a suitable log, carved and hollowed out, fitted with bells and painted in a colourful manner (Brunhes Delamarre 1969: 40–41). From around the end of the 18th century and into the 19th century, the overyoke was attached to the top of the yoke (in its middle) when oxen were harnessed to the cart when going to fairs or when taking their share of the crops to the village gentry. Its function was essentially one of display, manifested in the height of the overyoke (which could exceed 60 centimetres), the richness of the colours and other decorative elements and the number of bells. The latter also made it pos­sible to signal the arrival of the cart, especiallyon mountain paths covered with fog. They also had a “magical and religious value”, as protectors against storms and thunder, other disasters and spells, and as a way of communicating their con­cern for the harnessed animals in a distinctive way (de Laubrie 1993: 14). Now let us go across the Pyrenees, to Spain and Portugal, where there is no shortage of ethnological works and eloquent words about the local types of yokes, their use, manufacture and decoration. In both countries the interplay be­tween the two basic types – the head and the withers yoke – can again be found, along with their regional forms and variants. However, in the relevant basic work on Portugal byde Oliveira, Galhano and Pereira (1969, 1973), a different division emerges, one based on the uniquelydesigned yokes from the coastal areas in the north-west of that country: the division into 1. yokes with a board (jugos de tábua) from these areas; and 2. simple yokes with a beam (jugos de trave, simples)(de Oliveira, Galhano and Pereira 1973: 102). The latterwere widespread throughout the rest of Portuguese territory and are recorded in three variant types accord­ing to the methods of harnessing: the first one had a simple beam and shanks on both sides of the neck (with a rope to tie it under the neck) and combined the under-neck harness and the horn harness, i.e. both the withers and head yoke; the second had two leather pads and had only the horn-harnessing system, i.e. the head yoke system; the third, also with a simple beam and with shanks on both sides of the neck, but with only the under-neck harnessing system, was the withers yoke. InPortugal, the combination of the two basic types of yoking in one implement is fascinating, and is probably closely linked to the particular form and size of yokes with a board, which are characterised bythe rich decoration on the entire board surface. These impressive jugos de tábua from the coastal areas of the north-west, in all three of their design variants – the first from the Ovar area, the second from Vila da Feira and Maia, and the third from the province of Min-ho – largely combine the two systems of yoking. The impressive board body of the yoke is placed on the necks of the animals in front of the withers (with bows or shanks on both sides of the neck) and at the same time tightly tied with straps around the horns to their heads (de Oliveira, Galhano and Pereira 1973: 103). Moreover, in Portugal yokes varied in both use and length. Those for plough­ing (and harrowing) were generally the same as those for driving, but usually shorter. Theywere traditionally made using different types of wood: ash, walnut and cork oak, while more recently, in the middle of the 20th century, eucalyptus and sometimes pine were used. The under-neck arches or bows were generally made of chestnut orwalnut wood (de Oliveira, Galhano and Pereira 1973: 105). The less solid, less durable and more richly decorated yokes de parada34 were for secondary, festive use: for example, in common municipal or village projects, where farmers could “show off their animals and exhibit the luxurywith their farming tools” (Mingote Calderón 2005: 13). Howwere things elsewhere on the Iberian Peninsula, in Spain? The majority of the ethnological literature on yokes in that country in the first half or mid­dle of the last century was contributed by authors35 who were able to observe and describe them during the last few decades of their everyday use. Mingote Calderón (1992, 2005) – who contributed in-depth and, in many respects, meth­odologically different studies of cattle yokes – was able to draw on such works and in some respects summarised them in his own texts. In these, he managed not only to identify Spanish yokes according to the design variants of the two basic types and the geographical spread of their use (although he notes that the 34 Despite various hypotheses (e.g. the influence of regional motifs from the Romanesque period, etc.), the fact remains that they are rarely attested before the second half of the 19th century, and all known dated examples date from the second half of the 19th century. This is supported by the fact that after the agrarian reforms of 1834 a number of large country houses belonging to a very rich “peasant” class appeared in the region. Moreover, since this also brought great importance to oxen, it is plausible to believe that these new landowners, proud of their houses, also wanted to demonstrate their importance with livestock, which they did with their spectacular equipment (de Oliveira, Galhano in Pereira 1973: 106–107). 35 The Spanish researchers who focused on yokes include: Telsforo de Aranzadi for the whole Spanish territory, with five articles between 1906 and 1946; Violant and Simorra for Catalonia, 1958; Echegaray for Cantabria, 1971; and Fernández for Galicia, 1982 (Mingote Calderón 1992: 3-4). relevant data for Spain are scarce and insufficient), but also to relate theirvaria­tions in form to their use for different jobs and to define them on this basis. His thinking is very close to what Grith Lerche and François Sigaut wrote on the subject, albeit in relation to ploughing implements and ploughing. The former thus says that if instead of focusing on the object itself we focus on the working process in which a tool is the primary and necessary instrument, its essence lies in its action and context, and thus how this tool is assembled and the work that it does (Lerche in Smerdel 2008: 21). The second author, Sigaut, works out the details of his methodological approach as distinguishing between three levels of analysis in the study of particular tools: the study of form or structure (forme ou structure), function (fonctionnement) and task or use (fonction). In doing so, he stresses the importance of studies on the use of tools, or on individual tasks, as only these can connect the generally deficient data that make the transition from structure to use possible – “that is, theymake the objects 'speak'” (Sigaut in Smerdel 2008: 21). Mingote Calderón followed the testimonies of the Spanish yokes from the 15th and 16th centuries, when the use of head-pulling yokes or head yokes (yugos de tipo cornal) was documented in the central part of the country, Castile, while in the peripheral areas of Spain, Galicia, Catalonia and the Aragonese Pyrenees, the neck-pulling yokes or withers yokes (yugos yugulares) emerged in two de­sign variants – those with shanks on both sides of the neck, de costillas (serrated, connected below the neck by a rope), and those with bows, de collares (Mingote Calderón 2005: 11). So, in this country, too, both basic types of yoking were known and used for centuries, the head and withers yokes. As for defining these implements on the basis of their use for different work tasks, Mingote Calderón stated that “the yoke is almost the only agricultural tool that is characterised by combining its form and its function (funcionalidad) in a clear and recognisable way”. He then went on: If we consider the obvious exceptions that can be found in the light of this norm, it can be said that, depending on the task they intended to carry out, they chose to use one or the other type of yoke. For this reason, it is possible to speak of yokes used for ploughing and threshing – which are also used for taming or teaching – yokes for driving a cart and special yokes for taming. (Mingote Calderón 2005: 13) All of these were established in central Spain (in the Sierra Norte of Madrid), and were head yokes of different lengths. In addition to these, yokes for sowing or cleaning grain and for planting potatoes were also known there, but in general other types can be added to all of these and, both in Spain and elsewhere, linked to various secondary uses: for example, the so-called festive yokes (de feria), used to bring harnessed livestock to fairs (Mingote Calderón 2005: 13). Mingote Calderón was particularly intrigued by a yoke with a specific use, for taming rebellious livestock, whose most striking design feature was that it could accommodate three animals, hence the three bowl-shaped collars (or “bowls” gamellas). It is not much different in design from the ploughing yoke, except that it is longer. Its use in everydaypractice was rare, as there were other alternatives for taming animals with less docile temperaments, but Spanish history confirms the use of the three-animal yoke from Roman times onwards, based on a few revealing texts (Mingote Calderón 2005: 16, 19). However, the geographical dis­tribution shows that the three-animal yoke was only of the head type (Mingote Calderón 1992: 22). On our journey through European countries, we also encountered different implements foryoking three cattle in Greece and in the far south of Italy, where they were of a different basic type: the withers bowyoke for three animals is reported from Crete, and the withers yoke with shanks on both sides of the neck (serrated, connected by a rope under the neck) from Calabria, Lucania and Sicily. But Imellos’ map of Crete does not indicate the use of this special kind of yoke, and only reveals the type, while Italian specimens foryoking three animals are reported to have been harnessed to oxen for threshing with two threshing stones (Scheuermeier 1956: 180). The purpose of the yokes for the three cattle from the south of Italywas therefore not to tame rebellious cattle, but to process grain. We thus conclude our journey by ox team through Europe with a fewwords about this unique and little-established form of yoke. All that remains is to fly overthe othercontinents – a reviewof the literature found while following yokes in other parts of the world – where in parts of the Middle East (as the meet-ing-places of three continents) and in Asia the withers yoke with shanks on both sides of the neck is everywhere at home, while in Africa we find the two basic types of yoke, the withers and head yoke, and in the Americas the basic type which arrived there with the first invaders or later emigrants from one of the European countries. We will first stop in Iran, in the city and province of Kermán, which lies at an altitude of 1,853 m and has a subtropical climate, and is where Grith Lerche and Axel Steensberg explored ploughing with an ard in 1965. Near the city they observed two teams of zebu oxen ploughing, pulling the ard with the withers or neck yoke placed in front of their humps. On the outside of the oxen’s necks were two wooden pegs or shanks, and from theirlower end the rope passed under the necks and was attached to the yoke on the inside. After learning about the imple­ments for cattle yoking there, Lerche and Steensberg wrote that Iranian yokes had a simple design. Their upper part – the yoke’s beam – was almost as a rule circular in cross-section (only a few are rectangular in cross-section) and was entirelyflat, without rounded, bowl-shaped collar parts (Lerche and Steensberg 1983: 224–225). It seems that the yokes in Afghanistan are also similarly designed, at least according to two specimens exhibited in 2003 at the Museum für Völkerkunde, an ethnological museum in Vienna. The catalogue shows one from western Afghan­istan (Jamshidi) and another from the south-east of the country (Langhman, Pashtunen). Unlike the Iranian specimens, and in the same wayas, for example, the related Greek and Spanish ones, the two Afghan withers yokes with shanks on both sides of the neck have two small pegs on each side of the ox’s neck, connected by a rope underneath. The beams of both yokes are also straight, ex­cept that the first yoke has a round cross-section, while the second is flatter and carved more beautifully (Steinmann 2003: 151). Moving further into Asia, we can also find related examples of yokes with shanks on both sides of the neck, such as in Nepal, where we are informed by a survey of the ard (and, in addition, of the yoke and the team) that took place in the Jumla district – one of the five districts of the Karnali province in western Nepal. Given the extreme height of the terraced fields there (the region lies at an altitude of between 1,800 and 3,500 metres) and the inclination of their steep slopes, the Jumla yoke and ard are devices well adapted to the natural conditions, being light, convenient and easy to transport, capable of being carried on a per­son’s shoulders over long distances. At 136 centimetres, the yoke is relatively wide or long and – in keeping with this design variant of the withers yoke – has two vertical shanks at each ox’s neck, connected by a rope at the bottom. The latter makes it easy to harness the oxen once the yoke is placed in front of the withers. In its middle, there is also a bond or beam ring made of bamboo fibres or buffalo leather, which connects the yoke to the pole of the ard. Walnut (Juglans regia) is reported as the most commonly used wood foryokes, Himalayan birch (Betula utilis) is also fairlycommon and willow(Salix sp.) is rare (Lundström-Bau-dais, Baudais and Upadhaya 2001: 77–79, 81, 86). Our next stop is in Africa. Although animal traction has been used for millen­nia in Northern Africa and Ethiopia, it is believed to have been introduced to the rest of the continent only recently. In South Africa, the Boers and French Hugue­nots began to use it in the 18th century, and in the last decade of the 19th century the French army, followed by colonial agricultural and trading companies, intro­duced animal traction to Madagascar and later, around 1920, to Western Africa. And it was right there, and in Madagascar in particular, that animal traction real­ly took off only in the 1960s, thanks to the efforts of various research organisa­tions, agricultural development companies, religious missions and, finally, NGOs. Moreover, the knowledge transmitted bythese organisations and individuals was based on practices in their home European regions, which in turn meant that a variety of traction methods and equipment were introduced to Africa (Le Thiec and Havard 1999: 134). Except for the Mediterranean region and in Ethiopia, there was no ancient tradition of animal traction in Africa, and the withers yoke is more widespread than the head yoke. It is the former type that is well suited to the humped zebu cattle (Bos indicus), and is thus established in the Sahelian-Sudanese area (with its well-developed draft cultivation form of agriculture), and where a large pop­ulation of these animals is found. The recent introduction of this technology also prevented the development of either skilled yoke-making oryoke-use in Africa. Examples of head yokes are of­ten carelessly cut and designed, and thus do not sit properly on the head behind the animal’s horns. They are usually tied loosely to the latter, often onlywith thin ropes. The withers yokes are often only simple wooden beams, the sharp edges of which have not been removed and, as the yoke collars do not have properly formed arches, the angular edge of the yoke body presses against the withers when the animal is in motion. This makes any exertion painful and therefore makes the working cattle difficult to train and then handle in the field. The metal bows of the withers yoke or the wooden sticks (“the hames”) of the withers yoke design variant with shanks on both sides of the neck are also unpleasant for the animals. With the latter, thin ropes are tied around or under the animal’s throat, so that the two shanks are connected at the bottom, putting pressure on the windpipe, and as the yoke is constantly moved back and forth during work, the animal almost suffocates. The weight of these harnessing implements is also an important factor. Both the withers yoke and the head yoke are extremely heavy, often around 15 kilos, although ideally, they should not exceed 10 to 12 kilos (Le Thiec and Havard 1999: 135). Such a heavy burden on the back of the neck or on the head certainly does not make it any easier for the animals to work. Now let us cross the Atlantic, first to South America, to Ecuador. There, in 1990, in the province of Imbabura, on the slopes of Mount Cotatachi, Helena Meininger explored the farming techniques and tools that bear witness to the agriculture of small farmers of the indigenous communities of the Andes. Their main tillage tools are the hoe and ard (Meininger 1993: 127) and, in addition to these, head-pulling yokes of various dimensions are also employed: one kind, about 120 centimetres long, is used for ploughing, to prepare the soil for sowing; the other, shorter (extending between the two furrows), may be used for cover­ing maize, although this work is mostlydone with the hoe. Both are head yokes and are well adapted to ploughing on steep fields. The oxen yoked in this way can firmly hold the ard in place during cross-ploughing up and down slopes. Howev­er, the yoke must be very carefully and firmly secured behind the horns (so that no space is left between the horns and yoke) to avoid damage to the horns or loss of traction power. Fastening is done by a long, flat, strap made of rawhide, threaded through the openings in the yoke’s beam. Where the harness rests on the oxen’s heads, two bowl-shaped hollows are cut into its underside, the edge of which protects the animal’s head. Two or three openings are cut in the middle of the yoke, through which the flexible part of the yoke, the beam ring, is insert­ed, bywhich the pole of the ard is attached to the yoke. It is this movable beam ring that softens or cushions the shocks felt by the horns of the oxen when the ploughshare of the ard hits stones or roots (Meininger 1993: 131–132). Farmers on the steep slopes of Cotacachi take great care of their working animals, which is reflected not only in the properly constructed yokes and their correct use, but also in the fact that the desire of the local farmers to spare their oxen the hardest work36 seems to play an important role in the choice of working technique. In ploughing, for example, a long ploughshare of the ard is more suit­able for deeper cultivation, but it means more effort for the draft animals, and so farmers are constantly assessing the resources at their disposal and the natural conditions theywill have to cope with, in order to ensure the well-being of their working animals (Meininger 1993: 130). In Peru, in the farming communities of the Andean region, Inge Schjellerup explored ploughing and the ard in Chuquibamba, and revealed an example of the export of particular components of European material culture – the introduction of the Mediterranean ard and the head yoke to new lands. The Chuquibamba ard is pulled by the so-called yunta, a pair of oxen harnessed to an “old type of head-pulling yoke” tied by the horns, and thus the head yoke of the kind still “as­sociated with oxen in central and southern Spain” (Schjellerup 1986: 181, 183) in the 1980s, since in the first two centuries of colonization only peasants from Cas-tile, Extremadura, and Andalusia were allowed to go to the American colonies. In the Andean region of Peru, yokes also varied in length (from 130 to 160 centimetres) according to function. In flat areas, a shorteryoke is (was) used 36 This almost certainly stems from the essence of the indigenous perception of nature, which emphasises the concept of its personhood. In the indigenous interpretations, animals, plants, and rocks are also “people”, which, together with humans, co-create the unity of the world or cosmos (Tercelj 2021: 65-66). than on steep slopes, where it is necessary to keep the oxen further apart so that they can walk smoothly. A shorteryoke is also used for transporting (or hauling) logs (Schjellerup 1986: 183). The mid-16th-century account that Schjellerup cites of the first ox-drawn ploughing in the Cuzco Valley – i.e. at the time when the head yoke was intro­duced into Peru – not only offers a description of what happened, but also a fascinating account of how it was experienced, conveying the attitude of the sur­prised and somewhat frightened Peruvian natives towards the oxen and, at the same time, towards the Spanish conquistadors: “They said that the Spaniards were lazyfor forcing such large animals do work that they should have done themselves”37 (Schjellerup 1986: 186). Unsurprisingly, the export of particular components of European material culture – in our case, yokes – is not only attested in South America, but also in North America. As Conroy put it, the forms or types of yokes, like other tradi­tions, were passed down not only from generation to generation, but also to the new lands to which people emigrated. The withers bowyoke (which Conroy calls the neck yoke) was passed on as an English tradition to Australia and the United States, and thus it was not only used in places with a predominantly Spanish tra­dition. Spanish immigrants also brought the head-pulling yoke or the head yoke to the Americas, and it can be found in most South American countries (as we have already seen in Ecuador and Peru, and also in Paraguay), with the exception of Brazil, where, under the influence of the Portuguese, both basic types – the head and the withers yoke – were and remain in use. The French also brought the head yoke to the early Canada (Conroy 2004: 3). In the remainder of his writing, Conroy – who explains at the outset that it is not based on a research study but on “a life-long personal experience of working with oxen on the farm, in the woods and in competitions” – then goes on to list the advantages and disadvantages of both basic types of yokes, while revealing nothing substantially new. What is undoubtedly exciting here is his clearly ex­pressed attitude of care towards oxen, since the aim is to improve their comfort in performing tasks and the welfare of the animals by understanding and evalu­ating different systems or types of ox teaming (Conroy 2004: 1). 37 The author of the account was Garcilas de la Vega, a mestizo, or person of mixed European and Indigenous non-European ancestry, who grew up in Cuzco, the old capital of the Incas in the early colonial period. “The first time I saw oxen ploughing was in the Cuzco Valley around 1550. [...] The crowd of Indians from everywhere drew me in, surprised and frightened at the sight of something like this, which was horrible and new to them and to me” (Schjellerup 1986: 186). In addition to the advantages he acknowledges in the case of the head yoke (easier control of the animal, and easier braking or stopping on steep roads), he points out, for example, that for comfortable harnessing it must be carved in such a way to fit securely on the back of the individual animal’s horns, and he says that some ox handlers believe that they cannot use the same yoke on another animal without making the appropriate adjustments (Conroy 2004: 3–4). In the case of the withers bowyokes, however, he stresses that the collars (or “neck seats” as he calls them) must fit the individual animal, and points out that every ox requires a bow that fits right around its neck. If they are too loose, theywill interfere with shoulder movement; and if they are too tight, theywill pinch, squeeze and bruise the neck. The yoke thus has an important influence on the animal’s responsive­ness and willingness to work (Conroy 2004: 24, 26). But, in addition to this, he also reveals a lot about people’s ever-present concern for theirworking compan­ions, and their special relationship with the indispensable draft animals. After our long journey by ox teams across Europe – first from Ireland to Fin­land and then eastwards, southwards and westwards – and finally after flying to other continents, it may be worthwhile to refresh or complete our knowledge of the two basic types of yokes, the withers and head yokes, with a fewwords aimed at this very task by François Sigaut: In terms of technique, all the advantages seem to be on the side of the withers yoke. It is simpler, i.e. less expensive to make, and much simpler to install. It also allows greater freedom of animal movement, permitting greater produc­tivity with less fatigue. The only superiority that experts have observed in the head yoke, however, is that it makes it easier to lead by keeping the animals firmly tied together. But this is an advantage only for difficult animals. (Sigaut 1993: 5) It seems that we can now unharness and take a rest after our lengthy ox team journey through the vast expanses of Europe and other continents – but not for long. We will again “be under the yoke” – as harnessing is called in some parts of Slovenia – and on our return to our own countrywe will first pay attention to the testimony of the material, conveyed by silent museum collections. It is time to take a closer look at the types of yokes that have become established on Slovenian lands. Less numerous and more regionally confined, they could be identified in the collections of individual regional museums, while several of their forms – based on the two basic types – are kept in the numerous and represen­tative collection of the national SEM. The most revealing presentation of yokes is an insight into the collection itself. But first, let us look at the written bits and pieces of its history and the resulting cartographic representation of the regional distribution of the two basic types of yokes and their typological variants. THE MEANING OF THE SEM COLLECTION – ON ITS HISTORY AND ON THE VARIOUS TYPES OF YOKES IN SLOVENIA Within the collections of objects testifying to the working processes in the ag­ricultural economy, some were considered more important by SEM on the basis of various criteria. When theywere examined in the 1960s by their then curator Angelos Baš, he decided to continue collecting them in accordance with his defi­nition of a museum object, which was that it should have study or exhibition val­ue (Baš in Smerdel 1983: 8). Following the first criterion, collecting on the basis of the studyvalue of the objects, or supplementing the collections of studyvalue, was thus noticeably reflected in the moderate but consistent growth of three such collections over the next decade and a half: ploughing implements, whet­stone holders and animal harnessing, with the latter including especiallyyokes. However, the creation of the collection in question, which would otherwise have belonged to the “group” Zug- und Ackergerät, verschiedene bäuerliche Geb­rauchsgegenstände, or “harness and agricultural implements, miscellaneous ru­ral utilitarian objects”, as Walter Schmid, curator of the Provincial Museum of Carniola, called it in his 1908 report in the first volume of Carniola,38 was not driven by functional considerations, but instead by aesthetic ones. From this 38 The Royal Ethnographic Museum, founded in 1821, was separated from the Provincial Museum in 1923, renamed the Ethnographic Museum after WWII and the Slovene Ethnographic Museum after 1963 (Smerdel 1994: 10). view carved or otherwise executed decor placed the yokes, like the whetstone holders – both objects otherwise intended for agricultural work, the products of domestic crafts or so-called39 domestic industriousness – in the realm of folk art (Schmid in Smerdel 1994: 10–11). It is thus not surprising that, apart from a few scattered bits and pieces in ethnological literature and an isolated more substantial contribution on the ox yokes of the German settlers of the Kocevje region (e.g. Mrkun 1943, Kunde­graber 1967), the most comprehensive text on this implement for the harnessing of cattle was published in the work Slovenska ljudska umetnost/Slovenian Folk Art (Makarovic 1981). This was based on the museum’s collection and the historicity of the yokes collected there, or rather the historicity of their decoration. How­ever, Makarovic first attempted to say something in this chapter about the fact that the ancestors of the Slovenes “probablyknewyokes at the time of settle­ment or even earlier” (Makarovic 1981: 277) – which today, after the discovery of a two-wheeled cart wheel at the Stare gmajne site in the Ljubljana Marshes, is tentatively dated to the second half of the 4th century BC (Velušcek 2006: 44) – and this is at least hypothetically if not undoubtedly true for the people who inhabited our lands at the time. However, he continued that “the sources known so far do not attest the image of yokes from the time before the 19th cen­tury” (Makarovic 1981: 277), a claim which is in fact proven false by the earliest known, clearly identifiable image of a head-pulling yoke, or the head yoke or igô, in a scene on the Third Hema Relief of 1515, in the Cathedral of Krka (Ger­man: Gurk) in Carinthia, from the workshop of the master craftsman Leinhard Pampstl (Smerdel 2011: 127, 129). This is followed by Makarovic’s observation that while, given the general development of art design on farms, we could not assume the decoration of yokes before the mid-18th century, the practice is prob­ably much more recent. “It is evident from the preserved material in question that the peak of yoke decoration in form and quantity dates only to the late 19th and the first quarter of the 20th centuries”, he wrote, and among examples of this he noted “the oldest known decorated yoke” dating from 1845 (Makarovic 1981: 277). However, a subsequent examination of the material in question from 39 The term is no longer in use due to its substantive vagueness, but it is appropriate here, as yokes were not only made by local, independent craftsmen – e.g. wheelwrights, who worked for a fee – but also by the farmers themselves or their family members (local self-taught craftsmen), as objects and implements necessary for ploughing, traction, driving and so on (Bogataj 2004: 95). the collections of the regional museums40 at the time of the present research revealed a beautiful 18th-centuryexample in the Škofja Loka museum collection, more modestly decorated than some, but with a distinct, clearly incised year of 1771. Makarovic goes on to describe the ways in which the yokes are decorated: by carving – most often shallow grooves and small decorations, along with scaly incisions – and only exceptionally by plastic convex carvings. He considers that the forms of the individual decorative elements depended mostly on the inge­nuity of the individual artists, and also mentions black polychrome or burning before incising as occasional methods of decoration, in order to distinguish the light carved decoration more clearly from the dark base (Makarovic 1981: 281). However, the latter practice – the burning of yokes – is not an element of deco­ration, but rather a technique of their manufacture. This is based on the specific knowledge of the individual makers regarding the characteristics of the different types of wood, the search forways to reduce the weight of these harnessing im­plements, and the need to maximise their strength. Makarovic’s subsequent debates attempt to place the decorated yokes in their appropriate social and regional context. In them, he writes that the preserved material in question shows that their decoration was most widespread in Do-lenjska at the end of the 19thcenturyand in the first quarterof the 20th, where cattle breeding was highly developed at the time. “In an otherwise backward and small-scale agricultural economy, a pair of fine oxen was a valuable asset and demonstrated good management. Oral tradition repeatedly mentions that such oxen were accompanied by a decorated yoke” (Makarovic 1981: 281). While all of this is true, it relies on limited sources. However, in the SEM collection of yokes, in which individual specimens mostly have a known time and manner of arrival, the related reports show that they were largely acquired during the concentrated fieldwork carried out by 18 museum teams led by Boris Orel be­tween 1948 and 1961. During Orel’s tenure, as many as nine teams, i.e. half of the teams at that time, were researching and collecting the material in question for museum collections right in Dolenjska (and the remaining nine teams also in other Slovenian regions, namely Primorska, Posocje, Goriška Brda, Cerkljansko, Brkini and Vipava). In the collection, which in 2012 (when the catalogue was The latterwas kindly made possible by my colleagues Mojca Šifrer Bulovec from the Škofja Loka Museum, Tina Novak Pucer from the Koper Regional Museum, Inga Miklavcic Brezigar from the Nova Gorica Museum, Karla Kofol from the Tolmin Museum, Tatjana Dolžan Eržen from the Gorenjska Museum Kranj, Ivanka Pockar from the Posavje Museum Brežice, Ivica Križ from the Dolenjska Museum Novo mesto, Anita Matkovic from the Bela Krajina Museum Metlika, and my colleagues Tone Petek from the Maribor Regional Museum Maribor and Vladimir Šlibar from the Celje Regional Museum. completed) numbered 127 examples of typological variants of the withers and head harnessing implements – 88 yokes and 39 single yokes – 67, i.e. more than half, are decorated, among them 52 yokes and 15 single yokes.41 But among them are not only the more lavishly decorated withers bow (and also withers frame) yokes from Dolenjska and the widerCentral Slovenian ethnological area, col­lected especially on the basis of their aesthetic features and which number 28 specimens (and another 11 single ones), but also the head yokes and withers bow specimens from the Alpine area with part of the Mediterranean, which number 13 specimens (and two single ones), and also the withers frame yokes from the Pannonian ethnological area, which number 11 (and two single ones). It can thus be seen that yokes were decorated more or less everywhere in Slovenia, but the key point about the decorated specimens is their purpose, as such items were unlikely to be in everyday use. Instead, it is more likely that in our farms, where they could afford to do so, a distinction was made between ordinaryyokes for everydaywork and those for secondary use, for more special or festive occasions – similar to what is report­ed from Spain with regard to “festive yokes” (Mingote Calderón 2005: 13), or from France with regard to the use of overyokes on festive occasions (de Lau-brie 1993: 14). More affluent farmers used decorated yokes – on such occasions and otherwise – to show and communicate their social prestige. From the village of Marno above Dol near Hrastnik, there is an account that clearly testifies to this practice: “This was decorated because it was the master’s way of showing off. If he had nice oxen, he wanted to have a nice yoke”(VŠ 1986–87: 139). Or, for example, from Stirpnik in Gorenjska: “The yokes of wealthy farmers were decorated; so that it looked nicer when they went to fetch the bride and drove trousseau.”(VŠ 1986–87: 61). Only the yokes of the wealthier farmers had var­ious decorative elements – such as carved ornaments, years and the “master’s name” – as reported from Velesovo and Cerklje in Gorenjska (VG 1960: 50). The decorated yokes were an indication of the social status and affiliation of the owners of ox teams (VG 1960: 50). When made bywheelwrights, according to the record from Komenda, these devices differed in the following ways: the richeryokes were more beautifully made, decorated with carvings and made of better wood, while “the equipment of cottage-dwellers was poorer and not as solidly made”(VG 1960: 43). From Bela krajina, and specifically from Jugorje near Metlika, a poorer and economically marginal social environment, comes the Decorated specimens are also not lacking among the new acquisitions that have come to the Museum since 2012 (for example, among the seven withers bowyokes from the collection of Svetozar Frantar, as well as a decorated withers bowyoke from the Pucihar Collection of Folk Art). following simple and telling report: “The equipment of the rich and the poor did not differ, because cottage-dwellers did not have draft animals”(VG 1960: s.n.).” And so, they did not have yokes either. The start of the SEM collection of yokes is mainlybased on two specimens that were gathered due to their aesthetic appeal. Both are lavishly carved with­ers bowyokes, with a richly designed crown above the crescent-shaped seat of the beam ring – hitch point (cat. nos. 66 and 69). In 1912, they were donated to the Provincial Museum of Carniola Rudolfinum by Fr. Rasenegg from Šiš­ka, and in 1923, when the Royal Ethnographic Museum was founded, theywere transferred to its collections. However, if we look at the broader context of the Museum’s 'yoke' collection, which until 2012 contained, in addition to 127 yokes, two other implements foryoking cattle – namely two ox collars, in addition to which there were also three beam rings, two boards with bow forms and some toy models and souvenirs in the shape of yokes – we have to place the ox collar at the beginning of the collection (see cat. no. 129), which was purchased by the Provincial Museum of Carniola in 1896. However, the motive for its arrival at the museum in this case was not the object’s beauty, but most probably the historical testimony it offered, about which an entry in the old inventory book of the National Museum (the successor of the Provincial Museum of Carniola) states that it is “horse equipment of a Sava towboat from Jesenice near Mokrice”. It is therefore a material monument to the practice of navigation and transport on the Sava River, which ended in 1849 with the construction of the railway to Ljubljana (Umek 1986: 263; Corel 1999: 47, 81). Boats were drawn there by both horses and oxen, although the first collar that was acquired was almost certain­ly incorrectly entered in the museum’s inventory book as a horse collar, as its dimensions do not correspond to the larger horse collars, but are comparable to the smaller ones for oxen, such as the second collar that was entered into the SEM collection (cat. no. 128). The next acquisition, after these two attractive yokes from Šiška, is a beautiful ornate withers bowyoke engraved with the year 1888 (cat. no. 54), which was not inventoried but can be identified in a photograph from the SEM photo li­brary, with the following description: “Wooden ox yoke. Sent by a sexton in Topli vrh near Cermošnjice”.Judging by the handwriting, the description was entered by Franc Kos, an art historian and curator at the Ethnographic Museum from 1937–1943, which places this acquisition in that period. It appears to be a twin yoke from the Ethnographic Museum in Vienna (inv. no. 61.339), from Pöllandl, a village in the Kocevar region called Kocevske Poljane near Cermošnjice (Kun­degraber 1967: 98). In the post-war period, when in 1948 the teams of the Ethnographic Mu­seum under the leadership of Boris Orel (until 1961) began to go into the field, their research and collecting work was already recognisably motivated by a dif­ferent view of the material in question, as the typological aspect prevailed over the aesthetic one.42 The first four withers bowyokes, acquired by the museum team in 1948 at Site 1, Šentjurij-Škocjan, are simple, unadorned specimens, and three of them (cat. nos. 87, 88, 89) belong to a type variant widespread in part of Dolenjska, Notranjska and part of Primorska. With the 18 teams operating under Orel, a total of 17 yokes and six single yokes, of different design types and from different regions of Slovenia, were brought to the museum, and 75 pictorial records of these harnessing devices were also produced. But it was Orel himself who enriched the collection with some particularlyexciting specimens, when he came back from his travels during his explorations of the ard in Slovenia, a mis­sion that began intensively in 1953 (see Smerdel 2008: 14–17) and concluded in 1960 in the Upper Savinja Valley. It was as part of this project that Orel brought back the first head yokes from the mountain farms above Ljubno in the Savinja Valley: a simple, unadorned, 127-centimetre-long small specimen with wooden “hornlets” for fixing a pad between from the farm “Marout” on Planina, with a clearly communicated function – a “jęgu for ploughing in the slope” (cat. no. 12) – and three “antique” stick igô (cat. nos. 17, 18, 19). The first of these, from Ter, is an exceptionallybeautiful carved specimen, and has the year1858 engraved on it. The museum’s collection of cattle-harnessing implements grewin lateryears, either through occasional purchases and donations, or in the course of field re­search by museum teams, who continued this form of work on a small scale here and there, especially in the 1960s and 1970s – namely in the Lož Valley (1962), in the area of Vitanje (1963), in the Škocjan Hills (1964), in the field in Drašici (1965), abroad in Italy and the Karst (1967–1969), the Posotelje region (1977), and finally in the Jeruzalem Hills, Prlekija (1971–72, 1973–79) and in the early 1980s in the Postojna area. A major acquisition was the unexpected gift from the collector Stane Str-gar from Ljubljana in 1990, from whom the museum had previouslybought five items from the Upper Savinja Valley during the period of organising and study­ing the whetstone holder collection (Smerdel 1994: 11), and Strgar, a lover of all things beautiful, brought his collection of yokes to the museum and donated it. 42 Theirwork was guided by the vision of a man who defined Slovenian ethnology at that time as the science of “the cultural formations of our people” and the laws of their development (Orel in Smerdel 1994: 12), and who sought to fill the gaps in the Ethnographic Museum’s collections, both in terms of content and place (landscape). Strgar had collected the donated objects in the 1960s, from the high mountain farms in the area above Luce, where he went chamois hunting. Strgar’s collec­tion of yokes, according to tradition “from a previous generation”, comprises 11 withers bowyokes (cat. nos. 11, 21–30); seven of them with an artistically shaped crown (cat. nos. 25–30), and two of them being beautifullycarved (cat. nos. 29 and 30). The most recent acquisitions in the museum’s collection of cattle harnessing equipment up to 2012 are three yokes and fourteen single yokes, which came to the museum during the years of research into the relationship between humans and working oxen. Conversations with the people I interviewed about various aspects of their working relationships and coexistence with these animals also clarified many of my questions about the yokes, and thus enabled me to read the otherwise soundless messages of the material, which, for many of the specimens in the museum’s collection, quite eloquently outlined their life context. On my travels, when I often noticed several slightly different yokes, usually of different lengths, on the walls of some outbuildings, and when my interlocutors explained the reasons for the observed differences, I began to realise that a yoke is not just a yoke – decorated or not, of this or that regional design type – but that these implements also differ because of their purpose, and thus their use in different work tasks, orthe different functions theyperform. Forexample, the first (cat. no. 40) of my three recovered withers frame yokes, a heavilywrought working telege from Reštanj, was used forhauling logs; and the second (cat. no. 41), a tur­quoise-painted telege from Gradec above Podbocje, was used for training steers oryoung working oxen. On the basis of these findings, I then identified or found four more examples of this type in the existing collection, in addition to Orel’s specimen from the Upper Savinja Valley (cat. no. 12), as special yokes with the function of ploughing on slopes: three because of their exceptional length (cat. nos. 31, 32 and 33), at 172 cm, 166 cm and 188 cm, respectively; and a fourth, 166 centimetres long, from Šober near Zgornja Kungota, on the basis of the unequiv­ocal testimony at the time of purchase that it was “a typical yoke for ploughing on a steep slope, with an old wooden plough handle, called plužnica” (cat. no. 37). Further confirmation of the specific use of such long harnessing yokes was also provided by a text in a local history publication from the Carinthian region: “For ploughing on steep slopes, longer-than-usual yokes were adapted for this purpose. [...] The yoke had to be longer so that the lower animal walked on the furrow and the upper animal walked in front of it so that it did not slip into the furrow” (Glasenicnik 2012: 114). Moreover, in the acquisition of the 14 single yokes – the two head yokes and all other withers specimens – my insights were in manyways closely related to their purposes. This reinforced the conclusion that the individual records of sin­gle yokes replacing yokes for two cattle in the driving of a pair of oxen (or cows) from the end of the 19th century onwards and in the first half of the 20th century in many parts of Slovenia can only be true to a certain extent. Records such as Mrkun’s for the vicinity of Velike Lašce, for example, state that “oxen and cows are driven in single yokes” and that “such a cattle-drawn team is now [in the 1940s] in general use”, but that until a fewyears ago “instead of the present single yoke, the yoke was used, which is only used when driven with a pair of cattle” (Mrkun 1943: 86). In this context we should also note the lines by Marija Kun­degraber (1967: 101), in which she mentions the abandonment of double yokes in the first half of the 20th century, and how single yokes were also increasingly used in Kocevje in the same period. Or, for example, Baš’s remark in the SEM inventory book on a withers bowyoke from Male Lipljene in the Škocjan Hills (cat. no. 92), which states that “at the end of the 19th century, there were yokes of this kind in every house, and then single yokes became established”. However, these records are not unambiguous and may give the false impres­sion that single cattle harnessing implements only emerged and became estab­lished at the stated times, although theymust have existed earlierforcertain farm tasks, probably at least from the gradual introduction of arable crops from the 19th century onwards (Smerdel 1991: 33, 35). It is true, however, that this more noticeable leap in the technique of harnessing may have been a late echo in Slo­venia – as in Belgium and France43 – of the many instructive texts on the subject of improper harnessing of livestock that appeared in the mid-19th century in the Kmetijske in rokodelske novice/Agricultural and Handicraft News (e.g. B. n. a. 1858: 146) and promoted single harnessing, especially in collars (Smerdel 1995: 368– 369). Raepsaet, for example, in his work on harnessing in the ancient Greco-Ro­man world, rightly made fun of one of these texts, in which a Belgian agronomist characterised and promoted the single or half yokes as an innovation: If we knowfrom the works of Palladius and Pliny, and from iconography, that twen­ty centuries ago the Gallo-Roman harvesting machine was already powered by a single ox harnessed to a half-yoke, we can measure all the piquancy of this text from 1857 or 1858. (Raepsaet 2002: 16) 43 For example, when discussing methods of harnessing Raepsaet quotes from an article by a Belgian agronomist in the Journal de la Société centrale d’agriculture Belgique from 1858, synthesising the content of an article in the French Journal d’agriculture Pratique from a year earlier, which promotes and defends the use of the single (head) yoke and explains the supposed disadvantages of the double yoke (Raepsaet 2002: 15). Testimonies from various Slovenian settlements report the use of one cattle harnessed to a single yoke for decades around the middle of the last century for a wide range of work tasks. For example, only one ox was used for pulling harrows, for ploughing in the vineyard between the trellis, for forest work “for dragging”, for pulling the plough “for working rows or for covering [potatoes]”, and “for working the furrows and for throwing the potatoes out”. DETAILS OF THE VARIOUS TYPES OF YOKES WITH A CARTOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION When the field research on the relationship between humans and working oxen was completed, it was time to review the museum’s yoke collection,44 to organise and analyse it, which provided a wonderful opportunity to discover the different aspects of its significance. But first, a typological classification was in order. The spreading out of the entire collection over the floor of the museum’s depot made it possible to unambiguously identify the two basic types of yokes – head and withers – and their design variants, paving the way to determine as clear a typology as possible of the yokes established in Slovenia. This task was also aided by an overview of the collections of the regional museums, according to which the various specimens were assigned to identified and defined regional types, and based on all this the corresponding cartographic presentation was then created.45 The recognition of the basic form of the whole yoke first made it possible to determine regional types – which, according to Leroi-Gourhan’s stages of pro­gressive individualisation of the object, is stage 4 (Leroi-Gourhan 2004: 32–34) – in both the European and the narrower Slovenian contexts. In the latter, it is possible, especially on the basis of the different forms and variants of the seat of the beam ring, to identify variants of a particular regional type in even greater detail. However, before tracing the regional variants in the design of yokes across the Slovenian ethnological areas – from the Alpine (with some Mediterranean) through the Pannonian and Central Slovenian to the Mediterranean – it is nec­essary to clarify certain terminological issues. First of all, as regards the yoke itself, which here is always the name of the im­ 44 Since 2012, the SEM has acquired two more withers bowyokes from the farm pri Pecevnik from Zaklanec near Horjul, a decorated withers bowyoke from Pucihar’s collection, a single withers bowyoke from Slapnik in Goriška Brda, seven yokes and one single yoke from the collection of Svetozar Frantar, two single yokes from the farm of the Žvabovi family in Merce in the Karst and a collar for an ox or a cow from Drežnica. 45 The maps of yoke design types by ethnological area accompany or introduce the corresponding sections of the Catalogue of Objects. plement for the harnessing of two animals, it is therefore not necessary to speak of it as a “double yoke”. I have used the latter term, which is often employed, only in the case of the yoke typology maps, in order to distinguish these from single yokes as implements for harnessing a single animal. Then it is necessary to look at the two basic types and theirvariants, for which a sufficiently clear typology was already produced decades ago, presented by the editors Jacobeit and Kra­marík (1969: 12) in their introduction to the international thematic issue of the Czechoslovak ethnographic journal Národopisný Vestník Ceskoslovenský (1969: 12). The abovementioned typology is to a certain extent also applicable to the Slovenian territory, but translating the German terms for the individual design types would lead to slightly awkward descriptive designations that most likely would not catch on. I therefore formulated a Slovenian version that is as clear as possible, attempting to capture the type with words and give it an appropriate name. However, the individual names for the yokes or their constituent parts may still be accompanied by dialect names from here and there, as these are rath­er common in Slovenia. In fact, when reviewing the relevant answers from the three questionnaires on yokes that were conducted in the second half of the 20th century (VG 1960, VE 1961–62 and VŠ 1986–87), I got the impression that the saying “everyvillage has its own voice” is indeed true in Slovenia. Of the three varieties of head-pulling yoke – the forehead (Stirnjoch), tied in front of the horns (Hörnerjoch) and the head (Genickjoch) – only the head yokes, igôji (and single yoke versions of these), were established in Slovenia. But among these, four different forms could be identified and defined here: head collared (Figures 1, 2, 3), head horned (Figures 4, 5), head crown-topped stick (Figure 6), and head stick yoke (Figures 7, 8). Among the withers yokes (and their single yoke variants), the following design types can be distinguished within Slovenia: the withers bowyoke or, according to Jacobeit’s typology, the Bogenjoch (Fig­ures 9–12), the withers frame or Rahmenjoch (Figures 13–15), the withers hook or Krummholzjoch (Figure 16), and the withers jointed bowyoke (Figure 17). The head collared yokes, visually marked by the prominent bowl-shaped col­lars (nape seats) in the yoke beam, are reported from the northern part of the Mediterranean ethnological area and from the western part of the Alpine area. They are attested by the following specimens from the SEM collection of yokes: two igô from Posocje (cat. nos. 1, 2), a toplš uíga from the Zilja Valley in Carinthia (cat. no. 3) and two single yokes from Posocje and the Upper Sava Valley (cat. nos. 4, 5). In addition to the above, two drawings from Posocje also show this type of yoke, from Gornja Borjana and Kal. Their regional position is also con­firmed by four head collared yokes and two single yokes of this type from the collection of the Gorenjska Museum Kranj, from Ratece and Podkoren in the Upper Sava Valley. The head crown-topped stick yokes have a thinner stick-shaped beam and a crown in the middle of it – a raised, crown-topped part into which the seat of the beam ring (hitch point) is cut. Only one such head yoke (cat. no. 6) can be found in the SEM collection, with no known local origin, but related to the four specimens from the collection of the Tolmin Museum, two from the Škofja Loka Museum and one from the Gorenjska Museum in Kranj, almost all of which are from the Baca Ravine in terms of provenance. A drawing from the Cerklje region, showing a jegó from Zakojca (R cat. no. 21), also indicates the use of such a yoke there. The head horned yokes (head yokes with wooden “hornlets” for fixing a pad between) have two pairs of horns, or shorter stick attachments, cveki, inserted horizontally into the yoke’s beam, between which a pad sits on the animal’s head, tied to it with a strap of appropriate length. There are six such specimens in the SEM collection, with known local provenance, one from the Upper Sava Valley (cat. no. 7), one from Podvolovljek (cat. no. 10) and two from the Upper Savinja Valley (cat. nos. 11, 12). There are four single head horned yokes, the yokes with a pad and a strap(ježés) from Lom nearTržic (cat. no. 13), ajnfoh uíga from the Zilja Valley in Carinthia (cat. no. 14), and two ígovca from Gorjuše and Koprivnik (cat. nos. 15, 16). The Tolmin Museum has two such single yokes, both from the Baca Ravine, and the Gorenjska Museum one, ježés with cveki from Krnice; in addition to the latter, their collection also includes four relevant implements for the yoking of a pair of cattle, two of which known to have come from Mojstrana and Zgornja Radovna. From the Styrian end of the Alps, from Bele Vode above Šoštanj, comes the only horned igô in the collection of the Celje Regional Muse­um. Such specimens are otherwise a widespread design type of the head yoke in neighbouring Austria (see Koren 1957). Because they are unique in Slovenia and the nearby Alpine countries, the head stick yokes are of significant interest. They had a very limited local use, but at the same time their design – a thin stick yoke beam with narrow bowl-shaped collars (nape seats) and, between them, in the middle, a seat or opening for a strapping beam ring – makes it tempting to compare them with the geographi­cally distant but rather similar Finnish and Estonian head yokes. There are four examples of these in the SEM collection (cat. nos. 17–20), all from high mountain farms in Ter and Planina above Ljubno in the Savinja Valley. The person who donated two of these (cat. nos. 18, 19) called them “these antique jęge”. Two head stick yokes from places that are not too far apart, from Šmihel above Mozirje and Florijan near Gornji Grad, are kept in the Celje Regional Museum. As it seemed to me that more than half a century after Orel’s encounter with these curiosities it might be worth going to the places above Ljubno and looking for confirmation of this design type there, I made my last field trip to those villages after I had finished organising the collection, going first to Ter. From there I was directed to Primož near Ljubno, to the owner of the isolated Kumprej farm, who proudly showed me what may be the last head stick yoke in the Upper Savinja Valley, a reminder of previous generations who had worked on this homestead. Although we are still in the Alpine ethnological area (and in the northern part of the Mediterranean), we should already there look back to the withers yoke, the most established basic type of implement foryoking in Slovenia, and to its design variants. The most widespread of the latter is the withers bow yoke, and the considerable number of specimens of this type (including single ones) in the collections of the Tolmin and Škofja Loka museums testifies to the use of this type in those places too, such as in the areas of Gornja Trebuša, Šentviška gora plateau and Baca Ravine, the Cerkno region and the Škofje Loka Hills. Some of the bow withers yokes in the Gorenjska Museum’s collection come from the Moravce Valley. Among the latter there are also those with an artistically de­signed crown with the seat or opening for a strapping beam ring stretched be­tween the collars (neck seats) along the top of the yoke’s beam or body – which is a more appropriate name because of its massiveness – and these are related to some of Strgar’s specimens from the Upper Savinja Valley in the SEM collection (in particular cat. nos. 28, 29 and 30). Four withers bowyokes of a similar design in the collection of the Celje Regional Museum also come from this valley. Moving towards the Carinthian sites of the Alpine ethnological area, we first encounter the withers hook yoke (and almost simultaneously, in the Pohor­je area, also frame specimens of the withers yoke). This is a typical version of this basic type, in which the necks of the draft animals, instead of being held by bows, were held on the inside and underneath by the most often naturally shaped hooks, the kruki (which may also be made up of two wooden laths), and on the outside by the most often wooden stick locks (staves), the šprunclji. The seat of the beam ring (hitch point) in the middle of the yoke’s beam usually has three openings for passing through the strapping beam ring with the linchpin. Of the four such yokes in the SEM collection, three are of known local origin, all from the vicinity of Muta in the Upper Drava Valley (cat. nos. 33, 34, 35). Their region­al location in that part of the Slovenian territory is confirmed by drawings from the 1950s, made in villages in the Pohorje region during fieldwork by teams from the Maribor Regional Museum.46 Four of them describe hook specimens, while on seven of them withers frame yokes appear (but with the same seat or opening of a strapping beam ring). And the further east we move – into Styria and the Pannonian ethnological area – the more this type variant is present. The withers frame yokes are almost completely predominant there: from the hills of Slovenske gorice and Prekmur­je, through Haloze, Kozjansko and part of Posavje, to Bela krajina. The name jarem or jarem na klop (frame yoke) is still reported for them from Pohorje and Kobansko, and telege is increasingly common as one descends southwards along the Croatian border.47 There are six of these in the SEM collection (cat. nos. 37–42). However, as witnessed by the few examples of withers bowyokes in the collection of the Bela Krajina Museum in Metlika – from the villages of Dragatuš, Zapudje and Stari trg in the Kolpa Valley – in addition to the frame yokes, the two aforementioned type variants of the withers yoke start to appear side by side in the area of the German settlers of the Kocevje region and at the transition to the Central Slovenian ethnological area. In this Central Slovenian area, the use of telege – in Dolenjska most often called telenge – is, on the basis of the material in question in museum collections, attested in places as far as around Ljubljana. The SEM collection contains eight withers frame yokes from Dolenjska villages (cat. nos. 43–50), but all of them are more similar in form to examples of the bow type of the withers yoke, which is predominant in the Central Slovenian ethnological area, than to telege as from the Pannonian area. The body of the yoke is made taller and has a crown that is sometimes made wider, sometimes narrower, surrounding the crescent-shaped seat of the beam ring. Moreover, the under-neck lock (under-neck crosspiece) is not straight in this design variant, but is concave-rounded at the point below the animal’s neck. The withers bowyokes with their massive bodies, distinctly rounded collars and elaborately shaped crowns with a crescent-shaped seat of the beam ring in the middle were indeed predominant in the Central Slovenian ethnological area, as is quite clearly attested by the 31 such specimens in the SEM collection (cat. nos. 55–85). Only in part of Dolenjska, Notranjska and part of 46 The drawings were kindly sent to me by my colleague Tone Petek from Maribor. The field teams of the Maribor Regional Museum were led at that time by his predecessorToncica Urbas. The museum’s collection contains only fouryoke specimens, but the archive has a rich collection of photographs of yokes taken by Borut Belec. One of the yokes (inv. no. E1082) is of exceptional length, 226 cm, with the reported function of a “yoke for ploughing or traction”. 47 Telega is otherwise “in the Russian environment, a four-wheeled farm cart, especially for transporting cargo” (SSKJ 1991: 50). Primorska were yokes of this type variant designed differently: with a low, barely noticeable crown, in the middle of which there is a hollowed out U-shaped seat of the beam ring, which – when not worn away by it – is almost rectangular. There are eleven such specimens in the SEM collection (cat. nos. 86–96), but this type variant is also attested by two bowyokes in the collection of the Koper Regional Museum and two in the Nova Gorica Museum. In the south-west of Slovenia, in the Mediterranean ethnological area, we have thus completed the circular path of determining regional types and their variants. In the localities of this area, the onlyyoke native to the region is also the withers yoke (as is eloquently attested by the specimens from both regional museums there), but in addition to the prevalence of bowyoke implements it was also possible to find material specimens and oral testimonies of withers jointed bow yokes – the so-called “Italian” or laški yokes– in some places. These close relatives of those from Friuli have, instead of bows, two plus two joints or iron plates attached to the yoke’s beam on each side of the collars (neck seats), which are connected below the animal’s neck by a rope or metal chain (possibly also by a semicircular joint), thus forming a distinctive joint bow. The SEM collection holds only one such specimen (cat. no. 97) from Križ (St. Croce) nearTrieste, the Nova Gorica Museum has three orfour identifiable specimens (most probably from the Goriška Brda region) and the Tolmin Museum also has only one jointed bow specimen (from the village of Volarje). What can we add about the regional typology of single yokes? Nothing spe­cial, actually. We found their single yoke variants in head collared yokes and head horned yokes in the Alpine ethnological area, in withers frame yokes for har­nessing in the Pannonian area and, to the greatest extent, in withers bowyokes in the Central Slovenian and Mediterranean ethnological areas. In the lattertwo areas in particular, their diverse names are incredibly numerous, especiallythe Dolenjska variations of the name such as jarmic or jármc (around Mokronog, Šentjernej), jár.mc.k (Lokve near Dobrnic, Žužemberk), jarmíc.k (Šmarje Sap, vicinity of Velike Lašce), jár.mc (Šmartno near Litija) and jęr.mc or jęrmic (vil­lages in Pivka); žíl or žílo (Šentvid near Sticna) – a name that occurs in some parts of Dolenjska, Notranjska (in Cufarija) and Pivka; from there trójka (Selce, Jurišce) is also reported; from the Karst, Brda and Vipava region come kómat, rogajn and humat; and from Tolminsko samec (withers or head). On the eastern edge of the Alpine ethnological area, the name ajnšpaniger jarem (Kumen on Po-horje) is attested for single hook yokes, as well as withers bowyokes; from the Pannonian area, where mainlywithers frame yokes are native, for example from the Slovenske gorice hills, the names hómat and hólbjarem (or half yoke; from the German halb = half) and from the Ptuj area kleštrjak are reported for their single yoke variants. Returning from this brief digression into the various names of single yokes back to the objects of this type from the SEM collection, by 2012 there were a total of 39 of them from all fourSlovenian ethnological areas: from the northern part of the Mediterranean area and the western part of the Alpine area, the two collared ones already mentioned (cat. nos. 4, 5) and four single head horned yoke specimens (cat. nos. 13–16); and from the Pannonian area (from Gaj above Mokrice and Bistrica by the Sotla River), three single withers frame tong bow yoke specimens (cat. nos. 51–53), characterised by a two-part slatted bowwhich can be folded or unfolded at the base (similar to the collar, hence the name hómat, attested for them in many places, does not come as a surprise). This type variant is also confirmed by drawings from the museum archives from the Dolenjska periphery of this area (R cat. nos. 16, 29) and by specimens from the collection of the Posavje Museum in Brežice. There are 30 other single yokes in the SEM col­lection, all of which are withers bow specimens (cat. nos. 98–127) from the Cen­tral Slovenian and Mediterranean ethnological areas; ranging from the robust, simple, unadorned single yoke (cat. no. 98), made of a plank, with no known local origin, but with a twin design from Osojnik in the collection of the Bela Krajina Museum in Metlika, to the innovation from Merce, not far from Divaca, an ex­ample of a generally established form, but made in a modern way, on the basis of carpentry skills, with a collar that is more durable than the earlier ones (cat. no 127). From those made of natural crooks, with more open collars (e.g. cat. no. 116), to those cut from a model plank, with a more compressed, narrower collar part (e.g. cat. no. 101); from those with simply drilled holes for the attachment of the shaft (probably made of rope) at each end of the yoke (e.g. cat. no. 101); from those with two holes for the attachment of the shafts (probably made of rope) at both ends of the single yoke body (e.g. cat. 102), to those with elaborately ex­ecuted blacksmithing fittings with hooks for the shafts at both ends (e.g. cat. no. 52). Moreover, to a great extent than with some regional design variants, in some of the single yokes it is possible to identify here and there the personal types of individual makers (as in some of the yokes) – which, according to Leroi-Gour­han’s stages of the progressive individualization of the object, is the fifth and final stage (Leroi-Gourhan 2004: 32–34). But it may be the case that in certain personal types (when several examples are involved) we may even mistakenly identify some such personal types – reading only their forms without knowing the context of their creation – as regional type variants (for example, on the basis of the methods and execution of decoration with carved planar and plastic dec­oration, especially the yoke crown). It is also possible that some of these yokes, established or sought after in the wider local or regional environment, may in fact evolve into a regional or at least a local design type. The words of my interlocutorTone from Jelša near Kostrevnica, who donated a single withers bow specimen (cat. no. 114) to the SEM collection, are in a way indicative of this. It was made by his late father, who in the last century made yokes for the whole surrounding area, as his work was highlyvalued and sought after. Thus, on his travels Tone often recognises his father’s yoke or single yokes – their two design variants, native to those places – hanging on a house as deco­ration or a memento. A DIGRESSION THAT ATTEMPTS TO EXPLAIN THE INTRODUCTION OR SELECTION OF CERTAIN TYPES OFYOKES Despite the recognition of the two basic types and their design variants in Slo­venia, and the establishment of as clear a regional typology as possible, I cannot ignore the discovery of how special, unique or individual each yoke is. I sensed a related reflection in a few sentences by Leroi-Gourhan (2004: 15), from which it could be summarised that if the components of material culture may have iden­tical techniques and forms, but lack material affinities and facts (i.e. without a known context) – whatever their geographical proximity – the objects remain unique, individual. It is therefore essential to delve as deeplyas possible into the context of their manifestation. In this way, let us try to see and understand a few examples that illustrate the intentional “import” of some regional type variants of the yoke from elsewhere, or of the introduction of specific improvements to harnessing implements, which are in all likelihood the result of specific historical events and thus, at least hypo­thetically, have a recognisable historical context. As I have alreadywritten in this text, for all the apparent static nature of the yokes, there has nevertheless been a dynamic of people’s movement over the centuries, of people leaving and returning – such as hauliers and itinerant crafts­men – and of people arriving from elsewhere, including soldiers. Two examples that signal the possible “import” of technology are the geographically limited design types of head collared yokes in the UpperPosocje region, especiallyin the Trenta, Zilja and the Upper Sava Valleys, and of head crown-topped stick yokes, especially in the Baca Ravine. (And note that in their Slovenian and nearby Aus­trian neighbouring areas, only head horned yokes are widespread.)48 But even if the historical context of their local manifestation seems to be known, we do not have enough specimens of the two type variants in the collections of the SEM, Tolmin, Loka and Gorenjska museums to allowus to make anyfirm conclusions. Therefore, let us at least look at some enticing possibilities. In fact, both our collared and crown-topped stick yokes bear a close affinity in design to some Tyrolean, Bavarian and, in the former – at least in one or two cas­es – even to individual French head yoke specimens. For example, I observed on the website Joche und Kummete of Elke Treitinger from Bavaria49 that the former (Tyrolean) and the latter (from the area of Lindberg and Augsburg) were similar in design, and regarding both Herlinde Menardi of the Tiroler Landesmuseen in Innsbruck told me that, although they did not have any similar examples in their own collection, the head yokes from the Pustertal area have exactly the same design with wide collars. As regards this valley in Tyrol, it is well known that the ancestors of the present-day inhabitants of the Baca Ravine came to Slovenia in the 13th century from the village of Innichen there, bringing with them, most probably, both of the aforementioned design types of head yoke. From the 10th century onwards, the settlements of Upper Posocje and the Bovec area were connected to Central Europe by transport links, due to the rather lively trade that was taking place then, with two important roads that started in Villach, connecting Cividale with the southern German lands and passing through the territoryinhabited bySlovenians. In cultural and economic terms, the land holdings of the large ecclesiastical institutions from Carinthia and southern Germany were probably an important factor in these areas from the 12th century onwards (Šumrada 1987: 313). However, with the road connec­tions that emerged at the beginning of the 16th century, the first hauliers, who occasionallywent out into the world in carts, began to move socially away from farmers, foresters, shepherds and sheepherders (Sedmak 2004: 145). All these historical facts and developments undoubtedlyprovide a possible context forthe gradual infiltration of head collared yokes into the Posocje region. Napoleon offers another possibility, as Posocje played an important strategic role during the three great Habsburg-French wars – in 1797, 1805 and 1809 – which also covered Slovenian territory (Ferle 2009: 63). Oxen were part of his army at that time (there are documented requests for oats for the horses and hay 48 From Ratece in the Upper Sava Valley comes an exciting account (VE 1961: 6), which reports the meeting point of the two forms (collared and horned), called mutást jegu, mutáuc and káukouc – but unfortunately it does not mention how their usage might have differed. 49 https://kuh-und-oxn-schule.de/Joche (accessed 17 February 2023). for the oxen), and they followed his divisions in an escort consisting of groups of women, carts with the wounded, numerous carriages with cannons (which were most probably pulled by oxen in head yokes), wagons with provisions, and so on (Klavora 2006: 64, 101). Moreover, the fact that some French soldiers remained on Slovenian soil at that time is attested by surnames and pet names of French origin. One reason for this was that marriage and settling down were a means of escape from re-enlisting in the army (Ferle 2009: 65; Klavora 2006: 177, 183). Moreover, if the French came to Posocje and their surnames or house names remained there – forexample Mandot and Jeron in Borjana50 – it is not at all impossible to think that they brought with them certain skills and techniques and, as a consequence, the use of certain forms of head collared yokes. After ex­amining the relevant French literature, for example, a look at the yoke from the Bourbonnais region in the MNATP collection (S. a. 1993: 32–38) clearly reveals certain formal affinities with the two Slovenian yokes from Trenta in the SEM collection, especially the one from Koritnica (cat. no. 2), and the one from Ratece in the Gorenjska Museum collection.51 A similar historical context, which led to the “import” of head collared and head crown-topped stick yokes to Baca Ravine and its surroundings by German immigrants from the PusterValley (Pustertal), also determines the settlement of German-speaking immigrants from East Tyrol and West or Upper Carinthia in Kocevje in the 14th century (around 1330). However, they did not continue to use the native form of cattle-harnessing equipment in their new environment – the head-pulling yoke, or head yoke, although they may have brought it with them when theysettled there – but took over (probablygradually) a bow variant of the withers yoke in their new homeland. As Kundegraber puts it: “By using the withers yoke, the Kocevar people are therefore placing themselves in their sur­roundings and in the large Mediterranean and southern European area where this type of yoke is widespread”(Kundegraber 1967: 97). The oral testimony of my interlocutors, the Godec family of Prevole from Suha krajina, even reveals them as sought-after masters for making yokes in this area. Now let us look at an example of the introduction of the form and the tech­nique of harnessing, which were the result of improvements such as those pro­ 50 I first heard about these two French-sounding family names in the parish office in Breginj. Then in 2010, inspired by these names, I did a little “research” in the parish offices in Bovec and Breginj, where I looked at the Baptismal Register of Bovec 1785-1810 (which showed nothing I could identify with certainty), the Status animarum, the Libro de matrimoni ab anno 1785-1819 (nothing I could identify with certainty) and the Libro de nati (in which there is a record of the French-sounding surname Clincon from 1799). 51 A French authority on oxen and yokes, to whom I sent photographs of the two specimens, replied that he did not know of anyyokes in France sufficiently similar to ours for parallels to be drawn. moted in Slovenia in the 19thcenturyby many instructional texts (e.g. in Kmetijske in rokodelske novice/Agricultural and Artisan News) on the subject of mistreatment and the improper harnessing of livestock (Dular 1894; Jancar 1869). The veter­inarian Bleiweis wrote, for example, that the harnessing of oxen by the horns, where the ox pulls onlywith its head and neck, is inappropriate, as the ox has to exert all its strength and the blood is pumping into its brain. The most suitable harness for the health of working livestock was undoubtedly the collar (Bleiweis 1871: 66). This form of ox and cow team, which was established especially in Germany (cf. Jacobeit 1957; Minhorst 1990), began to be used in the Slovenian cultural area from the middle of the 19thcenturyonwards, mostlyonlyin the Al­pine region, especially in the lowland areas of Gorenjska. Its object witness is, for example, the oxen collar of an older form, the klobasa (the leather sausage-shaped inner part) and kleštre (wooden tongs, hames), from Suha near Škofja Loka in the SEM collection (cat. no. 128), and individual artistic depictions from these places are also telling. For example, harnessing a cart to the collar is shown in a cityscape of Kranj with a pastoral scene and a chapel, dating from perhaps the first half but most probably the middle of the 19th century. The painter Anton Hayne depicted an ox pulling a cart with a dung (or leaf) basket in the fore­ground, and it is clearlyharnessed to the collar (Smerdel 2011: 127). Although schematically represented, we can still see carts being harnessed to collars on the three oxen painted on a beehive front marked with the year 1897, found at Lokovica above Libuce in Carinthia (Rogelj Škafar and Makarovic in Smerdel 2011: 127). In Gorenjska, leather oxen collars are also reported in oral testimo­nies from Komenda, Preddvor, Naklo and its surroundings, Velesovo and Cerklje in Gorenjska (VG 1960: 43, 53, 23, 50). In the latter two places, for example, it was recorded that in the lowlands the animals were harnessed in collars, and in the higher altitudes in yokes. In other ethnological areas, however, as already mentioned, the collar mostly slipped into the language only, here and there as a name for those wooden specimens of single withers yokes (for example tong bow ones) that tried to approximate it in form. But another meaning of the instructive texts, which perhaps only decades later also resonated more widely in thought, was the gradual introduction of the single yoke in a pair of cattle. Not only in the rare, expensive collars, similar to horse ones, which are “otherwise somewhat more expensive than the yoke” (B. n. a. 1858: 146), but also in single yokes. My interlocutors as I travelled in Pivka, however, thought that “it was easier for an animal to work each for itself; one ox was always a bit more lively – similar to man” (Smerdel 2005: 368). The communicativeness of introducing or taking over a particular type of harnessing implement also has a geographical context here and there. The de­cision to choose one or the otheryoke design was most probably often made at their meeting points or places of encounter. In Slovenia this is evidenced, for example, by the occurrence of the withers jointed bowyokes already mentioned in this text in the west of our country, near the border with Italy (in Brda and the Karst villages along the border), even though these places belong to the Mediter­ranean area of the withers bowyokes that have become established in Slovenia. But what were the reasons for choosing the so-called “Italian” or laški yokes, which, instead of having a bow on each side of the yoke body, have two plus two joints or iron plates attached to the yoke beam on each side of the collars (neck seats), connected by a rope under the animal’s neck? There may be more than one explanation, but my interlocutor from Fojana in Brda explained the choice by saying that in their area, where there are “only hills, this type of yoke had to have a rope underneath so that it could be cut and the oxen could be rescued if they overturned in the harness”. Another such geographical meeting point – in this case of the two basic types of yokes, the head and withers types – is the Carinthian and Styrian meeting point of the igôji (plural for igô) and the withers hook yoke. In the places of the Meža Valley and those “beyond the Drava” – from Žvabek to Dravograd, where most farms are “in the hills” and have “quite dizzyinglysteep fields” – oxen were yoked to igô for as long as people can remember. Their more eastern neighbours in Styria, however, have always used the yoke, which gradually crept into Carin-thia. People there liked to joke that “the Styrians do not know that a whole ox pulls easier than half an ox, so the Carinthians preferred to tie the oxen in igô, which is tied to the ox’s head, so the whole ox pulls, while in the case of the yoke, half of the ox, the head and neck, stick out, and thus only the last half pulls”(VG 1960: 17). But the use of the yoke is also attested in Carinthia, as early as in the 1960s, and it was chosen because it is a simplerway of harnessing animals, since it “does not need podiž and dege” – pads for the heads and leather straps for ty­ing them down. The oxen harnessed to the yoke were sometimes called “Styrian oxen” (VG 1960: 17, 49). Our digression into explanations for the introduction or choice of particular design types of harnessing implements will conclude with a reflection on the phe­nomenon of head stick yokes in Slovenia, which were kept in use until the first half of the 20th century on high-mountain farms in the remote areas of the upper Savinja Valley and its surroundings. This is of interest, as it is a phenomenon that is slowly being recognised with regard to the issue of Slovenian ethnogenesis, as already mentioned on the previous pages. I wanted to have undisputed confirmation of the uniqueness of head stick yokes in this part of Europe. I looked for it in the Austrian Alpine neighbour-hood, where, although they also used head yokes, they certainly did not seem to have known of their stick design variant. Correspondence with colleagues in the Austrian museums in Vienna, Graz and Klagenfurt provided the confirmation I was waiting for.52 The latter finally provided an unequivocal reply from the cu­rator there, who said that he could not recall seeing anyyokes like the Slovenian ones from the Upper Savinja Valley anywhere in the villages between Železna kapla/Eisenkappel and Pliberk/Bleiburg, i.e. in the places closest to the home of the head stick specimens in Slovenia. As such, my mental eye turned once again to the north of Europe, towards the “old ox region along the Baltic”, which Vilkuna found to be in its entirety part of the old Central and Western European area of the head yoke, which also in­cluded the land of the Western Slavs (Vilkuna 1936: 98) – although not also the southern Slavs, among whom, according to the current historical doctrine, the Slovenes are placed. I thus looked once more at the head yokes from Finland and Estonia, which are very similar in form to the stick igô from Slovenia. But to these intriguing formal parallels we must add another one – in this case, linguistic, and a word that may have slipped into our lands long ago, along with the stick harnessing implements. According to Finnish tradition, a pair of oxen had a yoke from the nape of the neck to the horns, tied with a strong strap called a jutta, while in Estonia theywere tied with a strap with the related name of jutt (Vilkuna 1936: 61–62, 98). In our Alpine area of the head yoke, for exam­ple in Carinthia, these straps are called dege or dežesa (VG 1960: 17, 40), and in the spirit of research into “words and things” the astonishing discovery has been made that the word juta can alsobe traced in connection with yokes in Slovenia. I first heard it in 2006 on the slopes below Bohor, on the farm in Mrzla Planina above Sevnica, where at that time they were still working with a pair of oxen. It came from my interlocutor Anton, who, while telling me about harnessing to telege, the withers frame yoke, mentioned the name juta for its collars. Moreover, it seems that perhaps this word – the Finnish and also the Estonian name for the strap that connected the head yoke around the ox’s horns – may have been trans­ferred over time in Slovenia to those components of the frame yokes that sat on, 52 My enquiry (based on the photos I sent) was kindly answered by Dr Margot Schindler of the Österreichisches Museum fürVolkskunde in Vienna, Dr Roswitha Orac-Stipperger of the Universalmuseum Joanneum in Stainz Castle and Dr Heimo Schinnerl of the Landwirtschaftmuseum Schloss Ehrental in Klagenfurt. or rather around, the ox’s neck between the nape and the withers. That is to say, especially the collars, here and there the whole upper beam and sometimes also the lower one, the under-neck lock. However, juta and its minor variants, such as uta, üta and utiše, could be traced across the eastern Posavje Hills to the Boc-Macelj Hills, also to the Vitanje-Konjice Karavanke and to the Pohorje Podrav­je region, through a limited area of scattered settlements, hamlets and isolated farms, from where the name has been reported along with its variants (in VG 1960 and VE 1961–62).53 THE SILENT LANGUAGE OF THE MATERIAL What other messages are hidden in the yokes from the SEM collection? For when we take our eyes off the forms that have defined our regional typology and focus on their surfaces, then the silent language of the material becomes more revealing, more subtle and more individual. The most striking features are the forms and methods of decoration – either with the use of coloured paints or by carving, especially at the crowns of the yoke – and it is even possible to identify some yokes as being made by the same peo­ple.54 There are also incised initials here and there, usually indicating the name and surname of the master of the draft ox or ox pair, and sometimes also of the maker of the yoke. Occasionally there are engraved years, too, which most prob­ably, and most often, indicate the time when each yoke was made. Of the total of 127 yokes and single yokes that had been collected in the SEM by 2012, nine yokes and two single yokes from all four ethnological areas have incised initials, and 28 yokes and three single yokes have theiryears. The protective symbols carved on the surfaces, most often crosses of various shapes – such as the Latin (crux ordinaria), Greek (crux quadrata) and St An­drew’s (crux decussata) – have a different message, sometimes accompanied there by the monogram of Christ. They reveal a belief in the mediation of these all-en­compassing, most general symbols (Chevalier and Gheerbrant 1993: 271–272) 53 SEM Archive, Yoke Stock (VG 1960 and VE 1961-62): Juta (upper and lower) from Koprivnica near Brestanica, Zgornji Gabrnik, Šmarje near Jelše, Tekacevo. Uta from Kalobje, Šentjur near Celje, Gornji Kebel and Šmartno on Pohorje above Slovenska Bistrica. Üta (upper and lower) from the villages of Slake and Lesicno. Utiše from Skomarje near Slovenske Konjice. 54 The yokes that can be identified as following the personal types of individual makers are, for example, in the Alpine ethnological area, specimens with cat. nos. 19 and 20; in the Pannonian area, specimens nos. 43 and 44; nos. 45 and 46; and in the Central Slovenian area, specimens nos. 55 and 56; nos. 60 and 61; nos. 71 and 72; nos. 74 and 75; nos. 76, 77 and 78; and nos. 90 and 91. Among the latter there are also a few examples of personal single yoke types: cat. nos. 109 and 110; 115 and 116; 117 and 118. in protecting working animals from possible injury and disease. Their position – whether theywere carved, for example, above both collars of the yoke, above only one, and if so the left or the right; on the hillock of the crescent-shaped seat of the beam ring, etc. – indicates whether theywere to protect both yoked oxen or onlyone, the leading one (sometimes the left one, but usuallythe right one). Apotropaic functions are also likelyto be found in various multi-leaved rosettes, stylised swastikas (sun symbols in their original meaning), circles and stars, al­though this purpose is less certain than in the case of crosses, as they appear to be purely decorative. Forty-two yokes with crosses as protective symbols from all ethnological areas (and four single yokes), 25 with various rosettes and ten with other decorative or symbolic elements can be found in the museum’s col­lection. The next step is to follow the language of the yoke’s materiality and to un­derstand the silent testimonies of the objects: the choice of wood, its treatment (for example, the smoothness of the collars), the meanings of burning or fire treatment, and all the relevant knowledge, which will have to be explored in the next chapter. In the SEM collection, the use of fire is revealed by one speci­men from the Alpine ethnological area, four from the Pannonian area and eleven yokes from the Central Slovenian area. When it comes to the choice of wood, the popularity and frequency of maple wood (43 specimens in the collection can be determined with certainty) stands out, followed by birch, walnut and ash; there are also some yokes made of beech, lime, elm, hornbeam and chestnut, but in quite a few specimens (28) the wood used could not be identified with certainty. What about traces of use on these silent object witnesses? These are not few and are rather telling, especially about the forces of traction power and the shift­ing of the weight of work onto the stronger ox. The first are eloquently attested by the chipped bow openings, the cracked and consequently forged left or right sides of the yoke body. The second is evidenced, for example, bythe contacts be­tween the yoke and the beam, which are dented from rubbing. In some cases, the forged parts of harnessing implements in all likelihood reflect a desire to preserve good yokes or theirvalue, as yokes from individual makers were expensive and needed to be maintained or preserved over a long period of time. And then there is the matter of reading the visible signs of concern forwork­ing oxen (and cows, too). The following, for example, can be noted: the carved protective symbols, the cloth-wrapped bow in the cracked areas, the smoothly worked inner surface of the collars (when even on the rugged specimens these are noticeably, carefully smoothed) and even the choice of wood. The different executions of the collars for left and right animals, adapted to theirvaried sizes and neck widths (there are as many as 34 such examples in the collection), also conveys concern. Another layer of concern, as revealed by the structure of the yoke, is expressed by the slatted locks on both sides of the neck of the withers frame yokes, designed to raise or lower the openings for the animal’s necks. This is a detail whose purpose – apart from meeting the needs of cattle with necks of different sizes – was only recognised on the basis of oral testimonies after the museum’s collection had been organised and analysed. In fact, records from the 1960s from places near Murska Sobota (Dolenci, Petrovci, Šalovci) report that “some kind of skin or soft cloth” was put under the collars of telege to protect animals whose skin was peeling off due to being rubbed by the harness. For this purpose, on each ranca, i.e. a slatted lock on both sides of the neck with four or even six openings for inserting small wooden pegs, klinci were used to raise the neck opening for an injured ox ow cow, if necessary (VE 1961: 21). The yokes in the SEM collection do not onlywhisper quietly about the farm­ers’ concern for their working oxen, but also tell another story based on their weights, which differ depending on the individual yoke, design and ethnological area where theywere made and used. This weight was not insignificant for crea­tures that worked “like black cattle” (as the famous Slovenian saying goes), from morning to night, for creatures that ploughed, pulled, carted – harnessed to im­plements that sat on their heads with all theirweight on the nape of their necks, or on their necks before the withers. And no doubt the animals found it at least a bit easier to do theirwork if this weight was not too great. Let us first look at the data that has been collected on the weight of yokes in the Alpine ethnological area: • head collared yokes: wrought 3.92 kg, not wrought 2.74 kg; • head crown-topped stick yokes: 1.88 kg; • head horned yokes: average 3.60 kg (heaviest 4.12 kg, lightest 2.90 kg); • head stick yokes: average 1.85 kg (heaviest 2.20 kg, lightest 1.40 kg); • withers bowyokes: average 6.25 kg (heaviest 14.48 kg, lightest 5.30 kg); • withers hook yokes: average 4.19 kg (heaviest 7.38 kg, lightest 3.96 kg); • single collared yokes and single horned yokes: average 2.35 kg. This is followed by the weight of yokes in the Pannonian ethnological area: • withers frame yokes with all the components: average 27.51 kg (heaviest 42.42 kg); and • single frame tong bowyokes: average 8.42 kg. And finally, the weight of the yokes and single yokes in the Central Slovenia and Mediterranean area: • withers bowyokes (with both bows): average 13.73 kg (heaviest 15.96 kg, lightest 11.68 kg); • withers bow yokes (without bows): average 12.86 kg (heaviest, heavily wrought 19.40 kg, lightest 7.32 kg); • withers jointed bowyoke (the only one in the collection): 11.20 kg; • single bowyokes (with bows): average 4.29 kg (heaviest, heavilywrought 6.77 kg, lightest 2.22 kg); and • single withers bowyokes (without bows): average 6.76 kg (heaviest, heavily wrought 6.76 kg, lightest 1.38 kg). If, after reading the data, we recall a fewwords about the head yokes from Gascony in south-eastern France – about what their dimensions should be, about “thousands of years of experience in the use and processing of wood” and about the fact that there the “yoke usuallyweighs between 10 and 12 kilograms”55 – we can, in a very general comparative sense, conclude that the average weight of the specimens in the SEM museum collection rarely(in onlythree cases) exceeds this. But we must also bear in mind all the relativity of such a conclusion; both in view of the design differences of most of our type variants and the different types of wood used, which, in all likelihood, also had a bearing on the weight. The concern not to burden working animals with any excessive weight of the implements to which theywere harnessed is clear. The heaviest yokes are those that have been wrought for various reasons. Some because they broke in cer­tain places due to damage and were repaired by metalling, others because they were originally designed to be stronger and more durable for certain tasks. As such, the wrought yokes are mostly recorded as having been used for strenu­ous, demanding forest work. Among them is the heaviest specimen in the SEM collection (cat. no. 40), a heavilywrought, forty-two-kilo telege from Reštanj on Vetrnik, donated to the museum by one of my informants, Martin, commonly known as Bríjevc. He was still using it to haul logs from the ravines in the last quarter of the last century. 55 Relevant extracts from La Harde (Libraire Plon, Paris 1936) were sent to me by Cozette Griffin-Kremer and François Sigaut during myyears of research. Its author is Joseph de Pesquidoux, and the location of the yoke-making practice it describes is most likely the castle of Pesquidoux, the author’s home in Gascony between Bayonne and Toulouse, close to the Pyrenees and the Spanish border (Pesquidoux 1936: 76). Who were the masters who knew how to make yokes? Oral testimonies col­lected on the basis of questionnaires from the early1960s and late 1980s mostly point to either the wheelwrights or the farm masters themselves as the makers. Here and there, self-taught wheelwrights and carpenters are mentioned, while in Carinthia most of them are said to have been made by “cottagers to earn mon-ey”(VG 1960: 17), and the answer from Zgornja Kokra is that the yokes were made by“men skilled in this business” (VE 1961: 7). Wheelwrights and the farm masters themselves are also mostly named in the testimonies I collected on my own travels during the research. But in those earlier records, dating from the years when in some places individuals may still have been making yokes and their single specimens, or may have only recently stopped doing so, it was also possible to find – especially in the cases where the makers were professional craftsmen – information on the prices of yokes, which were indicative of their social function, since the more expensive ones were decorated and the cheaper ones undecorated. In addition to the prices, it is worth looking at some of the shorter records of the yoke-making process and of ways of paying for them that did not involve money. Particular attention should also be paid to the choice (and preparation) of wood, as this was of fundamental importance to the makers. For example, it is reported from Carinthia, from Leše (VŠ 1986–87: 118), that yokes were made from a slightly curved tree, namely birch wood. A decorated one cost as much as a man’s suit, or 150 dinars, and an unadorned one as much as a pair of shoes, at 100 dinars, while the wage of a cartman at that time was 300 dinars. From Razborcomes the recollection of an informant’s father(VŠ 1986–87: 134) of how he first drew a design on a suitable piece of wood and then started to make it with a saw. “It took a lot of planing, drilling, grinding – a lot of work to make a beautiful yoke. But I was more into decorating the yokes of big farm­ers. And this I did according to my own ideas. At that time, a yoke cost six days’ work.” He made them from 1946 to 1949. The following data is taken from a testimonyobtained in Jakobski dol, in the hills of Slovenske gorice (VŠ 1986–87: 33), from a trained wheelwright who also made yokes when needed. He listed his basic tools – chisel, drill, plane, axe – along with special knives, if he needed to decorate them. “Every craftsman made his own decoration; you knewwho the makerwas.” He made telege to order, and in 1937 the price was around 50 dinars, at a time when boots cost 99 dinars and the daily earnings of a workerwere 8 to 10 dinars. There is also a record from Bistrica by the Sotla River (VŠ 1986–87: 123) stat­ing how they could paywheelwrights in goods instead of money. A single yoke for an ox (or cow) cost five litres of wine and the wood needed to make it, while a telege for two animals cost ten litres of wine and the wood to make it, although sometimes the farmers could also pay for a yoke by working or driving for the wheelwright. From Globoko near Brežice come the memories of a wheelwright (VŠ 1986– 87: 144) who learned his trade in 1939. From 1948, when he made his first yoke, until the late 1980s, when he made them onlyfor those farmers who could not work their fields on the steep slopes with a tractor, this man made many, many yokes – yokes for one animal and yokes (telege) for two. In the 1950s he made about 30 of them a year (one took 12 hours), and in his last years in this trade about ten a year; sometimes all by hand, and more and more by machine towards the end. He needed soft, dry wood (walnut, birch, elm) for them, and it had to be soft so that it did not burn the animal’s neck. The wood was provided bythe farmer, whose year and initials he carved if desired, in addition to the decoration. But yokes used to be relatively expensive and not every farmer could afford one. Moreover, theywere usually paid for only in the autumn, when the farmer sold his crop. For example, it has been reported from Dolenjska, in Mirna Pec and the sur­rounding villages (VŠ 1986–87: 50), that the wheelwright in the hamlet of Glo­bodol, who made yokes until about 1960, preferred to use walnut root wood for its strength. Because at that time the work of a craftsman was poorly paid, he had to make two or even three yokes for one pair of shoes. The next record of prices comes from Pivka (VŠ 1986–87: 125), where up until the 1960s oxen were harnessed to single withers bowyokes. If decorated these cost 25 lire in the period between the two wars, and 20 lire if undecorated. This was at a time when shoes cost 30 lire, trousers 20 lire, and daily earnings, or žrnada, were 5 lire. This is followed by a testimony from Šmarje near Koper (VŠ 1986–87: 132), which tells of a man who made yokes in Koštabona, and needed dry oak orwal-nut wood for them. The iron fittings were added by a blacksmith, but only later when the yokes needed to be repaired. The locals also used to buyyokes in Croa­tian Istria, and in 1950 a yoke cost 500 jugolira, about the same as a coat or pair of shoes. Slightly different prices are reported from the vicinity of Solkan (VŠ 1986–87: 2) and from Dutovlje and Pliskovica (VŠ 1986–87: 7). In the first case, decorated single yokes cost 15 lire, whereas the cost of shoes was around 50 lire; in the second case, a decorated single yoke cost 8 lire and a non-decorated one 3 lire. Then there are the records from the villages of Škocjan and Orehek nearMa­terija (VŠ 1986–87: 152). In the former, single withers bowyokes were made by the wheelwright, the bognar, who charged 5 lire for the ordinary ones, at a time when a pair of shoes cost 10 lire and a kilo of salt 20 cintežme. In the second village, they were made from birch wood by a master who took 20 hours and charged 20 lire for a decorated yoke, while an undecorated one took 12 hours and cost 12 lire. He thus charged one lira for an hour’s work. Now, a few words about paying in goods rather than cash. For example, it is reported from Prevalje in Carinthia and its surroundings (VG 1960: 17) that yokes were often paid for with lard, grain, flour, bread. In Komenda in Gorenjska (VG 1960: 43), where self-taught wheelwrights and carpenters went from farm to farm, theywere paid “with money, but also with commodities” – with food and wood. A similar story is also reported from Zgornja Kokra (VE 1961: 7), where the last local who was involved in making yokes went from farm to farm to work on site, a practice which was known as štera. In Cerklje in Gorenjska and Veleso­vo (VG 1960: 50), a yoke made by a farmerwas exchanged for food, orwas paid for with labour. In Hrenovice, Razdrto and Hruševje (VG 1960: 26) there are re­cords of self-taught locals who were also paid in kind – with a piece of wood, help with work or a ride – for theiryokes and the single ones called žil. In Dobravlje in the Vipava Valley, for example, the Možina family told me how they bought jaremce from those who produced them “up on Gora, up above Ajdovšcina – they brought them down for wine or flour”. For a single yoke they gave “one flask of wine, let’s say maybe five or ten litres of wine”. But farmers also bought yokes to harness their cattle at fairs, because in some places there was no one in the village or surrounding area who knew how to make them. For example, it is reported from Škofije near Koper (VE 1962: 49) that no one had evermade a yoke there, so theywere bought at fairs from wheel­wrights, the bognarji,from Brkini. They were also bought at fairs in Gorizia or from door-to-door sales in vil­lages near Sežana: in Dutovlje, Avber, Kobjeglava and some others (VE 1962: 51, 52), although some people also made the single withers bowyokes themselves and searched the forest for specially shaped, crookedly grown wood. But those yokes made by a master craftsman were considered the best. The single yokes that were bought here were often poorly made and tended to break soon, and were produced by “hillbillies from the Tolmin area”. Makers of yokes from places that were centres of wood craft production are also reported as sellers of jaremci from the Vipava Valley, for example from Vipavski križ and Budanje near Ajdovšcina (VE 1961: 55, VE 1962: 54). Their products were made of beech wood, distinctively decorated (see e.g. R cat. no. 50) and unforged, so that each farmer had to take them to the blacksmith him­self. These “highlanders from Crni vrh and Otlica” carried the yokes around and sold them by going from house to house. Before a sale was made a yoke was first placed and tested on an animal’s neck, which was then harnessed to it. Having said all this in these short notes on yoke makers, theirworking pro­cesses and the ways in which their products were sold and paid for, it is now time to turn our attention to the types of wood that individual masters and self-taught or trained craftsmen chose for theiryokes. This was based on knowledge that each individual needed to acquire, and the reasons for choosing a certain type of wood and not another often depended on which place or local environment the yoke would be used in. A related skill was the correct preparation of the wood before processing, something that was probably part of the wisdom hand-ed-down in a particular environment. The choice of wood was, after all, to some extent also conditioned by the tree species available in a certain place. First, we will again follow the oral testimonies collected on the basis of ques­tionnaires from the early 1960s and then from the late 1980s. Starting again in the Alpine ethnological area, it is reported from Velesovo and Cerklje in Gorenjs­ka (VG 1960: 50), for example, that black hornbeam wood, “the strongest wood”, was used foryokes, with the producers looking for a tree that was already “natu­rally convex, because it had more strength”. A testimonyfrom Bohinjska Bistrica, from Bohinj, says (VG 1960: 14) that there íguci are made of beech wood because “it has to be hard wood”. Almost the same is the account from Sela and Borovlje in Carinthia (VG 1960: 47), which states that the igô is “usually made of beech wood or hard wood in general”. From the Carinthian villages on the Slovenian side of the Austrian border, Hodiše and Sela, it is reported (VG 1960: 45, 48) that there igôji (the plural of igô) are made of birch wood, ash wood and also beech wood. At the Gorenjska end of the country, in Mojstrana (VE 1961: 5), lime wood, birch wood and also beech wood were used for jezęsa, although the latter “is not the most valued, because the fly [worm] likes to peck at it and because it is heavy”. And down near Medvode, in Žlebe (VE 1961: 1), it is attested that there “the yokes are mostly of birch orwalnut, and for single yokes it is easiest to get wood from the root of the walnut tree”. Therecord also refers to bows, mostly made of chestnut wood, which were designed in such a way that a fresh stick was heated in the furnace, then curved, tied with a rope and left to dry and keep its shape. Older records from the 1960s from Podlehnik near Ptuj (VE 1962: 24) also record birch wood for the Pannonian area as the wood that always had to be used for the upper beam of telege, “because it is the toughest wood and not too hard for the neck”. From the ethnological area of Central Slovenia, for example, it is reported from Rakitna and Preserje (VG 1960: 22) that yokes were mostly “made of ma­ple, because it is the lightest”; from Postojna and its surroundings (VG 1960: 27) theywere mostly made of birch wood; and from Hrenovice, Hruševje and Razdrto (VG 1960: 26) people favoured “ash, beech, also hornbeam, while the bows were made of hazel”. As for the specific pieces of wood that were chosen, “the young growing offshoot was already bent into the shape of a yoke and, by permanent pruning over the years, cultivated” into the right shape. For the single žil theyfound in the forest “a trunk that was alreadynaturallycurved in the right way”. In oral testimonies from the late 1980s, an exciting account from Stranice on the slopes of Pohorje (VŠ 1986–87: 28) was found concerning the use of ash wood. The local wheelwright, who made his last telege in 1978, made them from birch wood. “Ash was no good because it burned the cattle,” he said “but birch made them light and elastic”. Similarly, it was reported in one of the earlier re­cords from Pohorje, from Ribnica on Pohorje and Podvelka (VE 1961: 12), that birch or maple wood was the best for the upper beam, not ash. This practice is also linked to the belief in these places that “the top wood should not be ash, because it drinks the blood of the ox; when the yoke is thrown away and burned, the blood flows from it”. From the late 1980s there is also an oral testimony from the Central Slove­nian ethnological area, from the village of Marno above Dol near Hrastnik (VŠ 1986–87: 139), along with some records from the Mediterranean area, from Sol-kan and Košana (VŠ 1986–87: 2, 38), from Koštabona (VŠ 1986–87: 132) and from Gracišce, with the nearbyvillages of Pregara, Socerga and Kubed. The wheelwright who made yokes in the village of Marno produced them “from thick birch planks, because this wood is light and soft, so that it does not cause irritation to the cattle”. Similarly, reports from Solkan and Košana indicate that the makers of yokes usually looked forwood that naturally had the proper form, and then they simply had to dry it. The most common woods used foryokes were field maple, horn­beam, beech, mahaleb cherry, and ash, but the most suitable wood was maple. Whateverwood was chosen had to be soft, like maple and birch. A record from Koštabona says that the man who made the yokes used dry oak or walnut wood. From Gracišce and neighbouring villages, elm and again ash are reported as the best. After being cut the wood then had to dry for about a year; “it was lighter when dry and easier for the animal to tolerate”. Bows were made there “from dogwood and ash, because they twisted well”. Hornbeam, elm, beech, oak, linden, mahaleb cherry, walnut, ash, birch, maple and more. It could almost be said that every master or other man who ever made a yoke, forvarious reasons and on the basis of inherited or acquired knowledge, had a wood they prized most for the creation of these indispensable harnessing implements, whether a harder or softer wood, more or less flexible, heavier or lighter – but among all the woods available, birch, maple and ash were the most common choices. It is therefore worth taking a closer look at some of the charac­teristics of these tree species, as recounted by experts: - Silver birch (Betula pendula Roth). Birch is a non-resilient but elastic wood; it is medium-weight, medium-hard and easy to work. In addition, it is also useful in carpentry, wheelwrighting, etc. (Kotar and Brus 1999: 106). - Sycamore maple (Acer pseudoplatanus).This maple has the best wood of all maples. It is medium-weight, medium-hard, medium-elastic, hard-grafting and forms beautifully. Maple wood was used as early as the Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Ages, especially for making tool handles; later it was valued by carvers and wheelwrights (Kotar and Brus 1999: 218). - Common ash (Fraxinus excelsiorL.). Ash is a tough, hard and unusually elas­tic wood. For example, the Celts made theirbows, spears and javelins from ash, and later it was valued in the wheelwright’s trade for making cart wheels and the more sophisticated handles of hand tools (Kotar and Brus 1999: 297, 300). Given the characteristics of the wood of these tree species, it is not surprising that they are favoured in yoke making. In particular, birch and maple, which are the two most valued by many makers, are also very similar anatomically. Maple and ash, while both appropriately tough woods, have different textures. It is the latter feature, which is very fine in the former – maple wood is extremely homo­geneous, wearing evenly – and coarser in the latter, that is probably related to the decision of individual makers with regard to avoiding ash wood.56 This wisdom is hidden in statements such as “ash was no good because it burned the cattle”, words which conveywhy the men who made the yokes did not like to reach for ash wood and may even have strongly rejected it. But now, finally, it seems that the present chapter on the wisdom of yoke-mak­ing (and here and there also its individual components, such as bows and beam rings from different materials) could be continued and concluded with the words of some of my interlocutors, with slightly more verbose accounts of the tech­niques used in making yokes and the knowledge of those who were still making the harnessing implements for cattle themselves, or who accompanied or ob­served their fathers or grandfathers at work. Bríjevc and Šovágin In the Pannonian ethnological area, I heard some small pieces of wisdom about the making of withers frame yokes from a man called Bríjevc from Vetrnik above Kozje and another called Šovágin from Gradec above Podbocje, both of whom knew how to make their own telege. The former, who usually made the up­per beam from elm (and only the lower under-neck lock from ash), stressed the importance of the design of the collars or sklecke, the parts with which telege sit on the neck of the ox. “Not everyone can do this”, he said, because they have to fit the ox’s neck nicely. He also shared the need to use iron beam rings (or clevises) in his home area and for heavywork in general: “An iron beam ring has to be used here – the soil here is hard.” The other man, Šovágin, recalled: “Yes, yes, I found such a crook in a tree and I split it open; but if it could not be split open to make it look tougher, I cut it open.” He was mostly looking for birch or hornbeam, and stated: “Birch was verygood...” It was important which wood you chose so that it did not burn the ox in the neck, which he put as follows: “Birch does not burn, maple is also good.”With regard to where on the tree the best wood was found, he said from the root upwards: “From the ground – a metre, a metre twenty; up to that point it was the best [strongest] wood; halfway up it was so brittle that it would start to crack.” But the weight of the harnessing implement was also 56 A telephone consultation with professors Dr Robert Brus from the Department of Forestry and Dr Katarina Cufar from the Department of Woodworking at the Biotechnical Faculty at the University of Ljubljana helped me understand why oral tradition says that “ash burns”. This wood species does not otherwise have reactive components that could burn animals during yoke use. But its coarser texture, after prolonged use, can cause – as in the case of ash decking boards – one part of the wood to come rougher, causing pain and abrasions by rubbing on the animal’s neck. Tone Brcon I then managed to write down a particularly telling testimony from Tone Brcon from Jelše near Kostrevnica, a scattered ridge village in the Zasavje part of the Central Slovenian ethnological area. Yokes and single yokes were made byhis father Jože, who married into the small farm (10 ha) after WWI from the nearby hamlet of Rodni Vrh. Despite poverty, his fatherwas a good master, as he was a skilled craftsman, a wheelwright. The earnings from his work covered everything that had to be bought, as well as taxes, while Jože’s wife contributed to the farm’s income by knitting goods for sale. When he arrived there the farm had one ox and one two-wheeled cart, called a volovska šajtrga or volovska mátrnca (the term means a grind), because “the oxen were slaving”. Such two-wheeled carts were abandoned in these parts around 1950. Theywere used to transport manure, hay and other things. But soon after his arrival, Tone’s father made two four-wheel carts for the farm. And then, after WWI, Jože also started making yokes. First just for harnessing two animals, and later single ones. These first yokes were for use on the family farm, but then other people started asking him to make them “and he worked all winter”. When he became too old and eventually retired in 1975, people won­dered: “Who is going to work now as he no longer can?”However, by then trac­tors were being introduced in more and more places too, and there was no more demand for yokes. His work process was as follows: – He made his withers bowyokes and their single specimens mainly from birch wood. They were all sawn at home. He had a “mare” as a sawing device, which would spread out and then he would put the log in it. Children (my interlocutor, Tone, also had a brother and sister) helped him with his work. A “two-metre log”, long enough for a double yoke, was held for him to saw in half, to make two halves, which he then sketched, hewed, cut and sawed. He had a “model”, cut out of cardboard – “and he laid it nicelyon top, wiped it and worked it.” But for single yokes, he preferred to look for natural crooks: “Yes, single yokes are all made of hooks.” He looked for them all over the forest, going there on Sundays after church. When he found wood with a suitable crook, he tried to collect it. Sometimes he had to dig a root, saw it off and then bring it home. He looked for different roots – beech, hornbeam, ash... Most of them he found in ravines where erosion had washed away the soil, the tree became unsteady, and because of that it grew crooked upwards. But not all crooks were suitable, so “he took his model with him – to see whether it would work or not.”For if a single yoke was too wide then it was no good; “if it was too open, it was no good; if it was too narrow, it was no good, either.” His fatheralways said that “a horse pushes with his chest, but an ox rides with his back.” This is how he also “made the štránge [shafts] so that the centre of gravitywas on the upper half of the ox’s body, thus he was really push­ing with his neck – whereas the horse was pushing with his chest.” Moreover, “the bowwas not carrying anything; it was onlythere so that it [the yoke] did not come off.” The rope shafts were not to be too high, nor too low – but in just the right place. Tone recalled how one of the buyers said to his father: “Yes, yes, they[the oxen] can always work with your yokes...”People appreciated old Jože’s knowledge of the subject. But it was different with yokes for two cattle. He had to make them out of a plank because he could not find wood with a natural crook for them. “That is why they broke more – when there was some trouble.” He also had some of the yokes forged, but the buyers mostly took them to the blacksmith themselves. Sometimes Tone heard someone explain why a yoke needed to be forged, because “I drag it through the forest.” Such a yoke could then almost certainly not be broken, “because the iron bond held it.” Tone’s father also fire-hardened the wood to make the yoke stronger, he “burned them, he said, to pull the wood together and make it hold better; to make it more solid.” First, Jože dried them, then he greased them with lard, so that “the thing burned up on it; and then he turned it over.” In a comparable French account from Gascony (Pesquidoux 1936: 180), this technique is also mentioned as something wheelwrights did to drya yoke quicklyand reduce its weight, and not just to increase its strength. This was done in the summer wherever a fire was burning, and in the winter in the “pig kitchen”, the small area next to the pigsty where food for pigs was prepared. In addition to making the yokes stronger, the burning also made them black, “well, half of it was black, and we had one little chisel – semicircular – and he decorated it with that: he made, say, three on each side, so that it was uštikan [decorated with carvings] ... For a yoke that was for two [oxen], he put his monogram in the middle”, i.e. JB – Jože Brcon – and the year of manufacture. In order to protect the animals, he also engraved individual apotropaic symbols; “because the ox at the time represented the strength and, so to speak, the wealth of that farm; because everything was done with it.” - He made bows mainly from chestnut wood. Why? “This was the best [wood] for bending.” He steamed the appropriate sticks in the furnace while theywere still fresh. When he chopped them in the forest, they had to be three to five cen­timetres in diameter. Tone’s father had a special model to bend such a stick into a bow and “he bent it around it, tied it up, and then let it dry.” Then he would take it off the model and put another stick on. Later, when the mould was in place, and when the bow had dried, he “worked it and girded it in the yoke.” He did not peel the bark before steaming it in the furnace, as “the bark came off by itself, when it had been steamed enough; it was then stripped white so that it did not have to be planed and cleaned so much.” Some of the bark came off on its own, and the rest was removed with a cutter. The model forthe bowhad channels in it, and Jože pressed the stick into one of these that was “kind of the right width.” He tied it at the ends – “sometimes with bark or sometimes with a rope”, and then immediately took most of the bent stick out of the channel, leaving just enough inside to that it was perfectly formed. If he had only bent it by hand, it might have twisted sideways. So, he “tied it up after and it somehow stuck.”Tone described this as his father’s “finesse”, or rather his craftsmanship. - His father made the beam rings – the gožke – from osiers and “sometimes he would put an osier next to one of them [the yokes] – or theywould do it alone.” Some people also used wrought beam rings, but here “they always had wooden ones; he found such sticks – beech ones – in the forest.” Jože would look in a thicket of young beech trees growing where other such trees had been cut down. He cut off three- to four-metre-long sticks, then he steamed them in a furnace, “long enough for them to steam well; then he put them onto the work bench and began to bent them.” First, he twisted one, then the other, and then he wove them together to whatever length the osier had to be. Then he twisted it so that it sat nicely in the yoke, dried it further and finally put it in place in the yoke (in the seat of the beam ring). He steamed the sticks in the furnace while theywere still fresh, as soon as he brought them from the woods. “The sticks needed to be fresh; immediatelywhen brought from the forest – and the wood softened; so that he simply twisted it, so that it was just fibres.” These could then be shaped beautifully into a beam ring. In the decades between the two world wars and then until the arrival of trac­tors in their villages, Tone’s fatherwas constantly making yokes, both single and double. “The children slept next door and around, but my fatherwas sawing and chopping...” He worked on a single yoke “for three days at least, and on a double yoke for longer.” However, when including the time that Jože spent in the forest looking for the right wood and preparing it, “it would be even more than that.” Before WWII, when the cheapest Bata shoes cost 19 dinars, a single yoke cost 30 dinars, and “a big one was 60; and it could be negotiated for 50.” And because in all those years people from the wider area came to Tone’s father foryokes – from the villages of Trebeljevo, Prežganje, Polšnik, even from Sticna, “they all went up”to him – the familydid not live badlyon his fairlysteadyincome. “He earned extra with this, because the farm itself did not give so much.” There were children in the house to be provided for, and so “we always had bread.” David Žiberna In the Mediterranean ethnological area, during our conversation at the Žváb family homestead in Merce in the Karst, the master’s son David Žiberna, a trained carpenter, also shared some of his knowledge about the making of withers bow yokes. He told me about the old ways of making them – which he had learned from his environment and which are based on the wisdom of his grandmother – or nonna – and some other old folk, as well the modern techniques he had ac­quired during his formal schooling. He himself has all the necessary knowledge to make single yokes, so that he could make them “the old-fashioned way”, from the mahaleb cherry (Prunus mahaleb L.), to be a “mahaleb collar and mahaleb bow”; but he has chosen to make them “the modern way”, from veneers that he bends on a model, presses in a wine press and then works. David said that in the past “if theygot the mahaleb cherry, theymade it [the yoke] out of it; and if not, it was of oak or ash.” He added the folk wisdom – just such as I have traced in the French Morvan (Berte-Langereau 1996: 7) – that the right time to cut ash wood is from Assumption Day (15 August) to Our Lady’s Birthday (8 September): ‘When you cut it in winter, it is too wormy,” but if it is cut at the correct time it can be “ten years old or less, it is hard to the bone.”57 The old master, the father, alreadyworked for his son, and “was bending the collar in nature. He made a mould and he bent a tiny ash tree over the mould. And it grew fatter and fatter... He then went and cut it himself and he made a collar.” Natural crooks were also sought, but a more reliable way of preparing a properly shaped piece of wood for a single yoke was that “theyworked according to a mould.” Or, as David’s fatherIvan called them, templates. He also explained that several templates were needed in different sizes. He also added an important piece of folk wisdom, that “every ox must have its own collar, right. One has a strong neck – let us say our Pepo must have an open collar, right. You cannot give this open collar to the little one, because it flies all over.” The importance of the yoke’s form is also evidenced by the following criteria, passed on in from master For example, an old wheelwright from Morvan said the same thing, that the best time is between 15 August and 8 September: “All wood felled during this period – oak, beech – is preserved for a long time, and oak wood felled during this period is unwearable, indestructible” (Berte-Langereau 1996: 7). to son: the collar “must be tight but not squeeze the veins at the side of the [ox’s] neck”, otherwise the animal may just kneel down. In such a case, they had to give the ox “another collar – and then it was [capable of] working.” His grandmother, nonna Lea, added to their store of wisdom with her knowledge of what a bow should be like: “The bow must not be knobbly” (i.e. made from a branch from which the twigs grew), but “it must be smooth.” Bows were thus made of rela­tively soft but firm, flexible wood, of mahaleb cherry, but also of ash. Despite his knowledge and mastery of all the traditional skills of making single withers bowyokes, David nevertheless opted for the “modern way” – convinced that this was more reliable. “Because it is safer. This will not break 100%. But with the old way, you can get a knot right there [he points to the top of the collar], where the weakest point is – and it will break. Let’s say – this one [he points to one of his newyokes], I guarantee, without shackling, it will not break. There is no ox to break it...The collar is supposed to be, in principle, made from steam-treated wood, and even older people are supposed to steam collars just like that. They went out into nature to look for it [the right wood] and they steamed it. The wood was plastic and easier to work. But veneer is already steamed... The problem is with nature, because you get both the good and the bad...” With David’s method, however, such problems are not supposed to exist. Moreover, he came up with an innovation, designing a single withers bowyoke made of veneer. An example of this work is now in the SEM collection (cat. no. 127), with a more detailed de­scription of the manufacturing process in the related catalogue entry. Toncek Zaróbnjek When, during my research on the relationship between humans and working oxen, I came full circle in the Alpine ethnological area of Pokljuka, I asked my in­terlocutors at Koprivnik – among all the other questions – about the production of yokes and their makers. Without having to think much, they then sent me, with eloquent directions, to nearby Gorjuše, to Toncek Zaróbnjek, who was renowned far and wide in the villages of Bohinj as one of the best, most sought-after makers of ígovci – single head horned yokes. Thus, I walked up to Toncek, to his small farm (five hectares), where years ago they kept eight cows and needed oxen to work the fields. “I even had two,” he recalled with satisfaction. After returning from the army, when his fatherwas already old, Toncek did “all sorts” of work. Besides his job, he tried to “push farm­ing forward”, but it got harder everyyear because “there was no income.” One way of making extra moneywas by producing ígovci. He started working on them towards the end of the 1940s, when while he was working with the ox “at the forest service” his ígovc broke. He approached a man from Gorjuše to ask if he could make him a new one. But the man was already old and could onlyshow him howit was done, and so “that is how I got into the practice of making them.” But at first, he did not do verywell. When he made the first one and put it on the ox’s head, it did not sit well, and nor did the second. “It was like a novice making shoes. I got better with practice.” The ox had to be first carefully looked at and measured. For example, one was some 800 kilos, “and one was only 400, but he was alreadyworking.” For the first, heavier one, the ígovc had to be 12 inches (32 cm), for the lighter ox only 10 inches. What did he measure the ox’s head with? “With an ordinary tape measure; one that had inches.” Precise measurements were necessary, especially because “one [ox] had his horn more backwards, and one forwards; now – if you do not know how to measure this, it’s like a shoe if it does not fit on your foot.” So different things had to be done. “It’s like with a man. Someone who has a smaller foot, needs a smaller shoe, and someone with a bigger foot, a bigger one.” Toncek was convinced that the best wood for making an ígovc was beech, and specifically the root. “If you just take beech wood, it will crack.” In the village common he sawed off a slightly longer piece than the finished yoke, “because it cracks at the end, and so lateryou need to saw away both ends when you mea­sure it.” Then he worked with an axe, “to give it [the yoke] proper form”, then with the cutter, then with the shredder, and finallywith the pane – “if there was no abrasive paper”. “If we had a pane, it was the best way [to smooth it].” The holes for the cveki (wooden “horns”) had to be made graduallywith three drills: first the smaller one, then the medium one, and finally the larger one. “This cvek is about three centimetres thick [in diameter].” And the yoke was usuallymade out of ash, because “if an ox weighed 800 kilos and the ígovc did not fit it well, he would break the cvek immediately.” Toncek used this kind of wood to make ígovci that could last up to 30 years, so he claimed. First, he went to his forest and looked at the beech trees, until he saw something appropriate and then sawed it off. “But it must be old wood; beech wood, cut during the old moon [at full moon]; at new moon, it’s alreadyworse. There are many tricks like these.” Similar pieces of folk wisdom can also be found in the French Morvan (Berte-Langereau 1996: 7), as noted above.58 “The beech 58 An old wheelwright from Morvan told Berta-Langereau (1996: 7) that wood in the forest is cut or felled when the moon goes down (lune descendante) or when there is a “hard moon” (lune dure), so that it does not prick or sting. The full moon (en bonne lune) is therefore a good time, because a round moon is considered to be good for the wood, which then does not become shrubby (swollen). tree, if cut during the new moon, or when the moon rises – pushes the water up. But during an old moon, all that sap is inside. You have to practice this kind of thing.” Toncek waited a while before starting work with the cut beech, although softerwood is easier to work. As he put it: “At first glance, it is easier because it is a soft wood. But to make the ígovc, it had to be really dry.” The best wooden horns were made from ash wood, because it was more durable, but they also had to be a little dry, or as Toncek said: “you must not use raw [wood].” It took him two days to make one ígovc, and this was “two full days’ work over your head, and you had to have all the materials on hand.” Toncek made them in winter, because in summer the oxen were mostly out grazing, and he had to go from master to master to measure the animals. For one yoke he charged 3,000 dinars, but “what was three thousand, in Tito’s Yugoslavia? What you could give, you gave... The best you could do was to please the buyer.” And that is why – apart from the desire or need to earn supplementary income so that he could “keep the farm going” – Toncek also enjoyed making them, in order to feel like a useful member of the community. He remembered that he did not make yokes so much for those who lived in his home village, as for those who lived in Bohinj. His ígovci would travel ten to fourteen kilometres away from Gorjuše – to Bohinjska Bistrica and Nemški Rovt, for example. Toncek was well known in this area. “Do you know that there were quite a few of us, but not everyone took everything into account. Some made a yoke, but it broke quickly. But I really made mine out of the right kind of root, so that it was solid.” And each master who was satisfied with Toncek’s work was then approached by another, who asked: “'Who made this ígovc, and can he make one for me?’ And through this I was able to earn a little.” Toncek did not decorate his yokes, but he painted them green. “Green is the best colour. They painted them red too, but it’s not so pretty, it’s not the right colour.” (In the villages of the Pokljuka region, they also liked to paint whetstone holders and the shaft or handle of a scythe green.) He also revealed a more prac­tical reason for painting a yoke, as if it rained the waterwould easily run down and off a painted ígovc. AfterToncek has done his work, it was the turn of the blacksmith, although “the owner himself made inquiries about this.” The black­smith’s job was to shackle both ends, adding oval segments, the nárbe, to the loop on either side. The latter sat in the openings on the shafts and were fastened with a beech pin, the žábca. Then it was the turn of the saddler, or zótlar, who had to make the “cap”, the pad for the ox’s head, and the strap for the yoke. Toncek concluded his story about the making of single head horned yokes with a demonstration: he showed me how to tie an ígovc on two stakes – as if they were two ox horns. He finished tying it in the middle, “just like a woman with her hair”, and then he went on to “untie” the imaginary ox. Finally, he took the ígovc with his left hand, wrapped the strap around it neatly, as was the custom, and hung it on a peg by the stable door. Now is the time to put the finishing touches to this account of the wisdom of yoke-making and yoke-makers. After the unexpectedlymultifaceted messages passed on in the silent language of the material, which was whispered quietly around the yokes in the museum’s collection, these came even more to life when supplemented by the testimonies of those who had listened to the stories about this particular form of heritage, or who were themselves its receivers and trans­mitters. Associated with this is the knowledge – in fact, a vivid vision of a kind of travelling countryside – of the journeys of the yoke-makers and their ox-master customers, of walking through fairs, from village to village, from farm to farm, this based on the need for good, well-made yokes. The world of these primordial objects – about which knowledge, insights and various pieces of wisdom have been preserved but also developed over centuries – has been incredibly dynamic. It has been intimately connected to human existence, from the distant past and right up to the present. YOKES IN LANGUAGE AND SYMBOLISM, IN WEDDING CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS, AND AS VISIBLE SIGNS OF A FARMING IDENTITY Due to this deep connection with civilisation, yokes have penetrated deeply into human consciousness, and have left their traces in language and symbolism, in customs and identity. Language They settled into the language with a word that in many places was also used to count oxen. The phrase “yoke of oxen” thus indicated two oxen. I first came across this when reading Jurcic’s novel Sosedov sin (The Neighbour’s Son), and spe­cifically in a conversation between two of the characters on a market day, when the indebted (but once wealthy) Brašnar asks the still rich Anton: “How many yokes of oxen are you buying today?” “I say about five yokes, I say, I would like” (Jurcic 1969: 12). I later searched for and found confirmation that the phrase “yoke of oxen” was actually used in everyday speech, as it appeared in the museum’s manuscript archive, in some answers to the ethnological questionnaires from the 1960s and 1980s mentioned earlier in this work (as part of the Collection Yoke) from var­ious areas in Slovenia. Forexample, a yoke was used to denote a pair of oxen in Žlebe near Medvode (VE 1961: 1), in Vrh above Rovte above Logatec (VG 1960: 57), in Veliki Orehek near Novo mesto (VE 1961: 45) and in Budanje near Aj­dovšcina (VE 1962: 54). In Podgorje near Kamnik, when it was said, “I have five yokes of oxen”, this meant five pairs of working oxen (VE 1962: 3). In a response from Vrh above Rovte, it was added, tellingly enough, that to be without a yoke – without a pair of oxen – meant poverty; and in such cases a father could say: “I will not give my daughter away to a place where they do not have a yoke at the house”(VG 1960: 57). In addition to being a synonym for a couple or a pair, the yoke – but only its withers frame variant – also appeared in the language as a metaphor for a clum­sy, awkward person, something that is also attested in the questionnaires cited above. In Hrastnik or in the surrounding settlements, for example, such a person was “called a telega” (VG 1960: 10); in the vicinity of Slovenska Bistrica, someone who was clumsywas called a “damned teleženk” (VE 1962: 20); from Krka and Ivancna Gorica and its surroundings, there is a record from 1962 that a clumsy man or animal was called “a real telenga [or telengar]” (VE 1962: 36); and from Dobova, the following phrases are also reported: “You are just as clumsy as the old telege... You are a real teležjenk [if you are clumsy]. You are not fit for anything but to be tied up in a telege” (VE 1986–87: 39). In Macki above Rob nearVelike Lašce, there is also a riddle about a yoke: Q: Peter is bent, Matevž is crouched, what are they? – A: Peter is the yoke, and Mat-evž is the bow (VE 1960: 42, the record was contributed by Boris Orel). With its opposing metaphorical meanings, whereby a yoke is not only a very common metaphor for slavery and suffering, but also for harmony, for harmoni­ous living and working together as a couple, this primordial object has also found its way into symbolism. But before we take a closer look at the latter – whether positive (harmony, working together, etc.) or negative (subjugation, suffering, etc.) – let us take a look at a few more sayings related to yokes. In Dolenci and Šalovci in Goricko, for example, it was customary to say, “He got rid of the yoke” if someone got rid of worries or troubles (VE 1961: 21). It is reported from Dobova that when a bride went to live on a farm “she went into a heavyyoke” (VE 1986–87: 39). In Ciginj in the Tolmin area, it was written: “I am fed up with this yoke”, “I have had enough of the yoke!”, and “Myyoke is too heavy”, all referring to difficult times (VE 1962: 60). And then there are the sayings from Dutovlje: “Theyhave harnessed themselves to the yoke”, “If you are in the yoke, you have to pull” and “Woe to the farmerwho does not have enough heads for the yoke” (VŠ 1986–87: 7). Symbolism To continue with the yoke being used as a negative symbol of subjugation, suffering and other similarly bad conditions, it is first necessary to situate our­selves in the broader European cultural and historical space, where it has been recognised that “the choice of the yoke (or at least its image, its designation) as a symbol of subjugation of an enemy has a long historical tradition that goes beyond the Middle Ages” (Mingote Calderón 2005: 287). In the Christian tradition, the yoke has long been a symbol of lordship, pow­er, and subjugation. In Spain, for example, a specific kind of yoke59 became the distinctive emblem of the King Ferdinand the Catholic (Fernando el Católico), also known as Ferdinand II of Aragon, and began to appear in iconography shortly after the end of the Civil or Dynastic War. As a symbol of submission, it was cre­ated at the very time of the fierce domestic struggles that Ferdinand and Queen Isabella were waging to overcome the rebelliousness of the nobility (Mingote Calderón 2005: 153). Another layer to the meaning of submission was also added by the words of an anonymous Spanish poet, in which the Castilian rebels, before whom Ferdinand was to raise the yoke in victory, are described as tamed bulls (Mingote Calderón 2005: 255). Now, from the Spanish royal environment of Castile and Aragon in the 15th and 16th centuries, let us move to Slovenia, where the same idea of the yoke as a symbol of submission and domination was present, but always and everywhere linked to the Slovenians themselves, who for centuries were subjugated by for­eign rulers or invaders. We were thus “on the other side” of the symbolism in question – not the ones who put others under the yoke, but the subjects who had to bear it. Therefore, the yoke, both as a word and its symbolic meaning, became very present in Slovenian literature, in poetry and works of fiction. Anton Aškerc (1856–1912), for example, offers us a vivid poetic illustration of our subjugation in three of his poems: - In the poem “Hear, the Wind Says Raging” the poet writes: “The voices of the forefathers sigh, weep and moan / ... / Now the foreigner is spreading here, / arrogantly flaunting himself... / We were too soft / to leave the land to him... / Then our oppressor / bent our nape under the yoke... (Aškerc 1968: 20, empha­sis I. S.). - In the “Christmas Carol of the Poor”, the poet is talking to the Son of God: “We would like that the yoke, / in which theychain us paupers, / you would bless 59 This is the so-called “triple yoke”, the yoke with three collars, which was used in Spain to tame unruly cattle – and, in a symbolic sense, rebellious nobility (Mingote Calderón 2005: 258). so they would be merciful and gracious to us / when they force us to perform toil-filled corvée...” (Aškerc 1968: 26, emphasis I. S.). - And in “King Matjaž”, he speaks of the fairy-tale Slovenian saviour: “Having saved his nation from the yoke, / he made peace among the nations... / Celebrate in your free homeland / your hundred-years wedding feast with your queen!” (Aškerc 1968: 159, emphasis I. S.). What about the other, equally powerful symbolic meaning of the yoke as a beautiful metaphorfor harmony? For the harmonious work and everydaylife that people have undoubtedly observed for centuries, day after day, willingly or unwillingly, while ploughing, driving and pulling with pairs of working oxen. An­imals so accustomed to each other and to overcoming challenges in unison under a common yoke that there are many accounts of how an ox, who for one reason or another had its companion of manyyears replaced, would reject the unknown newcomer, not wanting to be harnessed to it, not wanting to work alongside it. With such a symbolic meaning, however, the yoke in many parts of Slovenia (and elsewhere – for example in France)60 slipped first into metaphor, then into wedding customs. It seems strange that its many researchers did not perceive the presence of the yoke in this context, or perhaps just did not interpret it. In fact, in the relevant ethnological literature it is almost impossible to find61 either a men­tion of its symbolic meaning or any related use in wedding customs. Customs It is precisely in the case of wedding customs that we cannot only discuss the positive symbolism of the yoke as a metaphor for harmony, but also its nega­tive symbolism as a metaphor for submission, although the latterwas most often wrapped up in humorous ritual acts or sayings. Here, the yoke’s symbolic bipo­larity thus appears in the same cultural component, as is vividly illustrated in the European cultural setting by, for example, the testimonies from Spain and Greece. The first, the Spanish one on negative symbolism, dates back to the 15th centu­ry. The reference to the subordination of the wife to herhusband’s yoke (accord­ing to the dominant Catholic doctrine) can be found in the Universal Vocabulario, completed in 1491 by Alonso de Palencia (Mingote Calderón 2005: 175). The 60 For example, the French province of Vendée is reported to have this meaning foryokes (Hongrois 1997: 59). 61 Except in a diploma thesis on bachelorhood among the inhabitants of Ljubljana, and specifically on bachelor and bachelorette parties between 1995 and 2001, where the yoke and its symbolic role (the marriage yoke) are mentioned in the “programme at bachelor parties”, when the groom wore a yoke or a collar around his neck (Cokl 2002: 48). second Greek example eloquently conveys what is probably a very early, per­haps even ancient, connection of the yoke’s symbolism with being married, and testifies to the (desired) harmonious cohabitation of husband and wife, based on the Greek word sízigos, which means spouse, i.e. husband or wife. It is a fusion of two words: zygos for yoke and syn for together, which gave rise to the compound syn-zygos or sízigos.62 It therefore suggests the harmonious union of husband and wife, together, in a yoke. In Slovenia there is no shortage of testimonies of the yoke’s involvement in wedding customs – both with its negative and positive symbolism. I have redis­covered records indicating this in the museum’s manuscript archives, in individ­ual answers from ethnological questionnaires from the 1960s and 1980s (in the Collection Yoke), and some of them have also been added by the accounts of my interlocutors. Some of the details found in the written material are recounted below. It seems that the symbolism of the yoke as a metaphor for subjugation did not have such a negative connotation in Slovenian wedding customs and traditions as the above-mentioned Spanish example. This is evident in the typical, humorous rites observed by the wedding guests, at feasts and in individual sayings. In Mar-kovci near Ptuj, for example, it was said: “The yoke of marriage is hurting him” (VG 1960: 11). In Kalobje near Šentjur near Celje, it was customary to say: “Who­ever marries, is getting a telege” (VG 1960: 16). And in Dolenci, Cepinci-Šalovci, it was said of the newlyweds: “He has tied the yoke on himself ” (VE 1961: 21). In more recent times and in certain places the yoke has begun to be used at bach­elor parties, even in the urban environment of Ljubljana (Cokl 2002: 48). For example, it is reported from Cankova in Prekmurje that during a feast with heavy drinking the young man who was saying goodbye to his bachelorhood was put under the yoke by his already married friends (VŠ 1986–87: 19). The jokes about male subordination – and especiallythe loss of freedom, seen humorouslyto as “subjugation” at bachelor parties – were likely based on the sadly not uncommon poor state of relations between husbands and wives, in which harmony did not always reign, and in which, in addition to domineering husbands, there were also domineering wives. One need only think of Tavcar’s late 19th-century short story Gricar’s Blaže, when Ance says to the main character: “You are harnessed.” [...] “and Luca has put you in the yoke, so that is a total fiasco”(Tavcar 1968: 127). 62 The related leaflet and an explanation were sent to me in 2008 by my Greek colleague Yorgos Brokalakis. But the most tangible yoke – in its material form – appeared at feasts as part of wedding traditions, at least in the last decades of the 20th century. Such yokes were brought by the wedding guests who played pranks with them, such as put­ting them around the necks of musicians, or theyyoked the groom and the bride to it, or it was hung on a triumphal arch (or a column, like a maypole) in front of the bride’s or groom’s home. A yoke was also a common and popularwedding gift, especially in Carinthia and Styria. First, let us look at some of the testimonies about what happened at weddings. For example, from the village of Bresnica in Slovenske gorice, there is an account of a scene at a feast, in which the following question is usually asked, “What do the witnesses do during the wedding ceremony?” or “Why do newlyweds need witnesses?”, followed bythe answer “Witnesses hold the yoke that the newly­weds are stepping into”(VŠ 1986–87: 12). In Razbor near Slovenj Gradec, it was customary to “put the musicians in the yoke at everywedding feast. Two of them were harnessed, and one led the plough. And so, theywent ploughing”(VŠ 1986– 87: 134), thus indicating fertility. Šášel in Spodnji Razbor told me about the har­nessing of musicians when photographs were taken, and about the mocking of the boys who came to sing at night during the wedding. When the groom came to them, theywould get wine, get a little drunk and “sometimes theyalso put them­selves under the yoke”. This was said to have been the case in the 1960s, “and it seems to have been the case before that”. Another of my interlocutors, Rajgel, talked at length about a similar scene in Vetrnik above Kozje. When his sisterwas getting married both witnesses were harnessed to a telege and then a plough was pulled. Rajgel, as a musician himself, often played at weddings, where he would bring a smaller telege for use in his performances. He used the yoke shortly be­fore midnight, when he would harness the bride and groom in it, and both sets of parents had to stand behind the couple, to make sure that the newlyweds worked well together. There is another eloquent testimony from my narrator Kondi, Pecník from Marija Reka above Prebold. He and his wife Ida were married in 1958 and afterwards, at home at the ohcet, or wedding reception, when they had been partying all night, two of the wedding guests, their relatives, got into the yoke and started to run the threshing machine, the gepl, in the yard. It was a humorous idea thought up by Kondi’s cousin, who no longer knew what else to do at such a time and in such a condition. Kondi claims that his cousin said, “We are real oxen today; we have drunk too much, now let’s get into the yoke”. He then concluded, “I hope that both of you will be pulling equally, for one cannot be more than the other in marriage.” The Jezerniks from Libeliška Gora in Carinthia told me a similar story of how they used to play all sorts of tricks on guests – including harnessing them to a yoke – at wedding receptions, which sometimes lasted two days. If the bride and groom were yoked together, they usually said: “Now they are going to ride together.” Their son and daughter-in-law received as a gift a small and verywell-made withers hook yoke (with a leather beam ring and a linchpin), engraved with the names of both of them and the date of the wedding. In such places a yoke is often a wedding present, made by a carpenter, and it is brought “mostly by the oknarji”, the local villagers or the groom’s friends. The gift of a yoke at weddings is also seen in a story told by a housewife from the Ajnžik homestead in Tolsti vrh. After the wedding party is over the yoke is kept in the couple’s house as a form of decoration with an important symbolic message: “If two oxen are pulling, regardless of how heavy the load, if they are in harmony, all is well. But if two oxen are each pulling in their own direction it will not end well – it will be a disaster! This is the reality of marriage.” If we look at the yoke in its material form throughout the various Slovenian regions – and as a carrier of appropriate symbolic messages in the context of wedding customs and traditions, or the festive events of the time – we can see a fairlydistinct demarcation between those areas where it was customaryto give yokes as wedding gifts, and others where theywere hung on triumphal arches or poles as markers of the groom’s or bride’s home. The former include the Alpine ethnological area in particular, and here and there the Pannonian, Central Slo­venian and Mediterranean ethnological areas, while the latter include mainlythe Mediterranean and in certain places the Central Slovenian ethnological areas. Yokes are thus often reported as popularwedding gifts, especially from cer­tain places in Carinthia. For example, from Vitanje, where, in addition to the se­quence of events, the bride’s parents were also recorded explaining why they had given her and the groom a telege for the occasion: “So that theywould lead their marriage through life well and that theywould not go their separate ways.” Such yokes were smaller than the real ones – and were marked with the newlyweds’ names and wedding date – but still big enough for them to wear. The couples received them at midnight, as was customary, because that is when the bride becomes a wife and the groom a husband. After the couple unwrapped the gift one of the wedding guests put the yoke on them, after which they had to drink a glass of wine each, and after photographs had been taken the yoke was taken off (VŠ 1986–87: 36). In Sele, not far from Slovenj Gradec, it was also custom­ary for the “newlyweds to be given a yoke among the gifts, which they had to put on at midnight, and, thus harnessed, they danced off into their life together” (VŠ 1986–87: 120). The gift of yokes or telege is also documented in Carinthia in Prevalje (VŠ 1986–87: 52), Leše (VŠ 1986–87: 118) and Razbor nearSlovenj Gradec (VŠ 1986–87: 134). In addition to the names of the bride and groom and the date of the wedding, such yokes also bearvarious inscriptions, such as “May the newlyweds ride happily in this yoke!”, “Good luck in the marriage yoke!”, “It is easier for two”, and similar statements. Yokes are also reported in the Alpine ethnological area as common and pop­ular gifts, from Dob near Domžale. There theywere given to “girls who were get­ting married into a farming family or boys who were getting married and taking over the homestead” (VŠ 1986–87: 59). In Polhov Gradec, where the custom of hanging a yoke over the door with the symbolic meaning that “the bride and groom are in harness, no longer free” was recorded, a yoke was said to have been given to brides as a wedding gift in the old days (VŠ 1986–87: 135). The giving of yokes in this wayis also attested here and there in individual settlements of the Pannonian ethnological area, and only rarelyin the Central Slovenian and Mediterranean ones. For example, a record from the former is from Hoce, where newlyweds were gifted with such items to remind that they had now entered a yoke, that theywere no longer free and had new obligations (VŠ 1986–87: 10). This is illustrated by a reference from Jurij by the Pesnica River near Zgornja Kungota to a yoke given as a gift with the inscription “It is nicer in a couple”(VŠ 1986–87: 48), and from the village of Bresnica in Slovenske gorice, where the bride and groom received a yoke from relatives from Pohorje, as such a gift was not customary in this area (VŠ 1986–87: 12). Then there are the re­cords from Suhor and Bereca vas in Bela krajina, which report that in the first village no one remembered giving a yoke as a wedding present, but in the second several couples received them. Among the local examples were “diplomas” with humorous texts, such as the following one from 1986: “ The diploma is awarded to Janez and his wife Zalka for passing the marriage exam, which they passed with flying colours on the top of Govca on a warm starry night. They are allowed to use the knowledge gained in this exam at any time, in any place, and in any weather or adversity!”(VŠ 1986–87: 13). From the Central Slovenian ethnological area the yoke as a wedding gift is only recorded in the surrounding settlements of Šentjur near Celje, for example in Kostrivnica, where such a practice was both customary and popular: “A telege for the newlyweds means a cross, which they put on at the time of their wed­ding. They cannot get out of the telege in which they are harnessed.” In nearby Blagovna, the gifted telege bear the inscription: “It is easier to pull in a couple”, and people recognised the value and good intentions in such a gift (VŠ 1986–87: 53). If we add a fragment from the Mediterranean ethnological area, there is a record from Ajdovšcina and the surrounding villages that the yoke was also a common and popular wedding gift in the Karst region. An example is reported from Lokavec with the inscription: “Good luck on your journey together!”, which means “that a husband and wife should work together in marriage and share the good and the bad”(VŠ 1986–87: 143). This is certainly an example of the positive symbolism of being harnessed to the yoke. Now let us turn to the triumphal arches or poles that are part of some wed­ding celebrations, with the use of the yoke in its material form and with the cor­responding symbolic messages. Based on recorded testimonies from the western periphery of the Central Slovenian ethnological area – for example, from villages around Vrhnika and Pivka – and from several places in the Mediterranean area, it is possible to trace this phenomenon through the Brkini region as far as the hills of Šavrinska brda in Slovenian Istria. From the villages of Podlipa and Smrecje nearVrhnika, it was reported in the 1980s that the custom was to hang a yoke on a maypole in front of the groom’s house, with the symbolic meaning that married life would be difficult and lack freedom (a rolling pin, slippers and a broom were also hung, as symbols of do­mesticity). However, although this custom had been abandoned in some places it had also begun to be revived in the 1980s – even in Vrhnika (VŠ 1986–87: 54). There are a few testimonies from Pivka from those who got married in the 1990s and after 2000 that indicate yokes were back in use. Theywere hung on triumphal arches (kolone)in the backyard of the groom’s or bride’s home – who­ever would be moving away – and were also reported, for example, in Zagorje on Gornja Pivka and a little further west in Pristava near Ribnica and in Dane near Divaca. Local boys and girls usually decorated them with objects indicating the character, occupation or other activities of the bride and groom. This was supposed to have been the practice “since forever”, only to have been abandoned after WWII, and then revived bythose born after 1960 (Smerdel 2005: 376). From Pivka, there is also a record of what is meant by a yoke hung on “a trium­phal arch, when someone gets married; [...] married life, life as a couple, as they used to harness cattle” (VŠ 1986–87: 125). Triumphal arches with yokes are also reported from Košana (VŠ 1986–87: 38), Hrpelje near Kozina and nearbyvillages – for example from Materija (VŠ 1986–87: 152) – and from Koštabona (VŠ 1986–87: 132). My interlocutor Kasárn­ov from Skadanšcina also told me about this custom. There was usuallya sign of one kind or another on the triumphal arch, for example in Košana: “Abundance of luck to the newlyweds!” In some places something was also hung on the yoke – for example, in Materija, where a sign read “Good luck in marriage!”, a wom­an’s shoe was placed on one bow of the yoke and a man’s on the other. It was said that this was an old custom or tradition, which signalled “that the yoke binds the newlyweds more firmly in their life together”. Or – to repeat what was said in Pivka about life “as a couple, as they used to harness cattle.” The use of yokes in wedding customs and traditions – whether in their mate­rial form or symbolic meaning – undoubtedly opens an interesting chapter in the relationship between humans and working oxen. In this kind of usage, one of the components of the identification between man and his working companions can be recognised. But to understand why this has been the case and in what ways it can be found, it is necessary to turn next to the oxen themselves, and to their very long and varied coexistence with humans. Signs of a rural and farming identity On the basis of our reflection on the yoke as a cultural component and on the diversified meaning of this primary material resource, we must add a fewwords on its recognition as a messenger of a rural and farming identity. Yokes, primordial objects that for millennia have been indispensable for the harnessing of animals, and which have helped people to grow food, survive and to perform many other difficult tasks, are not only preserved in museum collec­tions, as they have also begun to appear (and thus to be preserved in different ways) in new functions at the end of their daily use on farms or elsewhere in the countryside. Attached to the façades of farmhouses or outbuildings, hanging on the walls of inns or holiday homes and elsewhere, they have become valued and eloquent bearers of memory for some people, and simply decoration for others. While travelling from village to village in the Slovenian regions, as well as in some parts of neighbouring Croatia, one can see manyyokes that are now used in these decorative ways. There is also no shortage of testimonies about such uses of yokes in Slovenia, as found in the responses to the questionnaire from the 1980s that was completed in all ethnological areas. From the Alpine area of Podklanec near Dravograd, there is a record that they have “a yoke as a reminderof the time when we still drove oxen”(VŠ 1986–87: 37). In Prevalje, where a yoke hangs on the wall of the respondent’s stable, it reminds them of the past (VŠ 1986–87: 52). From Sele near Slovenj Gradec it is reported that here they keep smalleryokes for decoration, while the larger ones are kept “fora rainyday”. Those fordecoration are usuallykept on the front of the stables and in some inns (VŠ 1986–87: 120). In Razbor near Slovenj Gradec, a yoke is considered a form of decoration of which people are proud, as both an ornament and a reminder of the old days (VŠ 1986–87: 134). From Dob near Domžale, it is recorded that “it can be a beautiful decoration in a house, in an inn, at a weekend house. It has an important place in our history. It reveals to us our former life and habits” (VŠ 1986–87: 59). In Polhov Gradec, some farmers have yokes as a form of decoration in their home, while others keep them “as a reminder of the life of their ancestors”(VŠ 1986–87: 135). From the Pannonian area, it is reported from Suhor and Bereca vas in Bela krajina that yokes are hanging on some farmhouses and stables, but only as “decoration and a reminder of the livestock that was replaced by tractors” (VŠ 1986–87: 13). In Moravske Toplice, not farfrom Bogojina, yokes are also hung in holiday homes and agritourism facilities for decoration, while in some places they remain in homes as a “reminder of old times and childhood”(VŠ 1986–87: 22). In the Central Slovenian area, for example in Štore and the surrounding set­tlements, yokes are hung in prominent places in holiday homes or extensions to houses for decoration (VŠ 1986–87: 49). In Stranice on the slopes of Pohorje, small telege are found in the snack bar above the counter, and to the owner rep­resent “a memory of farming. I am proud of them and this shows my relationship to the land, the link between everyday life and the land” (VŠ 1986–87: 28). In Žužemberk in Dolenjska, yokes are used to decorate cottages and haylofts be­cause people “find antique objects to be grand” (VŠ 1986–87: 138). In Mirna Pec and the surrounding settlements, yokes are used as mementoes or decorations in “peasant” rooms (VŠ 1986–87: 50). In Mokronog, there is an inn decorated with a variety of yokes outside, on the wall of an outbuilding, and inside. Some of the yokes have been repurposed, such as serving as holders for ceiling lamps. The old innkeeper’s explanation for his use of yokes was that theywere “a reminder of days gone by, when people toiled and worked hard to support themselves and theirchildren”.Today, many city people look foryokes so theycan use them to decorate theirweekend houses, despite having no connection with farming (VŠ 1986–87: 150). Then there is the Mediterranean ethnological area, where, for example, it is reported from Solkan and Lokvice in the Karst that yokes are kept as a reminder of the times when people had to work hard (VŠ 1986–87: 2). Or from Lokavec near Ajdovšcina, where one of the villagers keeps it in his wine cellar because it is “very close to his heart. I put it in its present place mainly because it reminds me of myyouth”(VŠ 1986–87: 143). In Dobrovo, Goriška Brda, there are also yokes hanging on stables or on houses as “a reminder of old times and as a deco­ration”; and in the village of Gonjace a yoke is used as decoration in the local inn (VŠ 1986–87: 18). A yoke also adorns the exterior of a local inn in Podgrad, near Materija, and in the village of Kovcice there is a house where one is kept “on the wall in the living room as a decoration. They have it because it is very old and beautifully decorated” (VŠ 1986–87: 152). Finally, there is an account from the village of Zakriž near Cerkno, where the purpose of the yoke, hung as a decora­tion, is as follows: “to show that it is a farmhouse”(VŠ 1986–87: 55). It is not difficult to understand why these antique devices for harnessing cat­tle, especially oxen, were and remain a popular decorative object in many places and for many people. It also helps that they are one of the few farming imple­ments which, forvarious reasons, have often been lavishlydecorated (along with whetstone holders and some other objects), and thus perhaps especially likely to be given a new function as life in the countryside has changed. This change also includes efforts to develop rural tourism, which “our peasant man” was to include as “a new activity in his agricultural holding” (Šusteršic, Jelnikar and Kumer 1976: 3). Part of these efforts included advice on how the farmhouse should be equipped for such an activity. In the selection of household items best suited for this purpose, the yoke almost inevitably found its way to the forefront: “The walls of the porch can withstand the hanging of a beautiful collar, a yoke, oven fork, push broom, [...] and a chest or a chair can be placed next to them” (Šušteršic, Jelnikar and Kumer 1976: 82, emphasis I. S.). Perhaps a reflection of such advice may also be seen in the search foryokes as decorative items for the walls of rural holiday homes belonging to people who otherwise live in cities and towns. Something similar to this, as well the repur-posing of yokes to give them new functions, seems to have been happening else­where – in France, for example.63 But wherever it happens, and in whatever form, such actions express a sense of nostalgia as well a search for one’s rural roots. The search for a lost, perhaps forgotten, still vanishing identity. 63 In France, since the early 1970s, there has been a real movement to transform old objects or adapt them to more modern uses. For example, yokes have been transformed into coat racks. Such new uses reflect nostalgia and a reclamation of rural and farming roots (de Laubrie 1999: 5). AŠKERC, Anton 1968 Izbrano delo. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. BELL, Jonathan 1983 The Use of Oxen on Irish Farms since the Eighteenth Century. Ulster Folk life 29, 18–28. 1985 Note: Illustrations of the use of oxen in Ireland. Ulster Folklife 31, 73–75. BERTE-LANGEREAU, Philippe 1996 Les jougs du Morvan. Nevers Cedex: Camosine. 2000 Le temps des attelages. Lormes: Nourrices du Morvan. BLEIWEIS, Janez 1851 Nauk zdrave in bolne kopita podkovati in kopitne bolezni ozdravljati: Pervi del »Živinozdravništva«. Ljubljana: Kmetijska družba kranjska. 1871 Nauk o umni živinoreji. Ljubljana: Kmetijska družba kranjska. B. n. a. 1858 Da bi jarmi pri vprežni živini šli vsi rakom žvižgat. Kmetijske in rokodelske novice 16 (19), 146. B. n. a. 1993 Jougs des provinces de France au Musée National des Arts et Tiaditions Populaires. In: Jean-René Trochet (ed.), Jougs, contre jougs: Catalog de l'ex position du 20 novembre 93 au 15 mars 94. Savigny-le-Temple: Ecomuséecde Savigny-le-Temple, 32–38. BODÓ, Sándor 1966 Jármok a Hajdúságban. Ethnographia 77 (4), 538–565. BOGATAJ, Janez 2004 Domaca delavnost. In: Angelos Baš (ed.), Slovenski etnološki leksikon. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 95. BRUNHES DELAMARRE, Mariel Jean 1969 Geographie et ethnologie de l'attelage au joug en France du XVII sičcle ŕ nos jours. Uherské Hradišt. : Národopisná spolecnost ceskoslovenská pri CSAVv Praze, Slovácke muzeum v Uherském Hradišti. CLUTTON-BROCK, Juliet 1992 Horse Power: A history of the horse and the donkey in human societies. London: Natural History Museum Publications. COLUMELLA, Lucius Junius Moderatus 1948 On Agriculture: In Three Volumes I: Res Rustica I–IV. London: William Heinemann Ltd; Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. CONROY, Drew 2004 Ox Yokes: Culture, Comfort and Animal Welfare. TAWS Workshop 15 April 2004, Silsoe Research Institute, UK (World Association forTransport Animal Welfare and Studies, Common ground: Moving forward with animals). New Hampshire: University of New Hampshire, 1–31. CONTINI, Carlo 2000 Segni di un mondo perduto, Il Museo delle Tradizioni Popolari di S. Martino diCorreggio. Reggio Emilia: Edizioni Tecnograf. COREL, Anton 1999 S pesmijo in harmoniko. Podgrad: Kulturno društvo. COKL, Andreja 2002 Slovo Ljubljancanov od samskega stanu: Fantovšcine in deklišcine v Ljubljani 1995–2001: Diplomsko delo. Ljubljana: [A. Cokl]. De LAUBRIE, Eduard 1993 Un élément décoratif: Le surjoug. In: Jean-René Trochet (ed.), Jougs, contre jougs: Catalog de l'exposition du 20 novembre 93 au 15 mars 94. Savigny-le-Temple: Ecomusée de Savigny-le-Temple, 14–18. 1999 L'attelage au joug: Petit journal d'exposition »Du joug au tracteur: Histoire d'un révolution agricole«. Paris: Musée national des Arts et Traditions populaires, Conservatoire de l'agriculture, Chartres, 3–6. De OLIVEIRA, Ernesto Veiga, GALHANO, Fernando and PEREIRA, Fernando 1969 L’attelage des boeufs en Portugal. Národopisnývestníkceskoslovenský 3–4 (36–37), 55–78. 1973 Sistemas de atrelagem dos bois em Portugal. Lisboa: Instituto de alta cultura, Centro de estudos de etnologia. FENTON, Alexander 1969 Draught Oxen in Britain. Národopisný veestník ceskoslovenský 3–4 (36– 37), 17–53. 1986 The Shape of the Past 2: Essays in Scottish Ethnology. Edinburgh: John Donald. FERLE, Mojca 2009 Še sedaj vedo ljudje o Francozih. In: Irena Žmuc, Gregor Moder (eds.), Napoleon rezhe Iliria vstan: Ob 200-letnici ustanovitve Ilirskih provinc. Ljubljana: Muzej in galerije mesta Ljubljane, Mestni muzej, 63–72. GAVAZZI, Milovan 1942 Etnografijski sastav (hrvatskoga sela). In: Zemljopis Hrvatske. Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 639–673. 1958 Prilog jadransko-dinarskom kulturnom profilu zadarskog podrucja (Dugi otok, Sestrunj – sela oko Benkovca). Zbornik Instituta za historijske nauke u Zadru: Knjiga II. Zadar: Institut za historijske nauke, 193–227. 1969 Das Joch in Jugoslawien. Národopisný veestník ceskoslovenský 3–4 (36– 37), 151–162. GLASENICNIK, Andrej (ed.) 2012 Tu smo doma. Razbor: Kulturno društvo. GLASSIE, Henry 1999 Material Culture. Bloomington in Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. GRANDA, Stane 2004 Cupa – simbol slovenstva vTržaškem zalivu. In: Volpi Lisjak, Bruno, Cupa, prvo slovensko plovilo, in drevaki: Prispevek k etnologiji in vprašanju etnogeneze Slovencev. Trst: Mladika, 19–22. GRANLUND, John 1969 Rinderanspannung und Joche in Schweden, Národopisnýveestník ceskoslovenský 3–4 (36–37), 99–120. GRIFFIN-KREMER, Cozette 2007 Du joug de tęte au joug de garrot: Récit mythique et changement technique? Ethnozootechnie 79, 51–67. 2010 Wooings and works: An episode on yoking oxen in the Tochmarc Étaine and the Cóir Anmann. Eolas: The Journal of the American Society of Irish Medieval Studies 4, 54–85. HALSTEAD, Paul 2014 Two Oxen Ahead: Pre-Mechanized Farming in the Mediterranean. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. HONGROIS, Christian 1997 Jougues de Vende. In: F. Sigaut, J. M. Duplan, N. Bochet (eds.), Les boeufs au travail. Rambouillet: AFMA, 49–60. IMELLOS, Stefanos 1975 Atlas tę-i Il Lęnikę Laographia (AHL). Kentrôn Ereunęs tęs Hellęnikęs Laographias tęs Akadęmias Athęnon, 1. volume, 4 cartes. JACOBEIT, Wolfgang 1948 Das Joch: Entwicklung, Alter und Verbreitung dargestellt vornehmlich für den mitteleuropäischen Raum: Dissertation. Göttingen: Philosophischen Fakultät, Georg-August-Universität. 1953 Ein eisenzeitliches Joch aus Nordirland. In: Kothe H., Otto K. H. (eds.), Ethnographisch-archäologische Forschungen1. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag derWissenschaften, 95–97. 1957 Jochgeschirr- und Spanntiergrenze. Deutsches Jahrbuch fürVolkskunde 3, 119–144. JACOBEIT, Wolfgang and KRAMARIK, Jaroslav 1969 Einleitung. Národopisnývestník ceskoslovenský 3–4 (36–37), 11–13. JAGIELA, Kazimierz 1997 Jarzmo, jarzmica, chomato bydlece. In: Bohdanowicz Janusz (ed.), Komentarze do Polskiego Atlasu Etnograficzneg, t. IV. Transport i komunikacja ladowa. Wroclaw: Polskie Towarzystwo Ludoznawcze, 198–238. JANCAR, France 1869 Umni gospodar ali gospodarsko berilo. Ljubljana: Družba sv. Mohora. JANCÁR, Josef 1969 Das rindergespann in Ostmähren, Národopisnývestník ceskoslovenský, 3–4 (36–37), 205–212. KLAVORA, Fedja 2006 Bonaparte ob Soci – 1897: Prvi pohod Francozov iz Verone do Leobna. Tolmin: Samozaložba. KOREN, Hanns 1957 Jochformen und Jochnamen in Innerösterreich. In: Bericht über den 4. Österreichischen Historikertag in Klagenfurt. Wien: Verband Österreichischer Geschichtsvereine, 160–168. KOTAR, Marijan and BRUS, Robert 1999 Naše drevesne vrste. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica. KRAMARIK, Jaroslav 1960 Záprah skotu v Pošumaví. Ceskoslovenská etnografie 8 (3), 253–272. KUNDEGRABER, Maria 1967 Ein Kapitel aus derGottscheerGerätekunde: Die Ochsenjoche.Jahrbuch für ostdeutsche Volkskunde 10, 97–119. LEICHT, Matthias 2000 Die Wallanlagen des Oppidums Alkimoennis/Kelheim: Zur Baugeschichte und Typisierung spätkeltischer Befestigungen. Leindorf: Rahden/Westf. LERCHE, Grith and STEENSBERG, Axel 1983 Tools and Tillage in Iran: Observations made in 1965 in the province of Kermán. Tools and Tillage 4 (4), 217–248. LEROI-GOURHAN, André 2004 [1943] L'homme et la matičre. Paris: Éditions Albin Michel. LE THIEC, Gérard in HAVARD, Michel 1999 Developing suitable yokes for draft oxen in sub-Saharan Africa. In: Starkey P., Kaumbutho P. (eds.), Meeting the challenges of animal traction: A resource book of the Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA). Harare: The Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA), 134–139. LUNDSTRÖM-BAUDAIS, Karen, BAUDAIS, Dominique and UPADHAYA, Nawaraj 2001 L'araire de Jumla: Un araire archaďque en Himalaya. Techniques & kulture 37, 77–108. MAKAROVIC, Gorazd 1981 Slovenska ljudska umetnost: Zgodovina likovne umetnosti na kmetijah. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije. MARINOV, Vasil 1969 Zur Ethnographie des Joches in Bulgarien. Národopisný vestník ceskoslovenský 3–4 (36–37), 163–177. MARZATICO, Franco 2006 L'araire et le joug de Lavagnone et de Fiavé (Italie). In: Pétrequin, P. Arbogast et al. (eds.), Premiers chariots, premiers araires: La diffusion de la traction animale en Europe pendant les IV et III millénaires avant notre čre. Paris: CNRS Éditions, 63–73. MEININGER, Helena 1993 Form and functioning of the Cotacachi – ard canton Cotacachi (province Imbabura) – north of Ecuador during soil-preparation on maiz fields. In: Barraca de Ramos, Pilar (ed.), Primeras jornadas internacionales sobre tecnologia agraria tradicional. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura, Dirección General de Bellas Artes y Archivos, Museo Nacional del Pueblo Espańol, 127–136. MILEUSNIC, Zlatko 1999 Transport i transportna sredstva. Etnološka istraživanja 6, 137–156. MINGOTE CALDERÓN, José Luis 1992 Yokes for three cows: A vanished technique for breaking in cattle in la Sierra Norte of Madrid. Tools and Tillage 7 (1), 3–28. 2005 Los orígenes del yugo como divisa de Fernando Católico: La presencia de yugosparatresanimalesenlaiconografía. Zaragoza: Institución Fernando el Católico. MINHORST, Rolf 1990 The Evolution of Draft Cattle Harness in Germany. Small Farmer's Journal 15 (1), 37–46. MRKUN, Anton 1943 Etnografija velikolaškega okraja: 1. zvezek, Kmetijstvo. Videm-Dobrepolje: Knjižnica »Etnografija velikolaškega okraja«. PASTIERIKOVÁ, Marta 2005 Die Keramiksammlung des Slowakischen Nationalmuseums in Martin. In: M. Beitl, V. Plöckinger (eds.), Keramik 3. Kittsee: Ethnographisches Museum Schloss Kittsee, 106–139. PESQUIDOUX, Joseph de 1936 La Harde. Paris: Libraire Plon. PICTET, Charles 1802 Agriculture: De la Charrue du Piémont, et de la Culture d'Azigliano. Bibliothčque britannique: Agriculture anglaise 7 (10), 357–396. PLETERSKI, Andrej 1995 Model etnogeneze Slovanov na osnovi nekaterih novejših raziskav. Zgodovinski casopis 49 (4), 537–556. PODOLÁK, Ján 1969 Beitrage zur Rinderanspannung in der Slowakei. Národopisnývestník ceskoslovenský3–4 (36–37), 213–244. RAEPSAET, Georges 2002 Attelages et techniques de transport dans le monde gréco-romain. Bruxelles: Le livre Timperman. SÁFRÁNY, Zsuzsa 2003 A tükrös. Budapest: Néprajzi Múzeum. SCHEUERMEIER, Paul 1956 Bauernwerk in Italien, der italienischen und rätoromanischen Schweiz, Band II: Eine sprach- und sachkundliche Darstellung häuslichen Lebens und ländlicher Geräte. Bern: Verlag Stampfli & Cie. SCHIPPERS, Thomas 2014 Skills as Identity Markers. In: Van Gijn, A., Whittaker J. C., Anderson P. (eds.), Exploring and Explaining Diversity in Agricultural Technology. Oxford in Philadelphia: Oxbow Books, 276–277. SCHJELLERUP, Inge 1986 Ploughing in Chuquibamba, Peru. Tools and Tillage 5 (1), 180–189. SEDMAK, Drago 2004 Bovško in njegovi ljudje. In: Stanko Sivec et al. (eds.), Bovški zbornik: Ob 800-letnici prve pisne omembe župnije Bovec: 1192-1992. Tolmin: Tolminski muzej, 143–162. SIGAUT, François 1993 Le joug de cornes: Une exception européenne. In: Jean-René Trochet (ed.), Jougs, contre jougs: Catalog de l'exposition du 20 novembre 93 au 15 mars 94. Savigny-le-Temple: Ecomusée de Savigny-le-Temple, 1–7. SMERDEL, Inja 1983 Ljudsko gospodarstvo. Slovenski etnograf 33, 1–26. 1989a Ovcarstvo na Pivki: Transhumanca od srede 19. do srede 20. stoletja ali trije „ovcarji“: Etnološka razprava. Koper: Lipa. 1989b Trije „ovcarji“: (Transhumanca na Pivki v casu kapitalizma). Traditiones 18, 137–146. 1991 Prelomna in druga bistvena gospodarska dogajanja v zgodovini agrarnih panog v 19. stoletju na Slovenskem. Slovenski etnograf 33–34, 25–60. 1992 Med smrtjo na krožniku in jecarsko ljubeznijo ali o pticjem lovu v Brdih. Etnolog 2 (1), 29–78. 1994 Oselniki: Zbirka Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja = Whetstone Holders: The Collection of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum. Ljubljana: Slovenski etnografski muzej. 1995 Pastirji se vracajo (ali res?). Etnolog 5, 105–130. 2005 »Bol si pámet.n ku clóvk,« je rekel volu?: O razmerju clovek – vol v vsakdanu in kulturi pivškega kmeta. In: Boštjancic, Janko (ed.), Slavenski zbornik. Slavina: Kulturno društvo Slavina, Galerija 2, 341–380. 2007a »Les gens ressentent plus de compassion ŕ la mort d'un boeuf que lorsque meurt un homme ...«: Sur les soins pour la santé des boeufs de travail en Slovénie (aux 18e, 19e et jusqu'au dernier quart du 20e sičcle). Ethnozootechnie 79, 141–154. 2007b O skrbi za zdravje delovnih volov na Slovenskem od 18. do konca 20. stoletja. Etnolog 17, 193–208. 2008 Orala: Zbirka Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja = Ploughing Implements: The collection of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum. Ljubljana: Slovenski etnografski muzej. 2009a Le son des mots, la voix des sons: Sur la culture de communication avec les boeufs de travail en Slovénie. Ethnozootechnie 84, 49–71. 2009bZvok besed, glas zvokov: O kulturi sporazumevanja z delovnimi voli na Slovenskem. Etnolog 19, 37–77. 2011 Kaj nam lahko povedo voli na likovnih upodobitvah: O metaforicnih pomenih in vsakdanjih delovnih praksah. Etnolog 21, 103–138. 2012 Étudier les animaux en Slovénie: Des hommes et des bśufs. Ethnologie française 42 (2), 281–290. 2013 What Images of Oxen Can Tell Us: Metaphorical Meanings and Everyday Working Practices. Folk Life 51 (1), 1–32. 2014a Training Oxen Meant Training for the Children. In: van Gijn A., Whittaker J. C., Anderson P. C. (eds.), Explaining and Exploring Diversity in Agricultural Technology. Earth 2. Oxford, Havertown: Oxbow Books, 258–268. 2014b Aquiring Skills and the Transmission of Knowledge: Introduction. In: van Gijn, A., Whittaker J. C., Anderson P. C. (eds.), Explaining and Exploring Diversity in Agricultural Technology, Earth 2. Oxford, Havertown: Oxbow Books, 255–257. 2023 Prvi koraki na poti med delovne vole – ali o posameznih zacetnih spoznanjih o odnosih do živali, kakršne poraja bližina. Svetovi 1 (2), 94–105. SNOJ, Marko 1997 Slovenski etimološki slovar. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. STEINMANN, Axel 2003 Afganistan: Eine Ausstellung des Museums fürVölkerkunde Wien. Wien: Kunsthistorisches Museum mit MVK und ÖTM. SSKJ 1991 Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika, 5. knjiga T-Ž. Ljubljana: SAZU, DZS, 50. ŠUMRADA, Janez 1987 O popravilu bovške ceste na prelomu iz 14. v 15. stoletje. Zgodovinski casopis 41 (2), 313–319. ŠUŠTERŠIC, Jernej, JELNIKAR, Marko and KUMER, Jurij 1976 Pocitnice na kmetih. Ljubljana: Kmecki glas. TARRÚS, Josep idr. 2006 La Draga (Banyoles, Catalogne): Traction animale ŕ la fin du VI millénaire? In: Pétrequin, P. et al. (eds.), Premiers chariots, premiers araires: La diffusion de la traction animale en Europe pendant les IV et III millénaires avant notre čre. Paris: CNRS Éditions, 25–30. TAVCAR, Ivan 1968 [1888] Gricarjev Blaže. In: Izbrano delo 3: Med gorami. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 119–134. TERCELJ, Marija Mojca 2021 Staroselske kozmologije v okviru novih epistemoloških in politicnih teženj globalnega juga. Poligrafi 26 (103–104), 63–91. TIMAFFY, László 1968 A kisalföldi egyesigák. Ethnographia 79 (2), 170–182. UMEK, Ema 1986 Plovba po Savi v 18. stoletju. Zgodovinski casopis 40 (3), 233–268. VELUŠCEK, Anton 2006 Une roue et un essieu néolithiques dans le marais de Ljubljana (Slovénie). In: Pétrequin, P. idr. (ed.), Premiers chariots, premiers araires: La diffusion de la traction animale en Europe pendant les IV et III millénaires avant notre čre. Paris: CNRS Éditions, 39–45. VIIRES, Ants 1969 Rinderanschirrung im Baltikum. Národopisný vestník ceskoslovenský 3–4 (36–37), 121–136. VILKUNA, Kustaa 1936 Verwendung von Zugochsen in Finnland. Studia Fennica 2, 55–98. VINŠCAK, Tomo 2002 Vjerovanja o drvecu u Hrvata: U kontekstu slavistickih istraživanja. Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap. VOLPI LISJAK, Bruno 2004 Cupa, prvo slovensko plovilo, in drevaki: Prispevek k etnologiji in vprašanju etnogeneze Slovencev. Trst: Mladika. VONDRUŠKA, Vlastimil 1989 Slovník starého zemedelského náradi, nástroju a stroju (1750–1914). Praga: Stredoceské muzeum v Roztokách u Prahy. VOUGA, Paul 1923 La Tčne: Monographie de la station publiée au nom de la commission des fouilles de la Tčne. Leipzig: Karl W. Hiersemann. WALTER, Sepp 1971 Weitere Ackergeräte in der Steiermark: Joch und Jar. In: Posch, Fritz (ed.), Weitere Ackergeräte in der Steiermark, Joch und Jar. Graz: Akad. Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 38, 270–271. SOURCES Handwritten sources Archives of the (S)lovene (E)tnographic (M)useum, Ljubljana. Collection Yoke, ethnological questionnaires: • VG 1960, Answers to the Questionnaire of the Ethnographic Museum “On the equipment and harness of cattle”, published in 1960 in the Bulletin of the Slovene Ethnological Society 2 (2). • VE 1961–62. Answers to the same questionnaire contributed by individual Slovenian ethnologists in these years. • VŠ 1986–87. Answers to the “Ethnological Questionnaire on Yokes” (from 154 Slovenian primary schools), which I published in the youth magazine Pionirski list 1986/87, 39 (4): 15. SEM archives, Collection of Field Records of the so-called Orel’s field teams. SEM archives, Field Records of Inja Smerdel (I. S.) 2001–2008. My storytellers on yoke making Tone Korošec, commonly known as Zaróbnjek, b. 1928, a farmer and forest worker, Gorjuše 67. Martin Friedl, commonly known as Bríjevc, b. 1937, a farmer and worker, Reštanj 77. Jože Onetic, commonly known as Šovágin, a farmer and livestock broker, Gradec 3. Tone Brcon, b. 1925, a farmer and worker, Jelša 9. David Žiberna, b. 1984, trained carpenter; Ivan Žiberna, b. 1956, a stone-layer; Lea Žiberna, b. 1928, a housewife, commonly known as Žvábovi, Merce 11. KATALOG / CATALOGUE Uvodno besedo h katalogu zbirke jarmov (dvojnih v vseh tipskih razlicicah, njihovih enojnih primerkov in volovskih komatov, z dodanimi gožmi in deskama za oblikovanje kamb), ki jo dopolnjuje še zbirka risanih zapisov,1 sestavlja nekaj neobhodnih pojasnil in uvodna pripomba o nacinu katalogizacije. V primeru omenjene zbirke predmeti v seznamu niso razvršceni od nižjih k višjim inventarnim številkam Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja (in tako naj-veckrat tudi od najzgodnejših prihodov jarmovv zbirko k najnovejšim), temvec jim je mogoce slediti na podlagi temeljnih tipov jarma, zatilnega in vihrovega, ter njunih regionalnih oblikovnih razlicic. Urejanje kolekcije jarmov konec prvega desetletja tega stoletja je namrec tlakovalo pot k dolocitvi cim bolj jasne tipologi­je teh priprav za vpreganje, uveljavljenih na Slovenskem, kakršno je potrdil tudi pregled zbirk pokrajinskih muzejev. Na podlagi vsega omenjenega ter v primerjavi z obstojecimi tipologijami v uporabljenem tujem slovstvu – še posebej s tisto spod peresa Wolfganga Jaco­beita in Jaroslava Kramaríka v uvodu v mednarodno tematsko številko naro­dopisne revije Národopisný vestník ceskoslovenský2 – in s tisto s prve poskusne karte etnološkega atlasa Jugoslavije je nastala vsebinska osnova za kartografsko predstavitev, ki so jo leta 2011 realizirali sodelavci Geografskega inštituta Antona Melika ZRC SAZU v Ljubljani (Jerneja Fridl in David Svetina). Kartografsko predstavitevvpelje Karta Slovenije (na podlagi gradiva iz zbirke SEM) z ustrez-no legendo h kartam oblikovnih tipov po etnoloških obmocjih. Le-te so nasled­nje: Karta 1 – Alpsko obmocje z delom mediteranskega obmocja, oblikovni tipi dvojnih in enojnih zatilnih in vihrovih jarmov; Karta 2 – Panonsko obmocje z delom osrednjeslovenskega obmocja, oblikovni tipi dvojnih in enojnih okvirastih vihrovih jarmov; Karta 3 – Osrednjeslovensko in mediteransko obmocje z delom alpskega in panonskega obmocja, oblikovni tipi dvojnih kambastih vihrovih jar-mov; Karta 4 – Osrednjeslovensko in mediteransko obmocje z delom alpskega in panonskega obmocja, oblikovni tipi enojnih kambastih vihrovih jarmov. Vsaki 1 Tako kakor v publikaciji Orala tudi tu utemeljujem rabo termina »risan zapis« namesto zgolj »risba«. Etnološke risbe naj namrec ne bi zgolj prikazovale, temvec tudi pojasnjevale. Iz risanega zapisa z boljšo ali morda slabšo osebno interpretacijo lahko nastane nekaj med risanim dokumentom in likovnim delom (prim. Smerdel, Inja, Orala: Zbirka Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja = Ploughing Implements: The Collection of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum. Ljubljana: Slovenski etnografski muzej, 2008, str. 106), kar ponovno potrjujejo terenski risani zapisi o jarmih in drugih z njimi povezanih predmetih. 2 Jacobeit, Wolfgang in Kramarik, Jaroslav: Einleitung. Národopisný vestník ceskoslovenský 1969, 3–4 (36–37), str. 12. izmed štirih navedenih kart v skladu z na njih navedenimi oblikovnimi tipi sledijo ustrezni kataložni zapisi: na Karti 1 od kataložne številke 1 do 36; na Karti 2 od 37 do 53; na Karti 3 od 54 do 97; in na Karti 4 od 98 do 127. Vrstni red podatkov v kataloških enotah je naslednji: inventarna številka (= inv. št.), ime predmeta oziroma tip jarma, njegovo morebitno domace ime, kraj uporabe (ali nastanka), cas (morebitna vrezana letnica), material, temeljne mere (d = dolžina, š = širina, v = višina, g = globina, ki jim pri številnih primerkih sledijo tudi mere posameznih sestavnih delov, npr. p = premer – obicajno odprtin za kambe) in izmerjena teža (= T). Temeljnemu seznamu predmetov zbirke jarmov sledita še razdelka 'Volovska komata, goži, deski z modeloma za oblikovanje kamb' z ustreznimi zapisi pod kataložnimi številkami od 128 do 134. in 'Dvojni in enojni jarmi – modeli, igrace, spominki' pod kataložnimi številkami od 135 do 143. Na konec kataložnega dela pricujoce publikacije seda seznam risanih zapisov iz fonda ilustrativnega gradiva v Arhivu Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja ozi­roma 'Katalog risanih zapisov' – Jarmov, dvojnih in enojnih (kat. št. 1 do 72) ter desk z modeli za oblikovanje kamb (kat. št. 73 do 76). Risbe so razvršcene kro­nološko, vrstni red podatkov je naslednji: zaporedna številka, inventarna številka (= R) Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja, temeljna tipološka oznaka predmeta oziroma oblikovni tip, avtor risanega zapisa, letnica nastanka, (teren), tehnika, mere lista in zapis na risbi. Kataložni zapisi jarmov pa so poleg dolocitve cim bolj jasne tipologije teh priprav za vpreganje potebovali tudi natancno terminologijo njihovih sestavnih delov, ki do tedaj na Slovenskem ni obstajala – razen od tu in tam pritresenih ter kdaj pa kdaj zabeleženih narecnih imen posameznih delov razlicnih oblikovnih tipovjarma. Slednjih je še najvec mogoce najti vodgovorih na etnološke vprašal-nice iz Fonda jarem (VG 1960, VE 1961–62, VŠ 1986–87; gl. npr. slik. pril.); in uboren vpogled vanje le v redkih primerih ponuja tudi 'Katalog risanih zapisov'. V širšem evropskem okolju pa je bil kot razmeroma natancen – z risbo (gl. slik. pril.), a le za vihrove jarme (pri drugih oblikovnih tipih naj bi sledile ustrezne prilagoditve, tudi opisne), na uvodnih straneh prej omenjene mednarodne tem­atske številke revije Národopisný vestník ceskoslovenský vendarle najden primer tovrstne terminologije, kakršno sta predlagala njena urednika.3 Jacobeit, Wolfgang in Kramarik, Jaroslav: Einleitung. Národopisný vestník ceskoslovenský 1969, 3–4 (36–37), str. 13. Toda zdelo se je neobhodno potrebno (tudi zavoljo morebitnega prevajanja) domisliti novo (z rabo posameznih starih, uveljavljenih imen), jasno in nedvoum-no terminologijo; poimenovanje posameznih sestavnih delov jarma glede na nji-hove oblike, lego in namembnost (na primer »palicasta obvratna zapornica«).4 Slednje je bilo že uspešno uporabljeno pri katalogizaciji kolekcije jarmov SEM, na tem mestu pa ga pomagajo razumeti spodaj priložene fotografske skice. INTRODUCTION TO THE CATALOGUE OF THE OBJECT COLLECTION AND THE COLLECTION OF DRAWN RECORDS The introduction to the catalogue of the yoke collection (double yokes in all type variants, their single versions and oxen collars, with added pole rings and boards with bow forms) with the accompanying collection of drawn records5 brings some necessary commentaries and notes on the cataloguing method. In this collection, the listed objects are not classified from lower to higher inventory numbers of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum (which most often im­plies from the earliest to the most recently acquired yokes), but are organized based on two main yoke types, the head yoke and the withers yoke, and their re­gional design variants. This decision derives from the museum’s yoke collection, which was organized at the end of the first decade of this century and served as the basis for defining as coherent a typology as possible for these harnessing de­vices that were once widely used in Slovenia; the relevance of this typologywas confirmed also by the review of the collections held by regional museums. This, and the comparison with the existing typologies used in foreign litera­ture – in the first place byWolfgang Jacobeit and Jaroslav Kramarík in the intro­duction to the thematic issue of the ethnographic journal Národopisný vestník 4 Nekaj nadaljnjih primerov poimenovanja: – sticišce ojésa (rala, voza) ali vprežnega droga (plužnih kolc) in jarma, teleg ali ižesa = gožin sedež; – najpogosteje lesen klin, s katerim se pritrdi jarem na oje = pregelj; – krajša lesena palicasta nastavka, vtaknjena horizontalno v igo, med katera je sedala blazina in je bila nanju pritrjena oziroma privezana z usnjenimi jermeni = rožica; zgornje bruno pri vihrovih kambastih jarmih in pri telegah = jarmovo telo; spodnje bruno pri telegah ter stranski in notranji palici ali letvi, ki ga povezujeta z jarmovim telesom = podvratna zapornica, notranja obvratna zapornica, zunanja obvratna zapornica (palicasta ali letvasta); ukrivljena lesena palica, ki objema vrat živali = kamba; pri enojnih jarmicih živalski vrat lahko objema tudi iz dveh lesenih letev ali premicnih kovinskih obvratnih zapornic sestavljena = klešcasta kamba; itd. 5 Like in the book Ploughing Implements I use the term “drawn record” rather than simply a “drawing”. My point is that ethnological drawings serve not only to present, but also to interprete. Through personal interpretation, whetherwell-informed or not, it can become something between a drawn document and a work of art (comp. Smerdel, Inja, Orala: Zbirka Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja = Ploughing Implements: The Collection of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum. Ljubljana: Slovenski etnografski muzej, 2008, 106), as reaffirmed by fieldnotes with drawn records on yokes and related objects. ceskoslovenský6 – and the one used for the first trial map of the ethnological at­las of Yugoslavia, served as the basis for the cartographic presentation completed in 2011 by the Anton Melik Geographical Institute of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts (ZRC SAZU) in Ljubljana (Jerneja Fridl and David Svetina). The cartographic presentation begins with the Map of Slovenia (based on the materials from the SEM collection) with a corresponding legend to the maps of design types by ethnological regions. These include: Map 1 – Alpine region with part of the Mediterranean region, variants of double and single head and withers yokes; Map 2 – Pannonian region with part of central Slovenia, variants of dou­ble and single frame withers yokes; Map 3 – Central Slovenia and the Mediter­ranean region with part of the Alpine and Pannonian regions, variants of double bow withers yokes; Map 4 – Central Slovenia and the Mediterranean region, with part of the Alpine and Pannonian regions, variants of single bow withers yokes; Each of these maps of the relevant design variants is followed by corre­sponding catalogue records: Map 1 with catalogue numbers 1–36; Map 2 with numbers 37–53; Map 3 with numbers 54–97; Map 4 with numbers 98 through 127. The data in catalogue units are ordered as follows: inventory number (= inv. no.), name of object or type of yoke, its local name, if any, place of use (or manu­facture), date (inscribed year, if any), material, dimensions (l = length, w = width, h = height, d = depth, for many specimens also the measurements of component parts, e.g. D = diameter – usually of bow holes) and weight (= W). The primary list of objects in the yoke collection is followed by section “Ox collars, pole rings, boards with bow forms” with descriptions under catalogue numbers 128–134, and chapter “Double and single yokes – models, toys, souve­nirs” under catalogue numbers 135–143. The catalogue section of this publication concludes with the list of drawn re­cords from the visual materials fond of the Slovenian Ethnographic Museum Ar­chive, i.e. the “Catalogue of Drawn Records” – Yokes, Double and Single (cat. nos. 1–72) and boards with bow forms (cat. nos. 73–76). The drawings are organized chronologically, with data listed in the following order: consecutive number, in­ventory number ( = R ) of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum, basic typological term or design type, author of the drawn record, year of the note, (site), tech­nique, sheet size, and notes to the drawing. Jacobeit, Wolfgang and Kramarik, Jaroslav: Einleitung. Národopisný vestník ceskoslovenský 1969, 3–4 (36–37), 12. Equallyimportant as a clear typology of these harnessing devices was a pre­cise terminology for their component parts, which in the absence of such (ex­cept for occasionally recorded dialect names for individual parts of various yoke design types collected from here and there) had to be developed specially for the catalogue of these harnessing devices. Most local terms can be found in an­swers to ethnological questionnaires from the Yoke Fond (VG 1960, VE 1961–62, VŠ 1986–87; see e.g. the pict. appendix), and just a small fraction (in few cases) in the Catalogue of Drawn Records. In the broader European context, the in­troduction to the already mentioned international thematic issue of the journal Národopisnývestník ceskoslovenský offered a relatively precise terminology that was proposed by its editors7 and accompanied with illustrations (see pict. app.). The terminologywas limited to withers yokes, but corresponding adaptations, including descriptive ones, were expected for other design types. Nevertheless, it appeared necessary (also for the purpose of subsequent trans­lations) to come up with a new, clear, and unambiguous terminology in Slovene (using certain old, established names); to assign names to component parts of the yoke based on their shape, position, and purpose (e.g. a “stick-like neck lock” to describe the outer stave). 8 This method was successfully used in cataloguing SEM’s yoke collection and is herein complemented with photographic sketches shown below for better understanding. 7 Jacobeit, Wolfgang and Kramarik, Jaroslav: Einleitung. Národopisný vestník ceskoslovenský 1969, 3–4 (36–37), 12. 8 Other examples include: – the contact of the (ard, cart) drawbar or tug pole (of a forecarriage) and the yoke, telege or igo = pole ring seat; a more standard term hitch point is used in the English version of the catalogue; a (most often wooden) peg used to attach the yoke to the drawbar = linchpin; – short wooden pegs inserted horizontally into the yoke to hold a pad that was attached or tied to them with leather straps = hornlets; the upper beam in withers bow and frame yokes or telege = yoke beam/yoke body; the bottom beam in telege with side and inner rods or slats that connect it to the yoke beam = underneck crosspiece, inner stave, outer stave (made from rods or laths); a bent wooden rod embracing the animal’s neck = bow; in a single yoke the animal’s neck can be embraced also by a bow composed of two flat wooden laths or movable metal shafts that I call neck locks = tong-shaped bow; etc. POIMENOVANJA DELOV JARMOV / TERMINOLOGY OFYOKE PARTS OVRATNIKAST ZATILNI JAREM / HEAD COLLARED YOKE gožin sedež seat of the beam (pole) ring (hitch point) jermen za privezovanje blazine pad strap ROŽICKAST ZATILNI JAREM / HEAD HORNED (OR HORNLET) YOKE ovratnik gožin sedež collar (nape seat) horns, hornlets clenasta železna gož articulated iron beam (pole ring) PALICAST ZATILNI JAREM / HEAD STICK YOKE sedež jermenaste goži seat or opening for the leather strap beam (pole) ring ožji skledicast ovratnik narrow bowl-shaped collar (nape seat) OKVIRASTVIHROV JAREM / notranja (letvena) WITHERS FRAME YOKE obvratna zapora inner stave pregelj linchpin zunanja (palicasta) obvratna zapora podvratna zapora outer stick-like neck lock (outer stave) under-neck lock (crosspiece) KLJUKASTVIHROV JAREM / WITHERS HOOK YOKE ovratik collar (neck seat) zunanja palicasta vratna zapora outer stick-like neck lock gožin sedež (outer stave) seat of the beam (pole) ring (hitch point) jermenasta gož leather strap pregelj linchpin kljuka hook KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / WITHERS BOW YOKE rogljicast gožin sedež crescent-shaped seat of the krona ovratnik beam (pole) ring (hitch point) crown collar (neck seat) hribec gožinega sedeža hillock under the hitch point jarmovo telo gož iz trte yoke body (beam) oiser beam ring kamba bow KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / OKVIRAST (KLEŠCASTO-KAMBAST) VIHROV JAREM / WITHERS FRAME TONG BOW YOKE vrtljiv obroc s kavljem za letvena ojnico klešcasta forged swivel kamba with hook for tong-shaped the shafts bow KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / WITHERS BOW YOKE železen obroc z zanko za ojnico iron ring with an eye link for the shaft kambin zatic bow pin vprežna veriga harness chain KATALOG PREDMETOV / CATALOGUE OF OBJECTS KATALOG JARMOV, DVOJNIH IN ENOJNIH / CATALOGUE OFYOKES, DOUBLE AND SINGLE Map of Slovenia (based on the materials from the SEM collection) with the design types of double and single yokes. Legend to the maps of design types by ethnological regions. The typology is based on the materials from the Slovene Ethnographic Museum. The rough boundaries (grey contours) of broader or stricter areas of specific design types are based on collections of regional museums and other sources. KARTA 1 / MAP 1 ALPSKO OBMOCJE Z DELOM MEDITERANSKEGA OBMOCJA – OBLIKOVNI TIPI DVOJNIH IN ENOJNIH ZATILNIH IN VIHROVIH JARMOV / DOUBLE AND SINGLE HEAD AND WITHERS YOKES ALPINE REGION WITH PART OF THE MEDITERRANEAN REGION OVRATNIKAST ZATILNI JAREM / dvojni, igň / Borjana / 1881 / orehov les / d = 120 cm / š skledicastih ovratnikov = 27,5 cm / v na sredi skled. ovrat. = 11 cm / g skled. ovrat. = 15 cm Ovratnikast zatilni jarem je leta 1951, na Terenu 7 (Kobarid), pridobila ekipa Etnograf­skega muzeja. Podaril ga je Miha Špolad iz Gornje Borjane 40, kjer naj bi ga bili upora­bljali do leta 1900. Devetnajst let pred tem ga je izdelal kolar – »bognar« iz Breginja. V masiven, lepo oblikovan igo, katerega vrhnji del na levi in desni strani (od odprtin nad skledicastima ovratnikoma do obeh koncev ižesa) krasijo trije nizi luskastih vrezov, je spredaj na sredini pod gožinim sedežem vrezan Kristusov monogram IHS z latinskim križem (crux ordinaria). Levo od njega je vrezana letnica 1881, na desni strani (torej pri levem, najpogosteje prirocnem volu) pa sonce. Pri obeh zunanjih odprtinah za jermena za privezovanje ižesa na glavi živali so na njegovi zadnji strani vidne luknjice žebljev, s katerimi sta bila pribita. Jarem naj bi bil narejen iz orehovine; stari zapis v inventarni knjigi drugace omenja bukovino. HEAD COLLARED YOKE / double, igň / Borjana / 1881 / walnut / l = 120 cm / wof bowl-shaped nape seats = 27.5 cm / nape seat h = 11 cm / nape seat d = 15 cm The Ethnographic Museum team acquired the head yoke on Site 7 (Kobarid) in 1951. It was donated by Miha Špolad from Gornja Borjana 40, where it is believed to have been used until 1900. It was made nineteen years prior by a wheelwright (bognar) from Breginj. The well-crafted solid wood igň with the Christogram HIS and a Latin cross (crux ordinaria) carved in the front centre under the hitch point is decorated on the top left and right sides with three rows of scalyincisions running from the openings above the nape seats to each end of the yoke). The year 1881 is incised to the left of the Christogram, and a sun to its right (i.e. on the left, near ox’s side). Both outer openings for the straps that tie the yoke to the animal’s head have visible nail holes on the back, where theywere attached. The yoke is presumably made of walnut, but an old note in the inventory book mentions beech. OVRATNIKAST ZATILNI JAREM / dvojni, igň / Koritnica / 1850 / javorjev les, železo, usnje / d = 100,5 cm / š skled. ovrat. = 23 cm / v na sredi ovrat. = 10,5 cm / g ovrat. = 9 cm (levi), 10 cm (desni) / T ižesa = 3,92 kg / T clenaste železne goži = 1,74 kg Ovratnikast zatilni jarem je leta 1952, na Terenu 8 (Trenta), pridobila ekipa Etnografske­ga muzeja. Skupaj s clenasto železno gožjo, »crco« EM 6799, in eno blazino, »pouštrom« EM 6800 (ta manjka; bila je vsa iz tekstila, s prišitim rdecim križem »za sreco pri živini«), ju je muzeju podaril Franc Mlekuž, hišno ime pri Špiku, Koritnica 26. Prvotni zapis v inventarni knjigi pravi, da so igo uporabljali za vprego volov ali krav. Splošno naj bi bili takšni zatilni jarmi v rabi do prve svetovne vojne in pri posameznih kmetih še do druge svetovne vojne. Igo ima na sprednji strani vrezano (ne najbolje vidno) let-nico 1850. Gožin sedež je okovan; tvorita ga dva vstavljena debelejša železna nastavka, »cveka«, in na sredini železna zanka, »rinka«. Globina skledicastih ovratnikov se razli­kuje; leva žival je imela širšega. Ocitno je bil levi, prirocni vol mocnejši, tisti, kateremu so »naložili«; saj o tem pricajo tudi sledi rabe na spodnjem okovanem delu ižesa, ki ni samo obrabljen, temvec je dobesedno vdrt od sredine proti levemu volu. Obrabljen je tudi les na zadnji strani in vdrt je sprednji železen trak. Slednji je na igo pribit s tremi kovanimi žeblji, spodnji s štirimi, gornji trak okovanega gožinega sedeža pa z dvema žebljema. Na zadnji strani ižesa je z žeblji pritrjen le še en usnjen trak (od dveh; dolg 218 cm, širok 1,8 cm) oziroma jermen za privezovanje zatilnega jarma okoli rogov na volovske glave. Igo je dobro ohranjen, le njegov skrajni desni del je za nekaj centimetrov odlomljen. HEAD COLLARED YOKE / double, igň / Koritnica / 1850 / maple / iron, leather / l = 100.5 cm / w of bowl-shaped nape seats = 23 cm / nape seat h = 10.5 cm / nape seat d = 9 cm (left), 10 cm (right) / yoke W = 3.92 kg / W of articulated iron pole ring = 1.74 kg The Ethnographic Museum team acquired the yoke on Site 8 (Trenta) in 1952. Together with the articulated iron pole ring, crca, EM 6799, and a pad, pouštr, EM 6800 (missing; it was a fabric pad with a red cross sawn to it “for good luck with the animals”), it was donated to the museum by Franc Mlekuž, house name Pri Špiku, Koritnica 26. The orig­inal description in the inventory book says it was used to harness oxen or cows. Such head yokes were generally in use until World War I, by some farmers even until World War II. The yoke has the year 1850 carved on the front face (not very clear). The forged iron hitch point is composed of two inserted thick iron dowels on each side of the iron eyepiece (rinka) in the middle. Nape seats are of different depth; the left animal’s nape seat is wider. The left, near-side ox was obviously stronger and carried the bulk of the load. This is confirmed byvisible use marks on the lower, reinforced side of the yoke, which not only shows signs of wear and tear, but is visibly dented from the middle to­wards the left ox. Equallyworn out is the wood at the back, and the front iron band is dented. The latter is nailed to the yoke with three forged nails, the bottom band is driven with four, and the band on the top of the forged hitch point with two nails. Only one (of two) leather straps (218 cm long, 1.8 cm wide) used to fasten horns to the head yoke is still nailed to the rear side of the yoke. The yoke is in good condition, only the right end had a few centimetres chipped off. OVRATNIKAST ZATILNI JAREM / dvojni, toplš uiga / Melvice (Mellweg) / javorjev les / d = 94 cm / š skled. ovrat. = 23 cm / v sredi ovrat. = 8 cm (levi), 9,5 cm(desni)/g ovrat. = 11 cm / g na sredi temeljnega lesenega dela = 5 cm / T = 2,74 kg S posredovanjem dr. Pavla Zablatnika je ta ovratnikast zatilni jarem, »toplš uiga«, muze­ju podaril Franc Popatnik, hišno ime pri Kovacu, iz Melvic v Ziljski dolini na Koroškem. Kot dan vhoda je zapisan 30. marec 1961. Igo ima na srednjem delu, levo in desno od gožinega sedeža, izrezani po dve pravokotni odprtini za jermena. Na sprednji strani sta še zabita dva kovana žeblja, s katerima sta bila jermena najverjetneje pribita (kakor pri št. 2). Oba skledicasta dela ovratnikov imata na sredini po dve majhni okrogli odprtini za pretikanje vrvice blazin oziroma za privezovanje blazin na igo. Desni skledicast ovratnik oziroma ovratnik levega vola (vecjega, mocnejšega) je globlji, vecji. Njegov skrajni, zu­nanji del je pocen (pri grci); drugace je igo dobro ohranjen. HEAD COLLARED YOKE / double, toplš uiga / Melvice (Mellweg) / maple / l = 94 cm / w of bowl-shaped nape seats = 23 cm / nape seat h = 8 cm (left), 9.5 cm (right)/ nape seat d = 11 cm / d in the centre of the yoke beam = 5 cm / W = 2.74 kg This head yoke with bowl-shaped nape seats, toplš uiga, was donated to the museum by Franc Popatnik, house name pri Kovacu, from Melvice in the Gailtal/Zilja Valley in Carin-thia, at the initiative of Dr. Pavel Zablatnik. The recorded date of entry is 30 March 1961. The yoke has two rectangularstrap openings cut out in the centre, to the left and right of the hitch point. Two forged nails are still driven into the front face, where they held the straps in place (like in no. 2). Both bowl-shaped nape pockets are pierced with two small holes through which the twine that held pads onto the yoke was passed. The right nape seat on the side of the left (bigger, stronger) ox is bigger and deeper. Its extreme outer part is cracked (at the gnarl), but otherwise the yoke is in good condition. OVRATNIKAST ZATILNI JAREM / enojni, jegů / Kal / orehov les, železo / š = 67,5 cm / g = 10,5 cm / v = 13 cm / v ovrat. = 7,5 cm / š ovrat. = 24 cm / T = 2,16 kg Enojni ovratnikast zatilni jarem, »jegů«, je leta 1952, na Terenu 8 (Trenta), pridobila ekipa Etnografskega muzeja. Podaril ga je Jože Komac, hišno ime pri Cotniku, Kal 11. Prvotni zapis v inventarni knjigi pravi, da so ga uporabljali za eno kravo ali vola. Enoj­ni igo je na gornjem robu na obeh koncih krašen s stranskimi konkavnimi vrezi, med njimi pa ima crtno, preprosto vrezani šestkraki zvezdi (ali morda le Andrejev križ, crux decussata (zašcita za zdravje vprežnih živali), s precno crto). Levo stran spodaj in desno zgoraj predirata pravokotni odprtini za pretikanje jermena; viden je žebelj, s katerim je bil slednji pribit. Na obeh koncih sta z železnimi obroci pritrjeni zanki, na kateri so pri vpreganju nasadili ojnici. Povezavo so zaprli z lesenima rogovilama v obliki crke Y; ena izmed njiju še visi na vrvici z desne strani ižesa. Skledicast ovratnik je bil pocen ter so ga vidno zakrpali oziroma utrdili z manjšim kosom plocevine zgoraj in vecjim kosom spodaj (pribitima z žeblji). HEAD COLLARED YOKE / single, jegů / Kal / walnut, iron / w = 67.5 cm / d = 10.5 cm / h = 13 cm / nape seat h = 7.5 cm / nape seat w = 24 cm / W = 2.16 kg The Ethnographic Museum team acquired this single head collared yoke, jegů, on Site 8 (Trenta) in 1952 as a donation from Jože Komac, house name Pri Cotniku, Kal 11. The original record in the inventory log says it was used for a cow or ox. The upper edge of the yoke is decorated on both ends with lateral concave incisions. Incised between them are simple lines forming six-pointed stars (orperhaps a St. Andrew’s cross, crux decussa­ta, with a cross-bar, as a symbol of protection). The bottom left and top right are pierced with rectangular openings for the strap; the nail that kept the strap in place is visible. The forged iron rings on both ends hold the loops to which the shafts were mounted when harnessing. The connection was closed with Y-shaped tree branches, one of them still hangs on a twine on the right side of the yoke. The crack in the bowl-shaped nape seat was patched up, i.e. fortified with a small piece of sheet metal nailed onto the top and a larger piece onto the bottom. OVRATNIKAST ZATILNI JAREM / enojni / javorjev les, železo / š = 70 cm / g = 8,5 cm / v = 17,5 cm / v ovrat. = 10 cm / š ovrat. = 33,5 cm / T = 2,86 kg Nacin pridobitve ni znan. Glede na izvedbo je ta enojni zatilni jarem soroden primerku iz Gorenjskega muzeja v Kranju z inventarno številko E 2114, na podlagi cesar ga je po krajevnem izvoru mogoce umestiti v Gornjesavsko dolino. Krašen je z nekaj luskastimi vrezi spredaj in zadaj ob robu skledicastega ovratnika. Vrh srednjega dela ima dva lus­kasta vreza, ki ucinkujeta kakoroko. Obe pravokotni odprtini za pretikanje jermena ta ovratnikast zatilni jarem predirata na levi strani ob ovratniku spodaj in zgoraj. Na obeh koncih ižesa iz železnih zank visita ovalna clena za ojnici. HEAD COLLARED YOKE / single / maple, iron / w = 70 cm / d = 8.5 cm / h = 17.5 cm / nape seat h = 10 cm / nape seat w = 33.5 cm / W = 2.86 kg The mode of acquisition is unknown. In terms of its execution this single head yoke is similar to the specimen from the Gorenjska Museum in Kranj with inventory number E 2114, based on which its provenance can be located in the Upper Sava Valley. It is decorated with several scaly incisions on the front and rear face on the edge of the bowl-shaped nape seat. The two scaly incisions on the top of the middle section give the appearance of an eye. Both rectangular strap openings pierce through the yoke on the left side of the nape seat, one on the top and the other at the bottom. The iron rings on each end of the yoke have oval links for attaching the shafts. KRONASTO-PALICAST ZATILNI JAREM / dvojni / najverjetneje lipov les / d = 99 cm / v = 16 cm / š poudarjenega dela ovrat. = 15,5 cm / v pri vratu = 2 cm / g = 6,5 cm / g ovrat. = 7 cm in 7,5 cm (levi vol) / T = 1,88 kg Krajši dvojni zatilni jarem z izjemno visokim in plošcatim srednjim delom, s skoraj­da pravokotno krono z gožinim sedežem, je brez znanega nacina pridobitve. Tipološko je soroden posameznim primerkom iz zbirke Tolminskega muzeja in zbirke Loškega muzeja – po izvoru iz Baške grape. Je neokrašen, z vidnimi sledovi temnorjave poslikave. Na vršicih na obeh koncih plošcatega in visokega srednjega dela ima vrezana zašcitna Andrejeva križa (crux decussata). HEAD CROWN-TOPPED STICK YOKE / double / most likely linden / l = 99 cm / h = 16 cm / wof the prominent part of the nape seat = 15.5 cm / h at the neck = 2 cm / d = 6.5 cm / nape seat d = 7 cm and 7.5 cm (left ox) / W = 1.88 kg The mode of acquisition of this, rather short double head yoke with a very high and flat middle part that has an almost rectangular crown over the hitch point is unknown. In terms of typology, it is similar to certain specimens from the Tolmin Museum and Škofja Loka Museum collections, which originate from the Baca Ravine (Baška grapa). It is un­decorated, with visible traces of dark brown paint. A St. Andrew’s cross (crux decussata) is incised on each of the square “peaks” on both ends of the raised, flat crown. ROŽICKAST ZATILNI JAREM / dvojni, jegú / Srednji Vrh / 1924 / najverjetneje javorjev les / d = 120 cm / v srednjega dela = 11 cm / š jarmovega telesa (na sredi) = 7,4 cm / g ovrat. = 10 cm / d lesenih rožicev = 25 cm / p = 2 cm (zgoraj), 3 cm (spodaj) / T ižesa = 3,90 kg / T clenaste železne goži = 2,12 kg Igo je bil leta 1955 kupljen od Janeza Mertlja v Srednjem Vrhu 8 pri Martuljku. Na sprednji strani je na robu na sredi gožinega sedeža vrezana letnica 1924; nad obema ovratnikoma pa sta na robu vrezana Andrejeva križa (crux decussata). Iz leve in desne strani vsakega ovratnika naprej štrlita lesena rožica, »cveka« (ali žeblja), ki sta na koncu malce odebeljena. Okoli njiju, okoli rogov in cez blazino so z jermenom privezovali igo na glavo vprežne živali. »Jegú« je bil pridobljen skupaj s clenasto železno gožjo ali »crco« (podobno kot pri št. 2) in je dobro ohranjen primerek HEAD HORNED (or hornlet) YOKE / double, jegú / Srednji Vrh / 1924 / most likely maple / l = 120 cm / midpoint h = 11 cm / yoke beam w (in the centre) = 7.4 cm / nape seat d = 10 cm / hornlet l = 25 cm / D = 2 cm (top), 3 cm (bottom) / yoke W = 3.90 kg / W of the articulated iron pole ring = 2.12 kg This yoke was purchased in 1955 from Janez Mertelj in Srednji Vrh 8, Martuljek. The year 1924 is carved on the edge of the front face in the middle of the hitch point. A St. Andrew’s cross (crux decussata) is incised on the edge above each nape seat. A wooden hornlet (cvek or treenail) protrudes forward to the left and right of each nape seat, each slightly thicker at the bottom. The straps that held the yoke to the head of the draught animal were wrapped around these hornlets, the horns, and across the pad. The jegú was acquired together with the articulated iron pole ring called crca (similar to the one in no. 2) and is good condition. ROŽICKASTZATILNI JAREM / dvojni / bukov les, rožici iz jesenovine / d = 120 cm / v = 12 cm / g = 6 cm / š poudarjenega dela ovrat. (med rožicema) = 24 cm / v pri vratu = 3,5 cm / g ovrat. = 9 cm / d rožicev = 22 cm / T = 4,12 kg Nacin pridobitve ni znan. Igo ima navzdol zaobljeno poudarjen srednji del pod gožinim sedežem. Vanj je simetricno plitvo vrezana deljena letnica 19 09 in pravna sredini velika zacetnica A ter številke 25/4 (datum?). Vrh gožinega sedeža je krašen z vrezanimi kanali in razpotegnjenimi lunicastimi vrezi. Na obeh ovratnikih zgoraj sta na sredini Andrejeva križa (crux decussata), izvedena z lunicastimi vrezi; kot okraska in še posebej kot zašcita. Je brez parov majhnih okroglih odprtin, skozi katere so pretikali vrvice za privezovanje blazin (kakor pri primerkih št. 2 in št. 7; vsa druga ižesa v zbirki te odprtine imajo). HEAD HORNED (or hornlet) YOKE / double / beech, hornlets ash / l = 120 cm / h = 12 cm / d = 6 cm / w of the prominent part of the nape seat (between the hornlets) = 24 cm / h at the neck = 3.5 cm / nape seat d = 9 cm / hornlet l = 22 cm / W = 4.12 kg The mode of acquisition is unknown. The yoke has a rounded notch carved under the hitch point. It has a symmetrical shallow engraving of the year 1909 split in two, and the capital A and numbers 25/4 (date?), also incised in the middle. The top of the hitch point is decorated with incised furrows and elongated crescent cuts, and the top centre of each nape seat with a cross of St. Andrew (crux decussata) made up of crescent in­cisions; the crosses serving both as decoration and, even more importantly, protection. The yoke is without the small double holes through which the strings that held pads in place were passed (like in specimens nos. 2 and 7; all other double head yokes in the collection have these holes). ROŽICKAST ZATILNI JAREM / dvojni / bukov les, tudi rožici, razen enega notranje­ga iz jesenovine / d = 92,5 cm / v = 10 cm / g = 7,5 cm / š ovrat. (med rožicema) = 21 cm / v pri vratu = 3 cm / g ovrat. = 9 cm in 10 cm (levi vol) / d rožicev = 22 cm (oba zunanja), 21 cm (desni notranji) in 23 cm (levi notranji) / T = 2,90 kg. Nacin pridobitve ni znan. Krajši, preprosto izveden igo, neokrašen in brez križev; z navzdol poudarjenim srednjim delom pod gožinim sedežem, vendar manj izrazitim ka­kor pri primerku št. 8. Zdi se, kakor da bi bil pokapljan s crno barvo (najverjetneje sekundarno, po koncu rabe). HEAD HORNED (or hornlet) YOKE / double / beech, including the hornlets, except for one of the inner hornlets, which is made of ash / l = 92.5 cm / h = 10 cm / d = 7.5 cm / nape seat w (between the hornlets) = 21 cm / h at the neck = 3 cm / nape seat d = 9 cm and 10 cm (left ox) / hornlet l = 22 cm (both outer), 21 cm (inner right) and 23 cm (inner left) / W = 2.90 kg. The mode of acquisition is unknown. A short, simple head yoke, undecorated and with­out crosses; the arched central part under the hitch point is less prominent than in spec­imen no. 8. It appears to have caught some dripping black paint (probablyafter active use). ROŽICKAST ZATILNI JAREM / dvojni, jegú / Podvolovljek / javorjev les, tekstil / d = 121 cm / v (srednjega dela) = 11 cm / g = 6,8 cm / š ovrat. (med rožicema) = 30 cm / v pri vratu = 4 cm (levi vol) in 4,5 cm (desni vol) / g ovrat. = 6,8 cm / d rožicev = 23 cm / p = od 2 (zgoraj) do 3,5 cm (spodaj) / T = 3,52 kg Igo je bil kupljen za muzej leta 1957, pri Jakobu Plazniku v Podvolovljeku. Namesto gožinega sedeža, na kakršne so obešali clenaste železne goži ali takšne iz trte, sta sredi ižesa izdelani dve pravokotni odprtini za usnjeno jermenasto gož z lesenim pregljem. Nad njima je na prednji strani vrezan zašcitni Andrejev križ (crux decussata). Poleg do-bro ohranjenega zatilnega jarma sta bili pridobljeni tudi obe blazini, »pouštra«, vendar v razpadajocem stanju (in potrebni restavriranja). Izdelani sta iz cunj in merita 45 cm v dolžino ter od 30 (spredaj) do 27 cm (zadaj) v širino. Na gornji strani, ki je iz vrecevine, ima ena blazina prišit grški križ (crux quadrata) iz rdecih platnenih trakov (apotropej-ska barva in znamenje), druga pa prav tako rdec krog med dvema crtama. Približno na sredini, tam kjer sta sedali med rožice, sta obe malce ožji. Na tem delu sta skoznju pre­taknjeni vrvici, s katerima so blazini privezovali skozi odprtine obeh ovratnikov na igo. HEAD HORNED (or hornlet) YOKE / double, jegú / Podvolovljek / maple, textile / l = 121 cm / h (of the middle section = 11 cm / d = 6.8 cm / nape seat w (between the hornlets) = 30 cm / h at the neck = 4 cm (left ox) and 4.5 cm (right ox) / nape seat d = 6.8 cm / hornlet l = 23 cm / D = from 2 cm (top) to 3.5 cm (bottom) / W = 3.52 kg The yoke was purchased forthe museum in 1957 from Jakob Plaznik in Podvolovljek. The hitch point that held articulated iron pole rings or those braded with osier is re­placed here with two rectangular openings for the leather strap with a wooden linchpin. Above them, a St. Andrew’s cross (crux decussata) is incised on the front face for pro­tection. The well-preserved head yoke was acquired together with the pads (pouštrs), which were in poorcondition (and required restoration). The pads are made of rags and measure 45 cm in length and 30 (front) to 27 cm (back) in width. One of the pads has a Greek cross (crux quadrata) made from red linen strips (apotropaic colour and mark) sewn to the burlap top, and the other a red circle between two lines. Both are slightly more narrow around the middle, where they sat between the hornlets. The twines with which the pads were tied through the holes piercing the nape seats are attached at this mid part of the pad. ROŽICKAST ZATILNI JAREM / dvojni / nedognan les, rožici iz jesenovine / d = 114,5 cm / v = 10,5 cm / g = 6,5 cm / š poudarjenega dela ovrat. (med rožicema) = 23 cm / v pri vratu = 1,5 cm / g ovrat. = 8 cm/ d rožicev = 23 cm / T = 3,30 kg Primerek sodi v tako imenovano Strgarjevo zbirko jarmov, ki naj bi po pripovedovanju darovalca izvirali iz zgornje Savinjske doline. Muzej je namrec leta 1990 od zbiralca dr. Staneta Strgarja iz Ljubljane odkupil pet oselnikov iz zgornje Savinjske doline, obenem pa je gospod Strgar muzeju podaril tudi svojo zbirko jarmov. Zbiralec, ljubitelj vsega lepega, je od 60. let 20. stoletja hodil na lovv Luce in v kraje nad njimi. Zbrane predmete je nabiral na visokogorskih kmetijah, ki jih je obiskoval med zalezovanjem gamsov. Po-darjeni jarmi so najverjetneje s konca 19. ali z zacetka 20. stoletja. Tedaj ko jih je zbiral, naj bi bili stari vsaj že petdeset let, po izrocilu »še od prejšnje generacije«. Preprost, neokrašen rožickast zatilni jarem, tudi brez zašcitnih križev, je premazan s temno lazuro – enako kakorvsi drugi primerki iz Strgarjeve zbirke. HEAD HORNED (or hornlet) YOKE / double / unidentified wood, hornlets ash / l = 114.5 cm / h = 10.5 cm / d = 6.5 cm / w of the prominent part of the nape seat (between the hornlets) = 23 cm / h at the neck = 1.5 cm / nape seat d = 8 cm / hornlet l = 23 cm / W = 3.30 kg The specimen is one of the yokes from the so-called Strgar’s yoke collection, which according to the donor originate from the upper Savinja Valley. In 1990, the museum purchased five whetstone cases from the collector Dr. Stane Strgar from Ljubljana, who at the time also donated his yoke collection. In the 1960s and later, the collector, who was an enthusiast for all things beautiful, used to go hunting to Luce and the surround­ing mountains. He collected the objects from high-mountaint farmsteads, which he vis­ited on his chamois hunt. The donated yokes probably date to the late 19th or early 20th century. At the time when he obtained them, theywere said to be at least 50 years old, “from the previous generation”. This simple, undecorated yoke with hornlets has no pro­tective crosses, but is painted with a dark stain – like all other specimens from the Strgar collection. ROŽICKASTZATILNI JAREM / dvojni, jégu / javorjev les, tudi vsi rožici / d = 172 cm / v = 9 cm / g = 6–7 cm / š ovrat. (med rožicema) = 28 cm (levi vol) in 26 cm (desni vol) / v pri vratu = 2 cm / g ovrat. = 6–7 cm / d rožicev = 22 cm / T = 3,86 kg Nacin pridobitve tega primerka je razkrila fotografija Borisa Orla, posneta 1. septem-bra 1960 (F I/716, fototeka SEM), med njegovim sklepnim raziskovanjem rala v zgornji Savinjski dolini – na gorskih kmetijah nad Ljubnim ob Savinji. Gospodar kmetije Marout na Planini 14, Lojz Štiftar, je Orlu ta rožickast zatilni jarem opisal kot »jégu za oranje v bregu«. Gre za preprosto izdelan, neokrašen, zelo dolg igo. Zanj so najverjetneje upo­rabili naravno ukrivljeno vejo ali tanjše deblo (opazni so ostanki lubja). Zavoljo tega je gožin sedež skoraj povsem nepoudarjen in tudi ovratnika nista nic širša. Morda je kakor okras mogoce videti sedem lukenj v krogu, narejenih na obeh koncih ižesa. Na njegovi sredini sta izrezani dve pravokotni odprtini za jermenasto gož. HEAD HORNED (or hornlet) YOKE / double, jégu / maple, including the hornlets / l = 172 cm / h = 9 cm / d = 6–7 cm / nape seat w (between the hornlets) = 28 cm (left ox) and 26 cm (right ox) / h at the neck = 2 cm / nape seat d = 6–7 cm / hornlet l = 22 cm / W = 3.86 kg The mode of acquisition was revealed by Boris Orel’s photograph taken on 1 September 1960 (F I/716, SEM photo library) during the final stage of his research into ards in the upper Savinja Valley, on mountain pastures above Ljubno by the Savinja River. Lojze Štiftar, the owner of the Marout farmstead at Planina 14, described the yoke to Orel as a “jégu for uphill ploughing”. This simple, undecorated yoke is very long, probably made using a naturally bent branch or a thin log (the bark is still visible), which is why the hitch point and nape seats were left almost unarticulated. Seven holes arranged in a circle on both ends of the yoke may have had a decorative function. In the middle, two rectangular openings were carved out for the leather strap pole ring. ROŽICKAST ZATILNI JAREM / enojni, ježes / Lom pod Storžicem / jesenov les, železo, usnje, tekstil / š = 64 cm / g = 9,3 cm / v ovrat. = 4 cm / š ovrat. = 24 cm / d rožicev = 24 cm / p = 2,7–3 cm »Ježes s pouštrom in jermenom« je bil leta 1957 kupljen pri Ignacu Markicu v Lomu 27 pri Tržicu. Vrhnja površina ovratnika je krašena s tremi »T«-križi (s križi sv. Antona oziroma crux commissa) z nesklenjeno vžgano obrobo, pod srednjim pa je na sprednjem robu preprosto vrezan ali vžgan še zašcitni Andrejev križ (crux decussata). Na notranji strani ovratnika, kjer sta vsajena rožica ali »cveka« (žeblja), je ta zatilni jarem utrjen z železnima obrocastima vezema. Na obeh koncih sta z železnima obrocema pritrjeni zanki, skozi kateri visita ovalna clena za povezovanje z ojnicama. Blazina, ki je sedala pod igo na glavo vprežne živali, je na gornji strani oblecena v zakrpano usnje, na spodnji, notranji strani pa je platnena (dolga je 42 in široka spredaj 24, zadaj 27 cm). Kar 410 cm dolg (2 cm širok) usnjen jermen, sestavljen iz petih kosov, ima na enem koncu narejeno zanko. Skoznjo so jermen nataknili na enega izmed rožicev in tako zaceli s privezovanjem »ježesa« na glavo vprežne živali. HEAD HORNED (or hornlet) YOKE / single, ježes / Lom under Mt. Storžic / ash wood, iron, leather, textile / w = 64 cm / d = 9.3 cm / nape seat h = 4 cm / nape seat w = 24 cm / hornlet l = 24 cm / D = 2.7–3 cm The “ježeswith a pad and strap” was purchased from Ignac Markic in Lom 27 nearTržic in 1957. The upper surface of the nape seat is decorated with three “Tau”-crosses (St. Anthony’s cross or crux commissa) incised with a broken burnt-in edge line; on the front edge under the middle cross is a simplified protective St. Andrew’s cross (crux decussa­ta), engraved or burnt into the wood. The head yoke is reinforced with two iron rings embracing the inside of the nape seat, where the wooden hornlets or cveks are inserted. The eye links attached with iron rings at both ends have oval loops for connecting the yoke with the shafts. The pad that was fitted under the yoke to the head of the draught animal has a patched leather top, and a linen bottom (the pad is 42 cm long, and 24 or 27 cm wide (at the front and back respectively). The 410-cm long (2 cm wide) leather strap is composed of five pieces and is tied into a loop on one end. The loop served to attach the strap to one of the wooden hornlets, from where it was wrapped around the ježes and onto the head of the draught animal. 14. Inv. št. / Inv. no. 9121 ROŽICKAST ZATILNI JAREM / enojni, ajnfoh uiga / Melvice (Mellweg) / najverjet­neje lipov les / š = 65 cm / g = 9 cm / v ovrat. = 2,5 cm / š ovrat. = 23 cm / d rožicev = 23 cm / T = 1,38 kg Nacin pridobitve tega enojnega rožickastega zatilnega jarma, »ajnfoh uiga«, je enak ka­kor pri št. 3. Eden obeh rožicev je na koncu naravno odebeljen, drugi, krajši, ima odebel­jeni del narejen. Na obeh koncih ižesa sta v les vsajeni železni zanki, skozi kateri visita ovalna clena za povezovanje z ojnicama. Z enojnim zatilnim jarmom nista bila pridoblje­na za vpreganje potrebna blazina in jermen. HEAD HORNED (or hornlet) YOKE / single, ajnfoh uiga / Melvice (Mellweg) / most likely linden / w = 65 cm / d = 9 cm / nape seat h = 2.5 cm / nape seat w = 23 cm / hornlet l = 23 cm / W = 1.38 kg The mode of acquisition of this single head yoke with wooden pegs, so-called ajnfoh uiga (simple yoke), is the same as in no. 3. One of the hornlets is naturallywider at the end, and the other, shorter one was widened subsequently. Iron eye loops are driven into the wood on both ends of the yoke, both with oval links forconnecting the yoke to the shafts. This single head yoke was acquired without the accompanying pad and strap with which it was attached to the animal’s head. ROŽICKAST ZATILNI JAREM / enojni, ígovc / Gorjuše / bukov les, železo, usnje, tekstil / š = 52,5 cm / g = 9 cm / v ovrat. = 3,5 cm / š ovrat. = 24,5 cm / d rožicev = 22 cm / T = 1,94 kg Rožickast enojni zatilni jarem je muzeju podaril Anton Licef, roj. 1938, kmet (kmetija z 18 ha), hišno ime pri Jazbernik, Gorjuše 1. Snel ga je s stene ob vratih hleva, v katerem je leta 2010 imel še eno kravo. Kljub temu, da ni imel vec volov, je »ígovce« razlicnih ve­likosti (za razlicne volovske glave) še vedno hranil. Vecino je naredil Zarobnjekov Toncek, Anton Korošec z Gorjuš, ki jih je zacel delati v 40. letih 20. stoletja. Blazine – »póuštre«, tudi »kápe« – pa je napravil pokojni cevljar Andrécov, Andrej Cerkovenšek. Manjši, pre­prost »ígovc« ima sredi gornje površine ovratnika vrezan Andrejev križ, crux decussata (za zašcito živali). Rožica sta iz razlicnega lesa, na spodnjem koncu odebeljena. Oba konca ižesa z zankama in ovalnima clenoma za povezovanje z ojnicama sta krepko oko­vana. Pridobljen je bil skupaj z blazino, zgoraj usnjeno in na spodnji, notranji strani delno iz blaga; dolgo 34 in široko 26,5 centimetrov. Pripadajoci usnjeni jermen z zanko na enem koncu je dolg 450 centimetrov in sestavljen oziroma sešit iz vec kosov (tako kakor pri št. 13). HEAD HORNED (or hornlet) YOKE / single, ígovc / Gorjuše / beech, iron, leather, textile / w = 52.5 cm / d = 9 cm / nape seat h = 3.5 cm / nape seat w = 24.5 cm / hornlet l = 22 cm / W = 1.94 kg This single head yoke with wooden hornlets was donated to the museum by Anton Licef, b. 1938, farmer (farmstead with 18 ha of land), house name Pri Jazbernik, Gorjuše1. He took it off the wall by the door of the barn, in which he still kept a cow at the time. Even though he no longer had oxen, he still kept his yokes of different sizes (for different oxen). Most of them were made by Zarobnjek’s Toncek, Anton Korošec from Gorjuše, who had crafted his first yokes in the 1940s. The pads, so called póuštrs or kápas, were made bylate cobbler Andrécov, Andrej Cerkovenšek. This small, simple yoke (ígovc) has a protective St. Andrew’s cross (crux decussata) carved in the middle of the nape seat. The hornlets are made of different wood, both thicker at the bottom end. Each end of the yoke is heavily reinforced with iron braces holding an eye with an oval link where the shaft was attached. The yoke came with a pad that has a leather top and the bottom made partly of fabric (34 cm long and 26.5 cm wide). The matching leather strap with a loop at one end measures 450 cm in length and is composed of several segments (like no. 13). ROŽICKAST ZATILNI JAREM / enojni, ígovc / Koprivnik / bukov les, železo / š = 62 cm / g = 9 cm / v ovrat. = 5 cm / š ovrat. = 28 cm / d rožicev = 28 cm (nadomestni 27 cm) / p = 2–3 cm / T = 3,26 kg »lgovc« je muzeju podaril Valentin Dijak, roj. 1938, kmet, gozdni delavec in cestar, hišno ime Tinckovi, Koprivnik 74. Bil je »od ta zádnega vola,« s katerim so prenehali delati v 70. letih 20. stoletja. Gre za soroden primerek, kakršen je št. 15 z Gorjuš, le da je ta rožickast zatilni jarem vecji in nima vrezanega križa. HEAD HORNED (or hornlet) YOKE / single, ígovc / Koprivnik / beech, iron / w = 62 cm / d = 9 cm / nape seat h = 5 cm / nape seat w = 28 cm / hornlet l = 28 cm (replacement hornlet 27 cm) / D = 2–3 cm / W = 3.26 kg The ígovc was donated to the museum byValentin Dijak, b. 1938, farmer, forest worker and road mender, house name Tinckovi, Koprivnik 74. It belonged to “the last of the oxen” that worked until the 1970s. The specimen is similar to no. 15 from Gorjuše, but this one is larger and without a cross carving. PALICASTZATILNI JAREM / dvojni, jegu / Ter / 1858 / javorjevles / d = 121 cm / v = 9,3 cm / g ižesa na sredi = 5 cm / g ozkih skled. ovrat. = 4,5 cm / š ozkih skled. ovrat. = 17 cm / v na sredini ovrat. = 3,5 cm / T = 2,12 kg Igo je bil najverjetneje pridobljen v 1950-ih letih, v casu Orlovih raziskovanj rala v zgorn­ji Savinjski dolini. Kupljen je bil od Janeza Podlesnika, gospodarja samotne visokogorske kmetije vTeru 39 nad Ljubnim ob Savinji. Dobro ohranjen (in restavriran) primerek je izjemno rezbarsko krašen: z luskastimi vrezi, s cikcakastimi in križastimi ornamenti, za­daj z rastlinskim okrasjem. Na sprednji strani ima simetricno, levo in desno od gožinega sedeža oziroma obeh odprtin za jermenasto gož, vrezani šestlistni rozeti, grška križa (crux quadrata), krogasta simbola (s 6 x 6 kvadratnimi polji) in deljeno letnico 18 58. Vsi ti simbolni znaki so najverjetneje služili zašciti vprežnih živali. Ozka skledicasta ovrat­nika na sredini predirata dve manjši odprtini (za vrvici za privezovanje blazin). Na obeh koncih, levem in desnem, igo predira pravokotna odprtina (v prerezu sta obe dolgi 2 cm in široki 0,8 cm), namenjena namešcanju oziroma pretikanju jermena. HEAD STICK YOKE / double, jegu / Ter / 1858 / maple / l = 121 cm / h = 9.3 cm / mid­point d = 5 cm / d of narrow bowl-shaped nape seats = 4.5 cm / nape seat w = 17 cm / nape seat h = 3.5 cm / W = 2.12 kg The yoke was probably acquired in the 1950s, during Orel’s research into ards in the upper Savinja Valley. It was purchased from Janez Podlesnik, the owner of an isolated high-mountain farmstead in Ter 39 above Ljubno in the Savinja Valley. The well-pre­served (and restored) specimen is elaborately carved, decorated with scaly incisions, zig-zag and cross ornaments, and floral patterns on the rear face. The symmetrical carv­ings on the front face consist of a six-petal rosette incised on each side of the hitch point (i.e. the two uneven holes for the leather strap), accompanied by a Greek cross (crux quadrata), a circular symbol (with 6 x 6 square sections) and the year 1858 divided in two (18 on one and 58 on the other side of the hitch point). The most likely purpose of these symbols is protection of draught animals. Two small holes are pierced through the middle of the narrow bowl-shaped nape seats (for the twines used to attach the pads). Each end of the yoke has a rectangular slot (2 cm long and 0.8 cm wide) through which the strap is attached or threaded. PALICAST ZATILNI JAREM / dvojni, ta starinski jégu / Planina / bukov les / d = 123 cm / v = 7,5 cm / g ižesa na sredi = 4,5 cm / g ozkih skled. ovrat. = 5 cm / š ovrat. = 16 cm / v na sredini ovrat. = 2 cm / T = 1,68 kg Nacin pridobitve je razkrila fotografija Borisa Orla, posneta 1. septembra 1960 (F I/717, fototeka SEM), med njegovim sklepnim raziskovanjem rala v zgornji Savinjski dolini – na gorskih kmetijah nad Ljubnim ob Savinji. Ta palicast zatilni jarem s kmetije Ma-rout na Planini 14 je Orlu najverjetneje podaril njen tedanji gospodar Lojz Štiftar (na fotografiji ga je jeseni leta 2011 prepoznala Mima Podkrižnik, lastnica gostilne Prod v Teru 42). Ob nastanku fotografije je Marout igo oznacil za »ta starinski jégu«. Le rahlo razširjeni del ovratnikov na sredi predirata po dve ožji okrogli odprtini (za pretikanje vrvice za vezanje blazin). Na obeh koncih igo predirata leva in desna horizontalno diag­onalna odprtina s pravokotnim, zaobljenim prerezom (d = 2,5 cm, š = 0,8 cm); namen­jeni sta namešcanju oziroma pretikanju jermenov za privezovanje ižesa na glavi živali. Na sredi ižesa sta izrezani dve odprtini (ne povsem horizontalni) za jermenasto gož s pregljem. Igo skorajda ni krašen; le zadaj ima na obeh notranjih straneh poudarjenega dela ovratnikov nabrazdana pravokotnika, narejena s plitvimi vrezi. Levo in desno od gožinega sedeža so vidni ostanki konicastih trirogelnih vršicev. Na sredini gornjega roba nad gožinim sedežem je vrezan Andrejev križ (crux decussata). Igo iz bukovega lesa je bil utrjen z obdelavo z ognjem. HEAD STICK YOKE / double, the old-fashioned “jégu”/ Planina / beech / l = 123 cm / h = 7.5 cm / midpoint d = 4.5 cm / d of narrow bowl-shaped nape seats = 5 cm / nape seat w = 16 cm / nape seat h = 2 cm / W = 1.68 kg The mode of acquisition was revealed byBoris Orel’s photograph taken on 1 September 1960 (F I/717, SEM photo library) during the final stage of his research into ards in the upper Savinja Valley, on mountain pastures above Ljubno in the Savinja Valley. This stick-shaped head yoke from the Marout farmstead at Planina 14 was most likely a gift to Orel from then owner of the farm, Lojz Štiftar (recognized from the photograph in 2011 by Mima Podkrižnik, owner of the Prod inn at Ter 42). When the photograph was taken, the Marout farm owner described it as “the old-fashioned jégu”. Only the slightly widened part of the nape seats is pierced in the middle bytwo small round holes (for the twines that held pads in place). On both ends of the yoke, there is a horizontal diagonal slot with a rounded rectangular cross-section (l = 2.5 cm, w = 0.8 cm), through which the strap that tied the yoke to the horns was fed. Cut into the middle of the yoke are two (not entirely horizontal) openings for the leather strap pole ring with a linchpin. The only decorations on the yoke are furrowed rectangles at the back, made with shallow cuts into the inner side of the accentuated part of the nape seats. To the left and right of the hitch point are still visible remains of a conical, three-tooth form. A St. Andrew’s cross (crux decussata) is incised in the middle of the upper edge above the hitch point. The beech wood yoke was flame-treated to make it more resistant. PALICAST ZATILNI JAREM / dvojni / Planina / 1897 / javorjev les / d = 111 cm / v = 6,9 cm / g ižesa na sredi = 5,2 cm / g ozkih skled. ovrat. = 5,2 cm / š ovrat. = 15,2 cm, levi vol 15,8 cm / v na sredini ovrat. = 1,7 cm / T = 1,40 kg Glede nacina pridobitve in krajevnega izvora tudi za ta primerek velja komentark št. 18. Prepoznan je bil na Orlovi fotografiji F I/718 iz fototeke SEM. Na sredi ižesa sta izrezani dve ožji pravokotni odprtini za gož (ne povsem horizontalno, podobno kakor pri št. 18). Gornji del ižesa je razgibano, simetricno plasticno oblikovan; na sprednji strani sta levo in desno od sedeža goži plitvo vrezana dva latinska križa (crux ordinaria) in potem tudi deljena letnica 18 97. Vrezana letnica in oba križa so rdece oranžno pobarvani. Zadaj je pri levem ovratniku vrezan še en utor; morda je bil vnjem pribit jermen (vidna je nam­rec luknjica). Ta palicast zatilni jarem je zelo dobro ohranjen (kljub opazni crvojedosti); zdi se skoraj, kakor da bi ne bil rabljen. HEAD STICK YOKE / double / Planina / 1897 / maple / l = 111 cm / h = 6.9 cm / mid­point d = 5.2 cm / d of narrow bowl-shaped nape seats = 5.2 cm / nape seat w = 15.2 cm, left ox 15.8 cm / nape seat h = 1.7 cm / W = 1.40 kg The mode of acquisition and provenance correspond to the commentary to no. 18. The yoke was identified in Orel’s photograph F I/718 from the SEM photo library. Two slots are cut (not entirely horizontally, similar to no. 18) through the top center of the yoke. The articulated top is sculpted in symmetry. The front face shows two shallow incisions of Latin crosses (crux ordinaria), one on each side of the hitch point, followed by the year 1897 split in two, one half on each side. The year and both crosses are painted red or­ange. On the rear face, next to the left neck seat, there is an extra notch, perhaps to hold the strap (as suggested by the nail hole that is still visible there). This head stick yoke is verywell preserved (despite evident woodworm damage) and appears almost unused. PALICAST ZATILNI JAREM / dvojni / 1900 / javorjev les / d = 118,2 cm / v = 7,6 cm / g ižesa na sredi = 4,8 cm / g ozkih skled. ovrat. = 6,2 cm / š ovrat. = 18 cm, pri desnem volu = 19 cm / v na sredini ovrat. = 2,2 cm / T = 2,20 kg Nacin pridobitve ni znan. Po izvedbi je igo izjemno soroden primerku št. 19, le da je malce bolj mojstrsko narejen; še posebej njegov plasticno oblikovan gornji del. Odprtini za jermenasto gož sta vecji in bolj pravokotni. Levo in desno od njiju sta spredaj plitvo vrezani najprej dve in potem še dve šestlistni, šestilni rozeti ter med levima inicialki JT, med desnima pa letnica 1900. Vrezani veliki zacetnici, letnica in rozete so crtno rdece pobarvani. Na vršicih pred levim in desnim skledicastim ovratnikom je zgoraj vrezan zašcitni Andrejev križ (crux decussata). Tudi ta palicast zatilni jarem je zelo dobro ohran­jen (kljub opazni crvojedosti); in se skoraj zdi, kakor da bi ne bil rabljen. HEAD STICK YOKE / double / 1900 / maple / l = 118.2 cm / h = 7.6 cm / midpoint d = 4.8 cm / d of narrow bowl-shaped nape seats = 6.2 cm / nape seat w = 18 cm, right ox = 19 cm / nape seat h = 2.2. cm / W = 2.20 kg The mode of acquisition is unknown. Its design is very similar to specimen no. 19, but slightly better executed, in particular its articulated upper part. The hitch point slots for the leather strap pole ring are bigger and more rectangular in shape. Incised to the left and right of them on the front face is a shallow six-petal rosette, followed by anoth­er hexafoil on each side. The initials J T are incised between the left pair and the year 1900 between the right pair. The lines forming the initials, the year, and the rosettes are painted red. A St. Andrew’s cross (crux decussata) is incised on the top of the truncated “peaks” next to bowl-shaped nape seats. Like the previous specimen, this head stick yoke is verywell preserved (despite perceivable woodworm damage) and seems almost unused. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / javorjev les / d = 116 cm / v sred. dela = 8,5 cm / g = 8 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 2 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 12 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3 cm / d kamb = 55 in 57,5 cm / T = 5,76 kg Primerek sodi v tako imenovano Strgarjevo zbirko. Glede nacina pridobitve in krajevne­ga izvora je relevanten opis pri št. 11. Kambast vihrov jarem je premazan s temno lazuro, na sredini raven, brez oblikovanega gožinega sedeža. Za gož (najverjetneje železno) ima navpicno izvrtani dve okrogli odprtini (s premerom 1,5 cm) in z vrha na sredi med njima še luknjo enakega premera. Zunanji kambini odprtini sta spodaj višje odprti. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / maple / l = 116 cm / midpoint h = 8.5 cm / d = 8 cm / drop at neck seat = 2 cm / distance between bow holes = 12 cm / bow hole D = 3 cm / bow l = 55 and 57.5 cm / W = 5.76 kg The specimen belongs to the so-called Strgar collection. The mode of acquisition and provenance match the description for no. 11. The yoke is dark stained, straight in the middle, without an articulated hitch point. Instead, it has two round holes (1.5 cm in diameter) for the pole ring (most likely iron) drilled vertically through the yoke, and between them (on the top) another hole of the same diameter. Both outer bow holes are opened wider at the bottom. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / 1886 / nedognan les, najverjetneje orehov / d = 108 cm / v sred. dela = 14,5 cm / g = 6,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 6,5 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 14 cm, zgoraj 12 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,3 cm / T = 3,90 kg Primerek sodi v tako imenovano Strgarjevo zbirko. Glede nacina pridobitve in krajev­nega izvora je zanj relevantno besedilo pri št. 11. Je preprosto izdelan, z vrezano letnico 1886. Ima mocno poglobljeni ležišci za zatic pri gornjih notranjih odprtinah za kambo. Pri tem pokrajinskem oziroma krajevnem tipu jarmov sta kambi malce manj ukrivljeni, ne solzaste oblike, temvec bolj vobliki crke U, o cemerpricajo tudi mere – zgornja širina med odprtinama kambe. V polkrožno krono so vrezane tri pravokotne odprtine za jer­menasto gož s pregljem. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / 1886 / unidentified wood, most likelywalnut / l = 108 cm / midpoint h = 14.5 cm / d = 6.5 cm / drop at neck seat = 6.5 cm / distance be­tween bow holes = 14 cm, 12 cm on top / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 3.90 kg The specimen belongs to the so-called Strgar collection. The mode of acquisition and provenance matches the description for no. 11. The yoke is simple, with the year 1886 carved into the beam. It has deeply recessed bow pin sockets next to the upper inner bowholes. This regional or local yoke type has U-shaped, rather than tear-shaped bows, as manifested by the width between the upper bow holes. The semi-circular crown has three slots carved through for a leather strap with a linchpin. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / nedognan les, najverjetneje lipov / d = 97,5 cm / v sred. dela = 13 cm / g = 6,3 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 8,5 cm (levi vol) in 9 cm (desni vol) / š med odprt. kamb = 16 cm (levi vol) in 16,5 cm (desni vol), zgoraj med obema odpr­tinama 16 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 2,5 cm / T = 2,86 kg Primerek sodi v tako imenovano Strgarjevo zbirko. Glede nacina pridobitve in krajevne­ga izvora je relevanten opis pri št. 11. Preprosto izdelan, brez okrasa; premazan s temno lazuro. V krono trapezaste oblike sta vrezani dve pravokotni odprtini za jermenasto gož. Glede oblike kamb velja enako kakor pri drugih primerkih jarmov iz zgornje Savinjske doline. BOW WITHERS YOKE / double / unidentified wood, most likelylinden / l = 97.5 cm / midpoint h = 13 cm / d = 6.3 cm / drop at neck seat = 8.5 cm (left ox) and 9 cm (right ox) / distance between bow holes = 16 cm (left ox) and 16.5 cm (right ox); 16 cm on the top between each pair of bow holes / bow hole D = 2.5 cm / W = 2.86 kg The specimen belongs to the so-called Strgar collection. The mode of acquisition and provenance match the description for no. 11. Simple, undecorated yoke, painted with dark stain. The trapezoid-shaped crown has two slots for the leather strap pole ring. The bow shape corresponds to otheryoke specimens from the Upper Savinja Valley. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / nedognan les, morda brestov / d = 121,8 cm / v sred. dela = 13 cm / g = 5,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 8 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 19,2 cm, zgoraj 19,5 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3 cm / T = 3,52 kg Primerek sodi v tako imenovano Strgarjevo zbirko. Glede nacina pridobitve in krajevne­ga izvora je relevanten opis pri št. 11. Jarem ima likovno razgibano oblikovano tridelno krono, drugace je neokrašen. V srednjem delu sta narejeni dve pravokotni odprtini za jermenasto gož in nad njima, na sredini gornjega roba, je vrezan zašcitni križ (z dve-ma daljšima in dvema krajšima, enako dolgima krakoma). Hrbtna stran ovratnikov je poudarjeno dvignjena proti vihru; glede oblike kamb velja enako kakor pri drugih pri­merkih jarmov iz zgornje Savinjske doline. Razen št. 23 imajo vsi primerki tega obli­kovnega tipa iz Strgarjeve zbirke izrazito vdolbeno ležišce za kambin zatic. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / unidentified wood, most likely elm / l = 121.8 cm / midpoint h = 13 cm / d = 5.5 cm / drop at neck seat = 6.5 cm / distance between bowholes = 19.2 cm, 19.5 cm on top / bow hole D = 3 cm / W = 3.52 kg The specimen belongs to the so-called Strgar collection. The mode of acquisition and provenance match the description for no. 11. The otherwise undecorated yoke has an articulated tripartite crown. The middle part has two slots for the leather strap pole ring and above them, in the middle of the upper edge, a protective cross (incised with two long and two short arms of the same length). The rear side of the neck seats is promi­nently raised towards the withers; the bow shape corresponds to otheryoke specimens from the Upper Savinja Valley. Other than no. 23, all Strgar collection specimens of this type feature a distinctly recessed socket for the bow pin. KAMBASTVIHROVJAREM / dvojni / nedognan les, najverjetneje orehov / d = 117 cm / v sred. dela = 19,5 cm / g = 7 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 9,5 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 16,5 cm, zgoraj 15 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 2,8 cm (zunanji) in 2,5 (notranji) / T = 5,40 kg Primerek sodi v tako imenovano Strgarjevo zbirko. Glede nacina pridobitve in krajev­nega izvora je relevanten opis pri št. 11. Jarem ima likovno razgibano oblikovano sto­pnicasto valovito trikotno krono, drugace je neokrašen. V sredini krone so narejene tri pravokotne odprtine za jermenasto gož. Glede oblike kamb velja enako kakor pri drugih primerkih tega oblikovnega tipa. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / unidentified wood, most likelywalnut / l = 117 cm / midpoint h = 19.5 cm / d = 7 cm / drop at neck seat = 9.5 cm / distance between bow holes = 16.5 cm, 15 cm on top / bow hole D = 2.8 cm (outer) and 2.5 cm (inner) / W = 5.4 kg The specimen belongs to the so-called Strgar collection. The mode of acquisition and provenance match the description for no. 11. This, otherwise undecorated yoke has an articulated, stepped, wavy triangular crown with three slots for the leather strap pole ring in the middle. The bow shape corresponds to otheryoke specimens of this design type. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / nedognan les, najverjetneje javorjev / d = 114 cm / v sred. dela = 17,5 cm / g = 6 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 7 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 17 cm in 18 cm (levi vol) / p odprt. za kambi = 3 cm (notranji) in 2,5 cm (zunanji) / T = 4,62 kg Primerek sodi v tako imenovano Strgarjevo zbirko. Glede nacina pridobitve in krajevne­ga izvora je relevanten opis pri št. 11. Jarem ima likovno razgibano oblikovano krono, drugace je neokrašen. V sredini krone sta izvedeni dve pravokotni odprtini za jerme­nasto gož. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / unidentified wood, most likely maple / l = 114 cm / midpoint h = 17.5 cm / d = 6 cm / drop at neck seat = 7 cm / distance between bow holes = 17 cm and 18 cm (left ox) / bow hole D = 3 cm (inner) and 2.5 cm (outer) / W = 4.62 kg The specimen belongs to the so-called Strgar collection. The mode of acquisition and provenance match the description for no. 11. Except for the articulated crown, the yoke is not decorated. Two slots for the leather strap pole ring are pierced through the middle of the crown. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / nedognan les, najverjetneje javorjev / d = 113,5 cm / v sred. dela = 14,5 cm / g = 6 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 4,5–5 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 16–16,5 cm, zgoraj 15–15,5 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 2,8 cm / T = 3,50 kg Primerek sodi v tako imenovano Strgarjevo zbirko. Glede nacina pridobitve in krajev­nega izvora je relevanten opis pri št. 11. Jarem ima razgibano oblikovano krono s tremi kvadratnimi odprtinami za gož, drugace je skoraj povsem neokrašen – razen z nekaj luskastimi vrezi na kroni in na obeh koncih ovratnikov. Premazan je s temno lazuro. Glede oblike kamb velja enako kakor pri drugih primerkih jarmov iz zgornje Savinjske doline (na podlagi spodnje in zgornje širine med odprtinama za kambo). WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / unidentified wood, most likely maple / l = 113.5 cm / midpoint h = 14.5 cm / d = 6 cm / drop at neck seat = 4.5–5 cm / distance between bow holes = 16–16.5 cm, 15–15.5 cm on top / bow hole D = 2.8 cm / W = 3.5 kg The specimen belongs to the so-called Strgar collection. The mode of acquisition and provenance match the description for no. 11. The yoke has an articulated crown with three square slots for the pole ring and is otherwise undecorated – except for several scaly incisions on the crown and both ends of the neck seats. It is dark stained. The bow shape corresponds to otheryoke specimens from the Upper Savinja Valley (based on the distance between bottom and top bow holes). KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / 1919 / nedognan les, morda lipov / d = 108 cm / v sred. dela = 16,5 cm / g = 7 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 6,5 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 15,5 cm, zgoraj 12,5 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3 cm / T = 4,40 kg Primerek sodi v tako imenovano Strgarjevo zbirko. Glede nacina pridobitve in krajevne­ga izvora je relevanten opis pri št. 11. Preprosto izdelan jarem, brez okrasa, a z razgibano krono. Vanjo sta vrezani dve pravokotni odprtini za gož. Nad njima je vrezana letnica 1919. WITHERS BOW YOKE / double / 1919 / unidentified wood, perhaps linden / l = 108 cm / midpoint h = 16.5 cm / d = 7 cm / drop at neck seat = 6.5 cm / distance between bow holes = 15.5 cm, 12.5 cm on top / bow hole D = 3 cm / W = 4.40 kg The specimen belongs to the so-called Strgar collection. The mode of acquisition and provenance match the description for no. 11. This simple, undecorated yoke has an ar­ticulated crown with two slots for the pole ring. The year 1919 is incised above the slots. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / 1906 / nedognan les, morda lipov / d = 147 cm / vsred. dela = 18,3 cm / g = 5,5 cm / vdo vrha ovrat. = 10,3 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 19 cm, zgoraj 19 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3 cm / T = 5,78 kg Primerek sodi v tako imenovano Strgarjevo zbirko. Glede nacina pridobitve in kraje­vnega izvora je relevanten opis pri št. 11. Jarem ima likovno zelo razgibano in dolgo, razpotegnjeno krono. Krašen je le spredaj, in sicer ob robovih z nizom smrecic oziroma vejic in drobnih križcev (ti se pojavijo na kroni in na obeh koncnih delih ovratnikov), ki so bili najverjetneje vžgani ali pa tolceni (zavoljo premaza s temno lazuro to namrec ni jasno prepoznavno). Na levi in desni strani dveh pravokotnih odprtin za gož je deljeno vrezana letnica 19 06. Jarem deluje malo rabljen, a desni konec ovratnika (desnega vola) je bil kakor kaže odlomljen in restavriran. Hrbtna stran ovratnikov je privzdignjena; glede oblike kamb velja enako kakor pri prejšnjih primerkih tega tipa. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / 1906/ unidentified wood, perhaps linden / l = 147 cm / midpoint h = 18.3 cm / d = 5.5 cm / drop at neck seat = 10.3 cm / distance between bow holes = 19 cm (top and bottom) / bow hole D = 3 cm / W = 5.78 kg The specimen belongs to the so-called Strgar collection. The mode of acquisition and provenance match the description for no. 11. The yoke has a long, articulated crown. Only the front face is decorated – on the edges with a row of spruce or branch patterns and small crosses (which appear on the crown and both ends of the neck seats), which were most likely burnt or hammered in (difficult to tell on account of the dark stain). The year 1906 is incised to the left and right of the pole ring slots. The yoke does not appear to have been used much, but the right end of the (right ox’s) neck seat seems to have been chipped off and restored. The rear side of the neck seats is raised; the bow shape corresponds to otheryoke specimens of this type. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / 1895 / nedognan les, najverjetneje jesenov / d = 106 cm (odlomljen, cel bi bil dolg okoli 110 cm) / v sred. dela = 21 cm / g = 7,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 7,5 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 15,8 cm, zgoraj 14 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 2,8 cm / T = 4,98 kg Primerek sodi v tako imenovano Strgarjevo zbirko. Glede nacina pridobitve in krajevne­ga izvora je relevanten opis pri št. 11. Ima razgibano oblikovano krono in je le spredaj bogato krašen z razpotegnjenimi luskastimi vrezi, z rožastimi grškimi križi (crux quadra­ta) in s petimi šestlistnimi cvetovi – rozetami v krogih. Tri središcne so umešcene vvecje žarkaste rozete; nad srednjo sta vrezana malce razpotegnjen grški križ (crux quadrata) in pod njim letnica 1895. Za jermenasto gož so vrezane tri skoraj kvadratne odprtine. Glede kamb velja enako kakor pri št. 22. Jarem je premazan s temno lazuro in se zdi zelo dobro ohranjen (skoraj kakor nov), a je vendarle pocen prek obeh ovratnikov; tisti za desnega vola je na koncu odlomljen. WITHERS BOW YOKE / double / 1895 / unidentified wood, most likely ash / l = 106 cm (chipped, the full length would be ca. 110 cm) / midpoint h = 21 cm / d = 7.5 cm / drop at neck seat = 7.5 cm / distance between bow holes = 15.8 cm, 14 cm on top / bow hole D = 2.8 cm / W = 4.98 kg The specimen belongs to the so-called Strgar collection. The mode of acquisition and provenance match the description for no. 11. It has an articulated crown and the front face elaborately decorated with elongated scaly incisions, flower-like Greek crosses (crux quadrata), and five six-petal flowers – rosettes framed in circles. The central three are placed inside larger ray rosettes; above the central rosette is a slightly stretched incised Greek cross (crux quadrata) and underneath it the year 1895. Three almost square slots were carved through for the leather strap pole ring. The bows are the same as in no. 22. The dark stained yoke appears verywell preserved (almost new), but is cracked across both neck seats; the right ox neck seat is chipped at one end. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / javorjev les / d = 166 cm / v sred. dela = 8,5 cm / g = 5,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 3 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 18 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3 cm / d kamb = 46 cm (desnega vola, vendar odlomljena) in 50 cm (levega vola) / T = 4,52 kg Nacin pridobitve ni znan. O krajevnem izvoru je mogoce sklepati na podlagi risbe iz arhiva Pokrajinskega muzeja Maribor, na kateri je upodobljen jarem iz pohorske vasi Kumen, ki ima enako oblikovano krono nad gožinim sedežem. Podobno narejeno krono ima tudi »telega« na risanem zapisu št. 71 iz Skomarij iz leta 1963 (R 20/9, Teren 20, Vitanje). Ta kambast vihrov jarem je preprost, neokrašen, a zelo vešce izdelan. Gre za precej dolg primerek, z mehko zaobljenima in zadaj proti vihru dvignjenima ovratni­koma. Navpicni odprtini za jermenasto gož sta dve (2,5 x 2 cm). Za njima se na jarmu dviga ozka in kratka krona, ki ima zadaj na sredini vrezan zašcitni Andrejev križ (crux decussata). Kamba desnega vola je spodaj pocena in ovita s kosom tkanine, pribitim z žebljem. En njen konec je odlomljen. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / maple / l = 166 cm / midpoint h = 8.5 cm / d = 5.5 cm / drop at neck seat = 3 cm / distance between bow holes = 18 cm / bow hole D = 3 cm / bow l = 46 cm (right ox, chipped) and 50 cm (left ox) / W = 4.52 kg The mode of acquisition is unknown. Provenance can be inferred based on the drawing from the Regional Museum Maribor archive showing a yoke from the village of Kumen in the Pohorje Mountains, which has the same shape crown carved above the hitch point. A similarcrown was carved forthe yoke in drawn record no. 71 from Skomarje, 1963 (R 20/9, Site 20, Vitanje). This simple bowwithers yoke is undecorated, but very skilfullycrafted. Verylong, it has softly rounded neck seats slightlyraised towards the withers. Perched behind two slots (2.5 x 2 cm) for the leather strap pole rings on the top edge is a short, narrow crown with a protective St. Andrew’s cross (crux decussata) incised in the middle of the rear face. The bow for the right ox is cracked at the bottom and wrapped with a piece of cloth secured with a nail. One of its ends is chipped. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / javorjev les / d = 188 cm / v sred. dela = 11 cm / g = 10–11,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 8 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 17,5 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,3 cm / d kamb = 64 in 69 cm / T = 14,48 kg Nacin pridobitve in krajevni izvor nista znana. Jarem je izjemno dolg, grobo izdelan iz naravno ukrivljenega debla. Je neenakomerno debel, z mocno poudarjenima deloma ovratnikov, v katera sedata kambi. Na sredini je gožin sedež le malce dvignjen in ima ovalno izrezane tri vzdolžne odprtine za jermenasto gož, dolge do 3,5 cm. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / maple / l = 188 cm / midpoint h = 11 cm / d = 10–11.5 cm / drop at neck seat = 8 cm / distance between bow holes = 17.5 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / bow l = 64 and 69 cm / W = 14.48 kg The mode of acquisition and provenance are unknown. The yoke is extremely long, roughly carved from a naturally bent log. It is of uneven thickness and strongly artic­ulated on the spots where it is pierced through with bow holes. The hitch point in the middle is only slightly raised and has three, not more than 3.5 cm-long horizontal slots carved through for the leather strap pole ring. KLJUKASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni, jarm / Branik nad Muto/ brezov les, kljuki iz lesnike in jagnedi / d = 149,5 cm, spodaj pri kljukah 155 cm / g jarmovega telesa = 8 cm (pri ovratnikih, sredina ožja) / v kljuk = 60 cm (levega vola), 54 cm (desnega vola) / š spodnjih kljukastih zapor = 35 cm in 33 cm / v zunanjih palicastih obvratnih zapor = 57 cm in 55 cm / š med notranjo in zunanjo zaporo = 23,5 cm (pri levem volu), 21,5 cm (pri desnem volu) / T = 7,38 kg »›Jarm› za vprego dveh volov« je muzej kupil leta 1958 od Lovrenca Galerja iz Branika 27 nad Muto ob Dravi. Gre za tip vihrovega jarma, pri katerem sta vratova vprežnih živali z notranje strani in spodaj namesto kamb objemali (najpogosteje) naravno ukriv­ljeni kljuki, »kruki«, z zunanje strani pa ponavadi leseni palicasti zapori, »šprunclja«. Gožin sedež sredi jarma ali »jarmiša« ima tri odprtine: stranski dve sta okrogli in sred­nja je pravokotna. Prvotno je bila skoznje najverjetneje pretaknjena jermenasta gož s pregljem, tako kakor pri št. 34. A kaže, da se je jarem zavoljo rabe na sredini (na stiku z ojesom) tako stanjšal, da so gožin sedež mocno okovali ter tako tudi spremenili nacin povezovanja jarma in ojesa. Prvoten zapis v inventarni knjigi o tem pravi: »Skozi luknjo (srednjo odprtino gožinega sedeža) je pretaknjena železna kamba, k njej pa so pritrjeni trije cleni verige« (manjkajo). Oba ovratnika imata spredaj vžgan okras – niz srcastih ob-lik; izrazitejša so »srca« na mestih, kjer jarem predirata palicasti zapori in kljuki. Na obeh kljukah so v zamiku izvedene okrogle odprtine za vtikanje zatica (za regulacijo). Glede na zgoraj navedene dimenzije je bil levi vol (najverjetneje prirocni) vecji od desnega. WITHERS HOOK YOKE / double, jarm / Branik above Muta/ birch, L-hook staves from crab apple and black poplar / l = 149.5 cm; 155 cm at the bottom measured with hooks / beam d = 8 cm (at the neck seat, less at midpoint) / hook h = 60 cm (left ox), 54 cm (right ox) / hook w at the bottom = 35 and 33 cm / outer stick stave h = 57 and 55 cm / distance between the inner L-hook and outer stick stave = 23.5 cm (left ox), 21.5 cm (right ox) / W = 7.38 kg The museum purchased the “yoke for a team of two oxen” from Lovrenc Galer (Branik 27 above Muta by the Drava River) in 1958. Instead of bows, this type of withers yoke has the draught animals’ necks embraced from the inner side and below by (most often) naturally bent, L-shaped hooks called kruki (“crooks”) and from the outer side by two wooden stick staves called šprunclji. The hitch point in the middle of the yoke (jarmiš) has three openings: round holes on the sides and a rectangular slot in the middle. Orig­inally, they probably served for the leather strap and the linchpin, similar to no. 34. It appears that due to heavyuse, the yoke (at the contact with the drawbar) became so thin that the hitch point had to be reinforced with iron bands, which changed the way the yoke was connected to the drawbar. The original description in the inventory book reads: “An iron bow is fed through the hole (the central opening of the hitch point), to which three chain links are attached” (no longer present). Both neck seats have a deco­rative pattern burned on the front face – a row of heart-shaped forms; the “hearts” are more prominent on the spots where the stick staves and hooks pierce through the yoke. Both hooks have keeper pin holes (for depth adjustment) spaced in a zigzag pattern. The above measurements indicate that the left ox (most likely the near ox) was bigger than the right one. KLJUKASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni, jarm / Podlipje / javorjev les, kljuki iz javor­ovine in bukovine, usnje / d = 108 cm / g jarmovega telesa = 6 cm / v kljuk = 59 cm (leve živali), 50 cm (desne živali) / š spod. kljukastih zap. = 31 cm in 27,5 cm / v zun. palicaste obvrat. zap. = 51 cm / š med notr. in zun. zap. = 20,5 cm in 18,5 cm / T = 3,96 kg Tudi ta »jarm« je bil za muzej pridobljen leta 1958, kupljen od Vinka Rutnika iz Pod-lipja 75 pri Muti ob Dravi. Gre za enak tip dvojnega kljukastega vihrovega jarma kot je št. 33, le da je ta manjši in da ima ohranjeno jermenasto gož. Gožin sedež ima tri enake, okroglasto pravokotne odprtine, skozi srednjo pa je pretaknjena jermenasta gož, s katere na usnjeni vrvici visi lesen pregelj (dolg 15 cm). Na gornjem robu levega in desnega ovratnika je vrezan zašcitni Andrejev križ (crux decussata). Križca enake oblike sta vrezana tudi na gožinem sedežu – eden nad sredinsko odprtino in drugi nad desno odprtino oziroma nad tisto, ki je bila na strani leve, mocnejše, vodilne vprežne živali. Gornji rob levega ovratnika je bil odlomljen ter je pribit z žebljem. Ohranjena je le ena lesena zunanja palicasta zapora (ob pridobitvi je imel primerek še obe). Drugace je jarem v dobrem stanju (le z vidnimi sledmi crvojedosti). Narejen naj bi bil iz javorjevega lesa (prvotni zapis v inventarni knjigi omenja brezov les), krajša kljuka iz bukovine in daljša tudi iz javorjevega lesa (prvotni zapis v inventarni knjigi obe opisuje kot bukovi). WITHERS HOOK YOKE / double, jarm / Podlipje / maple, L-hooks from maple and beech, leather / l = 108 cm / yoke beam d = 6 cm / hook h = 59 cm (left animal), 50 cm (right animal) / hook w at the bottom = 31 and 27.5 cm / outer stick stave h = 51 cm / dis­tance between the inner L-hook and outer stick stave = 20.5 and 18.5 cm / W = 3.96 kg The yoke was purchased in 1958 from Vinko Rutnik from Podlipje 75 in Muta by the central Drava River. It is the same type of double withers hook yoke as no. 33, but small­er and with a well-preserved leather strap pole ring. The hitch point consists of three identical, rounded rectangular openings; a leather strap with a (15 cm long) linchpin on a leather string attached to it is passed through the middle one. A protective St. Andrew’s cross (crux decussata) is incised on the upper edge of the left and right neck seat. Two crosses of the same shape are incised also on the hitch point – one above the central opening, and the other above the right opening, i.e. the opening on the side of the left, stronger, leading animal in the team. The upper edge of the left neck seat was chipped and is fastened with a nail. Only one outerwooden stick stave is present (the specimen was acquired with both). Apart from this, the yoke is in good condition (but with visible signs of woodworm). It is supposedly made from maple (the original description in the inventory book says birch), the shorter L-hook from beech, and the longer one from maple (the original description in the inventory book describes both as beech). KLJUKASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni, jarm / javorjev les, kljuki iz bukovine, usnje / d = 119 cm / g jarmovega telesa = 6–7 cm / v kljuk = 56 cm / š spod. kljukastih zap. = 34 cm / v zun. palicastih obvrat. zap. = 51 cm / š med notr. in zun. zap. = 22 cm / T = 4,18 kg Glede nacina pridobitve in krajevnega izvora tudi za ta »jarm« veljajo podatki, navedeni pri št. 34. Primerek je tipološki sorodnik št. 33 in 34, le da njegovi »kruki« nista nara­vno ukrivljeni, temvec sta sestavljeni iz dveh bukovih letev. Zunanji palicasti zapori sta leskovi. Skozi sredinsko odprtino gožinega sedeža ima pretaknjeno jermenasto gož, s katere na vrvici visi 16,5 cm dolg lesen pregelj. In tudi ta primerek ima na gornjem delu obeh kljuk izvedene okrogle odprtine za vtikanje zatica oziroma »cveka« za reguliranje višine vratne odprtine. WITHERS HOOK YOKE / double, jarm / maple, L-hooks beech; leather / l = 119 cm / yoke beam d = 6–7 cm / hook h = 56 cm / hook w at the bottom = 34 cm / outer stick stave h = 51 cm / distance between the inner L-hook and outer stick stave = 22 cm / W = 4.18 kg The mode of acquisition and provenance correspond to no. 34. The specimen is typo­logically related to nos. 33 and 34, except that its “crooks” are not naturally bent, but composed of two beech laths. The outer stick staves are made of hazel. Through the central opening of the hitch point runs a leather strap pole ring with a 16.5 cm long wooden linchpin hanging from a string attached to it. This specimen, too, has round holes pierced through the top of both hooks for the keeper pin (cvek) used for depth adjustment. KLJUKASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / javorjev les, kljuka iz jelše / d = 95 cm / v sred. dela = 8 cm / v ovrat. = 10,5 cm / g = 7 cm / v kljuke = 63 cm / š spod. kljukaste zap. = 26,5 cm / š med odprt. zap. = 17 cm / deb. kljuke spodaj (kjer je okrogla odprt. za zun. obvrat. zap.) 3,8 cm, potem 2,8 in na vrhu 2 cm / T = 3,48 kg (sama kljuka 0,96 kg) Nacin pridobitve ni znan. Preprosto narejen, povsem neokrašen jarem s kljukama; z nepoudarjenim gožinim sedežem, a z zelo poudarjenima hrbtnima stranema ovratni­ka; konkavnima dvignjenima proti vihru. Pravokotna odprtina, skozi katero seda kljuka (druga manjka), je zarezana v zaobljeni del ovratnika, tako da kljuka lepo sede vanjo. Telo jarma na sredini predira navpicna okrogla odprtina za palicast pregelj. WITHERS HOOK YOKE / double / maple, L- hook alder / l = 95 cm / midpoint h = 8 cm / neck seat h = 10.5 cm / d = 7 cm / hook h = 63 cm / hook wat the bottom = 26.5 cm / distance between the inner L-hook and outer stick stave = 17 cm / thickness at hook bottom (by the outer stave hole) = 3.8 cm, followed by 2.8 cm and 2 cm at the top / W = 3.48 kg (hook 0.96 kg) The mode of acquisition is unknown. A very simple, undecorated yoke with L-hooks and an inconspicuous hitch point. The rear side of both neck seats, on the other hand, is veryprominent, concavelyelevated towards the withers. The rectangularopening for the L-hook (the other one is not present) is cut into the rounded part of the neck seat for the hook to fit snugly into the slot. The yoke beam is vertically pierced through the middle to accommodate the linchpin. KARTA 2 / MAP 2 PANONSKO OBMOCJE Z DELOM OSREDNJESLOVENSKEGA OBMOCJA – OBLIKOVNI TIPI DVOJNIH IN ENOJNIH OKVIRASTIH VIHROVIH JARMOV / DOUBLE AND SINGLE WITHERS FRAME YOKES – THE PANNONIAN REGION WITH PART OF CENTRAL SLOVENIA OKVIRASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni, jarm / Šober / javorjev les, zapore iz lesa jesena in akacije / d = 166 cm / v sred. dela = 10 cm / vovrat. = 14 cm / g = 7 cm / v do vrha notr. ovrat. = 3,5 cm / š med obvrat. zap. = 22,3 cm / š notr. obvrat. zap. = 5,5 cm / deb. = 1,6 cm (spodaj odebeljena) / v notr. obvrat. zap. = 64 cm / d spod. podvrat. zap. = 167 cm / g spod. podvrat. zap. = 5,7 cm / v spod. podvrat. zap. = 2,5 cm / T = 7.45 kg Okvirast vihrov jarem – v tem delu Štajerske še imenovan jarm, bolj proti vzhodu pa telege – je bil za muzej pridobljen leta 1958. Kupljen je bil od Franca Hauptmana iz Šobra 3 pri Zgornji Kungoti, kjer so o njem povedali, da je bil to »tipicen 'jarm' (za vprego dveh volov) za oranje v strmem bregu s starim lesenim oralom 'plužnico'«. Gre za okvirast primerek z zgornjim jarmovim telesom, imenovanim »jarm«; z malce tanjšo, vzporedno podvratno zaporo, imenovano »klop«; z mocnejšima in daljšima notranjima obvratn­ima zaporama, imenovanima »žvenga«; in s tanjšima, krajšima zunanjima obvratnima zaporama, imenovanima »špruncelj«. Ovratnik leve vprežne živali (na desni sprednji strani) je bil odlomljen in je restavriran. Ena stranska zapora manjka. Jarem je narejen iz javorjevega lesa (po prvotnem zapisu v inventarno knjigo naj bi bil les brezov); podvrat­na zapora je iz jesenovega lesa, notranji obvratni zapori pa sta najverjetneje iz akacije. WITHERS FRAME YOKE / double, jarm / Šober / maple, staves from ash and acacia / l = 166 cm / midpoint h = 10 cm / neck seat h = 14 cm / d = 7 cm / drop at neck seat = 3.5 cm / distance between staves = 22.3 cm / inner stave w = 5.5 cm / thickness = 1.6 cm (thicker below) / inner stave h = 64 cm / underneck crosspiece l = 167 cm / underneck crosspiece d = 5.7 cm / underneck crosspiece h = 2.5 cm / W = 7.45 kg This frame yoke type is known in this part of the Štajerska region as jarm, and further towards the east as telege. The specimen was purchased from Franc Hauptman from Šober 3 near Upper Kungota, where it was described as a “typical jarm (for a two-mem­ber team) for ploughing on a steep slope with the old wooden ard (plužnica)”. The upper beam of this frame yoke is called jarm and the slightlythinner, parallel underneck cross­piece klop (“bench”); it has two stronger, longer inner staves called žvenga, and thinner, shorter outer staves called špruncelj. The neck seat of the left draught animal (on the front right side) was chipped off and has been restored. One of the outer staves is no longer present. The yoke was made from maple (the original record in the inventory book says birch); the underneck crosspiece is made from ash, and the inner staves are probably acacia. OKVIRAST VIHROV JAREM / dvojni / bukov les, podvratna zapora iz macesna, železo / d = 125 cm / v sred. dela = 8,5 cm (skupaj z železnim okovanim delom) / v ovrat. = 7,3 cm / g = 6 cm / v do vrh. notr. ovrat. = 1,8 cm / š med obvrat. zap. = 24,5 cm / š notr. obvrat. zap. = 4,8 cm / deb. = 1,5 cm (spodaj odebeljena) / v notr. obvrat. zap. = 58 cm / d spod. podvrat. zap. = 119,3 cm / v spod. podvrat. zap. = 3 cm / g spod. podvrat. zap. = 4,5 cm / T = 12,30 kg Nacin pridobitve ni znan. Gre za preprosto narejen okvirast vihrov jarem oziroma tele­ge. Primerek je brez kakršnegakoli okrasa, s proti vihru dvignjenima ovratnikoma in z navzgor zavihanima koncema jarmovega telesa. Na ravnem, okovanem gožinem sedežu je obešena železna gož. Notranji leseni letveni obvratni zapori sta ravni, palicasti železni zunanji manjkata. WITHERS FRAME YOKE / double / beech, underneck crosspiece larch, iron / l = 125 cm / midpoint h = 8.5 cm (including the forged iron part) / neck seat h = 7.3 cm / d = 6 cm / drop at neck seat = 1.8 cm / distance between staves = 24.5 cm / inner stave w = 4.8 cm / thickness = 1.5 cm (thicker below) / inner stave h = 58 cm / underneck crosspiece l = 119.3 cm / underneck crosspiece h = 3 cm / underneck crosspiece d = 4.5 cm / W = 12.30 kg The mode of acquisition is unknown. This simple frame withers yoke (telege) is without decoration. It has neck seats raised towards the withers, and the ends of the yoke beam curved upward. An iron pole ring hangs from the flat hitch point reinforced with forged iron bands. The inner stave laths are straight; the outer, stick iron staves are no longer present. OKVIRASTVIHROVJAREM / dvojni / Kunšperk / orehov les, vse zapore iz bukov­ine, železo / d = 128,5 cm / v sred. dela = 8 cm / v ovrat. = 11 cm / g = 7,5 cm / v do vrha notr. ovrat. = 4,5 cm / š med obvrat. zap. = 31 cm / š notr. obvrat. zap. = 5,8 cm / deb. = 1,5 cm / v notr. obvrat. zap. = 67 cm / d spod. podvrat. zap. = 125,5 cm / v spod. podvrat. zap. = 3,5–7,5 cm / g spod. podvrat. zap. = 5 cm / T = 20,20 kg Telege so bile za muzej kupljene leta 1977 od Jožeta Geršaka, Kunšperk 1, Bistrica ob Sotli. Gornji del jarma je nad obema proti vihru dvignjenima ovratnikoma razgibano krašen s plitvo vrezanima razlicnima ornamentoma (niz polkrogoviz pikic je najverjet­neje tolcen) in med njima z nizom globljih, razpotegnjenih luskastih vrezov. Srednji del oziroma gožin sedež je raven in mocno okovan, z navpicno odprtino za železen pregelj (povezava z ojesom). Notranji letveni obvratni zapori sta ravni; zunanji palicasti obvrat­ni zapori manjkata. Primerek je drugace dobro ohranjen. WITHERS FRAME YOKE / double / Kunšperk / walnut, staves beech; iron / l = 128.5 cm / midpoint h = 8 cm / neck seat h = 11 cm / d = 7.5 cm / drop at neck seat = 4.5 cm / distance between staves = 31 cm / inner stave w = 5.8 cm / thickness = 1.5 cm / inner stave h = 67 cm / underneck crosspiece l = 125.5 cm / underneck crosspiece h = 3.5–7.5 cm / underneck crosspiece d = 5 cm / W = 20.20 kg The yoke was purchased bythe museum in 1977 from Jože Geršak, Kunšperk 1, Bistrica near Sotla. The upper part of the yoke above the neck seats (both higher at the withers end) is decorated with two different shallowly incised ornaments (the dots forming a row of semicircles are probably hammered) and between them a row of deeper, elongat­ed scalyincisions. The hitch point in the middle is flat and reinforced with forged iron braces; it has a vertical slot for the iron linchpin (connection with the drawbar). The inner lath staves are straight, the outer stick staves are no longer present. Other than that, the specimen is well preserved. OKVIRASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni, telége / Reštanj / javorjev les, železo / d = 122 cm / v sred. dela = 10 cm (z okovjem, leseni del 9 cm) / v ovrat. = 10 cm / g = 6,5 cm / v do vrha notr. ovrat. = 4,5 cm / š med obvrat. zap. = 34 cm / š oziroma p notr. in zun. obvrat. zap. (železnih palic) = 1,5 cm (zunanji) in 2 cm (notranji) / v notr. obvrat. zap. = 55 cm (notranji) in 57 cm (zunanji) / d spod. podvrat. zap. = 121 cm / v spod. podvrat. zap. = 5,5–6,5 cm / g spod. podvrat. zap. = 5 cm / T = 42,42 kg Primerek je leta 2001 muzeju podaril Martin Friedl, roj. 1937, kmet, hišno ime Brijevc, iz Reštanja 77. Uporabljali so ga še v zadnji cetrtini 20. stoletja. Gre za preprosto izde-lane, povsem neokrašene, a mocno okovane delovne telege za vlacenje hlodov; z 62 cm dolgo debelo verigo s kavljem in nekakšno sekirico oziroma »s klamfo za les«. Vse štiri obvratne zapore so železne palice; podvratna je lesena, pri desnem volu na zunanjem koncu pocena in povezana oziroma utrjena z ovito žico. Železna gož, »gožka« ni snem­ljiva, temvec je pritrjena na telo jarma. WITHERS FRAME YOKE / double, telége / Reštanj / maple, iron / l = 122 cm / midpoint h = 10 cm (with iron bits, wooden part 9 cm) / neck seat h = 10 cm / d = 6.5 cm / drop at neck seat = 4.5 cm / distance between staves = 34 cm / D of inner and outer staves (iron bars) = 2 cm (inner) and 1.5 cm (outer) / inner stave h = 55 cm (inner) and 57 cm (outer / underneck crosspiece l = 121 cm / underneck crosspiece h = 5.5–6.5 cm / underneck crosspiece d = 5 cm / W = 42.42 kg The specimen was donated to the museum in 2001 by Martin Friedl, b. 1937, farmer, house name Brijevc, from Reštanj 77. It was still used in the last quarter of the 20th century. This simple, undecorated, but heavilyreinforced working yoke was used for log hauling; it comes with a 62 cm long heavy chain with a hook and a kind of hatchet, or “wood clamp”. All four staves are iron bars; the wooden underneck crosspiece is cracked on the outer end of the right ox’s side, where it is reinforced with wire. The iron pole ring called gožka is fixed to the yoke beam. OKVIRASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni, telége / Gradec / javorjev les, železo / d = 108 cm / v sred. dela = 8 cm / v ovrat. = 9,5 cm / g = 8 cm / v do vrha notr. ovrat. = 2,5 cm / š med obvrat. zap. = 24 cm / š notr. obvrat. zap. = 5 cm / deb. = 2 cm (spodaj) in 1,5 cm / v notr. obvrat. zap. = 69 cm / v zunanje obvrat. zap. = 59 cm / d spod. podvrat. zap. = 109 cm / v spod. obvrat. zap. = 5 cm / g spod. obvrat. zap. = 4,5 cm / T = 21,86 kg Primerek je bil za muzejsko zbirko kupljen leta 2006 od Jožeta Onetica, Šovagina, sred­njega kmeta in živinskega mešetarja iz vasi Gradec 3 nad Podbocjem. Onetic ga je še v prvem desetletju 21. stoletja uporabljal za ucenje juncev oziroma mladih delovnih volov. Je preprosto izdelan, vendar ima s plitvimi vrezi krašen vrhnji del ovratnika, kjer je ta konkavno oblikovan. Telege so turkizno pobarvane, najverjetneje kar z modro galico. Raven gožin sedež je spodaj in zgoraj okovan; in ta del levo in desno od odprtine za železen pregelj (dolg 27 cm) objemata železna plocevinasta obroca (podobno kakor pri št. 42). WITHERS FRAME YOKE / double, telége / maple, iron / l = 108 cm / midpoint h = 8 cm / neck seat h = 9.5 cm / d = 8 cm / drop at neck seat = 2.5 cm / distance between staves = 24 cm / inner stave w = 5 cm / thickness = 2 cm (below) and 1.5 cm / inner stave h = 69 cm / outer stave h = 59 cm / underneck crosspiece l = 109 cm / underneck cross­piece h = 5 cm / underneck crosspiece d = 4.5 cm / W = 21.86 kg The specimen was purchased for the museum collection in 2006 from Jože Onetic, Šovagin, mid-sized farmer and livestock dealer from the village of Gradec above Pod-bocje (house address Gradec 3). Onetic still used the yoke in the first decade of the 21st century to train bullocks orwork bull calves. It is a simple yoke, with the concave of the neck seat decorated with shallow incisions. It is painted turquoise, most likelywith blue vitriol. The flat hitch point is reinforced underneath and above with iron braces; the part to the left and right of the slot that accommodates the iron linchpin (27 cm long) is embraced by two iron sheet rings (similar to no. 42). OKVIRASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni, telége / Gaj / javorjev les, zapore iz kostanja, javorja in bukovine, železo / d = 112,8 cm / v sred. dela = 7 cm (z okovjem, drugace 6 cm) / v ovrat. = 7,5 cm / g = 8,8 cm / v do vrha notr. ovrat. = 1 cm / š med obvrat. zap. = 21 cm / š notr. obvrat. zap. = 5,5 cm / deb. = 1,5 cm / v notr. obvrat. zap. = 63 cm / v zunanjih obvrat. zap. = 58 cm / d spod. podvrat. zap. = 112 cm / vspod. podvrat. zap. = 3,5 cm / g spod. podvrat. zap. = 5,5 cm / T = 26,28 kg Primerek je za muzejsko zbirko leta 2003 podaril Emil Hostnik, roj. 1920, kmet iz Gaja 9 nad Mokricami. Preproste telege je izdelal darovalec sam. S plitvimi vrezi jim je okrasil vrhnji del ovratnika, kjer je ta konkavno oblikovan. Uporabljal jih je do sedemdesetih let preteklega stoletja. Raven gožin sedež je z vseh štirih strani mocno okovan; na sredi ga predira železen pregelj (dolg 22 cm). Malce pocen zunanji del jarma (pri levem volu) je pred odprtino za palicasto železno zunanjo obvratno zaporo utrjen s tanjšim plocevi­nastim obrocem. Telo jarma in ena notranja obvratna zapora sta iz javorjevega lesa, druga zapora je iz bukovine, podvratna zapora pa je iz kostanjevega lesa. WITHERS FRAME YOKE / double, telége / Gaj / maple; staves chestnut, maple and beech, iron / l = 112.8 cm / midpoint h = 7 cm (with iron bits, wooden part 6 cm) / neck seat h = 7.5 cm / d = 8.8 cm / drop at neck seat = 1 cm / distance between staves = 21 cm / inner stave w = 5.5 cm / thickness = 1.5 cm / inner stave h = 63 cm / outer stave h = 58 cm / underneck crosspiece l = 112 cm / underneck crosspiece h = 3.5 cm / underneck crosspiece d = 5.5 cm / W = 26.28 kg The specimen was donated for the museum collection in 2003 by Emil Hostnik, b. 1920, farmer from Gaj 9, Mokrice. Hostnik made this simple yoke himself. He decorated the upper concave part of the neck seat with shallow incisions. The yoke was in use until the 1970s. The flat hitch point is reinforced on all four sides and pierced in the middle by the iron linchpin (22 cm long). The slightly cracked end of the yoke beam (on the left ox side) next to the hole for the outer iron bar stave is reinforced with a thinner tin plate loop. The yoke beam and one of the inner staves are made of maple, the other stave of beech, and the underneck crosspiece of chestnut. OKVIRASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni, telege / Brezovi Dol / jesenov les / d = 100 cm / v sred. dela = 20 cm / g = 5,3 cm / v do vrha notr. ovrat. = 8 cm / š med obvrat. zap. = 26 (leva žival) in 25 cm (desna žival) / š notr. obvrat. zap. = 5,5 cm / v notr. obvrat. zap. = 68 cm / d spod. podvrat. zap. = 101 cm / g spod. podvrat. zap. = 3,8 cm / v spod. podvrat. zap. = 7 cm Telege so bile za muzej pridobljene leta 1966, kupljene od Cirila Glivarja iz Brezovega Dola 19 pri Zagradcu. Jarmovo telo ima narejeno višjo in ne prav široko krono, ki obdaja rogljicast gožin sedež. Vse robove ima krašene z enim, dvema ali s tremi nizi luskastih vrezov. Na sprednji in zadnji strani so tako na neravni podvratni zapori (kakršno ima na primer tudi št. 45) kot na jarmu vrezane križaste cvetice oziroma grški križi (crux quadrata): štirje – na jarmovem telesu spredaj, eden – na hribcu gožinega sedeža spredaj in zadaj in še dva – po eden na vsakem sprednjem in zadnjem vrhnjem koncu notranjih letvenih obvratnih zapor. Ti zadnji križi, vrezani v žarkastem krogu, so bili morda izve­deni s simbolnim pomenom soncnega ali pa posvetnega križa. Na telegah so vidni ostan­ki temnosive, skoraj crne barve (zavoljo cesar se za barvanjem vrezan dekorkontrastno svetlo – temno odraža). Zunanji palicasti obvratni zapori sta bili najverjetneje železni, tako kakor pri št. 44. Telege so narejene iz jesenovine, ki ga sporoca tudi prvotni zapis v inventarni knjigi. WITHERS FRAME YOKE / double, telege / Brezovi Dol / ash / l = 100 cm / midpoint h = 20 cm / d = 5.3 cm/ drop at neck seat = 8 cm / distance between staves = 26 cm (left animal) and 25 cm (right animal) / inner stave w = 5.5 cm / inner stave h = 68 cm / un­derneck crosspiece l = 101 cm / underneck crosspiece d = 3.8 cm / underneck crosspiece h = 7 cm The yoke was acquired for the museum in 1966, purchased from Ciril Glivar from Brezovi Dol 19, Zagradec. The yoke beam has a taller, not verywide crown surrounding the crescent-shaped hitch point. All edges are decorated with one, two or three rows of scaly incisions. The front and rear side, both on the articulated underneck crosspiece (similar to the one in no. 45) and the yoke beam, have incised cross-like flowers or Greek crosses (crux quadrata): four on the front of the yoke beam, one on both faces of the hitch point hillock, and another two – one on each front and rear top end of the inner staves. The latter are incised inside a ray-like circle and may have a symbolic function of the sun cross, or a secular cross. There are visible remains of dark grey, almost black stain on the yoke (causing a contrasting light-dark effect of the subsequently carved décor). The outer stick staves were most likely made of iron, like in no. 44. The yoke is made of ash, which corresponds to the original description in the inventory book. OKVIRASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni, telege / Brezovi Dol / 1912 / najverjetneje bu-kov les, železo / d = 101 cm / v sr. dela = 21,8 cm / g = 7 cm / v do vrha notr. ovrat. = 9 cm / š med obvrat. zap. = 31 cm / š notr. obvrat. zap. = 5,5 cm (zgoraj 6,5 cm) / vnotr. obvrat. zap. = 69–70 cm / d spod. podvrat. zap. = 104 cm / g spod. podvrat. zap. = 4 cm/ vspod. podvrat. zap. = 5,5 cm / T = 19,48 kg Tudi te telege so bile za muzej pridobljene leta 1966, kupljene od Cirila Glivarja iz Brezo­vega Dola 19 pri Zagradcu. Gre za zelo soroden primerek s št. 43, le da je na tem spredaj in zadaj vrezanih nekaj vec grških križev (crux quadrata) oziroma nekakšnih križastih cvetic: dva – na podvratni zapori spredaj, štirje – na jarmovem telesu spredaj, dva – na jarmovem telesu zadaj, eden – na hribcu gožinega sedeža spredaj in zadaj in še dva – po eden na vsakem vrhnjem koncu notranjih obvratnih zapor spredaj in zadaj. Zadnja, vrezana v žarkastem krogu, sta bila morda izvedena s simbolnim pomenom soncne­ga križa. Na zadnji strani jarmovega telesa, z dvignjenima ovratnikoma, je na kroni, levo in desno ob gožinem sedežu, vrezana deljena letnica 19 12. Tudi na tem okvirastem vihrovem jarmu so vidni ostanki temnosive barve. Zunanji obvratni palicasti zapori sta železni. Njuno gornje ležišce je okoli obeh odprtin podloženo s pribito železno plocevi-no kvadrataste oblike (ki je šcitila les pred obrabo). Telege so najverjetneje narejene iz bukovega lesa. WITHERS FRAME YOKE / double, telege / Brezovi Dol / 1912 / most likelybeech; iron / l = 101 cm / midpoint h = 21.8 cm / d = 7 cm/ drop at neck seat = 9 cm / distance between staves = 31 cm / inner stave w = 5.5 cm (6.5 cm on top) / inner stave h = 69–70 cm / un­derneck crosspiece l = 104 cm / underneck crosspiece d = 4 cm / underneck crosspiece h = 5.5 cm / W = 19.48 kg The yoke was acquired for the museum in 1966, also from Ciril Glivar from Brezovi Dol 19, Zagradec. The specimen is very similar to no. 43, but has more Greek crosses (crux quadrata) or cross-shaped flowers carved into the front and rear: two on the front of the underneck crosspiece, four on the front of the yoke beam, two on the rear of the yoke beam, one on the front and rear of the hitch point hillock, and one on both the front and rear top end of the inner staves. Carved in a ray circle, the last two crosses may have the symbolic function of the sun cross. The year 1912 is carved into the crown on the rear side of the yoke beam with the raised neck seats, to the left and right of the hitch point. This yoke, too, has visible traces of dark grey stain. The outer stick staves are made of iron. Their upper socket is lined around both holes with a square-shaped iron plate (to protect the wood from wear and tear). The yoke is probably made of beech. OKVIRASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni, telenge / Glogovica / 1924 / javorjev les / d = 113 cm / v sr. dela = 22 cm / g = 7 cm / v do vrha notr. ovrat. = 10 cm / š med obvrat. zap. = 21 cm / š notr. obvrat. zap. = 6 cm (spodaj), 4–5 cm (zgoraj) / deb. = 2 cm (spodnji odebeljeni del = 3,5 cm) / vnotr. obvrat. zap. = 76,8 cm / d spod. podvrat. zap. = 113,8 cm / g spod. podvrat. zap. = 4,5 cm / v spod. podvrat. zap. = 5 cm / T = 22,04 kg »Telenge« je muzeju podaril Alojz Kotar, Glogovica 19, Šentvid pri Sticni. Zgornji del, jarmovo telo, ima visoko in široko krono (nad gožinim sedežem), ob vseh robovih kraše-no z dvema nizoma luskastih vrezov. Z nizom luskastih vrezov sta krašeni tudi notranji letveni obvratni zapori, ki sta v gornjem delu malce ukrivljeni navzven, ter spodnja pod-vratna zapora. Na sprednji strani, levo in desno ob gožinem sedežu v obliki rogljica, je deljeno vrezana letnica 19 24, zadaj pa inicialki F Z. Stranski palicasti obvratni zapori, ki manjkata, sta bili najverjetneje leseni, saj so odprtine zanju ovalne oblike, s premerom 2–3 cm. Podvratna zapora je na mestih, ki so objemala živalski vrat, konkavno zaoblje­na. Drugace dobro ohranjen primerek ima na mestih, kjer se je lesa držalo lubje, odkrh-v njeno površino. Vsi sestavni deli teleg so ožgani oziroma obdelani z ognjem. WITHERS FRAME YOKE / double, telenge / Glogovica / 1924 / maple / l = 113 cm / midpoint h = 22 cm / d = 7 cm/ drop at neck seat = 10 cm / distance between staves = 21 cm / inner stave w = 6 cm (bottom), 4–5 cm (top) / thickness = 2 cm (3.5 at the thicker bottom part) / inner stave h = 76.8 cm / underneck crosspiece l = 113.8 cm / underneck crosspiece d = 4.5 cm / underneck crosspiece h = 5 cm / W = 22.04 kg The yoke was donated to the museum byAlojz Kotar, Glogovica 19, Šentvid nearStic­na. The yoke beam has a tall wide crown (above the hitch point), decorated along the edges with two rows of scaly incisions. A row of scaly incisions decorates also the edges of the inner staves (which are slightly curved outwards at the top) and the underneck crosspiece. The front face has the year 1924 carved to the left and right of the cres-cent-shaped hitch point, and initials F Z on the rear. The missing outer stick staves were probablymade of wood, as suggested bythe oval-shaped openings that accommodated them and which measure 2–3 cm in diameter. The underneck crosspiece is concavely rounded around the animal’s neck. The otherwise well-preserved specimen is chipped on the spots where bark was attached to the wood. All parts of the yoke were charred or flame treated. OKVIRAST VIHROV JAREM / dvojni / Glogovica / 1925 ali 1926 / najverjetneje javorjev les / d = 127 cm / v sr. dela = 23 cm / g = 8 cm / v do vrha notr. ovrat. = 9 cm / š med obvrat. zap. = 25,5 cm (pri desnem volu 26,5 cm) / š notr. obvrat. zap. = 6 cm (spodaj), 5,5 cm (zgoraj) / deb. = 2 cm (spodnji odebeljeni del = 3,5 cm) / v notr. obvrat. zap. = 76 cm / d spod. podvrat. zap. = 130 cm / v spod. podvrat. zap. = 5–6 cm / g spod. podvrat. zap. = 5 cm / T = 25,48 kg Nacin pridobitve sicer ni znan, a gre za povsem sorodno izdelan primerek, kakor je št. 45; in tako po vsej verjetnosti tudi ta izvira iz Glogovice oziroma iz okolice Šentvida pri Sticni – najverjetneje celo z iste domacije (glede na veliko zacetnico priimka – Z). Telege so pocrnjene oziroma ožgane. Vanje sta deljeno vrezani inicialki T Z (pri omenjenem sorodnem primerku F Z) in letnica 19 25 ali 26 (pri prejšnjem 19 24). Zelo slabo so ohranjene; na vec mestih so preperele in odkrhnjene. WITHERS FRAME YOKE / double / Glogovica / 1925 or 1926 / most likely maple / l = 127 cm / midpoint h = 23 cm / d = 8 cm/ drop at neck seat = 9 cm / distance between staves = 25.5 cm (26.5 cm for the right ox) / inner stave w = 6 cm (bottom), 5.5 cm (top) / thickness = 2 cm (3.5 cm at the thickerbottom part) / innerstave h = 76 cm / underneck crosspiece l = 130 cm / underneck crosspiece h = 5–6 cm / underneck crosspiece d = 5 cm / W = 25.48 kg The manner of acquisition is unknown, but the specimen is very similar to no. 45, so it probably originates from Glogovica or the vicinity of Šentvid near Sticna – most likely from the same homestead (as suggested bythe capital letter Z that stands for the sur­name). The yoke was charred. It has initials T Z carved apart (F Z in the above-men­tioned specimen) and the year 19 25 or 26 (in the previous specimen 19 24). The yoke is in very poor condition, with several spots decayed and chipped off. OKVIRASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni, telenge / Velike Cešnjice / orehov les, notranji zapori iz jesenovine / d = 113,5 cm / v sred. dela = 25,5 cm / g = 9 cm / v do vrha notr. ovrat. = 8 cm / š med obvrat. zap. = 25 in 24 cm (pri desnem volu) / š notr. obvrat. zap. = 5 cm / deb. = 2,5 cm / v notr. obvrat. zap. = 72 cm / d spod. podvrat. zap. = 112,5 cm / v spod. podvrat. zap. = 6,5–7,5 cm / g spod. podvrat. zap. = 6 cm / T = 29,10 kg Ta okvirast vihrov jarem je za muzejsko zbirko najverjetneje pridobila ekipa Etnograf­skega mizeja, leta 1950, na Terenu 5 (Šentvid pri Sticni). Prepoznan je bil namrec na fotografiji F 5/37, ki jo je tedaj vvasi Velike Cešnjice posnel Boris Orel. Težke, robustne telege so zelo bogato krašene – enako spredaj in zadaj; in sicer s tremi nizi luskastih vrezov po vseh gornjih robovih jarma, po kroni, po ukrivljeni podvratni zapori in tudi ob robovih. Ucinek krašenja je toliko bolj opazen zavoljo crnkaste, ožgane površine. Na hribcu rogljicastega gožinega sedeža je spredaj in zadaj vrezan grški križ (crux quadrata) (kot zašcita vprežnih živali) ter pod njo križasta cvetica. Eden izmed obeh omenjenih celo spominja na križ Svetega groba (jeruzalemski križ). Križaste cvetice oziroma crux quadrata v krogih (morda s simbolnim pomenom soncnega ali pa posvetnega križa) so vrezane tudi vvse sklepne zunanje dele jarmovih ovratnikov in podvratne zapore. Zao­bljena zunanja konca ovratnikovimata vrezan Andrejevkriž (crux decussata). Ohranjena zunanja palicasta obvratna zapora je lesena in skrbno oblikovana (z vrhom v obliki crke T), druga manjka. WITHERS FRAME YOKE / double, telenge / Velike Cešnjice / walnut, inner staves ash / l = 113.5 cm / midpoint h = 25.5 cm / d = 9 cm/ drop at neck seat = 8 cm / distance between staves = 25 and 24 cm (right ox) / inner stave w = 5 cm / thickness = 2.5 cm / inner stave h = 72 cm / underneck crosspiece l = 112.5 cm / underneck crosspiece h = 6.5–7.5 cm / underneck crosspiece d = 6 cm / W = 29.10 kg This frame yoke was most likely purchased for the museum collection by the Ethno­graphic Museum team in 1950 on Site 5 (Šentvid near Sticna). It was identified in photo F 5/37, taken at the time by Boris Orel in the village of Velike Cešnjice. This robust, heavy telege is ornately decorated – both on the front and rear face – with three rows of scaly incisions running along the upper edges of the yoke, the crown, the curved underneck crosspiece, and the sides. The decorative effect is enhanced by the dark, charred surface. The front and back of the hillock under the crescent-shaped hitch point are incised with a Greek cross (crux quadrata) (as protection of draught animals) and a cross-shaped flower underneath it. One of the latter is reminiscent of the Jerusalem cross. Cross-shaped flowers or circled crux quadrata (possiblywith the symbolic meaning of the sun cross or a secular cross) are incised also on the spots where the neck seats and the un­derneck crosspiece are pierced by the staves. A St. Andrew’s cross is incised into each of the rounded neck seat ends. The outerwooden stick stave is carefully crafted with a T-shaped top; the other one is no longer present. Inv. št. / Inv. no. 7631 OKVIRASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni, telenge / Sela pri Šmarju / orehov les, zapore iz bukovine / d = 99 cm / v sred. dela = 22 cm / g = 8 cm / v do vrha notr. ovrat. = 8 cm / š med obvrat. zap. = 20–21 cm / š notr. obvrat. zap. = 5,5 cm; deb. = 2 cm / v notr. obvrat. zap. = 67 cm / d spod. podvrat. zap. = 90 cm / g spod. podvrat. zap. = 4,3 cm / vspod. podvrat. zap. = 5,5 cm / T = 15,16 kg »'Telenge', volovske« je za muzejsko zbirko pridobila ekipa Etnografskega muzeja, leta 1949, na Terenu 2 (Šmarje - Sap – Polica); o cemer prica tudi fotografija F 2/303, ki jo je tedaj posnel Milko Maticetov. Kupili so jih od Antona Jancarja, hišno ime pri Dimniku, Sela pri Šmarju 6. Primerek je preprost, a zelo skrbno narejen. Ima trikotno krono z rogljicastim gožinim sedežem ter navzven ukrivljeni letveni notranji obvratni zapori. Podvratna zapora je na mestih, kjer se dotika živalskega vratu, konkavno zaobljena. Zu­nanji palicasti obvratni zapori manjkata. Najverjetneje sta bili leseni (takšna se zdi tudi tista, ki je vidna na omenjeni fotografiji), saj sta bili zgoraj širši kakor spodaj; odprtini na jarmu imata namrec premer 2 cm, tisti na podvratni zapori pa 1,5 cm. WITHERS FRAME YOKE / double, telenge / Sela near Šmarje / walnut, staves beech / l = 99 cm / midpoint h = 22 cm / d = 8 cm / drop at neck seat = 8 cm / distance between staves = 20–21 cm / inner stave w = 5.5 cm; thickness = 2 cm / inner stave h = 67 cm / un­derneck crosspiece l = 90 cm / underneck crosspiece d = 4.3 cm / underneck crosspiece h = 5.5 cm / W = 15.16 kg This “telenge, oxen” was obtained by the Ethnographic Museum team in 1949 on Site 2 (Šmarje-Sap – Polica), as demonstrated by photograph F 2/303, taken at the time by Milko Maticetov. It was purchased from Anton Jancar, house name Pri Dimniku, Sela near Šmarje 6. Although simple, the specimen is very carefully crafted. It has a triangular crown with a crescent-shaped hitch point and outward bent laths that serve as staves. The underneck crosspiece is concavely rounded where it touches the animal’s neck. The outer stick staves are missing. Like the stave in said photograph theywere also probably made of wood, as suggested by the holes through which they passed, indicating that they were wider on top: the holes on the yoke beam measure 2 cm in diameter, whereas the diameter of the holes piercing the underneck crosspiece is only 1.5 cm. OKVIRASTVIHROVJAREM / dvojni / 1862 / orehov les, notranji zapori iz bukovine / d = 119 cm / v sred. dela = 21,5 cm / g = 6 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 4 cm / š med obvrat. zap. = 28,5 cm (levi vol); in 28 cm (desni vol) / š notr. obvrat. zap. = 5,5 cm / deb. = 1,5 cm, spodnji odebeljeni del = 3 cm / v notr. obvrat. zap. (obe sta odlomljeni) / d spod. podvrat. zap. = 119 cm / v spod. podvrat. zap. = 6 cm / g spod. podvrat. zap. = 4 cm / T = 14,64 kg Nacin pridobitve tega primerka ni znan. Gre za bogato krašene telege, z nizi luskas­tih vrezov in spredaj z zašcitnimi šestlistnimi (oziroma šesterokrakimi) rozetami levo in desno od gožinega sedeža rogljicaste oblike ter središcno na obeh dvignjenih delih ovratnikov. Bolj pravokoten hribec gožinega sedeža ima spredaj vrezan grški križ (crux quadrata), ki pa s štirimi luskastimi vrezi v štirih poljih ob križu deluje kakor križ Svetega groba. Zadaj sta ob levi in desni strani gožinega sedeža z luskastimi vrezi izvedeni spirali in deljena letnica 18 62. Mocno dvignjena ovratnika sta na hrbtni strani konkavna. Tudi podvratna zapora je tam, kjer je sedala pod živalska vratova, zelo izrazito konkavno oblikovana. Obe letveni obvratni zapori sta zgoraj odlomljeni; zunanji manjkata. WITHERS FRAME YOKE / double / 1862 / walnut, inner staves beech / l = 119 cm / midpoint h = 21.5 cm / d = 6 cm / drop at neck seat = 4 cm / distance between staves = 28.5 cm (left ox) and 28 cm (right ox) / inner stave w = 5.5 cm / thickness = 1.5 cm and 3 cm at the bottom / inner stave h (both staves are chipped) / underneck crosspiece l = 119 cm / underneck crosspiece h = 6 cm / underneck crosspiece d = 4 cm / W = 14.64 kg The mode of acquisition is unknown. The yoke is ornately decorated with rows of scaly incisions and on the front face with protective six-petal (or six-arm) rosettes incised to the left and right of the crescent-shaped hitch point as well as in the centre of both raised sections of the neck seats. The hitch point hillock is more rectangular in shape and has an incised Greek cross (crux quadrata), which has four scaly incisions between the arms, thus appearing as the Jerusalem cross. On the rear side are two spirals and the year 18 62 carved with scaly incisions to the left and right of the hitch point. The raised neck seats are concave at the back. Likewise, the underneck crosspiece is distinctly concave under the animals’ necks. Both stave laths are chipped at top; the outer staves are no longer present. OKVIRASTVIHROVJAREM / dvojni / 1890 / najverjetneje javorjev les, železo / d = 106 cm / v sred. dela = 20 cm / g = 7 cm (na sredi) in 8,5 cm (na mestu ovratnikov) / v do vrha notr. ovrat. = 8 cm / š med obvrat. zap. = 19 cm in 20,5 cm (na strani desnega vola) / T = 10,94 kg Nacin pridobitve jarma ni znan. Sodec po odprtinah za zunanje in notranje obvratne zapore ter obliki gožinega sedeža gre najverjetneje za okvirast vihrov jarem. Telege so ožgane, z lepo vidnim vrezanim okrasom: po enem nizu luskastih vrezov ob gor­njih robovih so na gornjih delih ovratnikov izvedeni kar štirje vrezani nizi. Krona okoli gožinega sedeža rogljicaste oblike je ožja od jarmovega telesa. Spredaj je deljeno vrezana letnica 18 90, zadaj vejicasta okraska. Na jarmovem telesu – na delu, kjer ga predirata pravokotni odprtini za letveno notranjo obvratno zaporo – sta zadaj vrezana rožasto delujoca križa (ki sta morda poenostavljeno izvedena križa Svetega groba). Plitev grški križ (crux quadrata) je vrezan tudi na hrbtni strani hribca gožinega sedeža. Telege imajo oba zunanja konca ovratnikovpocena (odlomljena) in cez razpoki spredaj in zadaj moc­no okovana. WITHERS FRAME YOKE / double / 1890 / most likely maple; iron / l = 106 cm / midpoint h = 20 cm / d = 7 cm (centre) and 8.5 cm (at the neck seat) / drop at neck seat = 8 cm / distance between staves = 19 cm and 20.5 cm (right ox) / W = 10.94 kg The mode of acquisition is unknown. The outer and inner stave openings and the shape of the hitch point suggest that this is most likely a withers frame yoke. The yoke beam is charred, with clearlyvisible decorative incisions: a row of scaly incisions running along the upper edges continues with four rows of incisions carved into the top of the neck seats. The crown around the crescent-shaped hitch point is narrower than the yoke beam. On the front face, the year 1890 is carved to the left and right of the crescent, and branch-like ornaments are incised on the same spot on the reverse side. At the back of the yoke beam, where the beam is pierced by rectangular slots for the inner stave, are two incised crosses (probably simplified Jerusalem crosses) that appear as flowers. A shallow Greek cross (crux quadrata) is incised also on the back of the hitch point hillock. Both outer ends of the neck seats are cracked (broken) and heavily reinforced across the cracks with iron bands (on the front and rear side). OKVIRAST (KLEŠCASTO-KAMBAST) VIHROV JAREM / enojni / Gaj / orehov les, letvi iz jesenovine, kovina / š = 50 cm / g = 10 cm / v ovrat. = 5,8 cm / š ovrat = 15 cm / d kambe = 58 cm / gornja odprt. kambe = 2 cm, spodnja = 5,5 cm / T = 6,44 kg Enojni jarem z letveno klešcasto kambo je leta 2003 muzeju podaril Emil Hostnik, roj. 1920, kmet iz Gaja 9 nad Mokricami, ki si je tudi ta enojni jarem izdelal sam (tako kakor telege št. 42). Z voli je delal še v sedemdesetih letih preteklega stoletja. Primerek ima levo od ovratnika spredaj vrezano polovico letnice – 19 in veliko zacetnico priimka H-ostnik, desno drugo polovico letnice – 70 in inicialko imena E-mil. Hostnik je nad številkami in crkama jarem tudi okrasil s preprostimi kratkimi crtnimi vrezi. Okovana konca jarma sta nepremicna. Nepregiben (povezan z aluminijasto plošcico spredaj in zadaj) je tudi stik obeh ukrivljenih letev klešcaste kambe. WITHERS FRAME TONG-BOWYOKE / single / Gaj / walnut, laths ash; metal / w = 50 cm / d = 10 cm / neck seat h = 5.8 cm / neck seat w = 15 cm / bow l = 58 cm / upper bow slot = 2 cm, bottom = 5.5 cm / W = 6.44 kg This single yoke with a tong-shaped bow composed of wooden laths was donated to the museum in 2003 by Emil Hostnik, b. 1920, farmer from Gaj 9, Mokrice, who made this single yoke (like yoke no. 42) himself. Hostnik still worked with oxen as late as in the 1970s. The specimen has a half of the year (19) and the capital H (for Hostnik) carved on the front face to the left of the neck seat, and to the right the other half of the year (70) and the initial E (for Emil). Hostnik also decorated the yoke with simple short lines carved above the numbers and initials. The shackled yoke ends are fixed, the same as the contact of both curved laths (connected with an aluminium plate at the front and the back) that form the tong-shaped bow. OKVIRAST (KLEŠCASTO-KAMBAST) VIHROV JAREM / enojni, jarm / Bistrica ob Sotli / 1961 / jesenov les, letvi iz jesenovine in bukovine, železo / š = 57 cm / g = 7,5 cm / v ovrat. = 9,5 cm / š ovrat. = 19 cm / d kambe = 71 cm / gornja odprt. kambe = 2 cm, spodnja = 5,5–7 cm / T = 10,40 kg Med urejanjem zbirke je bilo ugotovljeno, da enojnemu jarmu, ki je bil sine numero in posledicno sine data, ustreza pregibna klešcasta kamba z vhodno številko 22/1977, pri kateri so zapisali: »Jarm, enojen, s 'kširom' in 'triklcem'« (slednja manjkata). Nakup: Karl Müller, Bistrica ob Sotli 20. Levo od ovratnika je spredaj vrezana polovica letnice – 19 in velika zacetnica S, desno druga polovica letnice – 61 in inicialka K. Vrh ovratnika je krašen s plitvim, crtno vrezanim ornamentom. Na obeh koncih enojnega jarma je izve­deno vrtljivo okovje s kavljema za ojnici. Prav takšno vrtljivo okovje imata tudi »jarmca« iz Imenja in Kocarije na Dolenjskem, na risanih zapisih št. 16 iz leta 1952 (R 9/15, Teren 9, Šentjernej) in št. 29 iz leta 1956 (R 13/76 Teren 13, Kostanjevica). Kamba je dvodelna, klešcasta; njeni ukrivljeni letvi s pravokotnim prerezom se spodaj skleneta ali razkleneta – podobno, kakor pri komatih. V ta namen je desna odprtina za klešcasto kambo skoraj enkrat širša. Iz jesenovega lesa narejeni jarem (iz naravne krivine) ima levo letev kambe iz jesenovine, desno pa iz bukovine. WITHERS FRAME TONG BOWYOKE / single, jarm / Bistrica by the Sotla River / 1961 / ash, laths ash and beech; iron / w = 57 cm / d = 7.5 cm / neck seat h = 9.5 cm / neck seat w = 19 cm / bow l = 71 cm / upper bow slot = 2 cm, bottom = 5.5-7 cm / W = 10.40 kg­While organizing the collection it became clear that the single yoke that was sine numero and consequently sine data, matches the flexible tong-shaped bow with entry number 22/1977, which was described as: “Yoke, single, with kšir and triklc” (the latter two no longer present). Purchase: Karl Müller, Bistrica by the Sotla River 20. The first half of the year 19- and capital S are incised on the front to the left of the neck seat and to the right the other half of the year -61 and the initial K. The top of the neck seat is decorated with a shallow ornament composed of incised lines. Both ends of the yoke are fitted with forged swivels with hooks for the shafts. The two jarmc yokes from Imenje and Kocarija in the Dolenjska region depicted in drawn records nos. 16 from 1952 (R 9/15, Site 9, Šentjernej)) and 29 from 1956 (R 13/76 Site 13, Kostanjevica) have the same swivel fit­tings. The two-part bow is tong-shaped; its curved laths with a rectangular cross-section join or part at the bottom – in a similar manner as the hames of a collar. The right slot for the tong-shaped bow is therefore nearly twice as wide. The left bow lath of the ash wood yoke (carved from a naturally bent branch) is made of ash, and the right of beech. OKVIRAST (KLEŠCASTO-KAMBAST) VIHROV JAREM / enojni / nedognan les, železo / š = 43 cm / g = 10 cm / vovrat. = 5 cm / š ovrat. = 13,5 cm / d kambe = 63 cm / gornja odprt. kambe = 8 cm, spodnja = 7 cm Enojni jarem z letveno klešcasto kambo je sicer brez znanega nacina pridobitve in kra­jevnega izvora, a mu je glede na sorodne primerke vendarle mogoce okvirno dolociti regionalni izvor: panonska obmocja Štajerske ali Dolenjske. Casovno ga je na podlagi izvedbe mogoce umestiti v sredino 20. stoletja. Pobarvan je s temno zeleno oljno barvo. Na sredini prednje površine ovratnika sta narejena zamaknjena navpicna niza vodorav­nih luskastih vrezov. Na njuni levi in desni strani sta plitvo vrezani vitici, ki se spiralno koncata v trilistni oziroma tri kraki križasti cvetici (morda kot »T«-križa sv. Antona oziroma crux commissa). Dvodelna letvena kamba se spodaj lahko sklene ali razklene, podobno kakor komat. Vrhnji del desne ukrivljene letve je bil pri kvadratnih odprtinah za zatic (za regulacijo višine odprtine za živalski vrat) pocen ter je utrjen z vezjo iz železne plocevine. WITHERS FRAME TONG BOWYOKE / single / unidentified wood, iron / w = 43 cm / d = 10 cm / neck seat h = 5 cm / nape seat w = 13.5 cm / bow l = 63 cm / upper bow slot = 8 cm, bottom = 7 cm Although the mode of acquisition and provenance of this single yoke with a tong-shaped bow are unknown, its regional origin can nevertheless be inferred from similar speci­mens: the Pannonian parts of the Štajerska and Dolenjska regions. Its execution suggests it was made in the mid-20th century. The yoke is painted with dark green oil paint. In the middle of the front face of the neck seat are two staggered vertical rows of horizontal scaly incisions. Incised to the left and right of them are two shallow tendrils that spiral into a trefoil or a three-petal cross-shaped flower (perhaps as the “T” of St. Anthony’s cross or crux commissa). The bow laths join or part at the bottom, similar to the hames of a collar. The top of the right curved lath next to the rectangular bow pin slots (for depth adjustment) cracked and was reinforced with an iron plate brace. KARTA 3 / MAP 3 OSREDNJESLOVENSKO IN MEDITERANSKO OBMOCJE Z DELOM ALPSKEGA IN PANONSKEGA OBMOCJA – OBLIKOVNI TIPI DVOJNIH KAMBASTIH VIHROVIH JARMOV / DOUBLE WITHERS BOW YOKES – CENTRAL SLOVENIA AND THE MEDITERRANEAN REGION WITH PART OF THE ALPINE AND PANNONIAN REGIONS KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / Topli Vrh / 1888 / nedognan les / d = 96,5 cm / v sred. dela = 22 cm / g = 6,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 7 cm (desni vol) in 7,5 cm (levi vol) / š med odprt. kamb = 12,5 cm (desni) in 13 cm (levi vol) / p odprt. za kambi = 2,8 cm / T = 10,00 kg Jarem je bil prepoznan na fotografiji (F4089, fototeka SEM), ki jo spremlja naslednji opis: »Lesen volovski jarem. Poslal mežnarvToplem Vrhu pri Crmošnjicah.« Najver­jetneje gre za dvojcek (istega izdelovalca) jarma iz Dunajskega etnografskega muzeja, Inv. št. / Inv. no. 61.339, objavljenega v clanku Marije Kundegraber, Ein Kapitel aus der Gottscheer Gerätekunde: Die Ochsenjoche (Jahrbuch für Ostdeutsche Volkskunde 10, 1966/67, str. 98). Primerek je ožgan po celi površini in krašen z navpicnimi nizi redko posejanih luskastih vrezov, ki delujejo pikcasto; gornji rob jarma in krone sta krašena s crtnimi vrezi. Spredaj na kroni – levo in desno od gožinega sedeža – je deljeno vrezana letnica 18 88. Na hribcu vrezano navpicno crto prekine trikotnik (morda hišno znamen­je). Zadaj sta levo in desno vrezani šestlistni oziroma šesterokraki rozeti. Jarem je dobro ohranjen, a kambi manjkata. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / Topli Vrh / 1888 / unidentified wood / l = 96.5 cm / midpoint h = 22 cm / d = 6.5 cm / drop at neck seat = 7 cm (right ox) and 7.5 cm (left ox) / distance between bow holes = 12.5 cm (right) and 13 cm (left ox) / bow hole D = 2.8 cm / W = 10.00 kg The yoke was identified from photograph F4089 from the SEM photo library, which is accompanied by the following description: “Wooden ox yoke. Sent by the churchwarden from Topli Vrh near Crmošnjice.” Most likely a duplicate (bythe same maker) of the yoke from the Austrian Museum of Folk Life and Folk Art in Vienna, inv. no. 61.339, published in Maria Kundegraber’s article “Ein Kapitel aus der Gottscheer Gerätekunde: Die Ochsenjoche (Jahrbuch für Ostdeutsche Volkskunde 10, 1966/67, p. 98). The specimen is charred across the entire surface and decorated with vertical rows of thinly spaced scalyincisions that resemble dots; the upper edge of the yoke beam and the crown are decorated with incised lines. The year 1888 is carved into the front face of the crown on either side of the hitch point. The hitch point hillock has an incised vertical line inter­rupted by a triangle (perhaps the house symbol). Six-petal rosettes are incised to the left and right of the hitch point on the rear face. The yoke is in good condition, but the bows are no longer present. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni, jarem / Brezovi Dol / orehov les / d = 92,5 cm / v sred. dela = 18 cm / g = 7,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 9 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 12,5 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3 cm / T = 7,32 kg Primerek je bil za muzej pridobljen leta 1966, kupljen od Cirila Glivarja, Brezovi Dol 19 pri Zagradcu. Pri tem jarmu je težko dolociti sprednjo in zadnjo stran, saj je na obeh povsem enako krašen. Vzdolž jarma zgoraj, po robovih gornjega roba in na polkrož­nem hribcu rogljicastega gožinega sedeža teceta dva niza luskastih vrezov. Primerek ima crtno vrezana robova in preproste žarkaste rozete (sonca ali kroge) na sredi med odprtinama za kambi zgoraj in od strani. Ti simboli so vrezani tudi spredaj in zadaj levo in desno od gožinega sedeža ter na sredini njegovega hribca. Edino asimetrijo pomenita dve precno vrezani crti na gornjem robu preprosto oblikovane krone; ena na sredini in druga proti levi oziroma desni strani jarma. Morda je bila na ta nacin oznacena stran vodilne, prirocne vprežne živali. Obe zunanji odprtini za kambi imata na notranji strani v spodnji rob izveden pravokoten izrez. Morda zavoljo tega, da se kamba lažje vtika; ali pa zato, ker je stena odprtine tanka in je posledicno pri mnogih primerkih potem odkrhnjena (kot posledica vlecne sile); tudi pri tem jarmu. Kambi manjkata. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double, jarem / Brezovi Dol / walnut / l = 92.5 cm / midpoint h = 18 cm / d = 7.5 cm/ drop at neck seat = 9 cm / distance between bow holes = 12.5 cm / bow hole D = 3 cm / W = 7.32 kg The specimen was purchased for the museum in 1966 from Ciril Glivar, Brezovi Dol 19 near Zagradec. Both sides of the yoke are decorated with the same patterns, so it is difficult to tell the front face from the rear. Two rows of scaly incisions run along the upper edges of the yoke beam and on the semicircular hillock of the crescent-shaped hitch point. The specimen has incised lines marking the edges of the beam and simple ray rosettes (suns or circles) carved in the middle between the bow holes on the top, and to the side. The same symbols are incised on the front and rear face to the left and right of the hitch point and in the middle of the hillock. The only asymmetric element are two crosswise lines incised on the upper edge of the simple crown – one in the middle and one to the left (or right) side of the yoke beam. This may have been a marking for the leading, near-side draught animal. Both outer bow holes have a rectangular notch carved into the lower edge of the inner side. This could be to make the bow easier to insert, or because the wall of the opening is thin and therefore often chipped (as a result of traction); the bows are no longer present. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / Brezovi Dol / najverjetneje gabrov les / d = 93 cm / v sred. dela = 20 cm / g = 6,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 7,7 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 14 cm (desna žival) in 13 cm (leva) / p odprt. za kambi = 3 cm / T = 8,12 kg (brez goži). Krajevni izvor primerka je Brezovi Dol pri Zagradcu, cas in nacin pridobitve sta enaka kakor pri št. 55. Gre za kambast vihrov jarem (v dobršni meri soroden primerku št. 55) s preprosto oblikovano krono z rogljicastim gožinim sedežem, na prednji strani ob robovih krašen z enim nizom luskastih vrezov. Pripadajoca ohranjena gož je narejena iz srobota (v primarnem zapisu je navedena trta iz leskovega lesa). Drugace dobro ohran­jen primerek ima zunanji odprtini za kambi, ki manjkata, malce odkrhnjeni (sila vleke). Najverjetneje je narejen iz gabra, ceprav primarni zapis v inventarni knjigi omenja ore-hovino. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / Brezovi Dol / most likely hornbeam / l = 93 cm / midpoint h = 20 cm / d = 6.5 cm/ drop at neck seat = 7.7 cm / distance between bow holes = 14 cm (right animal) and 13 cm (left) / bow hole D = 3 cm / W = 8.12 kg (excl. the leather strap pole ring). The specimen’s place of origin is Brezovi Dol near Zagradec, the time and manner of acquisition are the same as for no. 55. This withers bowyoke (very similar to speci­men no. 55) with a simple crown and a crescent-shaped hitch point is decorated on the front with a row of scaly incisions running along the edges. The matching rope pole ring is made from clematis (the original record says hazel shoots). The specimen is well preserved, except for the outer bow openings (both bows missing), which are chipped (force of traction). The yoke is most likely made of hornbeam, although the primary record in the inventory book mentions walnut. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni, jarem / Brezovi Dol / 1901 / najverjetneje jese­nov les / d = 103,8 cm / v sred. dela = 21,4 cm / g = 6,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 10,5–11 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 16 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,3 cm / T = 13,44 kg Podatki o casu in nacinu pridobitve so enaki kakor pri primerku št. 55, iz Brezovega Dola pri Zagradcu. Jarem ima levo in desno od rogljicastega gožinega sedeža na prednji strani vrezani letnici: najprej 1991 (morda sprva napacno vrezana) in potem 1901 (kar je najverjetneje prava letnica izdelave). Sticišce ojesa in jarma pod njim je vidno obra­bljeno (obdrgnjeno). Primerek je od ovratnika do ovratnika pocez pocen in je bil utrjen oziroma znova povezan s štirimi dolgimi kovanimi žeblji z mocnimi okroglimi glavicami (z okoli 2 cm premera). Žeblji so dolgi okoli 25 cm in so spodaj zapognjeni kot penje. Kljub temu, da je jarem pocil, so ga ocitno želeli ali morali še naprej uporabljati; najsibo, da jim je tako dobro služil (jim je morda pocil sredi sezone oranja) ali pa bi bil nov pre-drag. Drugace je razmeroma dobro ohranjen, a brez kamb. Narejen je najverjetneje iz jesenovega lesa, v prvotnem zapisu pa je naveden brestov les. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double, jarem / Brezovi Dol / 1901 / most likely ash / l = 103.8 cm / midpoint h = 21.4 cm / d = 6.5 cm/ drop at neck seat = 10.5–11 cm / distance between bow holes = 16 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 13.44 kg The information on the time and mode of acquisition corresponds to specimen no. 55 from Brezovi Dol near Zagradec. The yoke has two years incised on the front face to the left and right of the crescent-shaped hitch point: first the year 1991 (perhaps by mistake) and then 1901 (which is probably the year of making). The contact of the drawbar and the yoke underneath it has visible marks of wear and tear. The specimen is cracked crosswise from one neck seat to the other, and was reinforced with four long, forged nails with strong round heads (ca. 2 cm in diameter). The nails are about 25 cm long and bent like a staple at the bottom. Although the yoke was cracked, the owners obviously wanted (orwere forced) to use it, either because it had served them so well (perhaps it broke in mid-ploughing season) or because a new one would have been be too expen­sive. Other than that, it is well preserved, but without the bows. The yoke is probably made of ash, although the original record says elm. KAMBASTVIHROVJAREM / dvojni / Rožnik / javorjev les, železo / d = 104 cm / v sred. dela = 17 cm / g = 7,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 12,5 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 20,5 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3 cm / T = 10,40 kg Primerek so za muzejsko zbirko podarili v vasi Rožnik, na hišni številki 14. Leta 1948 ga je pridobila ekipa Etnografskega muzeja na Terenu 1 (Šentjurij – Škocjan – Turjak). Prvotni zapis v inventarni knjigi ga omenja kot: »jarem, volovski, [...] z debelo 'jarmovko', pleteno iz srobota«. Preprosto oblikovan kambast vihrov jarem s skromno krono nad rogljicastim gožinim sedežem je tik ob notranjih odprtinah za kambi utrjen s trakovoma iz debelejše železne plocevine širokima 3 cm in debelima 3 mm. Obe zunanji in notran­ji odprtini za kambi imata na robovih odkrhnjen les. Konec ovratnika desnega vola je pocen in utrjen s tanjšim plocevinastim trakom (širokim 1,2 cm), pribitim z žeblji. Malce dvignjeni del, ki sega levo in desno od gožinega sedeža, ima na gornjem robu, tik pred odprtino za kambo desnega vola, vrezan zašcitni Andrejev križ (crux decussata). Sticišce jarma z ojesom je posneto, najverjetneje zavoljo cim bolj ustreznega sedanja drugega. Primerek je drugace dobro ohranjen, a brez kamb. Manjka tudi v zapisu omenjena gož. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / Rožnik / maple, iron / l = 104 cm / midpoint h = 17 cm / d = 7.5 cm / drop at neck seat = 12.5 cm / distance between bow holes = 20.5 cm / bow hole D = 3 cm / W = 10.40 kg The specimen from the village of Rožnik, house number 14, was donated to the museum collection and was obtained bythe SEM team on Site 1 (Šentjurij – Škocjan – Turjak) in 1948. The original record in the inventory book describes it as: “ox yoke, [...] with a thick jarmovka (rope pole ring) braided from clematis”. This simple bowyoke with a modest crown rising above the crescent-shaped hitch point is reinforced with two 3 cm long and 3 mm thick bands of iron sheet metal nailed next to the inner bow holes. Both outer and inner bow holes have chipped edges. The end of the right ox’s neck seat is cracked and reinforced with a thin sheet metal band (1.2 cm wide) secured with nails. The slightly raised part to the left and right of the hitch point has a protective St. Andrew’s cross (crux decussata) incised on the upper edge, just before the right ox’s bow hole. The con­tact of the yoke with the drawbar is shaved, probably to ensure that the latter fits snugly into the yoke. The otherwise well-preserved specimen is without the bows. The braided pole ring described in the record is also missing. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / Zgornja Slivnica / 1898 / javorjev les / d = 103 cm / v sred. dela = 22 cm / g = 8 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 12,5 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 12,5 in 13 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,3 cm / T = 13,76 kg Primerek je za zbirko pridobila ekipa Etnografskega muzeja, leta 1949, na Terenu 2 (Šmarje - Sap – Polica). Podarili so ga na domaciji v Zgornji Slivnici 14. Jarem je vzdolž celotnega gornjega roba spredaj in zadaj krašen s tremi nizi luskastih vrezov. S sled-njimi – z enim nizom – je obrobljena tudi preprostejša krona. Rogljicast gožin sedež ima spredaj in zadaj na sredini hribca vrezan latinski križ (crux ordinaria). Spredaj ali zadaj – sodec po na sredini posnetem delu, kamor je sedalo oje – je vrezana letnica 1898; na drugi strani pa sta na istem mestu, levo in desno od gožinega sedeža, vrezani osemkraki žarkasti zvezdi. Površina strani, na kateri je vrezana letnica, je tik ob ovratniku posuta tudi z drobnimi, najverjetneje vtolcenimi zvezdicami. Vrhnji del jarma je po vsej dolžini krašen z vzporednima vrstama crtnih, skoraj pravokotnih vrezov. Na sredini, med gorn­jima odprtinama za kambi, sta vrezana še dva križa (po videzu bolj grška (crux quadrata) kakor pa latinska (crux ordinaria). Notranji odprtini imata narejeni ležišci za zatica za reguliranje višine kambe. Zunanji odprtini za kambi sta na notranji strani malce bolj odprto izvedeni (zavoljo lažjega vtikanja) in tudi odkrhnjeni. Kambi drugace manjkata. Na gožinem sedežu so dobro vidne njene sledi. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / Zgornja Slivnica / 1898 / maple / l = 103 cm / mid­point h = 22 cm / d = 8 cm / drop at neck seat = 12.5 cm / distance between bow holes = 12.5 and 13 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 13.76 kg The specimen was obtained by the Ethnographic Museum team on Site 2 (Šmarje-Sap – Polica) in 1949, when it was donated by the homestead at Zgornja Slivnica 14. The yoke is decorated with three rows of scaly incisions running along the entire upper edge of both the front and rear side. A row of scaly incisions lines also the edge of the simple crown. A Latin cross (crux ordinaria) is incised on the front and rear of the hillock under the crescent-shaped hitch point. The year 1898 is incised on the front (or rear face, as suggested by the recessed spot in the middle where the drawbar sat); on the same spot on the reverse side, to the left and right of the hitch point, are two incised eight-pointed ray stars. The year side, just next to the neck-seat, is dotted with tiny, probably ham­mered stars. The top of the yoke is decorated lengthwise with two parallel rows of in­cised, near-rectangular lines. Between the upper bow openings in the middle are two incised crosses (Greek rather than Latin in appearance). Each of the inner bow holes has a socket forthe bowpin (which is used to adjust bow depth). The outerbow holes are slightly more open on the inner side (for easier insertion), and chipped. The bows are no longer present. There are visible pole ring marks on the hitch point. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni, kvamba / Negastrn / najverjetneje javorjev les / d = 110 cm / v sred. dela = 21 cm / g = 8,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 11 cm (desna žival) in 10,5 cm (leva žival) / š med odprt. kamb = 14 (desni vol) in 13 cm (levi vol) / p odprt. za kambi = 3,3 cm / v kambe = desne živali 57 cm in leve 51 cm »Kvambo«, kakor so ta jarem imenovali v kraju pridobitve, so za muzejsko zbirko kupi­li leta 1957 od Jožeta Kocjancica, Negastrn 7 pri Moravcah. Gre za ožgan primerek, krašen z luskastimi vrezi, ki dajejo vtis valovnic. Na vrhu krone nad rogljicastim gožinim sedežem sta izrezljani okroglasti obliki, ki delujeta kakor sedeci ocesi. Glede na obliko in izvedbo tega kambastega vihrovega jarma se zdi, da ga je po vsej verjetnosti izdelal isti mojster, ki je naredil izjemno soroden primerek iz zbirke Gorenjskega muzeja v Kranju; in sicer »jarem za parvolov, iz 2. pol. 19. stol., iz Spodnjega Tuštanja,« inv. št. E 732. Na zadnji strani krone sta ob njenem levem in desnem koncu pritrjeni mocnejši železni verižici, za kateri se zdi, da sta bili namenjeni obešanju jarma; morda za okras ali za raz­stavni namen. Pripadajoci kambi imata lesena zatica za regulacijo. Ena je pocena; druga, ki je bila tudi pocena, je mehko ovita za usnjem (pribitim z žebljici), da poceni del ne bi ranil živalskega vratu. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double, kvamba/ Negastrn / most likelymaple / l = 110 cm / midpoint h = 21 cm / d = 8.5 cm / drop at neck seat = 11 cm (right animal) and 10.5 cm (left animal) / distance between bow holes = 14 (right ox) and 13 cm (left ox) / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / bow d = 57 cm (right animal) and 51 cm (left animal) The yoke (its owners called it kvamba) was purchased for the museum collection in 1957 from Jože Kocjancic, Negastrn 7, Moravce. The yoke is charred and decorated with scaly incisions that appear as wave lines. Two rounded shapes that appear as sunken eyes are carved on the top of the crown above the crescent-shaped hitch point. The shape and make of this bowyoke suggest that it was crafted by the same master who made a very similar specimen kept by the Gorenjska Museum collection in Kranj, namely the “yoke for a pair of oxen, second half of the 19th century, Spodnji Tuštanj,” inv. no. E 732. At­tached to the rear left and right end of the crown are two strong, small iron chains that seem to have been used for hanging the yoke, either as decoration orfor display. The bows have wooden pins to adjust the depth. One of the bows is cracked; the other, also cracked, is wrapped with soft leather (nailed to the bow), so that the cracked part would not rub on the animal’s neck. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / Brdo / jesenov les, železo / d = 101 cm / v sred. dela = 21,7 cm / g = 7,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 13 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 16 / p odprt. za kambi = 3,3 cm / T = 11,64 kg Primerek je bil za muzejsko zbirko kupljen od Toneta Pajerja iz Ihana 56. Izviral naj bi iz Brda pri Ihanu. Tudi ta jarem je bil ožgan in je glede na izvedbo zelo podoben primerku št. 60, iz Negastrna pri Moravcah. Vzdolž vseh gornjih robovje krašen z lus­kastimi oziroma z bolj lunicastimi vrezi; v površino gornjega roba ima z nazobcano crto vrezan križast ornament. Na hribcu sredi gožinega sedeža sta spredaj in zadaj vrezani elipsasti ocesi, obrobljeni z lunicastimi vrezi. Jarmovo telo je spredaj in zadaj, levo in desno od gožinega sedeža utrjeno z železnima trakovoma, pribitima s kovanimi žeblji. Ob pridobitvi sta ga na notranji strani notranjih odprtin za kambi cez trakova objemala še kovana obroca; le-ta zdaj manjkata, a sta izpricana na risbi v inventarni knjigi. Desna stran ovratnika leve vprežne živali je zadaj povezana s sredinskim delom še z železno penjo. Tako so poceno mesto naknadno utrdili. Sledi goži so zelo opazne – poglobljeno zdrgnjene na njenem sedežu (kar morda prica o rabi železne goži). Zunanji odprtini za kambi sta na obeh straneh odkrhnjeni. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / Brdo / ash, iron / l = 101 cm / midpoint h = 21.7 cm / d = 7.5 cm / drop at neck seat = 13 cm / distance between bow holes = 16 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 11.64 kg The specimen was purchased for the museum collection from Tone Pajer from Ihan 56. It is believed to originate from Brdo near Ihan. Like the previous specimen, this yoke was charred and is very similar in its execution to specimen no. 60 from Negastrn near Moravce. It is decorated with scaly, or crescent-shaped incisions that run along all upper edges; a cross-like ornament is carved with a jagged line into the upper edge. Ellipsoid eyes, lined with crescent incisions are carved into the front and rear side of the hitch point hillock. To the left and right of the hitch point, the front and back of the yoke beam is reinforced with iron bands secured with forged nails. Upon acquisition, it was additionally reinforced with two forged rings placed over the bands on the inner side of the inner bow holes; the rings are missing, but are documented with a drawing in the inventory book. On the rear side, an iron clamp connects the right side of the neck seat of the left draught animal with the centre of the yoke beam to additionally reinforce cracked wood. The pole ring left visible marks on the hitch point (which suggests that an iron pole ring was used). Both sides of the outer bow holes are chipped. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / orehov les / d = 101 cm / v sred. dela = 23 cm / g = 8 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 4,5 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 13,5 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,5 cm / T = 9,62 kg Jarem neznanega izvora, a glede na obliko in izvedbo posameznih detajlov dokaj soro-den primerku št. 61, iz Brda pri Ihanu. Njegovo telo je spredaj prekrito z nizi drobnih luskastih vrezov in zadaj s krogci, ki se na obeh straneh pojavijo tudi na kroni. Na hribcu na sprednji strani jarma je vrezan latinski križ (crux ordinaria), ki po izvedbi spominja na klinasti križ. Spredaj, kamor je sedalo oje, je pribit vecji kos plocevine, ki je šcitil obra­bljeno mesto. Jarem je bil obdelan z ognjem. Prekriva ga svetlec lak, kar prica, da ga je muzej najverjetneje pridobil od kakega zbiralca. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / walnut / l = 101 cm / midpoint h = 23 cm / d = 8 cm / drop at neck seat = 4.5 cm / distance between bow holes = 13.5 cm / bow hole D = 3.5 cm / W = 9.62 kg The yoke’s provenance is unknown, but the shape and execution of certain details show similarity with specimen no. 61 from Brdo near Ihan. The front of the yoke beam is covered with rows of tiny scaly incisions and its rear face with circles, which appear also on the front and rear of the crown. The front face of the yoke shows a Latin cross (crux ordinaria) reminiscent of the cross potent incised on the hillock. A large metal plate is nailed onto the front side where the drawbar sat, to protect the chaffed spot. The yoke was flame treated. It is finished with glossy varnish, which indicates that the museum probably obtained it from a collector. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / najverjetneje brestov les, železo / d = 100 cm (odlomljen, prej predvidoma dolg okoli 106 cm) / v sred. dela = 20,5 cm / g = 7,5–8 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 3,5 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 11 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,3 cm / T = 12,12 kg Po obliki je jarem soroden primerku št. 62, a je povsem neokrašen. Vidni so sledovi tem­nosive barve. Zatica za kambi sta bila zadaj pritrjena na levi in desni strani krone; levi še visi na kovinski verižici. Hribec gožinega sedeža je bil odlomljen in potem z žebljem pribit nazaj. Jarem ima odlomljen cel zunanji, koncni del levega ovratnika (desne živali); koncni del desnega ovratnika (leve živali) je bil tudi zlomljen in je posledicno mocno okovan. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / most likely elm wood, iron / l = 100 cm (chipped, the full length would be ca. 106 cm) / midpoint h = 20.5 cm / d = 7.5-8 cm / drop at neck seat = 3.5 cm / distance between bow holes = 11 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 12.12 kg The yoke is similar in shape to specimen no. 62, but without any decoration. There are visible traces of dark grey paint. The bow pins were attached at the back to the left and right side of the crown; the left still hangs there on a metal chain. The hitch point hillock broke off at one point and was subsequently nailed back. The entire end part of the left neck seat (right animal) broke off; likewise, the right neck seat (left animal) end broke off and was subsequently heavily reinforced with iron braces. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / 1917 / javorjev les, železo / d = 115 cm (oko­vana konca) / v sred. dela = 20,5 cm / g = 8 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 6 cm (levi vol) in 7 cm (desni vol) / š med odprt. kamb = okoli 17 cm (zavoljo odlomljenih delov ni mogoca natancna mera) / p odprt. za kambi = 3 cm / T = 19,40 kg Primerek neznanega izvora. Neokrašen jarem s preprosto izvedeno polkrožno krono nad gožinim sedežem. Na njegovem hribcu je spredaj vrezana žarkasta šesterokraka rozeta (zašcita) in levo in desno od sedeža deljena letnica 19 17; zadaj sta na tem mestu deljeno vrezani veliki zacetnici J. C. Jarem je bil na notranjem delu obeh ovratnikov povsem pocen in je zavoljo tega izjemno mocno okovan. Na obeh koncih, ki sta odlom­ljena, je viden le okov. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / 1917 / maple, iron / l = 115 cm (with hardware) / midpoint h = 20.5 cm / d = 8 cm / drop at neck seat = 6 cm (left ox) and 7 cm (right ox) / distance between bow holes = ca. 17 cm (a precise measurement is impossible due to chipped off parts) / bow hole D = 3 cm / W = 19.40 kg Unknown provenance. An undecorated yoke with a simple round crown above the hitch point. The hitch point hillock has a six-pointed ray rosette (protection) incised on the front, with the year 1917 incised on either side of the hitch point; the initials J. C. are incised on the same spot on the reverse side. The inner side of both neck seats cracked and was subsequently heavily reinforced. Both ends of the yoke beam broke off, leaving in sight only the iron band that held the yoke together. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / Mali Konec / javorjev les / d = 104 cm / v sred. dela = 23,5 cm / g = 8,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 11,5 cm (levi vol) in 12 cm (desni vol) / š med odprt. kamb = 11,5 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,8 cm / T = 11,12 kg Primerek je za zbirko leta 1949 pridobila ekipa Etnografskega muzeja na Terenu 2 (Šmarje - Sap – Polica). Podarili so ga Biligarjevi v Malem Koncu 3. Na razgibano ob-likovani kroni nad rogljicastim gožinim sedežem sta spredaj vrezani veliki zacetnici D. M. in letnica 1909. Na gornjem robu krone je pred notranjo odprtino za kambo desne vprežne živali vrezan Andrejev križ (crux decussata) kot zašcita vodilnega vola. Levo in desno pred notranjima odprtinama za kambi sta zadaj pribita žeblja ter z njima vidni ostanki usnjenih trakcev za kambina zatica. Na mestih, kjer sta se le-ta vtikala v kambi, je jarem zgoraj na obeh straneh malce vdolben oziroma poglobljen. Poglobljeno je izve­deno tudi mesto, kamor je sedala gož. Zunanji spodnji odprtini za kambi sta na notranji strani odprto oblikovani, kar je omogocalo lažje namešcanje kamb v jarem. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / Mali Konec / maple / l = 104 cm / midpoint h = 23.5 cm / d = 8.5 cm / drop at neck seat = 11.5 cm (left ox) and 12 cm (right ox) / distance between bow holes = 11.5 cm / bow hole D = 3.8 cm / W = 11.12 kg The specimen was obtained bythe Ethnographic Museum team on Site 2 (Šmarje-Sap – Polica) in 1949 from the Biligar family in Mali Konec 3. The articulated crown above the crescent-shaped hitch point has initials D. M. and the year 1909 incised on the front. On the upper edge of the crown, next to the inner bow hole for the right draught animal there is a St. Andrew’s cross (crux decussata) incised as protection for the leading ox. The nails driven to the left and right of the inner bow holes on the rear side still hold visible remnants of the leather strips that held the bow pins. The yoke beam has shallow depres­sions made on both sides where the pins were inserted into the bows. The spot where the pole ring rested is also carved deeper. The outer bottom bow holes are slightlywider on the inner side, so that it was easier to insert the bows into the yoke. 66. Inv. št. / Inv. no. 22785 Stara inv. št. Kranjskega deželnega muzeja / Old inv. no. of the Carniolan Provincial Museum 8261 KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / javorjev les, železo / d = 119 cm / v sred. dela = 25 cm / g = 9,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 15 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 20 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,5 cm / T = 17,60 kg Na listicu, privezanem na jarmu, piše: »Dar Fr. Rasenegg iz Šiške, 27. junija 1912«; in enako sporoca tudi zapis pod staro inventarno številko Kranjskega deželnega muzeja. Primerek je krašen s tremi nizi luskastih vrezov na sprednjem zgornjem robu in na zad­njem ter na zgornjem (srednjem) robu. Sprednja in zadnja stran imata še po en vrezan niz. Krona je bogato oblikovana, z rogljicastim gožinim sedežem. Na sprednji strani jarma je na sredini njenega vrhnjega dela vrezan rožast grški križ (crux quadrata), na hribcu gožinega sedeža pa nekakšno rožasto sonce oziroma krog. Odprtine za kambi so pocene, odkrhnjene. Ovratnik desnega vola je na zunanjem koncu pocen in okovan z železnim trakom. Levo zgoraj je pocena tudi krona. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / maple, iron / l = 119 cm / midpoint h = 25 cm / d = 9.5 cm / drop at neck seat = 15 cm / distance between bow holes = 20 cm / bow hole D = 3.5 cm / W = 17.60 kg The note tied to the yoke reads: “Donation from Fr. Rasenegg from Šiška, 27 June 1912”, the same as the record under the old inventory number of the Carniolan Provincial Museum. Three rows of scaly incisions decorate the front, rear, and top (centre) upper edges. The front and rear sides have an additional incised row. The elaborately shaped crown has a crescent-shaped hitch point and a flower-like Greek cross (crux quadrata) incised in the middle of the front face, accompanied by a flower-like sun or circle incised on the hitch point hillock underneath. The bow openings are cracked, chipped. The neck seat on the right ox side is cracked on the outer end and reinforced with an iron band. There is a crack also on the top left side of the crown. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni, jarem / Brezovi Dol / 1923 / najverjetneje javor­jevles, železo / d = 108 cm / v sred. dela = 25,5 cm / g = 6,5 cm in 7,5 cm (na strani desne­ga vola) / v do vrha ovrat. = 13 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 17 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,3 cm (notranji odprt.) in 3 cm (zunanji odprt.) / T = 17,68 kg Glede nacina in casa pridobitve ter krajevnega izvora tega kambastega vihrovega jarma tudi zanj veljajo podatki, zapisani pri št. 55. Vzdolž gornjih robov je krašen z nizom vecjih luskastih vrezov. Z njimi sta obrobljeni tudi sprednja in zadnja stran krone. Prva ima na hribcu rogljicastega gožinega sedeža vrezano petlistno rozeto (najverjetneje kot možno izvedbo zašcitnega pentagrama) ter levo in desno od njega deljeno letnico 19 23; na zadnji strani je na hribcu vrezan rožast grški križ (crux quadrata). Tisti del jarma, kjer se je ta stikal z ojesom, je zdrgnjen ter pocen od rabe. Zunanji del ovratnika desnega vola je pocen ter okovan oziroma spredaj in zadaj utrjen z železnima trakovoma, pribitima s po tremi kovanimi žeblji. Primerek je najverjetneje narejen iz javorjevega lesa, ceprav je v prvotnem vpisu v inventarni knjigi omenjen kostanjev les. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double, jarem / Brezovi Dol / 1923 / most likely maple; iron / l = 108 cm / midpoint h = 25.5 cm / d = 6.5 cm and 7.5 cm (on the right ox side) / drop at neck seat = 13 cm / distance between bow holes = 17 cm / bowhole D = 3.3 cm (inner holes) and 3 cm (outer holes) / W = 17.68 kg The mode and time of acquisition and provenance of this bowyoke is the same as in no. 55. The upper edges of the yoke beam are decorated with a row of larger scaly incisions. These frame also the front and rear side of the crown. The front has a five-petal rosette (probably as a version of the protective pentagram) incised on the hitch point hillock and the year 19 23 on either side of the crown. A flower-like Greek cross (crux quadrata) is incised on the reverse side of the hillock. The contact of the yoke beam and the draw-baris dented and cracked from use. The outerpart of the neck seat on the right ox side is cracked and reinforced on the front and rear with iron bands, each secured with three forged nails. The specimen is most likely made of maple, although the original record in the inventory book says chestnut. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / Dula / 1903 ali 1905 / javorjev les / d = 116 cm / v sred. dela = 28,5 cm / g = 8,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 13 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 15 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,5 cm / T = 17,86 kg Jarem je leta 1949 pridobila ekipa Etnografskega muzeja na Terenu 2 (Šmarje - Sap – Polica). V dar so ga dobili pri Mežnarju, Ižancu, Dula 5. Primerek je bogato in dokaj svojsko krašen po celi površini jarmovega telesa in krone; le spodnji del ovratnikov, kjer sta se ta stikala z živalskima vratovoma, je ostal gladek in neokrašen. Gre za igrivo kompozicijo nizov iz crtno vrezanih vejic in luskastih vrezov; lebdecih vejic in crtno vrezanih vejicas­tih dreves, ki »rastejo« iz trikotnih hribcev, »zgrajenih« iz luskastih vrezov. Spredaj je na polkrožnem hribcu rogljicastega gožinega sedeža na srednjem izmed treh trikotnih hribovvrezan križ (morda kakor da gre za Golgoto), nad njim pa so na razgibani visoki kroni vrezani Kristusov monogram IHS, pod njim letnica 1903 (ali 1905) ter nekaj ne povsem jasno berljivih številk (morda gre za datum), na levi in desni pa še veliki zacet­nici F in P. Na zadnji strani jarma so na hribcu gožinega sedeža vrezani soncni žarki, in na vrhu krone nad njimi srce. Koncna dela ovratnikov sta malce razširjeno oblikovana; podobno, vendar manj izrazito kakor pri jarmih št. 73, iz Glogovice pri Sticni, in št. 84, iz Malih Lipljen. Pod tremi srednjimi vrhovi krone so spredaj in zadaj pribite zakovice. Pri levi in desni notranji odprtini za kambi so zgoraj na robu krone pod žeblji vidni ostanki traku oziroma verižice za kambina zatica. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / Dula / 1903 or 1905 / maple / l = 116 cm / midpoint h = 28.5 cm / d = 8.5 cm / drop at neck seat = 13 cm / distance between bow holes = 15 cm / bow hole D = 3.5 cm / W = 17.86 kg The specimen was obtained by the Ethnographic Museum team on Site 2 (Šmarje-Sap – Polica) in 1949 as a donation from the Mežnar homestead (Ižanc), Dula 5. The specimen is ornately and quite originally decorated across the yoke beam and crown, only the bottom part of the neck seats where they sat on the animals’ necks was left smooth and undecorated. The decoration is a playful composition of alternating rows of branches shaped from lines, and scaly incisions, and above them floating branches and incised lines forming branch-shaped trees “growing” out of triangular hillocks “built” from scaly incisions. On the front face of the semicircular hillock of the crescent-shaped hitch point there is a cross incised into the middle of the three triangular hills (perhaps an allusion to Golgota); above it, the Christogram HIS and underneath it the year 1903 (or 1905) are incised on the articulated tall crown, and a few, not clearly identifiable numbers (possibly a date); to the left and right also the initials F and P. The reverse side has sun rays incised on the hitch point hillock, and above them, on the top of the crown, a heart. The ends of the neck seats are carved slightlywider, similar to, although not as con­spicuously as in yokes nos. 73 from Glogovica near Sticna and 84 from Male Lipljene. Rivets are hammered into the beam under the three crown peaks in the centre, both on the front and rearside. There are residues of the bowpin strip orchain visible underthe nails next to the inner bow openings on the top edge of the crown. 69. Inv. št. / Inv. no. 22786 Stara inv. št. Kranjskega deželnega muzeja / Old inv. no. of the Carniolan Provincial Museum 8262 KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / javorjev les, železo / d = 104 cm / v sred. dela = 24,5 cm / š = 7,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 15 cm / š med odprt. za kambi = 17,5 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3 cm / T = 17,38 kg Tudi na listicu, privezanem na tem jarmu, piše: »Dar Fr. Rasenegg iz Šiške, 27. junija 1912«; kar prav tako ponovi zapis pod staro inventarno številko Kranjskega deželnega muzeja. Primerek je bil ožgan in je krašen s tremi nizi luskastih vrezov spredaj, zgoraj in zadaj. Bogato oblikovana krona je skupaj z rogljicastim gožinim sedežem in spodnjim delom jarma skoraj pravokotne oblike (podobne oblike je na primer jarem št. 70). Prim-erek je pocen pocez cez krono; zavoljo tega je okoli in okoli – levo in desno od sedeža goži – mocno okovan. Na zunanjem koncu je pocen tudi ovratnik levega vola in je posle-dicno okovan spredaj in zadaj. Pocene, odkrhnjene so odprtine obeh kamb. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / maple, iron / l = 104 cm / midpoint h = 24.5 cm / w = 7.5 cm / drop at neck seat = 15 cm / distance between bow holes = 17.5 cm / bow hole D = 3 cm / W = 17.38 kg The note tied to the yoke says: “Donation from Fr. Rasenegg from Šiška, 27 June 1912”; the same as the record under the old inventory number of the Carniolan Provincial Mu­seum. The specimen was charred and is decorated with three rows of scaly incisions on the front, top, and rear side. Together with the crescent-shaped hitch point and the yoke belly, the ornately decorated crown is nearly rectangular in shape (similar to yoke no. 70). With a deep crack across the crown, the specimen was heavily reinforced on either side of the hitch point. The outer end of the neck seat on the left ox side is also cracked and reinforced on the front and rear. Cracked or chipped are also all bow holes. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni, jarem / Brezovi Dol / javorjev les / d = 109 cm / v sred. dela = 26 cm / g = 7 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 14,5 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 18 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,3 cm / T = 14,38 kg Glede nacina in casa pridobitve ter krajevnega izvora tega kambastega vihrovega jar-ma tudi zanj veljajo podatki, zapisani pri št. 55. Sprednjo in zadnjo stran ima krašeni z zrnastimi vrezi. Na hribcu rogljicastega gožinega sedeža sta spredaj in zadaj vrezana križa (crux quadrata); sprednji, v krogu, kot soncni križ. Spredaj in zadaj sta na levi in desni strani gožinega sedeža vrezani tudi srci (skupaj štiri). Na jarmu so vidne sledi crne oziroma temnosive barve. Oba ovratnika sta bila v spodnjem zunanjem delu utrjena z železnimi trakovi, pribitimi z žeblji – spredaj, zadaj in na vrhnjem zunanjem robu –, a ostala sta le še vrhnja trakova; o drugih pricajo opazne sledi. Tisti na ovratniku desne vprežne živali je zlomljen in odlomljen je tudi spodnji del tega ovratnika. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double, jarem / Brezovi Dol / maple / l = 109 cm / midpoint h = 26 cm / d = 7 cm/ drop at neck seat = 14.5 cm / distance between bow holes = 18 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 14.38 kg The mode and time of acquisition and provenance of this bowyoke is the same as in no. 55. The front and rear are decorated with granular incisions. A cross (crux quadrata) is incised on the front and the rear side of the hitch point hillock; the front one is incised in a circle, like a sun cross. Additionally, two hearts are incised on either side of the hitch point, both on the front and rear side (altogether four). The yoke shows visible traces of black or dark grey paint. Both neck seats were reinforced with iron bands secured with nails (on the front and rear side and on the upper outer edge), but only the upper bands are still present (other bands left visible traces). The band on the right draught animal’s neck seat and the bottom part of the neck seat broke off. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / Glogovica / javorjev les, železo, usnje / d = 92 cm / v sred. dela = 23,5 cm / g = 6,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 11,5 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 12 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,3 cm / T = 4,40 kg Jarem je leta 1950 pridobila ekipa Etnografskega muzeja na Terenu 5 (Šentvid pri Sticni). Podaril ga je Alojz Kotar, Glogovica 19. Primerek ima razgibano oblikovano kro-no. Njegovo masivno telo je ob robovih posuto z redkimi nizi luskastih vrezov. Na hrib-cu rogljicastega gožinega sedeža sta spredaj in zadaj vrezana križa (bolj latinska (crux ordinaria) kakor grška (crux quadrata)); nad sprednjim je na gornjem delu krone narejen izrazit latinski križ (crux ordinaria), prav na njenem vrhu pa je na sredini vrezan še An-drejev križ (crux decussata). Na sprednji strani krone je na levi in desni strani ob gožinem sedežu deljeno vrezana letnica 18 45. Na zadnji strani sta na istem mestu vrezani šestlist­ni (oziroma šesterokraki) spiralni rozeti. Na strani leve vprežne živali je bil zunanji del ovratnika pocen oziroma odlomljen in potem mocno vzdolžno okovan (železna trakova sta pribita s kovanimi žeblji). Cez razpoko je pribita usnjena zaplata. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / Glogovica / maple, iron, leather / l = 92 cm / mid­point h = 23.5 cm / d = 6.5 cm / drop at neck seat = 11.5 cm / distance between bowholes = 12 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 4.40 kg The specimen was obtained by the Ethnographic Museum team on Site 5 (Šentvid near Sticna) in 1950 as a donation from Alojz Kotar, Glogovica 19. The yoke has an ornate crown. The edges of the solid wood yoke beam are decorated with rows of thinly scat­tered scaly incisions. A cross is incised on the front and rear of the hitch point hillock (Latin rather than Greek in appearance); on the front side there is also a pronounced Latin cross (crux ordinaria) incised on the upper part of the crown, and on its top, in the centre, a St. Andrew’s cross (crux decussata). The year 1845 is carved into the front side of the crown, to the left and right of the hitch point, and on the same spot on the reverse side, spiral six-petal (or six-pointed) rosettes. The outer part of the neck seat on the left animal’s side broke off and was subsequently heavily reinforced lengthwise with iron bands attached with forged nails. A leather patch is nailed over the crack. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / orehov les, železo / d = 104 cm / v sred. dela = 24 cm / g = 7,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 6 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 14 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,5 cm / T = 12,52 kg Jarem neznanega izvora, a glede na obliko in izvedbo posameznih detajlov (na primer dveh spiralnih rozet) dokaj soroden primerku št. 71. Morda je mogoce premišljati celo o istem izdelovalcu iz okolice Šentvida pri Sticni. Primerek ima razgibano oblikovano krono. Njegovo telo je posuto z redkimi nizi luskastih vrezov. Levo in desno od goži­nega sedeža sta spredaj vrezani osem oziroma deveterokraki spiralni rozeti, na njegov-em hribcu je na sredini s štirimi luskastimi vrezi narejena oblika, ki spominja na križ (malteški, z razmaknjenimi kraki). Pod gožinim sedežem je mocno vdolbeno sticišce jarma z ojesom. Vse odprtine za kambi so spodaj odkrhnjene; desna stran jarma oziroma zunanji del ovratnika leve vprežne živali je bil zlomljen ter je posledicno mocno okovan (z vzdolžnima trakovoma in precno obrocasto vezjo). Zadaj, na obeh straneh krone, so vidni žeblji in košcek usnjenega traku vrvice za kambin zatic. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / walnut, iron / l = 104 cm / midpoint h = 24 cm / d = 7.5 cm / drop at neck seat = 6 cm / distance between bow holes = 14 cm / bow hole D = 3.5 cm / W = 12.52 kg The yoke’s provenance is unknown, but the shape and execution of certain details (such as two spiral rosettes) show similarity with specimen no. 71, which suggests they could have been crafted by the same maker from the vicinity of Šentvid near Sticna. The crown is articulated, and the yoke beam incised with rows of thinly spaced scaly incisions. An eight or nine-pointed spiral rosette is incised to the left and right of the hitch point, and on the hillock four scaly incisions forming a shape reminiscent of the Maltese cross (with spread arms). The contact of the yoke with the drawbar under the hitch point is deeplyrecessed. All bowholes are chipped at the bottom. The right side of the yoke (i.e. the outer part of the neck seat on the left animal’s side) broke and was subsequently heavily reinforced, lengthwise with iron bands and across with a ring clamp. Nails and a piece of the leather strip that held the bow pin are visible at the back on both sides of the crown. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / Glogovica / javorjev les / d = 111 cm / v sred. dela = 25,5 cm / g = 8,3 (na strani desne živali) in 9 cm (na strani leve) / v do vrha ovrat. = 12,5 cm (pri desnem volu) in 13 cm (pri levem) / š med odprt. kamb = 17,5 cm (pri desnem volu) in 18 cm (pri levem) / p odprt. za kambi = 3,3 cm / T = 15,26 kg Tudi ta kambast vihrov jarem je leta 1950 pridobila ekipa Etnografskega muzeja na Terenu 5 (Šentvid pri Sticni); kot dar Alojza Kotarja iz Glogovice 19. Vzdolž telesa je spredaj in zadaj krašen s tremi nizi luskastih vrezov. Na gornjem robu ima poleg treh luskastih nizov z enakimi vrezi med obema odprtinama za kambi izvedena zašcitna An-drejeva križa (crux decussata). Crtno vrezan Andrejev križ pa je narejen tudi na vrhu na sredini krone nad rogljicastim gožinim sedežem. Glede na sledi obrabe na mestu stika jarma z ojesom se zdi, da je bila pri tem primerku letnica 1908 vrezana na hrbtni strani njegove razgibane in visoke krone, krašene z luskasto vrezano obrobo. Hribec gožinega sedeža ima zadaj vrezanih nekaj žarkov oziroma navpicnih crt in spredaj žarkasto šest (ali osem) krako zvezdo. Na obeh straneh je na sredini nad gožinim sedežem vrezan tudi majhen grški križ (crux quadrata). Na hrbtni strani sta levo in desno pod njim vrezana še dva taka križa s štirimi luskastimi vrezi v štirih poljih – morda nekakšna poenostavljena križa Svetega groba. Na prednji strani pa sta v dveh vecjih krogih, na levi in na desni ob gožinem sedežu, s štirimi luskastimi vrezi narejena majhna grška križa (crux quadrata) – skupaj s krogoma morda kot posvetna križa. Zadaj, na levem robu krone, je pri notranji odprtini za kambo viden ostanek žeblja in košcka usnjenega traku vrvice za kambin zatic (na drugi strani je vidna le sled žeblja). Obe zunanji odprtini za kambi sta malce odkrhnjeni. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / Glogovica / maple / l = 111 cm / midpoint height = 25.5 cm / d = 8.3 (right animal) and 9 cm (left animal) / drop at neck seat = 12.5 cm (right ox) and 13 cm (left) / distance between bow holes = 17.5 cm (right ox) and 18 cm (left) / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 15.26 kg This is another bowyoke obtained by the Ethnographic Museum team on Site 5 (Šent­vid near Sticna) in 1950 from Alojz Kotar from Glogovica 19. The front and rear are decorated with three rows of scalyincisions running lengthwise across the yoke beam. On the upper edge, between both pairs of bow holes, it also has a cross of St. Andrew (crux decussata) incised with the same scaly incisions. A St. Andrew’s cross is incised also on the top centre of the crown above the crescent-shaped hitch point, but with line incisions. The wear marks at the contact of the yoke with the drawbar suggest that the year 1908 was incised on the rear side of its articulated tall crown, decorated with scaly incisions. The hitch point hillock has several rays or vertical lines incised on the rear side, and on the front a six- (or eight) pointed ray star. A small Greek cross (crux quadra­ta) is incised above the hitch point, in the centre of the crown (front and rear). On either side of this cross (and slightly below it) on the rear face are two similar crosses, but with scaly incisions between the arms – perhaps simplified Jerusalem crosses. On the front face, there are two small Greek crosses (crux quadrata) incised with four scaly incisions in two larger circles, one on each side of the hitch point – together with the circles possi­bly representing secular crosses. There is a visible residue of a nail and a piece of leather from the bow pin string on the left edge of the crown on the rear side (the front showing only a nail mark). Both outer bow holes are slightly chipped. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni, jarem / Brezovi Dol / javorjev les, železo / d = 103 cm / v sred. dela = 22 cm / g = 7 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 14 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 15 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,3 cm / T = 10,54 kg Krajevni izvor primerka je Brezovi Dol pri Zagradcu, cas in nacin pridobitve sta ena­ka kakor pri št. 55. Jarem ima razgibano, rezbarsko mojstrsko krašeno krono; a le na prednji strani. Tu sta na obeh straneh ob rogljicastem gožinem sedežu plasticno rezljani šesterokraki zvezdi, na njegovem polkrožno obrobljenem hribcu pa je prav tako relief-no narejen latinski križ (crux ordinaria). Vsa sprednja površina krone ima plitvo vrezan vzorec, ki spominja na pletenje in je podlaga omenjenih plasticno izvedenih simbolov. Vse obrobe so bile crno pobarvane, celoten gornji rob oziroma vrhnja površina jarma pa je še vedno vidno rdeca (apotropejsko), pobarvana z oljno barvo. Gožine sledi kažejo na mocno obrabo; morda pricajo o rabi železne, clenaste goži. Ležišce ojesa oziroma mesto, na katerem se je oje stikalo z jarmom, ni povsem na sredini, o cemer prica obraba tega spodnjega dela jarma. Tako sporoca, da je mocneje vlekla leva vprežna žival, najverjet­neje prirocni vol. O tem prica tudi desna zunanja stran jarma, ovratnik levega vola, ki je bil pocen in so ga za nadaljnjo rabo utrdili s tremi železnimi trakovi, dolgimi 14 cm in širokimi med 2 in 4 cm. Les okoli obeh notranjih odprtin za kambi je prav tako pocen. Drugace so vse štiri odprtine za kambi, ki navpicno predirajo jarem, zelo pravilno izve­dene z ustreznim svedrom. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double, jarem / Brezovi Dol / maple, iron / l = 103 cm / mid­point h = 22 cm / d = 7 cm/ drop at neck seat = 14 cm / distance between bow holes = 15 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 10.54 kg The specimen’s place of origin is Brezovi Dol near Zagradec, the time and manner of acquisition are the same as for no. 55. The yoke has an articulated crown with ornately decorated front showing an intricately carved six-pointed star on either side of the cres-cent-shaped hitch point and a relief carved Latin cross (crux ordinaria) on the hillock. The entire front face of the crown has a shallow incised pattern reminiscent of knitting, which serves as a background for these sculpted symbols. All edges were painted black, whereas the top of the yoke still shows residues of red (apotropaic) oil paint. The pole ring marks suggest heavywearfrom use, perhaps of an articulated iron pole ring. The drawbar socket, i.e. the spot where the drawbarwas attached to the yoke, is not entirely in the middle of the yoke beam, as manifested by the wear on this bottom part of the yoke. The wear marks suggest that the left, probably near-side draught animal pulled harder. This can be discerned also from the outer right end of the yoke, i.e. the neck seat of the left ox, which broke and was reinforced for further use with three 14 cm long and 2–4 cm wide iron bands. The wood around both inner bow holes is also cracked. Nevertheless, all four bow holes are very accurately drilled vertically through the yoke. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / Dešeca vas / orehov les, železo / d = 112 cm / v sred. dela = 25 cm / g = 7,5 cm / v do notr. vrha ovratnika = 9 cm (levi vol) in 8,5 cm (desni vol) / š med odprt. kamb = 17 cm / p odprtin za kambi = 3,3 cm / T = 17,76 kg Jarem ima staro vhodno številko 108/1972, torej je bil pridobljen za muzej leta 1972. Lastnik in prodajalec Ciril Pucelj iz Dešece vasi 24 je bil morda tudi njegov uporabnik, a verjetneje je bil uporabnik še njegov oce ali celo ded, saj je jarem bogato krašen (kakor so bili sicer krašeni sorodni primerki iz 19. stoletja). Primerek je skoraj povsem enako izdelan in okrašen kakor št. 74; le namesto šesterokrakih sta vrezani osmerokraki zvez­di, vrh krone pa je na sredini malce bolj zaokroženo oblikovan. Na enakih mestih so vidne tudi sledi crne in rdece poslikave. Jasno prepoznavna je roka istega izdelovalca. Oba konca ovratnikov sta odlomljena in mocno okovana. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / Dešeca Vas / walnut, iron / l = 112 cm / midpoint h = 25 cm / d = 7.5 cm / drop at neck seat = 9 cm (left ox) and 8.5 cm (right ox) / distance between bow holes = 17 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 17.76 kg The yoke’s old entry number is 108/1972, which means it was obtained for the museum in 1972. The owner and seller Ciril Pucelj from Dešeca Vas 24 may have been its user, but more likely it was used by his father and even grandfather before him, since the yoke is ornately decorated (in the vein of similar specimens from the 19thcentury). The specimen is almost the same in the execution and decoration as no. 74, except that it has eight-pointed stars incised in place of six-pointed ones, and that the crown top is slightly more rounded. Residues of black and red paint are also visible in the same spots. It is clear that both yokes came from the hands of the same craftsman. Both neck seat ends are broken and heavily reinforced with iron bands. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / Hocevje / javorjev les, kambi drenovi / d = 112 cm / vsred. dela = 25 cm / g = 8 cm / vdo notr. vrha ovrat. = 13 cm (levi vol) in 12,5 cm (desni vol) / š med odprt. kamb = 18 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,3 cm / v kambe leve živali 54 in desne 52 cm / T = 15,96 kg Ta primerek dvojnega kambastega vihrovega jarma, z gožjo ali »jarmovko« in z obema kambama, je bil za muzejsko zbirko kupljen od kmeta Antona Horvata, hišno ime pri Hrenovk, Hocevje 10 pri Krki na Dolenjskem. Leta 1960 ga je na Terenu 17 (Velike Lašce) pridobila ekipa Etnografskega muzeja. Gre za primerek z razgibano oblikovano krono z rogljicastim gožinim sedežem. Cel je bil ožgan, tako da na njegovi temni površini vreza-no okrasje izraziteje izstopa. Menjavajo se luskasti vrezi, cikcakast ornament, lunicasti vrezi, cvetlicne vejice ...; po vsej kroni pa je v parih vrezanih vec razlicnih rozet, ena tudi na sredini hribca gožinega sedeža. Najpogostejše, tiste z osmimi žarki ali kraki, se zde kakor zlitje grškega križa (crux quadrata) in Andrejevega križa (crux decussata). Krašen, »oštikan« je tudi gornji rob ovratnikov. Na hrbtni strani jarma, levo in desno od notranje odprtine za kambi, sta pribita ostanka usnjenega trakca za kambina zatica (za katera sta ustrezno vdolbena zgornja dela ovratnikov ob odprtinah za kambi). Primerek je drugace dobro ohranjen, z obema kambama in gožjo (najverjetneje iz srobota), le zunanji del ovratnika levega vola je odlomljen. Pocena je tudi kamba leve vprežne živali. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / Hocevje / maple; bows dogwood / l = 112 cm / mid­point h = 25 cm / d = 8 cm/ drop at neck seat = 13 cm (left ox) and 12.5 cm (right ox) / distance between bow holes = 18 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / bow d = 54 cm (left animal) and 52 cm (right animal) / W = 15.96 kg This double bowyoke with a pole ring made of twisted twigs (known as jarmovka) and both bows present was purchased for the museum collection from farmer Anton Hor­vat, house name Pri Hrenovk, Hocevje 10, Krka in Dolenjska. It was acquired in 1960 on Site 17 (Velike Lašce) by the Ethnographic Museum team. The specimen has an articu­lated crown with a crescent-shaped hitch point. The entire yoke was charred, so that the incised patterns stand out from its dark surface. It has alternating scaly incisions, zigzag patterns, crescent incisions, stemmed flowers ... and pairs of different rosettes incised across the crown, one also in the middle of the hitch point hillock. Most of them have eight rays or arms and appear like a fusion of a Greek and St. Andrew’s cross. The upper edge of the neck seats is decorated as well. Nailed to the rear face of the yoke, to the left and right of the inner bow holes, are residues of the leather strips to which bow pins were attached (the notches for the bow pins are carved on the top of the neck seats next to the bow holes). But for the broken outer part of the left ox’s neck seat, the specimen is well preserved, with both bows and the pole ring (probably made of twisted clematis twigs) present. The bow of the left draught animal is cracked. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / Hocevje / javorjev les / d = 106 cm / v sred. dela = 19 cm / g = 8 cm / v do notr. vrha ovrat. = 11 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 16–18 cm / p odprtin za kambi = 3,3 cm / T = 9,66 kg Tudi ta primerek je bil za zbirko pridobljen leta 1960, na Terenu 17 (Velike Lašce), vvasi Hocevje pri Krki na Dolenjskem. Ekipa Etnografskega muzeja ga je kupila od Matije Pajka, hišno ime pri Strahi, Hocevje 5. Tedaj je tam nastal tudi risan zapis št. 62 (R 17/19), na katerem je nad jarmom mogoce prebrati, da je takšne primerke »delal Andrejckov iz Zagorice (v Dobrepolju) okoli 1. svet. vojne«. Ceprav gre za malo manjši kambast vihrov jarem kakor je št. 76, ga je tako po obliki kakor po rezljanem okrasju mogoce prepoznati kot izdelek istega mojstra. Ob nakupu je bil brez kamb in goži, drugace tudi zanj glede oblike in »oštikanja« velja opis jarma št. 76. Obe zunanji odprtini za kambi sta odkrhnje­ni. Na levi strani, kjer je bila poškodba vecja, je jarem restavriran. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / Hocevje / maple / l = 106 cm / midpoint h = 19 cm / d = 8 cm/ drop at neck seat = 11 cm / distance between bow holes = 16–18 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 9.66 kg Another specimen from Site 17 (Velike Lašce) acquired by the Ethnographic Museum team in the village of Hocevje, Krka na Dolenjskem, in 1960. It was purchased from Matija Pajk, house name Pri Strahi, Hocevje 5. Drawing record no. 62 (R 17/19) was also made at the time, noting above the picture of the yoke that such specimens were “made by Andrejckov from Zagorica (in Dobrepolje) some time around WWI”. Slightly smaller than yoke no. 76, its shape and carved decorations reveal the hand of the same master. The bows and pole ring were not present at the time of purchase, but the shape and decorations are the same as in no. 76. Both outer bow holes are chipped. The left (more damaged) side of the yoke has been restored. KAMBASTVIHROVJAREM / dvojni / Mala vas / 1883 / javorjev les, železo / d = 110 cm / v sred. dela = 21 cm / g = 8 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 8 cm (levi vol) in 7 cm (desni vol) / š med odprt. kamb = 17 cm / p odprtin za kambi = 3,3 cm / T = 18,30 kg Jarem s staro vhodno številko 34/1971 je bil za muzej pridobljen leta 1971. Kupili so ga od Jožeta Babica iz Male vasi 32 pri Vidmu (Dobrepolje). Primerek je enako oblikovan in krašen kakor sta jarma št. 76 in 77; razlikujejo se le posamezni detajli ornamenta. Zelo verjetno gre za istega izdelovalca – mojstra, ki je bil znan prek meja svojega kraja. Pod hribcem gožinega sedeža je spredaj ne prav izrazito vrezana letnica 1883 in pod njo Kristusov monogram s križem na sredi (vrstni red inicialk je: H. I. S.). Zdi se, kakor da je lastnik volovske vprege na jarem, ki ga je kupil pri mojstru, naknadno, z nevešco roko, vrezal omenjeno letnico in monogram. Oba jarmova ovratnika sta spredaj in zadaj moc­no okovana oziroma utrjena (morda že pred zacetkom rabe) z vzdolžnima železnima trakovoma; desni je na koncu pocen. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / Mala Vas / 1883 / maple, iron / l = 110 cm / midpoint h = 21 cm / d = 8 cm / drop at neck seat = 8 cm (left ox) and 7 cm (right ox) / distance between bow holes = 17 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 18.30 kg The yoke with the old entry number 34/1971 was acquired for the museum in 1971 from Jože Babic from Mala Vas 32 nearVidem (Dobrepolje). The specimen has the same shape and decorations as yokes 76 and 77, with only minor difference in details. It is very likely the work of the same master who was known beyond his town. On the front face, under the hitch point hillock is an incision of the year 1883 and under it the Christogram with a cross in the middle (the order of the initials is: H. I. S.). The year and monogram appear to have been carved by the owner’s unskilled hand after he had bought the yoke from the master. Both 78. neck seats are reinforced front and back (perhaps alreadybe-fore first use) with strong lengthwise iron bands; the right neck seat has a cracked end. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / javorjev les / d = 110 cm / v sred. dela = 20,5 cm / g = 8 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 4,5 cm (desni vol) in 5 cm (levi vol) / š med odprt. kamb = 17 cm / p odprtin za kambi = 3,3 cm / T = 13,98 Primerek z neznanim nacinom pridobitve. Premazan je s temno lazuro, tako da je bil morda med jarmi iz tako imenovane Strgarjeve zbirke (podatki o njej so pri št. 11), a tipološko nedvomno ne sodi med primerke iz zgornje Savinjske doline. Oblika jarmove krone z rogljicastim gožinim sedežem je najbolj primerljiva z njeno izvedbo pri št. 76, 77 in 78, pri jarmih iz Hocevja nad Krko in iz Male vasi pri Vidmu (Dobrepolje). Primerek ima posnete robove ter je po vsej gornji površini – od srednjega pasu na telesu jarma – krašen z razlicnimi ornamenti: z nizi krogov z zvezdicami, polkrogov in cikcakastih ornamentov. Ti, kakor kaže, v les niso vrezani, temvec so tolceni. Odprtine za kambi so zelo pravilno izvrtane; notranji imata izdolbeni tudi ležišci za zatic. Zadaj je viden ostanek žeblja za pritrjanje vrvice zatica. Jarem je zelo dobro ohranjen (najverjetneje le malo rabljen), le zunanji odprtini za kambi sta spodaj malce poceni oziroma odkrhnjeni. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / maple / l = 110 cm / midpoint h = 20.5 cm / d = 8 cm / drop at neck seat = 4.5 cm (right ox) and 5 cm (left ox) / distance between bow holes = 17 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 13.98 kg The mode of acquisition is unknown. The specimen is dark stained, which suggests it could be from the so-called Strgar collection (described in no. 11), but is definitely not of the same type as the specimens from the Upper Savinja Valley. More than anything, the crown with its form and crescent-shaped hitch point resembles specimens nos. 76, 77 and 78 from Hocevje above the Krka Riverand Mala vas nearVidem (Dobrepolje). The yoke has shaved edges and the upper surface decorated with different ornaments: rows of circles with stars, semi-circles, and a zigzag pattern, which seem to have been hammered, not incised. The bow holes are very accurately drilled, and the inner ones have notches carved for bow pins. On the rear side there is a visible residue of the nail that held in place the bow pin string. The yoke is verywell preserved (and probably not much used), only the outer bow holes are slightly cracked or chipped at the bottom. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / Prežganje / najverjetneje javorjev les / d = 100 cm / v sred. dela = 22 cm / g = 8,8 cm / v do notr. vrha ovrat. = 13 in 13,5 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 12 cm / p odprtin za kambi = 3,5 cm / T = 12,34 kg Primerek izvira iz Prežganja pri Volavljah. Kupljen je bil od Angele Žgajnarv zacetku šestdesetih let 20. stoletja (prvotni inventarni zapis je iz leta 1964). Krašen je s tremi nizi luskastih vrezov po sredini prednje in zadnje strani jarmovega telesa ter po zgornji stra­ni ovratnikov do zunanjih odprtin za kambi. Rogljicast gožin sedež ima na polkrožnem hribcu spredaj in zadaj vrezan latinski križ (crux ordinaria), spredaj na njegovi levi in desni strani sta crtno vrezani štirilistni šestilni rozeti. Razgibana nižja krona je ob robo­vih krašena z enojnim nizom luskastih vrezov. Vidni so znaki pocrnelosti od obdelave z ognjem. Mesta, kamor je sedala gož, so še posebej vdolbena oziroma poglobljena. Pri tem jarmu ni povsem jasno, katera stran je prednja in katera hrbtna; vsaj ne na podlagi mesta stika z ojesom, ki je malce vdolbeno ali obrabljeno na obeh straneh. Najverjetneje je bolj logicno, da je odkrhnjeni del ene izmed obeh zunanjih odprtin za kambi zadaj (kot posledica vlecne sile) in ne spredaj. Da je torej pri zunanji odprtini kambe levega, vodilnega, mocnejšega vola. Jarem naj bi bil narejen iz javorjevega lesa, a po prvotnem zapisu v inventarni knjigi naj bi bil les gabrov. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / Prežganje / most likely maple / l = 100 cm / mid­point h = 22 cm / d = 8.8 cm/ drop at neck seat = 13 and 13.5 cm / distance between bow holes = 12 cm / bow hole D = 3.5 cm / W = 12.34 kg The specimen originates from Prežganje nearVolavlje. It was purchased from Angela Žgajnar in the early 1960s (the original inventory record is from 1964). The yoke is decorated front and back with three rows of scaly incisions running in the middle side to side and on the top of the neck seats to the outer bow holes. The hillock under the crescent-shaped hitch point has a Latin cross (crux ordinaria) incised on both faces, and a four-leaf rosette (made up of incised lines) on either side on the front face. A single row of scaly incisions decorates the edges of the articulated low crown. There are visible marks of charring. The pole ring also left visible marks or indents on the yoke beam, both front and back, leaving the contact of the yoke with the draw bar indented from wear on both sides. Although it is difficult to tell the front from the back, it is more likely that the chipped part on one of the outer bow holes is at the back (as a result of traction) rather than the front, i.e. at the outer bow hole of the left, leading, stronger ox. The yoke is supposedly made from maple, although the original record in the inventory book says hornbeam. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni, jarem / Brezovi Dol / lipov ali orehov les / d = 101 cm / v sred. dela = 22,5 cm / g = 7 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 11 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 13 cm / p odprtin za kambi = 3,3 cm / T = 11,12 kg Primerek izvira iz Brezovega Dola pri Zagradcu, cas in nacin pridobitve sta enaka ka­kor pri št. 55. Ta kambast vihrov jarem ima enako oblikovano krono in hribec gožinega sedeža (skoraj pravokotne oblike) kakor jarem na risanem zapisu št. 35 iz leta 1957 (R 14/166, Teren 14, Žužemberk), s kmetije Jožeta Pecjaka, hišno ime pri Stebroe , v Šmihelu 6, ki nosi vrezano letnico 1928. Najverjetneje gre za izdelek spod roke istega mojstra. Primerek je drugace rezbarsko povsem neokrašen, vidni so le ostanki crne barve. Spod­nji del pod rogljicasto odprtino gožinega sedeža je malce vdolben, da je gož lepše sedala. Zunanji del ovratnika desne vprežne živali je spodaj malce odkrhnjen. Ohranjena je le ena kamba, ki je spodaj pocena. Kambina zatica sta visela na usnjenem trakcu in vrvici; ostanka obeh sta pribita na hrbtni strani jarma pod notranjima odprtinama za kambi, ki imata zgoraj vdolbeni ležišci za zatica. Jarem naj bi bil narejen iz lipovine ali orehovine, a prvotni zapis v inventarni knjigi navaja jesenov les. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double, jarem / Brezovi Dol / linden orwalnut / l = 101 cm / midpoint h = 22.5 cm / d = 7 cm/ drop at neck seat = 11 cm / distance between bow holes = 13 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 11.12 kg The specimen originates from Brezovi Dol near Zagradec, the time and mode of acquisi­tion are the same as in no. 55. The crown and the hitch point hillock are the same shape (almost rectangular) as in the yoke in drawn record no. 35 made in 1957 (R 14/166, Site 14, Žužemberk), from Jože Pecjak’s farmstead, house name Pri Stebroe , at Šmihel 6, which has an incised year 1928. This yoke was probably made by the same craftsman. The specimen is without any carvings, with visible remains of black paint. The bottom part under the crescent-shaped opening of the hitch point is slightly depressed for the pole ring to fit more snugly into the yoke. The outer end of the right animal’s neck seat is slightly chipped at the bottom. Only one bow is present, cracked at the bottom. Bow pins used to hang from a leatherstrip and string; theirresidues are nailed at the back of the yoke under the inner bow holes, which have bow pin notches carved at the top. The yoke is supposedly made from linden orwalnut, but the original record in the inventory book say ash. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni, jarm / Zaboršt / 1890 / javorjev les / d = 113 cm / v sred. dela = 28 cm / g = 9 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 12 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 19 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,5 cm / T = 17,16 kg Jarem je leta 1950 pridobila ekipa Etnografskega muzeja na Terenu 5 (Šentvid pri Sticni). V dar so ga dobili pri Jožetu Zupancicu v Zaborštu 6. Ne zdi se, da bi bil ta kambast vihrov jarem, »'jarm' za dva vola« (ki je brez kamb), kaj dosti rabljen; na vrhu krone in ovratnika leve živali so vidni ostanki lubja. Je zelo težak, pocrnel od obdelave z ognjem ter vzdolž jarmovega telesa in ob robovih krone krašen z lepo vidnimi nizi luskastih vrezov. Njegova razgibano oblikovana krona ima spredaj, levo in desno od rogljicastega gožinega sedeža, deljeno vrezano letnico 18 90 in veliki zacetnici J. in K. Na hrbtni strani sta na teh mestih narejeni trilistni rozeti, na hribcu gožinega sedeža pa je vrezana vejica oziroma drevesce (morda kot arbor vitae). Vidna sta tudi pribita ostanka usnjenih trak­cev za kambina zatica. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double, jarm / Zaboršt / 1890 / maple / l = 113 cm / midpoint h = 28 cm / d = 9 cm / drop at neck seat = 12 cm / distance between bow holes = 19 cm / bow hole D = 3.5 cm / W = 17.16 kg The yoke was obtained by the Ethnographic Museum team on Site 5 (Šentvid near Sticna) in 1950 as a donation from Jože Zupancic in Zaboršt 6. This “yoke for two oxen” (without bows) does not appear to have been used much; bark residues are visible on the top of the crown and the left animal’s neck seat. It is very heavy, charred, and deco­rated lengthwise across the yoke beam and on the edges of the crown with rows of scaly incisions that stand out against the dark background. On the front face of its articulated crown, the year 1890 and initials J. and K. are incised to the left and right of the cres-cent-shaped hitch point. On the same spots on the rear side are two three-leaf rosettes, and on the hitch point hillock an incised branch or a small tree (perhaps as arbor vitae). Also visible are nailed residues of the leather strips that held the bow pins. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / orehov les / d = 103 cm / v sred. dela = 26 cm / g = 7,8 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 7,5 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 15 cm (levi vol) in 16,5 cm (desni vol) / p odprt. za kambi = 3,3 cm / d kamb = 60 in 63 cm / T = 14, 68 kg Ta jarem neznanega izvora je edinstven primerek z izjemno razgibano krono, na kateri se nad rogljicasto odprtino gožinega sedeža pojavi še lunicasta odprtina. Krašen je po vsej ožgani površini jarmovega telesa in krone, in sicer z nizi luskastih vrezovv kombi­naciji z nizom drobnih peterokrakih spiralnih rozet ter z vecjima rozetama spredaj in zadaj, levo in desno od gožinega sedeža. Omenjene vecje rozete so pravzaprav manjše spiralne v krogu iz kratkih (soncevih) žarkov in najverjetneje pomenijo eno izmed iz­vedbenih variacij soncevega simbola. Zatica za kambi sta ukrivljena žeblja, viseca na vrvicah; ti sta pritrjeni zadaj na sredini med gornjima odprtinama, žeblji oziroma luknja na robu krone pa kažejo na prejšnje (prvotno) mesto pritrjevanja. Obe kambi sta spodaj poceni; ena ima poceni del ovit s krpo in to pribito z žebljici. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / walnut / l = 103 cm / midpoint h = 26 cm / d = 7.8 cm / drop at neck seat = 7.5 cm / distance between bow holes = 15 cm (left) and 16.5 cm (right ox) / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / bow l = 60 and 63 cm / W = 14.68 kg This yoke of unknown provenance is a unique specimen with a strikingly articulated crown showing a crescent-shaped hitch point and another moon crescent shape pierced through above it. It is decorated across the charred surface of the yoke beam and crown, namelywith rows of scaly incisions combined with a row of tiny five-arm spiral rosettes and two larger rosettes incised front and rear on either side of the hitch point. The larger rosettes consist of a small spiral rosette encircled by short (sun) rays and are probably a variation of the sun symbol. Bent nails hanging from strings serve as bowpins; they are attached at the back in the middle between the upper bow holes, but the nails, i.e. the hole on the edge of the crown indicate the previous (original) point of attachment. Both bows are cracked at the bottom; one has a piece of cloth wrapped around the crack and secured with small nails. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / Male Lipljene / 1909 / lipov les / d = 108 cm / v sred. dela = 23,5 cm / g = 7 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 10 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 15 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 2,8-3 cm / T = 9,92 kg Jarem je leta 1948 pridobila ekipa Etnografskega muzeja na Terenu 1 (Šentjurij – Škoc­jan – Turjak). Kupili so ga od Vinka Adamica v Malih Lipljenah 11. Primerek je dokaj grobo, nevešce izdelan. Na kroni nad rogljicastim gožinim sedežem ima – najverjetneje na hrbtni strani – vrezano letnico 1909 (ta stran je namrec drugace le skromno krašena s cikcakasto ornamentalno obrobo obeh ovratnikov). Spredaj vzdolž celotnega jarmo­vega telesa tecejo med crti nanizani luskasti vrezi, ob njegovih robovih in prek krone pa cikcakast, med crti ujet ornament. Na vrhu jarma sta med odprtinama obeh kamb vrezana nekakšna Andrejeva križa (crux decussata) s precno crto ali šestkraka znaka v pravokotniku. Drugace grobo izdelan primerek ima na spodnji strani obla, ustrezno gladka ovratnika. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / Male Lipljene / 1909 / linden / l = 108 cm / midpoint h = 23.5 cm / d = 7 cm / drop at neck seat = 10 cm / distance between bowholes = 15 cm / bow hole D = 2.8–3 cm / W = 9.92 kg The yoke was acquired by the Ethnographic Museum team on Site 1 (Šentjurij – Škocjan – Turjak) in 1948 from Vinko Adamic in Male Lipljene 11. It is very rudimentary, work of unskilled hands. The year 1909 is carved into the crown above the crescent-shaped hitch point – probably on the rear side (the only other ornament on this side is a zigzag border on the neck seats). On the front face, scaly incisions running across the entire length of the yoke beam are cut between two lines, and on the edges of the yoke beam and across the crown runs a zigzag ornament incised between two lines. Between each pair of bow openings on the top of the yoke are incisions in the shape reminiscent of a St. Andrew’s cross (crux decussata) with a crossbar, ora six-pointed symbol in a rectan­gle. Otherwise crude, the specimen has rounded, properly smoothed neck seat bottoms. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / Gradenc / javorjev les, železo / d = 115 cm / v sred. dela = 25 cm / g = 7,5 cm (na levem koncu) in 8,5 cm (na desnem) / v do vrha ovrat. = 10,5 cm (levi vol) in 11 cm (desni vol) / š med odprt. kamb = 17 cm in 19 cm (pri desnem volu) / p odprt. za kambi = 3,3 cm / T = 18,92 kg Jarem ima staro vhodno številko 106/1972 in je bil za muzej pridobljen leta 1972, kupljen od Jožefe Perko, Gradenc 9. Po telesu in po kroni je spredaj in zadaj krašen z redkimi nizi luskastih vrezov, ki delujejo pikcasto. Krona ima vrezano crtno obrobo. Med dvema crtnima obrobama po celotnem gornjem robu tece niz luskastih vrezov, na obeh koncih ovratnikov pa sta vrezani vejici (morda v zašcitnem pomenu arbor vitae). Slednje spredaj in zadaj krasijo tudi hribec rogljicastega gožinega sedeža in spredaj nad njim tudi krono – levo in desno od središcne, crtno vrezane žarkaste zvezde z osmimi kraki, ki je prav tako izvedena spredaj in zadaj ter se zdi kakor zlitje grškega križa (crux quadrata) in An-drejevega križa (crux decussata). Jarem je bil obdelan z ognjem. Zadaj je razpocen vzdolž celotnega telesa; leva ožja stran oziroma ovratnik leve vprežne živali je bil zlomljen in je mocno okovan z vzdolžnima železnima trakovoma ter precno obrocasto vezjo. Vse spodnje odprtine kamb so odkrhnjene. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / Gradenc / maple, iron / l = 115 cm / midpoint height = 25 cm / d = 7.5 (left end) and 8.5 cm (right end) / drop at neck seat = 10.5 cm (left ox) and 11 cm (right ox) / distance between bow holes = 17 and 19 cm (right ox) / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 18.92 kg The yoke with the old entry number 106/1972 was acquired for the museum in 1972 from Jožefa Perko, Gradenc 9. Both faces of the yoke beam and the crown are decorated with rows of thinly spaced scaly incisions that appear dot-like. The crown has an incised line running along the edge. A row of scaly incisions caught between two edge lines runs across the length of the upper edge, and a branch is incised on either end of the neck seats (perhaps for protection as arbor vitae). Branches decorate also the front and back of the hillock under the crescent-shaped hitch point (and on the front face also the crown above it) – they are incised on either side of the central eight-pointed ray star (in­cised with lines) that appears to be a fusion of a Greek (crux quadrata) and St. Andrew’s cross (crux decussata). The yoke was flame treated. A crack runs across the rear face of the yoke beam; the left (narrower) end, i.e. the neck seat on the left animal’s side, broke and was subsequently heavily reinforced, lengthwise with forged metal bands and across with a ring clamp. All bottom bow holes are chipped. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni, jarem / Velike Poljane / javorjev les, ena kamba najverjetneje iz vrbe / d = 118 cm / v sred. dela = 14,5 cm / g = 8 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 9 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 14 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,5 cm / v kamb = 58 in 60 cm / T = 14,02 kg Ta preprost primerek je bil za muzej pridobljen leta 1947. Kupili so ga od Franca Pengova iz Velikih Poljan na Dolenjskem. Gre za kambast vihrov jarem oblikovnega tipa, razšir­jenega na delu Dolenjske, na Notranjskem in na delu Primorske; z nizko, komaj opazno krono, v kateri je na sredini izdolben gožin sedež v obliki crke U. Le-ta je v spodnjem delu, kadar je neobrabljen oziroma ni oguljen od goži, skoraj pravokoten. Na hrbtni strani sta z žeblji pribita ostanka usnjenih trakcevza kambina zatica. Pripadajoci kambi sta iz razlicnega lesa; ena je spodaj nalomljena oziroma pocena. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double, jarem / Velike Poljane / maple, one bow most likely willow / l = 118 cm / midpoint h = 14.5 cm / d = 8 cm/ drop at neck seat = 9 cm / distance between bow holes = 14 cm / bow hole D = 3.5 cm / bow d = 58 and 60 cm / W = 14.02 kg This simple specimen was acquired for the museum in 1947 from Franc Pengov from Velike Poljane in Dolenjska. It is a bowyoke of the design type common in a part of the Dolenjska, Notranjska, and Primorska regions; with a low, inconspicuous crown, in the middle of which is a hollowed out U-shaped hitch point. When intact or not worn out by the pole ring, the bottom of the hitch point is nearly rectangular. Residues of the leather strips for the bow pins are nailed to the rear side. The matching bows are made of different wood; one of them is cracked at the bottom. KAMBASTVIHROVJAREM / dvojni / Male Lipljene / javorjev les / d = 104,5 cm / v sred. dela = 14,4 cm / g = 7,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 10 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 13 in 14 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,3 cm / T = 11,72 kg Tudi ta jarem je leta 1948 pridobila ekipa Etnografskega muzeja na Terenu 1 (Šentjurij – Škocjan –Turjak); kupila od Vinka Adamica v Malih Lipljenah 11. Primerek je enakega oblikovnega tipa kakor jarem št. 86. Po nizki kroni je preprosto krašen le z nizi lus­kastih vrezov. Prednja in zadnja stran sta enako izvedeni, tako da sta težko dolocljivi, še posebej, ker mesto stika jarma z ojesom ni oguljeno. Položaj prirocnega, vodilnega vola najverjetneje oznacujejo štirje vrezani rožasti grški križi (crux quadrata) na vrhu ovratnika med odprtinama za kambo; pri drugi živali je na istem mestu vrezan le en križ. Manjša, enaka križa sta vrezana tudi na zunanjem vrhnjem robu krone, tik pred notranjima odprtinama za kambi. Jarem se zdi skoraj nerabljen, ceprav ima odlomljen in pribit delcek krone, pocen pa je tudi pri obeh spodnjih notranjih odprtinah za kambi. Zunanji odprtini sta spodaj, na notranji strani narejeni malce bolj odprto (najverjetneje zavoljo lažjega vtikanja kambe). WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / Male Lipljene / maple / l = 104.5 cm / midpoint h = 14.4 cm / d = 7.5 cm / drop at neck seat = 10 cm / distance between bow holes = 13 and 14 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 11.72 kg The yoke was acquired by the Ethnographic Museum team on Site 1 (Šentjurij – Škocjan – Turjak) in 1948 from Vinko Adamaic in Male Lipljene 11. The specimen is of the same design type as yoke no. 86. Simple rows of scaly incisions decorate the low crown. The front and rear face are identical and therefore difficult to identify, especially because of the absence of wear marks at the contact of the yoke with the drawbar. The position of the leading, near-side ox is most likely marked with four incised flower-shaped Greek crosses (crux quadrata) on the top of the neck seat between bow holes; the other neck seat has only one cross incised on the same spot. Two identical, but smaller crosses are incised also on the outer top edge of the crown, next to the inner bow holes. Except for a fragment of the crown that broke off and was nailed back, and the cracks alongside both bottom inner bow holes, the yoke appears almost unused. The outer bow holes are slightly more open at the bottom inner end (to allow the bows to slip easilyin and out of the yoke). KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / Vrbicje / javorjev les / d = 111 cm / v sred. dela = 16,5 cm / g = 8 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 12 cm (desni vol) in 13 cm (levi vol) / š med odprt. kamb = 16 cm (desna žival) in 17 cm (leva žival) / p odprt. za kambi = 3,5 (notranji) in 3,3 cm (zunanji) / T = 12,44 kg Tudi ta jarem je leta 1948 pridobila ekipa Etnografskega muzeja na Terenu 1 (Šentjurij – Škocjan – Turjak); kot dar na domaciji vVrbicju 3. Primerek sodi v enak oblikovni tip kakor jarem št. 86. Je neokrašen. Njegov spodnji del je pri zunanji odprtini kam-be mocno pocen in utrjen s tremi kovanimi žeblji. Od rabe stanjšani srednji del jarma, med ležišcem ojesa in dnom gožinega sedeža, ima zavoljo poškodbe vstavljen novkos lesa, pribit s tremi kovanimi žeblji. Na jarmovi hrbtni strani sta zgoraj na kroni, levo in desno pred notranjima odprtinama za kambi, vidna žeblja; na enem se še drži košcek usnja – preostanek trakca za kambin zatic. V jarem iz javorovine je vstavljen košcek iz hrastovine. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / Vrbicje / maple / l = 111 cm / midpoint h = 16.5 cm / d = 8 cm / drop at neck seat = 12 cm (right ox) and 13 cm (left ox) / distance between bow holes = 16 cm (right animal) and 17 cm (left animal) / bow hole D = 3.5 cm (inner) and 3.3 cm (outer) / W = 12.44 kg This is anotheryoke from Site 1 (Šentjurij – Škocjan – Turjak) obtained by the Ethno­graphic Museum team in 1948 as a donation from the homestead at Vrbicje 3. The spec­imen belongs to the same design type as yoke no. 86. It is undecorated. Its bottom part has a deep crack next to the outer bow hole and was reinforced with three forged nails. The central part of the yoke between the drawbar socket and the bottom of the hitch point was rubbed through use; the damage was fixed with a new piece of wood inserted and secured with three forged nails. A nail is driven into eitherside of the crown (at the back) next to the inner bow holes; a piece of leather still holds on to one of them – a residue of the bow pin strip. A piece of oak wood is inserted into the yoke (otherwise made of maple). KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / Železnica / najverjetneje lipov les, železo / d = 104 cm / v sred. dela = 17 cm / g = 6,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 11,5 / š med odprt. kamb = 17 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,3 cm / T = 9,84 kg Jarem je ekipi Etnografskega muzeja na Terenu 1 (Šentjurij – Škocjan – Turjak) leta 1948 podarila Terezija Jeršin iz vasi Železnica. Primerek sodi v enak oblikovni tip kakor jarem št. 86. Je neokrašen. Del, kamor je podenj sedalo oje, je moral biti zelo obrabljen, saj je utrjen s pravokotno zaplato iz tanjše železne plocevine, pribito s številnimi žeblji. Mogoce je zaznati, da je oje ob nadaljnji rabi to plocevinasto zaplato bolj vdrlo na levi strani jarma oziroma na strani desnega vola. Ta stran ima krepko pocen tudi zgornji del ovratnika. Obe zunanji odprtini za kambi sta na notranji strani odkrhnjeni. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / Železnica / most likely linden; iron / l = 104 cm / midpoint h = 17 cm / d = 6.5 cm/ drop at neck seat = 11.5 / distance between bow holes = 17 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 9.84 kg The yoke was donated to the Ethnographic Museum team on Site 1 (Šentjurij – Škoc­jan – Turjak) in 1948 byTerezija Jeršin from the village of Železnica. It belongs to the same design type as yoke no. 86. It is undecorated. The spot where the drawbar sat is reinforced (most likely due to heavy wear) with a rectangular iron sheet metal patch attached with multiple nails. Upon subsequent use, the drawbar left a deeper dent in the metal patch on the left, i.e. the right ox side of the yoke. There is also a deep crack on the top of the neck seat on the same side. Both outer bow holes are chipped on the inner side. KAMBAST VIHROV JAREM / dvojni / Štrukljeva vas / najverjetneje javorjev les, kambi leskovi / d = 111 cm / v sred. dela = 11,5 cm / g = 6,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 8 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 14 in 16 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,5 cm / v kamb = 53 cm Jarem, ki sodi v enak oblikovni tip kakor primerek št. 86, je bil leta 1962 kupljen od Janeza Laha, Štrukljeva vas 4 pri Cerknici. Za muzej je bil pridobljen skupaj z enojnim plugom s kolci, ki ga je okoli leta 1895 najverjetneje izdelal prodajalcev oce in so ga up-orabljali do leta 1940. Primerek ima za gož dve leskovi trti. Tudi kambi sta leskovi, novi, in imata lesena zatica, »riglca« za reguliranje višine odprtine za živalski vrat (ta zatica naj bi bila prvotno železna). Jarem je najverjetneje narejen iz javorjevega lesa, a po pr-votnem zapisu v inventarni knjigi naj bi bil les gabrov. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / Štrukljeva Vas / most likely maple; bows hazel / l = 111 cm / midpoint h = 11.5 cm / d = 6.5 cm/ drop at neck seat = 8 cm / distance between bow holes = 14 and 16 cm / bow hole D = 3.5 cm / bow d = 53 cm The yoke, which belongs to the same design type as yoke no. 86, was purchased in 1962 from Janez Lah, Štrukljeva Vas 4 near Cerknica. It was acquired together with a single plough with wheels, which was made by the seller’s father around 1895 and was in use until 1940. The specimen has two hazel twig pole rings. The bows, new, are also made of hazel; each has a wooden pin, riglc, to regulate the depth of the opening for the animal’s neck (the original pins were supposedly made of iron). The yoke is most likely made from maple, although the original record in the inventory book says hornbeam. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / Štrukljeva vas / gabrov les, železo / d = 110 cm / v sred. dela = 13 cm / g = 6,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 11 in 12 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 13 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,3 cm / T = 12,26 kg Glede oblikovnega tipa, nacina pridobitve in krajevnega izvora za ta primerek velja ko­mentar k št. 90. Oba ovratnika oziroma obvratna dela jarma sta spredaj in zadaj okova­na z železnimi trakovi, pribitimi s kovanimi žeblji. Spredaj pri levi vprežni živali (glede na obrabljeno mesto stika z ojesom) ali zadaj pri desni (glede na silo, ki bi lahko – bolj logicno – povzrocila razpoko) je zunanji del ovratnika pocen. Notranji odprtini za kam-bi imata zgoraj vdolbeni ležišci za zatica. Na hrbtni strani sta vidni mesti, kjer sta bili pritrjeni njuni vrvici oziroma usnjena trakca. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / Štrukljeva Vas / hornbeam, iron / l = 110 cm / mid­point h = 13 cm / d = 6.5 cm/ drop at neck seat = 11 and 12 cm / distance between bow holes = 13 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 12.26 kg The design type, mode of acquisition and local provenance of this specimen correspond to the commentary to no. 90. Both neck seats or neckside ends of the yoke are rein­forced front and back with iron bands attached with forged nails. The outer part of the neck seat has a crack on the front on the left animal side (as suggested by the wear at the contact with the drawbar) or at the rear (as indicated by the force that could cause the crack, which makes more sense). The inner bow holes each have a socket hollowed out on the top for the bow pins. The spots where their strings or leather strips were attached are visible at the back. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni/ Male Lipljene / najverjetneje javorjevles / d = 97 cm / v sred. dela = 13,5 cm / g = 7,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 9 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 11 in 12,5 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,3 cm / T = 7,76 kg Jarem, enakega oblikovnega tipa kakor primerek št. 86, je bil leta 1966 kupljen od Fran-ca Šcurka v Malih Lipljenah 25 v Škocjanskih hribih. V inventarno knjigo je bil vpisan kot »jarem s kambama in trto«, a tako gož kot kambi zdaj manjkajo. Drugace je Ange-los Baš o njem zapisal v opombo: »Takšni jarmi so bili približno ob koncu 19. stol. pri vsaki hiši, nato pa so se uveljavili enojni jarmicki.« Gre za neokrašen primerek, ki ima na levem vrhu nizke krone, na strani desnega vola, vrezan zašcitni Andrejev križ (crux decussata). Dno gožinega sedeža je oblikovano v vdolbini, v kateri sede gož. Zunanji odprtini za kambi sta spodaj, proti notranji strani izvedeni bolj odprto (podobno kakor pri jarmu št. 87). Jarem je po vsej verjetnosti narejen iz javorjevega lesa, ki je naravno potemnjen – najverjetneje z lubjem, caji ali cebulo. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / Male Lipljene / most likely maple / l = 97 cm / mid­point h = 13.5 cm / d = 7.5 cm / drop at neck seat = 9 cm / distance between bow holes = 11 and 12.5 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 7.76 kg The same design type as specimen no. 86, the yoke was purchased in 1966 from Franc Šcurk at Male Lipljene 25 in the Škocjan hills. It was registered in the inventory book as a “yoke with bows and an osier”, but neither the osier nor the bows are present. Angelos Baš made the following comment about the yoke: “At the end of the 19th century, before single yokes became popular, every house had a yoke of this kind.” This undecorated specimen has a St. Andrew’s cross (crux decussata) incised on the left top of the low crown, on the side of the right ox. The bottom of the hitch point is carved in the dent to which the pole ring is attached. The outer bow holes are wider at the bottom toward the inner side (like in yoke no. 87). The yoke is most likely made from maple treated with a natural stain – probably made from bark, tea, or onion. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / javorjev les / d = 105 cm (odlomljen na levi strani, cel najverjetneje okoli 110 cm) / v sred. dela = 16 cm / g = 7,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 3,5 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 13 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,3 cm / T = 8,96 kg Neokrašen jarem enakega oblikovnega tipa kakor primerek št. 86, neznanega krajevne­ga izvora ter z neznanim nacinom pridobitve. Koncni vršic na preprosti kroni ima na strani desnega, najverjetneje vodilnega vola vrezan zašcitni Andrejev križ (crux decussa­ta) (tako kakor primerek št. 92). Desni konec ovratnika leve vprežne živali je odlomljen zavoljo crvojedosti (oziroma preperelosti). Spredaj sta vidna ostanka pribitih usnjenih trakcev za kambina zatica. Zunanji odprtini kamb sta višje odprti. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / maple / l = 105 cm (chipped at the left end, the full length would be ca. 110 cm) / midpoint h = 16 cm / d = 7.5 cm / drop at neck seat = 3.5 cm / distance between bow holes = 13 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 8.96 kg Undecorated yoke of the same design type as specimen no. 86, of unknown provenance and mode of acquisition. The top end of the simple crown on the right (probablylead­ing) ox side has an incised protective cross of St. Andrew(crux decussata)(like specimen no. 92). The right end of the left draught animal’s neck seat broke off due to woodworm damage (or rot). The front shows visible residues of the leatherstrips forbow pins nailed to the beam. The outer bow holes are wider upwards. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / javorjev les / d = 106 cm / v sred. dela = 14,5 cm / g = 7,5-8 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 4 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 13,5 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,3 cm / T = 10,18 kg Neokrašen jarem enakega oblikovnega tipa kakor primerek št. 86, neznanega krajevne­ga izvora ter z neznanim nacinom pridobitve. Notranji odprtini za kambi imata zgoraj mocno vdolbeni ležišci za zatica (najverjetneje lesena). Zunanji kambini odprtini sta spodaj višje odprti (kar je najverjetneje omogocalo lažje vtikanje kamb pri vpreganju). Srednji spodnji del jarma, kjer se je ta stikal z ojesom, je moral biti mocno obrabljen, zdrgnjen. Na tem mestu je namrec pribita vecja lesena zaplata iz bukovine. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / maple / l = 106 cm / midpoint h = 14.5 cm / d = 7.5–8 cm / drop at neck seat = 4 cm / distance between bow holes = 13.5 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 10.18 kg Undecorated yoke of the same design type as specimen no. 86, of unknown provenance and mode of acquisition. The inner bow holes have deep bow pin sockets on the top edge (the bow pins were most likely wooden). The bottom of the outer bow holes is wider below (probably to allow the bows to slip easily into the yoke when harnessing). The centre bottom part of the yoke at the contact with the drawbar must have been severely worn, rubbed, as suggested by the large beech wood patch nailed there as reinforcement. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / javorjevles / d = 112 cm / vsred. dela = 13,5 cm / g = 7,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 3,5 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 12 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,5 cm / v kamb = 54 in 52 cm / T = 11,68 kg Neokrašen jarem enakega oblikovnega tipa kakor primerki od št. 86 dalje; neznanega krajevnega izvora in nacina pridobitve. Ima obe kambi, a poceni. Zunanji kambini odpr­tini sta spodaj višje odprti. Zgoraj na koncih gožinega sedeža so pri obeh vidni ostanki usnjenih trakcev, pribitih z žeblji. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / maple / l = 112 cm / midpoint h = 13.5 cm / d = 7.5 cm / drop at neck seat = 3.5 cm / distance between bow holes = 12 cm / bow hole D = 3.5 cm / bow d = 54 and 52 cm / W = 11.68 kg Undecorated yoke of the same design type as specimens no. 86 and onward; provenance and mode of acquisition unknown. Both bows are present, but cracked. The outer bow holes are wider at the bottom. On the top, at the hitch point ends are visible residues of leather strips nailed to the yoke. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni / Borovnica / javorjev les / d = 106 cm / v sred. dela = 14,5 cm / g = 7,5 cm / v do vrha ovrat. = 4 cm / š med odprt. kamb = 12,5 cm / p odprt. za kambi = 3,3 cm / T = 8,86 kg Neokrašen jarem enakega oblikovnega tipa kakor primerki od št. 86 dalje; predvidenega krajevnega izvora. Primerek je leta 2007 v muzej prinesel rezbar in restavrator Dušan Tomšic iz Borovnice, ki naj bi ga dobil od sokrajana, kateremu naj bi bil visel nekje na steni, za okras. Jarem ima vrezan zašcitni Andrejev križ (crux decussata), najverjetneje na strani desne vprežne živali, tako kakor primerek št. 93. Obe zunanji odprtini za kambi sta spodaj odkrhnjeni, skupaj z delom ovratnikov (na obeh koncih), najverjetneje na hrbtni strani jarma, kar je kot posledica sile vleke bolj logicno. Obrabljenost sticišca jar-ma z ojesom pa drugace to stran oznacuje kot prednjo. In mocnejša obraba tega mesta na strani leve vprežne živali prica, da so na njeno stran prelagali gož ter ji s tem nalagali težje delo. Zašcitni križ pa je, kakor kaže, vendarle vrezan pred notranjo kambino odpr­tino desne živali. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double / Borovnica / maple / l = 106 cm / midpoint h = 14.5 cm / d = 7.5 cm / drop at neck seat = 4 cm / distance between bow holes = 12.5 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 8.86 kg Undecorated yoke of the same design type as specimens no. 86 and onward; assumed lo­cal provenance. The specimen was brought to the museum in 2007 bywoodcarver and restorer Dušan Tomšic from Borovnica. Tomšic got the yoke from a local man who had it hanging on the wall as decoration. The yoke has an incised cross of St. Andrew (crux decussata), probably on the right draught animal’s side, similar to specimen no. 93. Both outer bow holes and a part of the neck seats (on both ends) are chipped at the bottom, probably on the rear face of the yoke (which makes more sense on account of traction). The wear marks at the contact of the yoke with the drawbar, on the other hand, suggest that this is the front face. These marks are deeper on the left draught animal’s side, which indicates that the pole ring – and the load – was pushed to this side. The protec­tive cross, on the other hand, nevertheless appears to be incised next to the inner bow hole on the right animal’s side. CLENASTO-KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni, laški jarem / Križ (S. Croce) / jese­nov les, železo / d = 135 cm / v sred. dela = 15 cm / g = 7 cm / š ovrat. med železnimi vezmi clenaste kambe = 31 cm (desni vol) in 30 cm (levi vol) / vclenaste kambe = 43 cm (od ovratnika do notranje strani spodnjega clena) / T = 11,20 kg »Laški jarem« je za muzejsko zbirko leta 1978 pridobila Milka Bras. »Knjiga prihodov muzejskih predmetov 1976 – « sporoca, da je bil kupljen (skupaj z enojnim jarmom št. 126) od Rudolfa Košute iz Križa 44 pri Trstu. Gre za zelo preprosto narejen prime-rek oblikovnega tipa, uveljavljenega v sosednji Furlaniji. Na njegovi prednji strani, pri levi vprežni živali, sta vžgani inicialki T. F. Oba ovratna dela jarma sta pocena; tisti pri desnem volu tako mocno, da so ga krepko okovali vzdolž ovratnika, spredaj in zadaj, ter ga utrdili še z obrocasto vezjo. Srednji del gožinega sedeža je zadaj malce odkrhnjen, clenasta kamba leve vprežne živali je nepopolna (skoraj v celoti odtrgana). WITHERS JOINTED BOWYOKE / double, laški jarem / Križ (S. Croce) / ash, iron / l = 135 cm / midpoint h = 15 cm / d = 7 cm / neck seat w between the iron eye bolts of the jointed bow = 31 cm (right ox) and 30 cm (left ox) / jointed bow d = 43 cm (from the neck seat to the inner side of the bottom link) / W = 11.20 kg This Italian-style yoke was acquired for the museum collection in 1978 by Milka Bras. “The book of arrivals of museum objects 1976–” reports that it was purchased (together with single yoke no. 126) from Rudolf Košuta from Križ (S. Croce) 44 nearTrieste. It is a very simple yoke typical for the neighbouring region of Friuli. The front face has the initials T. F. burnt into the wood on the left draught animal’s side. Both neck seats are cracked; on the right ox’s side the crack was so deep that it was heavily reinforced lengthways across the front and back of the neck seat with forged iron bands held to­gether by a ring clamp. The central part of the hitch point is slightly chipped at the back, and the jointed bow of the left draught animal is incomplete (most of it torn off). KARTA 4 / MAP 4 OSREDNJESLOVENSKO IN MEDITERANSKO OBMOCJE Z DELOM ALPSKEGA IN PANONSKEGA OBMOCJA – OBLIKOVNI TIPI ENOJNIH KAMBASTIH VIHROVIH JARMOV / SINGLE BOW WITHERS YOKES – CENTRAL SLOVENIA AND THE MEDITERRANEAN REGION WITH PART OF THE ALPINE AND PANNONIAN REGIONS KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni / orehov les, železo / š = 61 cm / g = 8 cm / v ovrat. = 16 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 19 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3,5 (zgoraj) in 3,8 (spodaj) / T = 3,56 kg Enojni kambast vihrov jarem z neznanim izvorom in nacinom pridobitve. Njegovo pre­prosto, neokrašeno telo, ki je dokaj robustno izdelano iz ploha, je zgoraj precej naceto. Oblikovno je primerek skorajda dvojcek enojnega jarma iz Osojnika, iz zbirke Belokranj­skega muzeja v Metliki (inv. št. 1434). WITHERS BOWYOKE / single / walnut, iron / w = 61 cm / d = 8 cm / neck seat h = 16 cm / distance between bow holes = 19 cm / bow hole D = 3.5 (top) and 3.8 (bottom) / W = 3.56 kg A single bowyoke of unknown provenance and mode of acquisition. Its simple, rather crude, undecorated bodyis carved from a rough log and shows evident signs of heavy wear on the top. The shape is almost identical to the single yoke from Osojnik, from the Bela Krajina Museum in Metlika (inv. no. 1434). KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni / Spodnje Vodale / orehov les, železo / š = 59 cm / g = 7,5 cm / v ovrat. = 19 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 20 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3,3 cm (zgoraj) in 3,5 cm (spodaj) / v kambe = 58 cm / T = 6,70 kg Jarmic, sorodne oblike kakoršt. 98, je leta 2009 muzeju podaril Zvone Majcen iz Spod­njih Vodal 8. Na domaci srednje veliki kmetiji so ga uporabljali, dokler so še delali z živino, tja do sedemdesetih let 20. stoletja. Neokrašeni primerek, s kambo in z vprežno verigo, tako imenovano »prusketno« (s katero se jarmic pripne na oje), je izrezan iz plo-ha po modelu. Zgoraj, na sredini, ima železno verižico z zaticem za kambo. Opazno je pocen ter spredaj in zadaj vzdolž celotnega jarmovega telesa okovan z železnim trakom. Pocen je tudi na levi strani in utrjen z obrocasto vezjo iz železne plocevine. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single / Spodnje Vodale / walnut, iron / w = 59 cm / d = 7.5 cm / neck seat h = 19 cm / distance between bow holes = 20 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm (top) and 3.5 cm (bottom) / bow d = 58 cm / W = 6.70 kg The yoke, similar in shape to no. 98, was donated to the museum in 2009 byZvone Majcen from Spodnje Vodale 8. It was in use at their medium-sized farm until the 1970s, when the family still worked with cattle. This undecorated specimen with a bow and a chain called prusketna (used to attach the yoke to the drawbar) is carved out of a rough log using a model. On the top centre, it has a thin iron chain with a bowpin. The yoke is visibly cracked and reinforced on the front and back with an iron band running across the entire length of the yoke beam. Another crack on the left side is reinforced with an iron sheet ring clamp. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni / orehov les, železo / š = 54 cm / g = 7 cm / v ovrat. = 16 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 18 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3 cm (zgoraj) in 3,3 cm (spodaj) / v kambe = 57 cm / T = 6,44 kg Enojni kambast vihrov jarem neznanega izvora in nacina pridobitve, soroden primerku št. 99, le da ima vidne ostanke zelene poslikave in oblikovana vršicka na levi in desni strani ob gornjih odprtinah za kambo. Za njeno reguliranje je v odprtine vtaknjen lesen zatic. Jarmic je na dveh mestih pocen, vendar zavoljo tega ni bil dodatno oziroma nak­nadno okovan; le spredaj in zadaj so ga utrdili z železnim trakom, najverjetneje še pred rabo. Poleg vprežne verige ima tudi eno celo in eno strgano ojnico iz vrvi. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single / walnut, iron / w= 54 cm / d = 7 cm / neck seat h = 16 cm / distance between bow holes = 18 cm / bow hole D = 3 cm (top) and 3.3 cm (bottom) / bow d = 57 cm / W = 6.44 kg This single bowwithers yoke of unknown provenance and mode of acquisition is similar to specimen no. 99, but for visible residues of green paint and the central part, which is carved so as to form “peaks” to the left and right of the upper bow holes. A wooden pin is inserted into the holes to adjust bow depth. The yoke is cracked in two spots, which were not reinforced; the only reinforcement is in the form of an iron band running lengthwise across the length of the beam on both faces, most likely added before use. Other than the harness chain it also has both shafts (made of rope), one intact and one broken. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni / Lokve / bukov les, železo / š = 55 cm / g = 6 cm / v ovrat. = 13 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 15,5 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3,3 cm (zgoraj) in 3,5 cm (spodaj) / v kambe = 65,5 cm / T = 4,04 kg Jarmic je bil pridobljen leta 2005, vvasi Lokve pri Dobrnicu na Dolenjskem, ob teren­skem ogledu ponujene mlatilnice. Podaril ga je Kužnik Stane, Lokve 3. Na obiskani kmetiji so ga sneli s stene gospodarskega poslopja, kjer je visel za spomin. Gre za pre­prost, neokrašen jarmic, s kambo in z vprežno verigo. Izrezan je iz ploha po modelu. Na desni strani je pocen in utrjen z obrocasto vezjo iz železne plocevine. Kaže, da je bil ožgan oziroma utrjen z ognjem. BOW WITHERS YOKE / single / Lokve/ beech, iron / w = 55 cm / d = 6 cm / neck seat h = 13 cm / distance between bow holes = 15.5 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm (top) and 3.5 cm (bottom) / bow d = 65.5 cm / W = 4.04 kg The yoke was acquired in 2005 in the village of Lokve near Dobrnic in Dolenjska, on the field excursion to a thresher that had been offered to the museum. It was donated by Stane Kužnik, Lokve 3. At the time of donation, the yoke was hung on the wall of a barn as a souvenir. This simple, undecorated yoke with a bow and harness chain was carved from a rough log using a model. The crack on the right side is reinforced with an iron sheet ring clamp. It appears to have been charred or flame treated. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni, jarmicek, žil / Male Cešnjice / javorjev les / š = 55,5 cm / g = 7 cm / v ovrat. = 6 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 11 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3,3 cm / T = 1,38 kg »'Jarmicek' za krave, imenovan tudi 'žil',« je leta 1950 pridobila ekipa Etnografskega muzeja na Terenu 5 (Šentvid pri Sticni). Podarila ga je Marija Anžlovar iz Malih Cešnjic 13. Ob gornjih robovih je krašen z nizi luskastih vrezov. Zgoraj, na sredini med odprtinama za kambo, je vrezan rožast grški križ (crux quadrata). Za ojnici, najverjetneje iz vrvi, sta tako kakor pri primerku s kat. št. 114, EM 22851, na obeh koncih izvrtani okrogli odprtini (s premerom 1,8 cm). WITHERS BOWYOKE / single, jarmicek, žil / Male Cešnjice / maple / w = 55.5 cm / d = 7 cm / neck seat h = 6 cm / distance between bow holes = 11 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 1.38 kg This cowyoke, known as jarmicek and žil, was obtained by the Ethnographic Museum team on Site 5 (Šentvid near Sticna) in 1950 as a donation from Marija Anžlovar from Male Cešnjice 13. The upper edges are decorated with rows of scaly incisions. A flow­er-shaped Greek cross (crux quadrata) is incised in the middle between bow holes on the top of the yoke. Like in specimen cat. no. 114, EM 22851, two holes with a diameter of 1.8 cm were drilled at both ends for the shafts (probably ropes). KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni, jarmicek / Zabukovje / javorjev les, kamba iz jesenovine, železo / š = 61 cm / g = 7,5 cm / v ovrat. = 6 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 14 cm / podprt. za kambo = 3,5 cm, v kambe = 50 cm / T = 2,74 kg »Jarmicek s kambo« je leta 1948 pridobila ekipa Etnografskega muzeja na Terenu 1 (Šent­jurij – Škocjan – Turjak). Podarili so jim ga pri Zabukovec, v Zabukovju 8, Škocjan (pri Mirni oziroma Šentrupertu na Dolenjskem). Primerek je zgoraj, spredaj in zadaj krašen s tremi nizi luskastih vrezov. Na sprednji in zadnji strani so izvedeni tudi rožasti grš­ki križi (crux quadrata). Zlasti v poglobljenih vrezih so vidni ostanki zelene barve. Oba konca jarmicevega telesa sta bila spredaj, do odprtin za kambo, okovana z železnima trakovoma. Na levem trak manjka, desni konec pa je z njim utrjen tudi spodaj. Vprežna veriga je ohranjena. Spodnja stran ovratnika je pocena in podložena oziroma »zakrpa­na« z usnjenima zaplatama, pribitima z žeblji. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single, jarmicek / Zabukovje / maple, bow ash; iron / w = 61 cm / d = 7.5 cm / neck seat h = 6 cm / distance between bow holes = 14 cm / bow hole D = 3.5 cm / bow d = 50 cm / W = 2.74 kg The “yoke with bow” was acquired bythe Ethnographic Museum team on Site 1 (Šent­jurij – Škocjan – Turjak) in 1948 as a donation from the homestead Pri Zabukovec, Zabu­kovje 8, Škocjan (near Mirna or Šentrupert in Dolenjska). The top, front, and rear are decorated with three rows of scaly incisions, the front and rear also with flower-shaped Greek crosses (crux quadrata). Residues of green paint are visible in the incisions, espe­cially recessed ones. Both front end-to-bow hole parts of the yoke beam were reinforced with iron bands. The left band is not present, but the right end is reinforced also at the bottom. The harness chain is present. The bottom of the neck seat is cracked and padded with leather patches attached with nails. 104. Inv. št. / Inv. no. 6493 KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni, jarmicek / Zabukovje / bukov les / š = 61,5 cm / g = 7,5 cm / vovrat. = 9 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 14 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3,3 cm / T = 1,86 kg »Jarmicek s kambo (za vola)« je prav tako leta 1948 pridobila ekipa Etnografskega muze­ja na Terenu 1 (Šentjurij – Škocjan – Turjak). Podarili so jim ga pri Krašovec, v Zabukovju, Staro Apno (pri Mirni oziroma Šentrupertu na Dolenjskem). Preprost primerek, z vrez­anima crtama ob gornjem robu in vršickoma, narejenima ob zunanji strani kambinih odprtin. Vidne so sledi železnih trakov na obeh koncih jarmovega telesa (kakor pri št. 103), a ti manjkajo. Manjka tudi kamba. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single, jarmicek / Zabukovje/ beech / w = 61.5 cm / d = 7.5 cm / neck seat h = 9 cm / distance between bow holes = 14 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 1.86 kg This “yoke with (ox) bow” was also acquired by the Ethnographic Museum team on Site 1 (Šentjurij – Škocjan – Turjak) in 1948. It was a donation from the homestead Pri Krašovec in Zabukovje, Staro Apno (near Mirna or Šentrupert in Dolenjska). It is a sim­ple specimen with incised lines running along the upper edge, and two “peaks” carved out on the outer side of bow holes. There are visible marks of iron bands on both ends of the yoke beam (on the same spot as in no. 103), but neither the iron bands nor the bow are present. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni, jarmicek / Paradišce / javorjev les, železo / š = 64,5 cm / g = 6,5 cm / v ovrat. = 8 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 15,5 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3 cm / T = 1,98 kg »'Jarmicek', iz trdega lesa, ornamentiran, za eno kravo ali vola« je leta 1949 pridobila ekipa Etnografskega muzeja na Terenu 2 (Šmarje - Sap – Polica). V dar so ga dobili prav od njegovega izdelovalca Jurija Mehleta iz Paradišca 1. V rabi je bil do leta 1929. Njegove gornje robove obrobljajo vrste luskastih vrezov, na sredini med odprtinama za kambo pa ima vrezan na cvetico spominjajoc grški križ (crux quadrata). Plasticno oblikovana polmesecasta izrastka krasita vrh ovratnika na zunanji strani obeh odprtin za kambo. Primerek je bil okovan vzdolž cele prednje strani. Dobro vidne so tako temnejša vdolbe­na sled železnega traku kot tudi luknje, ki so jih pustili žeblji. Železen obroc z zanko za ojnico je ohranjen le na levi strani (za desno ojnico). WITHERS BOWYOKE / single, jarmicek / Paradišce / maple, iron / w = 64.5 cm / d = 6.5 cm / neck seat h = 8 cm / distance between bow holes = 15.5 cm / bow hole D = 3 cm / W = 1.98 kg The “hardwood yoke, decorated, for a cow or ox” was acquired by the Ethnographic Museum team on Site 2 (Šmarje - Sap – Polica) in 1949 as a donation from its maker Jurij Mehle from Paradišce 1. It was in use until 1929. The upper edges are lined with rows of scaly incisions, and in the middle between bow holes is a Greek cross (crux quadrata) reminiscent of a flower. Sculpted crescents adorn the top of the neck seat on the outer side of both bow holes. The specimen was reinforced across the front. The dark imprint left by the iron band and the nail holes are clearlyvisible. Only the left iron ring with an eye link (for the right shaft) is present. KAMBASTVIHROVJAREM / enojni, jarmicek / Šmarje / bukov les, kamba iz vrbe, železo /š = 70 cm / g = 6,5 cm / v ovrat. = 7 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 16 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3,3 cm / v kambe = 50 cm / T = 4 kg »'Jarmicek', iz trdega lesa, ornamentiran,« je leta 1949 prav tako pridobila ekipa Etnograf­skega muzeja na Terenu 2 (Šmarje - Sap – Polica). V dar so ga dobili pri Frkole v Šmarju. Na podlagi risanega zapisa št. 50, ki je nastal leta 1959 na Idrijskem (R 16/107, Teren 16, Crni vrh – Vojsko), v krajih, znanih po mojstrih lesnih obrti, izdelovalcih raznovrstnega kmeckega orodja – in na katerem je narisan povsem enako oblikovan in krašen enojni jarem kakršen je primerek iz Šmarja, pa je mogoce sklepati, da je bil slednji na Dolenj­sko prinesen z Idrijskega. Oziroma, najverjetneje, da je bil kupljen na kakšnem sejmu pri prodajalcu ali izdelovalcu iz tistih krajev. Primerek je spredaj in zadaj simetricno okrašen z vrezanima valovnicama in s crtama, ki se zgoraj koncata v spiralasto vitico. Na sredini je na obeh straneh in tudi na vrhu, med odprtinama za kambo, vrezana osemlist­na (ozkolistna) rozeta oziroma osemkraka zvezda (spoj grškega križa (crux quadrata) in Andrejevega križa (crux decussata)). Na gornjem robu je ta enojni vihrov jarem krašen še s plitvo vrezanimi cikcakastimi rombi. Na obeh koncih sta priviti zanki z obrocema za ojnici in utrjeni z maticama. Ohranjen je le delcek vprežne verige, tako imenovane »prusketne«. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single, jarmicek / Šmarje / beech, bow willow; iron / w = 70 cm / d = 6.5 cm / neck seat h = 7 cm / distance between bowholes = 16 cm / bowhole D = 3.3 cm / bow d = 50 cm / W = 4 kg The “hardwood yoke, decorated” was also acquired by the Ethnographic Museum team on Site 2 (Šmarje - Sap – Polica) in 1949. It was donated by the Frkole homestead from Šmarje. Based on drawn record no. 50, which was made in 1959 in the Idrija region (R 16/107, Site 16, Crni vrh – Vojsko) (which is known for its masterwoodworkers who could make any kind of farming implements) and shows a single yoke of the same design and decoration as the Šmarje specimen, it can be inferred that the latterwas brought to Dolenjska from the Idrija region, or, even more likely, that the owner bought it at a fair from a hawker or a maker from around Idrija. The specimen is decorated on both faces with incised wave lines underlined with tendrils ending in spirals. In the middle and on the top of the beam between bow holes is an incised eight-leaf (narrow-leaved) rosette or eight-pointed star (a fusion between the Greek cross (crux quadrata) and the cross of St. Andrew (crux decussata)). The top edge of this single withers yoke is additionally decorated with shallow incised zigzag rhombuses. Each end of the yoke has an eye link with a shaft ring attached to it and reinforced with a nut. Only a fragment of the harness chain, so-called prusketna, is present. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni, jarmc / Vintarjevec / javorjev les, kamba naj­verjetneje iz vrbe / š = 55 cm / g = 6,5 cm / v ovrat. = 9,5 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 17 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3 cm / v kambe = 67 cm / T = 2,26 kg »Jarmc« je bil za muzej pridobljen leta 1957, kupljen od Janeza Torija vVintarjevcu 7, Šmartno pri Litiji. Preprost primerek ni nic okovan, kamba je spodaj pocena in povezana z žico. Z žico je na koncu ene strani utrjen tudi del, kjer je pritrjena zanka z obrocem za ojnico. Obe odprtini za kambo sta odkrhnjeni. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single, jarmc / Vintarjevec / maple, bow most likelywillow / w = 55 cm / d = 6.5 cm / neck seat h = 9.5 cm / distance between bow holes = 17 cm / bow hole D = 3 cm / bow d = 67 cm / W = 2.26 kg The yoke was acquired for the museum in 1957 from Janez Tori in Vintarjevec 7, Šmart­no pri Litiji. It is a simple specimen, not reinforced, with the bow cracked at the bottom and tied with wire. Wire was used also to reinforce the end part where the eye link with the shaft ring is attached. Both bow holes are chipped. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni, jarmicek / Hocevje / orehov les, železo / š = 62,5 cm / g = 7 cm / v ovrat. = 7 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 15 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3 cm / v kambe = 67 cm / T = 5,92 kg »Jarmicek« je muzeju leta 2006 podaril Anton Hrovat, gospodar domacije pri Hrenovk, Hocevje 10 nad Krko. Kmetija, na kateri so ga uporabljali, šteje sicer okoli 22 hektarov, a obdelovalne zemlje je skupaj le »mal cez 1 hektar; so majhne njivce po senožetih«. Anton je najprej zatrdil, da je z voli delal do sedemdesetih let preteklega stoletja. Med pogovo­rom, iz katerega je bilo mogoce razbrati, koliko so mu pomenili konji, pa je povedal, da naj bi že vse od leta 1947, ko je kupil prvega konja, delal s konji in s kakšno kravo. Prime-rek je sicer preprosto izdelan enojni jarem, z vršickoma na levi in desni strani gornjih odprtin kambe, a mocno okovan vzdolž celega telesa z železnim trakom. Zadaj pod des-no kambino odprtino na verižici visi železen zatic za kambo. Na jarmicu je ohranjen tudi del »prusketne«, vprežne verige. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single, jarmicek / Hocevje / walnut, iron / w = 62.5 cm / d = 7 cm / neck seat h = 7 cm / distance between bow holes = 15 cm / bow hole D = 3 cm / bow d = 67 cm / W = 5.92 kg The yoke was donated to the museum in 2006 by Anton Hrovat, the owner of the Pri Hrenovk homestead, Hocevje 10 above the Krka River. The farmstead where it was used measures around 22 hectares, but as for arable land, there is “just above a hectare; the fields are small in these hay meadows”. Anton explained that he had worked with oxen until the 1970s. He went on to say that he had been working with horses, occasionally with a cow, since 1947, when he bought his first horse (unable to hide howvery fond he was of his horses). The specimen is a simple single yoke with “peaks” carved to the left and right of the upper bow holes and is heavily reinforced lengthwise with an iron band running across the beam. An iron bow pin hangs from a chain on the rear side under the right bow hole. A part of the harness chain, prusketna, is present. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni / Breg pri Velikem Gabru / najverjetneje javor­jevles, kamba najverjetneje vrbova, železo / š = 55 cm / g = 8 cm / vovrat. = 6,5 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 13 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3,3 cm / v kambe = 51,5 cm / T = 3,52 kg Ta enojni kambast vihrov jarem je leta 1978, v Bregu pri Velikem Gabru 15, pri Šentvidu pri Sticni, pridobil Angelos Baš. Zapis v»Knjigi prihodovmuzejskih predmetov1976– « prica, da je bil kupljen od Janeza Novaka, skupaj z vec drugimi predmeti (med temi so zapisani trije jarmici). Gre za preprost, neokrašen primerek, z vršickoma na levi in desni strani gornjih odprtin kambe. Oba konca sta okovana z železnima obrocema, s katerih visita obroca za ojnici. Leva hrbtna stran je pocena. Manjkata železna zankasta vsadka za vprežno verigo, o cemer pricata odprtini oziroma obojestranski luknji. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single / Breg nearVeliki Gaber / most likely maple, bow most likelywillow; iron / w = 55 cm / d = 8 cm / neck seat h = 6.5 cm / distance between bow holes = 13 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / bow d = 51.5 cm / W = 3.52 kg This single bowyoke was acquired by Angelos Baš in 1978 in Breg at Veliki Gaber 15, Šentvid near Sticna. The record in the “Book of arrivals of museum objects 1976–” in­dicates it was purchased from Janez Novak with several other objects (including three single yokes). This is a simple, undecorated specimen with “peaks” carved to the left and right of the upper bow holes. Both ends are reinforced with iron rings with eye links for the shafts. The left rear side is cracked. The iron loops for the harness chain are missing, their absence indicated by the holes on both sides of the yoke. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni / Breg pri Velikem Gabru / javorjev les, železo / š = 69 cm / g = 8 cm / v ovrat. = 5 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 13 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3,5 cm / T = 3,32 kg Tudi ta enojni kambast vihrov jarem je leta 1978, v Bregu pri Velikem Gabru 15, pri Šent­vidu pri Sticni, pridobil Angelos Baš; na enak nacin kakor št. 109. Preprosti primerek je izdelan povsem podobno kakor št. 109, le vecji je. Najverjetneje je bil mojster isti. Odprtini za kambo sta znotraj pocrnjeni; morda sta bili izžgani ali po vrtanju le utrjeni z ognjem. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single / Breg nearVeliki Gaber / maple, iron / w = 69 cm / d = 8 cm / neck seat h = 5 cm / distance between bow holes = 13 cm / bow hole D = 3.5 cm / W = 3.32 kg This single bowyoke was also acquired by Angelos Baš in 1978 in Breg at Veliki Gaber 15, Šentvid near Sticna, in the same manner as no. 109. This simple yoke is almost identical in execution as no. 109, but bigger. It was probably made by the same woodworker. The bow holes are blackened on the inside, either because theywere hollowed with fire or flame-treated after drilling. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni / javorjev les, železo / š = 66 cm / g = 7 cm / v ovrat. = 10 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 16 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3 cm / T = 4,68 kg Primerek neznanega krajevnega izvora in nacina pridobitve. Enojni vihrov jarem z vršic­koma na levi in desni strani gornjih odprtin za kambo, preprosto krašen z vzdolžnimi nizi luskastih vrezov spredaj in zadaj. Njegov levi konec (gledano s hrbtne strani) se je ocitno odlomil in so ga nazaj pribili z žeblji ter potem to stran mocno okovali z vzdolžnimi železnimi trakovi ter z dvema obrocastima vezema iz železne plocevine. Spredaj ima pritrjeno verižico z zaticem za reguliranje višine kambe. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single / maple, iron / w = 66 cm / d = 7 cm / neck seat h = 10 cm / distance between bow holes = 16 cm / bow hole D = 3 cm / W = 4.68 kg Provenance and mode of acquisition unknown. A single bowyoke with “peaks” carved on either side of the upper bow holes, simply decorated on both faces with lengthwise rows of scaly incisions. The left end (viewed from the rear side) had obviously broke off; it was nailed back and subsequently heavily reinforced with lengthwise iron bands and two iron sheet clamps. The chain with the bow pin for bow depth adjustment is attached at the front. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni / bukov les, železo / š = 63,5 cm / g = 9 cm / v ovrat. = 6 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 15 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3,5 cm (leva 3,8 cm) / T = 3,84 kg Tako kakor prejšnji je tudi ta primerek neznanega krajevnega izvora in nacina prido­bitve. Po obliki mu je podoben; ima malce bolj razmaknjena vršicka na levi in desni strani gornjih odprtin za kambo, drugace pa je preprosto izdelan. Spredaj je z železnim trakom okovan vzdolž celega telesa, zadaj le od obeh koncev do zacetkov odprtin za kambo. Verižica z zaticem za reguliranje višine kambe je pritrjena zgoraj na sredini. Jarmic se ne zdi prav dosti rabljen; ohranjeno ima vprežno verigo. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single / beech, iron / w = 63.5 cm / d = 9 cm / neck seat h = 6 cm / distance between bow holes = 15 cm / bow hole D = 3.5 cm (left 3.8 cm) / W = 3.84 kg Like the previous specimen, this one is also of unknown provenance and mode of acqui­sition. It is similar in shape and simple in execution, but the “peaks” on either side of the upper bow holes are carved wider apart. The front is reinforced across the beam with an iron band; the rear is reinforced only from both ends to the outerpart of bow holes. The chain with the bow pin is attached at top centre. The yoke does not appear to have been used much; the harness chain is present. KAMBASTVIHROVJAREM / enojni / Zgornje Gameljne / javorjev les, železo / š = 56 cm / g = 6,5 cm / v ovrat. = 12 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 17 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3 cm / v kambe = 67 cm / T = 5,56 kg Primerek je leta 2006 muzeju podarila Joži Žmavc iz Maribora, skupaj z drugimi pred­meti s kmetije pri Sirenk, Zgornje Gameljne 55, kjer so gospodarile in gospodinjile njene tete, »Sirnikove punce« (vec o tej zbirki je objavljeno v Etnologu 17 (2007), str. 303– 305). Enojni jarem naj bi bil v rabi za kravo; delale so namrec z dvema kravama, Šeko in Belko, vse tja do osemdesetih let preteklega stoletja. Na prednji strani je okovan z železnim trakom vzdolž celotnega telesa, zadaj na sredini ima pritrjeno železno veriži-co s kambinim zaticem. Prvotno je imel leseno kambo, zdaj ima kovinsko; sestavljeno, spodaj povezano z vijakom in matico. Ena odprtina za kambo je spodaj pocena oziroma odkrhnjena. Primerek je bil pobarvan z oljno barvo; dobro vidni so ostanki temnozelene barve. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single / Zgornje Gameljne / maple, iron / w = 56 cm / d = 6.5 cm / neck seat h = 12 cm / distance between bow holes = 17 cm / bow hole D = 3 cm / bow d = 67 cm / W = 5.56 kg The specimen was donated to the museum in 2006 by Joži Žmavc from Maribor, to­gether with other objects from the farmstead Pri Sirenk, Zgornje Gameljne 55, where her aunts, the “Sirnik girls” ran the farm (the collection was discussed in more detail in the journal Etnolog 17(2007), pp. 303–305). This single yoke was presumablyused for a cow, as until the 1980s the aunts worked with two cows, Šeka and Belka. The front is reinforced with an iron band across the length of the beam; the iron chain with the bow ring is attached in the middle of the beam at the back. Originally, the yoke had a wooden bow; the current one is metal, assembled from two pieces and joined at the bottom with a bolt and nut. One of the bow holes is cracked or chipped at the bottom. The specimen was painted with an oil paint; residues of dark green paint are clearlyvisible. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni / Jelša / orehov les, usnje, železo / š = 61 cm / g = 8 cm / v ovrat. = 7 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 14 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3,3 cm / T = 1,68 kg Jarmic je muzeju podaril Tone Brcon, Jelša 9 (pri Kostrevnici). Okoli sredine 20. stoletja ga je naredil njegov oce, pokojni hišni gospodar, ki je izdeloval orodja, tudi kak voz, in jarme za vso okolico. Darovalec Tone je povedal, da še zdaj vidi oziroma prepozna na kakšni hiši obešen (za okras) ocetov jarem ali jarmic. Podarjeni primerek so na njihovi kmetiji uporabljali do sedemdesetih let preteklega stoletja. S tremi nizi luskastih vrezov spredaj in zadaj krašeni enojni jarem, s sredinskim vršickom med odprtinama za kambo, je narejen iz naravno rašcene krivine in dodatno utrjen z ožiganjem. Na obeh koncih ima narejeni okrogli odprtini za vrvasti ojnici; leva je še privezana. Na desnem koncu (gledano s hrbtne strani) je malce pocil in je bila zato narejena nova odprtina (v staro je vložen lesen cep) in dodana ozka obrocasta vez iz železne plocevine. Obe spodnji odpr­tini za kambo sta poceni, odkrhnjeni – a popravljeni: ena s pribitim kosom lesa, druga s pribito usnjeno zaplato. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single / Jelša / walnut, leather, iron / w = 61 cm / d = 8 cm / neck seat h = 7 cm / distance between bow holes = 14 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 1.68 kg The yoke was donated to the museum byTone Brcon, Jelša 9 (near Kostrevnica). It was made in the mid-20th century by his father, the late master of the house, who used to make various implements, even carts, and yokes for people in and around the village. Tone said he could still recognize his father’s yokes if he saw them hanging (as deco­ration) on houses. The donated specimen was used on his farm until the 1970s. Made from a naturally curved branch and flame treated, the yoke is decorated on both faces with three rows of scaly incisions and has a “peak” in the middle between bow openings. Both ends have round eye links for the rope shafts; the left is still present. A new open­ing (the old was filled with a wooden plug) was made on the right end (viewed from the back), which is slightly cracked and was additionally reinforced with a narrow iron sheet clamp. Both bottom bow holes are cracked (chipped), but patched: one with a piece of wood, the other with a leather patch nailed to the beam. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni / javorjev les, železo / š = 68 cm / g = 7,5 cm / v ovrat. = 7 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 17 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3,3 cm / T = 3,34 kg Primerek neznanega krajevnega izvora in nacina pridobitve, narejen iz naravno rašcene krivine. Preprost, neokrašen, s sredinskim vršicem hišaste oblike med gornjima odpr­tinama za kambo; nanj je pritrjena železna verižica z zaticem. Ohranjeno ima tudi vprež-no verigo. Na posameznih mestih je pocen; pri levi odprtini za kambo (gledano od spre­daj), ki je zgoraj mocno odkrhnjena, je utrjen z obrocasto vezjo iz železne plocevine. Na desnem, precej nagnitem oziroma odkrhnjenem koncu je namesto manjkajoce železne zanke za povezovanje z ojnico dodana kar železna žica. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single / maple, iron / w = 68 cm / d = 7.5 cm / neck seat h = 7 cm / distance between bow holes = 17 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 3.34 kg A specimen of unknown provenance and mode of acquisition, made from a naturally curved branch. This simple, undecorated yoke has a house-shaped protrusion between the upper bow holes and an iron chain with the bow pin attached to it. The harness chain is present. The yoke has several cracks; and is reinforced under the left, severely chipped bow hole (viewed from the front), with an iron sheet shackle. On the right end, which is heavilyworn or chipped, the missing iron eye link for the shaft was replaced with iron wire. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni / javorjev les, železo / š = 60,5 cm / g = 7 cm / v ovrat. = 3 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 11 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3,3 cm / T = 3,34 kg Kakor prejšnji primerek št. 115 ima tudi ta neznan krajevni izvor in nacin pridobitve. Je prav tako izdelan iz naravno rašcene krivine; je preprost, neokrašen, s sredinskim vršicem hišaste oblike med gornjima odprtinama za kambo. Ceprav je malce manjši, je tako sorodno narejen, da je mogoce sklepati o osebnem oblikovnem tipu istega izdelo­valca. Ohranjeno ima vprežno verigo. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single / maple, iron / w = 60.5 cm / d = 7 cm / neck seat h = 3 cm / distance between bow holes = 11 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 3.34 kg Like the previous specimen, this one is also of unknown provenance and mode of acqui­sition. It is carved out of a naturally curved branch; simple in design and undecorated, it has a house-shaped protrusion between the top bow holes. Albeit smaller, it is executed in almost the same manner as the previous one, so it is safe to assume that it shows a personal design type of the same maker. The harness chain is present. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni / Zgornje Gameljne / jesenov les, železo / š = 56,5 cm / g = 7 cm / v ovrat. = 8 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 14 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3 cm / T = 2,92 kg Glede nacina pridobitve in krajevnega izvora za primerek iz zbirke »Sirnikove punce« velja komentar k št. 113. Tudi ta enojni jarem je bil v rabi za kravo. Na obeh koncih zanki za ojnici na njegovo telo pritrjujeta železna obroca, zgoraj na sredini pa ima pritrjeno železno verižico z zaticem za kambo. Vzdolž ovratnika je pocen. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single / Zgornje Gameljne / ash, iron / w = 56.5 cm / d = 7 cm / neck seat h = 8 cm / distance between bow holes = 14 cm / bow hole D = 3 cm / W = 2.92 kg The mode of acquisition and local provenance of the specimen from the “Sirnik girls” collection corresponds to the commentary to no. 113. This single yoke, too, was used for a cow. The eye links for the shafts on both ends of the yoke are attached to the beam with iron clamps, and the iron chain with the bow pin is attached at top centre. The yoke is cracked alongside the neck seat. KAMBASTVIHROVJAREM / enojni / Zgornje Gameljne / bukov les, železo / š = 52 cm / g = 7,8 cm / v ovrat. = 6,5 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 14 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3,5 cm / T = 3,12 kg Glede vsega tudi za ta primerek iz zbirke »Sirnikove punce« velja komentar k št. 113. Poleg tega, da je na hrbtni strani pocen, ima tudi odkrhnjeno eno odprtino za kambo. Je slabše ohranjen kakor oblikovno zelo soroden prejšnji enojni jarem; najverjetneje, ker je narejen iz bukovine. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single / Zgornje Gameljne / beech, iron / w = 52 cm / d = 7.8 cm / neck seat h = 6.5 cm / distance between bow holes = 14 cm / bow hole D = 3.5 cm / W = 3.12 kg Like other specimens from the “Sirnik girls” collection, this one has the same prove­nance and use as no. 113. It has a crack on the rearface and a chipped bow hole. It is in poorer condition than the previous, very similar single yoke; probably because it is made of beech. KAMBASTVIHROVJAREM / enojni, jarmíc / Selce / bukov les, kamba iz jesenovine, železo / š = 66 cm / g = 7,5 cm / vovrat. = 13 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 20 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3,3 cm / v kambe = 61 cm Za muzejsko zbirko je bil pridobljen leta 1981. Podaril ga je Franc Smrdelj (roj. 1920, u. 2003), gospodar 1/3 kmetije (kmet in delavec na Javorju), Selce 29, hišno ime Cendran. Jarmic je morda izdelal Franc Boštjancic (roj. 1907, u. 1978), vulgo Erjavcek, mali kmet in samouški mojster za vse, iz sosednje Slavine (17), ali pa slavinski mojsterkolar Kalistrcev. Nekateri gospodarji v teh vaseh so si jarmice izdelovali tudi sami. Pri Cendranovih so vsa dela še do 1970-ih let opravljali s parom volov; vpregali so ju vdva jarmica – kot je bilo v navadi v vecini pivških vasi. Starejši nacin je bil tu sicer vpreganje v dvojni kambast vihrov jarem. Jarmic je preprost, neokrašen, iz naravno rašcene krivine, spredaj vzdolž celega telesa utrjen z železnim trakom. Vprežno verigo ima ohranjeno. Na obeh koncih sta skozi železna obroca priviti zanki za ojnici. Njegova leva stran (gledano od zadaj) je bila pocena ter je dodatno okovana s krajšim železnim trakom in z obrocasto vezjo iz železne plocevine. S takšnima vezema je jarmic utrjen tudi nad obema spodnjima odpr­tinama za kambo. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single, jarmic / Selce / beech, bow ash; iron / w = 66 cm / d = 7.5 cm / neck seat h = 13 cm / distance between bow holes = 20 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / bow d = 61 cm The yoke was acquired for the museum collection in 1981 as a donation from Franc Smr­delj (1920–2003), 1/3 ownerof the farm (farmerand workerat Javor), Selce 29, house name Cendran. It may have been made by Franc Boštjancic (1907– 1978), vulgo Erjavcek, a small farmer and self-taught jack of all trades from the neighbouring Slavina (17), or by a Slavina wheelwright Kalistrcev. Certain local farm owners also made their single yokes themselves. Until the 1970s, all the farm work at the Pri Cendranovih farmstead was done with a pair of oxen, each of them fitted with a yoke, as was common practice in most vil­lages around Pivka at the time. The old waywas yoking the oxen in a double withers bow yoke. This single yoke is simple and undecorated, made from a naturallycurved branch and reinforced across the front face with an iron band. The harness chain is present. Both ends of the yoke have iron rings with eye links for the shafts. The left side (viewed from the back) was cracked and subsequently reinforced with a short iron band and an iron sheet ring. Identical clamps hold the beam above both bottom bow holes. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni, jarmíc / Selce / javorjev les, železo / š = 62 cm / g = 7,5 cm / v ovrat. = 8 cm / š ovrat. = 15,5 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3,3 cm / v kambe = 55,5 cm / T = 4,66 kg Glede nacina pridobitve, krajevnega izvora in zgodovine predmeta so tudi za ta primerek relevantni podatki pri št. 119; le da je bil ta namenjen vpreganju krave. Gre za preprost, neokrašen in neokovan jarmic iz naravno rašcene krivine (komentar restavratorja: »Oni, ki so po rasti; je pa dosti bolj mocan.«). Ima kambo in vprežno verigo. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single, jarmíc / Selce / maple, iron / w = 62 cm / d = 7.5 cm / neck seat h = 8 cm / neck seat w = 15.5 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / bow d = 55.5 cm / W = 4.66 kg The mode of acquisition, provenance, and history of the object correspond to no. 119, except that this yoke was used with a cow. It is a simple, undecorated yoke without rein­forcements, made from a naturally curved branch (the restorer’s comment: “Those made from crooks are much stronger.”). The bow and harness chain are present. KAMBASTVIHROVJAREM / enojni, jarmíc / Slavina / javorjevles, železo / š = 64 cm / g = 8 cm / v ovrat. = 10 cm / š ovrat. = 15 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3,3 cm / v kambe = 62 cm / T = 3,10 kg Jarmic je za muzejsko zbirko leta 2005 podarila Ivanka Bajc, roj. 1942, vulgo Erjavckova, gospodinja, Slavina 17. Izdelal ga je stari gospodar Erjavcek, Ivankin oce Franc Bošt­jancic (roj. 1907, u. 1978), mali kmet (cetrt zemljakar ali maslcar) in samouški mojster za vse. Svoj prvi jarem je naredil tam okoli sredine petdesetih let preteklega stoletja; za domace vole, s katerimi so orali do leta 1968. Gre za preprost, neokrašen jarmic, pobarvan z zeleno oljno barvo. Zgornji del ovratnika je na sredini med odprtinama za kambo malce dvignjen. Na tem delu je pritrjena verižica s skrbno oblikovanim železnim zaticem za reguliranje višine kambe (najverjetneje izdelkom slavinskega kovaca Pepija Vadnala). Kamba je spodaj pocena; leva odprtina za kambo je zgoraj odkrhnjena. Jarmic ima ohranjeni tudi obe ojnici, vrvasti »štrangi«. Narejen je iz naravno rašcene krivine. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single, jarmíc / Slavina / maple, iron / w = 64 cm / d = 8 cm / neck seat h = 10 cm / nape seat w = 15 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / bow d = 62 cm / W = 3.10 kg The yoke was donated to the museum in 2005 by Ivanka Bajc, b. 1942, vulgo Erjavckova, housewife, Slavina 17. It was made by the old homeowner Erjavcek, Ivanka’s father Franc Boštjancic (1907– 978), a small farmer (1/4 owner of the farm, so-called maslcar) and a self-taught jack of all trades. He made his first yoke in the mid-1950s; it was for the house oxen, with which they ploughed the fields until 1968. It is a simple, undecorated yoke painted with green oil paint. The top of the neck seat is slightly raised in the middle between the bow holes, where a chain with a carefully crafted iron bow pin is attached (the pin was probablymade bythe Slavina blacksmith Pepi Vadnal). The bowis cracked at the bottom and the left bow hole chipped on the top. The yoke still has both pulling ropes, štrangas. It is made from a naturally curved branch. KAMBASTVIHROVJAREM / enojni / bukov les / š = 55 cm / g = 6,5 cm / v ovrat. = 4,5 cm / š ovrat. = 12 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3 cm / v kambe = 56,5 cm / T = 2,22 kg Primerek sodi v tako imenovano Strgarjevo zbirko. Glede nacina pridobitve in krajevne­ga izvora je najverjetneje tudi zanj relevanten opis pri št. 11. Izdelan je iz naravno rašcene krivine. Je preprost, neokrašen, in ima narejeni okrogli odprtini za vrvasti ojnici. Kamba ima lesen zatic. Jarmic je premazan s temno lazuro, enako kakor vsi drugi primerki iz podarjene Strgarjeve zbirke. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single / beech / w = 55 cm / d = 6.5 cm / neck seat h = 4.5 cm / neck seat w = 12 cm / bow hole D = 3 cm / bow d = 56.5 cm / W = 2.22 kg The specimen belongs to the so-called Strgar collection. The mode of acquisition and provenance probably correspond to the description for no. 11. This simple, undecorated yoke is carved out of a naturally curved branch and has two holes for the pulling ropes. The bow has a wooden pin. Like other specimen’s from the donated Strgar collection, the yoke is dark-stained. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni, jarmicek, žil / Mali Kal / javorjev les / š = 64 cm / g = 8 cm / v ovrat. = 5 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 9 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3,3 cm / T = 3,04 kg »Jarmicek, žil za krave« je leta 1950 pridobila ekipa Etnografskega muzeja na Terenu 5 (Šentvid pri Sticni). Podaril ga je Jože Korevec iz Malega Kala 5. Ta samosvoj primerek, po obliki soroden št. 124 (oba sta izdelana iz naravno rašcene krivine, ki spominja na crko A), ima vse gornje robove krašene z nizi luskastih vrezov. Na obeh koncih sta za ojnici, najverjetneje vrvasti, narejeni okrogli odprtini (s premerom 1,5 cm). WITHERS BOWYOKE / single, jarmicek, žil / Mali Kal / maple / w = 64 cm / d = 8 cm / neck seat h = 5 cm / distance between bow holes = 9 cm / bow hole D = 3.3 cm / W = 3.04 kg This cowyoke, known as jarmicek and žil, was obtained by the Ethnographic Museum team on Site 5 (Šentvid near Sticna) in 1950 as a donation from Jože Korevec, Mali Kal 5. This unique specimen, similar in shape to no. 124 (both are made from a naturally curved, A-shaped log) has all upper edges incised with rows of scaly incisions. Each end has a hole (1.5 cm in diameter) pierced through for the shafts, most likely pulling ropes. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni / 1947 / bukov les, železo / š = 63 cm / g = 5,7 cm / v ovrat. = 4 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 10 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3 cm / T = 3,04 kg Enojni kambast vihrov jarem neznanega izvora in nacina pridobitve. Gre za preprost primerek, izdelan iz naravno rašcene krivine, z ravnim gornjim delom ovratnika. Na sprednji strani zgoraj je vrezana letnica 1947. Na sredini gornjega dela ovratnika je pri­trjen usnjen trakec z železnim zaticem za reguliranje višine kambe. V zanki levega oko­vanega konca jarmica visi ojnica iz vrvi; ohranjen je tudi del vprežne verige. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single / 1947 / beech, iron / w = 63 cm / d = 5.7 cm / neck seat h = 4 cm / distance between bow holes = 10 cm / bow hole D = 3 cm / W = 3.04 kg This simple single withers bowyoke of unknown provenance and mode of acquisition is made from a naturally curved branch and has a straight top (of the neck seat). The front face has the year 1947 incised at the top. A leather strip with an iron bow pin is attached to the top centre of the neck seat. The pulling rope hangs from the ring link on the shackled left end of the yoke, and a part of the harness chain is also present. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni / Vrhpolje / javorjev les, železo / š = 66 cm / g = 7 cm / v ovrat. = 4,5 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 12,5 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3,5 cm / T = 2,62 kg Primerek je leta 1978, vVrhpolju 9 pri Kozini, za muzejsko zbirko pridobila Milka Bras. Kupljen je bil od Joahima Abrama, skupaj z vec drugimi predmeti. Gre za preprost enojni vihrov jarem. Desna odprtina za kambo je pocena in odkrhnjena, posledicno je desna stran ob zunanjem robu kambine odprtine utrjena z obrocasto vezjo. Na desni strani (gledano od zadaj) manjka zankast vsadek za verigo (luknja je zamašena s košckom lesa). Spredaj, na sredini vrha ovratnika, je manjša železna zanka (za vrvico ali verižico z zaticem za kambo). Tudi pri tem primerku sta odprtini za kambo znotraj crni, kakor da bi bili izžgani ali obdelani z ognjem (podobno kakor pri št. 110). Narejen je iz naravno rašcene krivine javorja. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single / Vrhpolje / maple, iron / w= 66 cm / d = 7 cm / neck seat h = 4.5 cm / distance between bow holes = 12.5 cm / bow hole D = 3.5 cm / W = 2.62 kg The specimen was obtained forthe museum collection byMilka Bras in 1978, in Vrhpol­je 9, Kozina, from Joahim Abram, together with several other objects. It is a simple single withers yoke. The right bow hole is cracked and chipped, and the yoke next to its outer edge reinforced with an iron ring. The right (viewed from the back) eye link for the chain is missing (the hole is plugged with a piece of wood). On the front face, in the middle of the neck seat top, is a small iron loop (for the bow pin string or chain). The bow holes are black on the inside, as if burned or flame treated (similar to no. 110). The yoke is made from a naturally curved branch of a maple tree. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni / Križ (S. Croce) / jesenov les, železo / š = 71 cm / g = 8 cm / v ovrat. = 3 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 13 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3,8 cm / T = 6,76 kg Tudi ta primerek je leta 1978 za muzejsko zbirko pridobila Milka Bras. »Knjiga prihodov muzejskih predmetov 1976 – « sporoca, da je bil kupljen (skupaj z »laškim jarmom« št. 97) od Rudolfa Košute, Križ 44 pri Trstu. Na jarmicu je še opazna zelena barva. Ob gornjem robu železnega traku, ki spredaj in zadaj tece vzdolž njegovega celotnega telesa, je narejen niz luskastih vrezov; na vrhnjem robu je plitvo vrezan preprost okras v obliki vejice. Jarmic je opazno pocen ob desni odprtini za kambo in so ga zavoljo tega izjemno mocno okovali. Ima ostanek kovinske verižice za zatic kambe in ohranjeno vprežno verigo. Narejen je iz jesenovega lesa, a ne iz naravno rašcene krivine. »Ta pa ni – zato je pa pocil,« je bil komentar muzejskega restavratorja za les. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single / Križ (S. Croce) / ash, iron / w = 71 cm / d = 8 cm / neck seat h = 3 cm / distance between bow holes = 13 cm / bow hole D = 3.8 cm / W = 6.76 kg Another specimen acquired for the museum collection in 1978 by Milka Bras. The “Book of arrivals of museum objects 1976–” reports that it was purchased (together with “Ital­ian style” yoke no. 97) from Rudolf Košuta, Križ 44, nearTrieste. Residues of green paint are still visible. A row of scaly incisions lines the upper edge of the iron band that stretches lengthwise across the front and rear face of the yoke beam; a shallow branch shape is incised on the top edge. The yoke has a visible crack next to the right bow hole and was therefore heavily reinforced. A fragment of the metal chain for the bow pin and the harness chain are present. The yoke is made of ash, but not from a naturally curved branch. “This one isn’t – that’s why it cracked,” commented the museum’s wood restorer. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni, komát / Merce / 2012 / jesenov les, železo / š = 67 cm / g = 7,5 cm / v ovrat. = 4,5 cm / š med odprt. kambe = 14,3 cm / p odprt. za kambo = 3 cm / T = 4,00 kg To zadnjo pridobitev za zbirko – enojni kambast vihrov jarem, vvaseh med Divaco in Sežano imenovan »komát« – so muzeju spomladi leta 2012 podarili Žvabovi: David, Ivan, Denis, Lea, Tilen in Klemen Žiberna, iz Merc 11. Naredil ga je David Žiberna, roj. 1984, izucen mizar. David, sin gospodarja Ivana (roj. 1956), polagalca kamna, je na pod-lagi svojih mizarskih znanj (dokoncal je Srednjo lesarsko šolo vPostojni) razvil zamisel, da bi lahko na sodoben nacin izdelal trpežnejši »komát« kakor so bili »ta stari«. Ti so bili najpogosteje narejeni iz rešeljike (Prunus mahaleb L.). »Ce so dobili rešeljiko, so nardili iz rešeljike; in ce ne, je bil hrastov al jesenov.« Iz naravno rašcene krivine oziroma – kot je pripovedoval David, ki zadevna stara znanja dobro pozna – na tak nacin, da je »že nono delal za sina. Tko da je že on ukrivljal v naravi komat. On je naredil en takšen kalup, »samec«, in en droben jesen je upognil po temi kalupi. In on je rasel zmerom bolj debel, zmerom bolj debel, zmerom bolj debel ... In pol je on šel, sam odrezal in je naredu komat.« Kljub tem starim znanjem se je David odlocil, da svoj komat, ki predstavlja svoj­stveno inovacijo, naredi »po moderno«, zato ker meni, da je tak izdelek »bolj siguren. Ta stoposto ne bo pocu. Tam pa lahko dobiš grco glih tuki (na vrhu ovratnika; op. I. S.), kamor je najbolj šibka tocka – in bo zlomu. Recimo – tega garantiram brez okovanja, ne bo se zlomu. Ga ni vola, da ga zlomi ...« David je tu dodal: »Problem je u naravi; ker lahko dobiš in dobro in slabo ...« Ta najnovejši primerek v muzejski zbirki živinske vprege je izdelal na naslednji nacin: Najprej si je napravil »kalup za komat« – moško pokonci stojecega »samca« in nanj sedajoco, prilegajoco se »samico«. Pojasnil je, da se tudi med mizarji uporabljata ti besedi: samec in samica ali pa cep in cepnica. Potem si je narezal ustrez-no dolge trakove iz jesenovega furnirja, debelega 2 mm. Trak za trakom je premazal s poliuretanskim lepilom – z vrsto propena. Delati je moral hitro, saj se to lepilo hitro suši. Njegova poraba ni velika, ker se napihne. In za žival ni prav nic škodljivo, ker je vodo­odporno ter ne reagira ob stiku s potno kožo. Takšno je pac Davidovo mnenje. Zlepljene trakove furnirja je potem položil na »samca«, ki ga je dal v stiskalnico za grozdje, ga pokril s »samico« in zacel postopek stiskanja. Posušenemu in ukrivljenemu »kosu« lesa je sledilo ustrezno koncno oblikovanje, vrtanje odprtin za kambo in potrebno okovanje. S fiksnima železnima obrocema z obrocastima clenoma za ojnici, z vprežno verigo in z verižico s kambinim zaticem mu je »komát« opremil petinštiridesetletni sosed Arman­do Orel, orodjar, iz Merc 8. Vecina železnih sestavnih delov je bila pobrana s starih jarmicev. V Davidov inovativno izdelan »komát« je bil 21. aprila 2012, na prireditvi »Od borjaca do borjaca« v Pliskovici na Krasu, vprežen njihov najmlajši vol Miško. Izdelek je delovno preizkušnjo uspešno prestal. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single, komát/ Merce / 2012 / ash, iron / w= 67 cm / d = 7.5 cm / neck seat h = 4.5 cm / distance between bow holes = 14.3 cm / bow hole D = 3 cm / W = 4.00 kg The collection’s most recent acquisition – a single withers bowyoke known in the vil­lages between Divaca and Sežana as komátwas donated to the museum in the spring of 1912 by the Žvab family: David, Ivan, Denis, Lea, Tilen and Klemen Žiberna from Merce 11. It was made by David Žiberna, b. 1984, a trained carpenter. David, son of the farm owner Ivan (b. 1956), who was a stone layer, harnessed his woodworking skills (having completed the woodworking high school in Postojna) and modern techniques to make a yoke that is more durable than “the old ones”, which were usually made from the ma-haleb cherry (Prunus mahaleb L.). “If they could get their hands on the mahaleb cherry theyused that, if not, they used oak or ash.” Theyused naturally curved wood, which according to David, who is well-versed in the old ways, is “howmy nonno made them for his son. So that he bent the komát already on site. He would make a model, the 'male’, and bend a tiny ash tree around it. And the tree grew thicker and thicker, and thicker ... Then he cut the tree and made a yoke.” Although David masters the traditional skills, he decided to make his yoke, a unique innovation, “the modern way”, because he believes it is “more reliable. This one definitelywon’t break. If you work the old way, you can get a knot right here (the top of the neck seat, I. S.), where it’s the weakest, and it will break. This one, on the other hand, I guarantee won’t break, even without the iron bits. There’s no ox that could break it...” David added that “That’s nature, sometimes it gives good, sometimes bad...” This is how he made the latest specimen in the museum’s harnessing collection: He began by making “a model for the yoke” – an upright “male” and a match­ing “female” to sit on top. He explained that joiners use the words like male and female as well. Then he cut 2 mm thick lengths of ash veneer. Strip after strip he coated them with polyurethane glue – a type of propane. With such fast-drying glue he had to work fast. The glue expands, so the quantity is insignificant. And it is not bad for the animal, because it is waterproof and does not react at the contact with sweaty skin, says David. He then laid the glued strips of veneer on the “male”, which he put in the wine press, covered it with the “female” and began to press. When the wooden “piece” was dry and bent, he shaped it, drilled the bow holes and added the matching iron bits. The fixed iron eyes with ring links for the shafts (or pulling ropes orchains), the harness chain, and the bow pin chain were attached to the yoke by his 45-year-old neighbour Armando Orel, a toolmaker from Merce 8. Most of the iron fittings were repurposed parts taken from old yokes. The family’s youngest ox Miško was harnessed in David’s innovative yoke on 21 April 2012 for the traditional From borjac to borjac event, which welcomes people to farm courtyards (borjac) in the Karst village of Pliskovica. The yoke passed the test with flying colours. VOLOVSKA KOMATA, GOŽI, DESKI Z MODELOMA ZA OBLIKOVANJE KAMB / OX COLLARS, POLE RINGS, BOARDS WITH BOW FORMS Goži kot del celote gl. pri kat. št. 2, 7, 34, 35, 38, 40, 56, 76 in 90 / For pole rings as part of the whole see cat. nos. 2, 7, 34, 35, 38, 40, 56, 76 and 90 128. Inv. št. / Inv. no. 8307a, b VOLOVSKI KOMAT, klobasa in kleštre / Suha / usnje, seno, javorjev les, železo / v klobase = 64,5 cm / notranja v = 43 cm / notranja š = 16 cm (pri zadnji odprtini na pašcku za regulacijo) / v klešter = 58,5 cm / š = 4–5 cm / deb. = 2–3 cm Volovski komat starejše oblike oziroma »klobasa in kleštre« je bil za muzejsko zbirko kupljen leta 1958 od Valentina Starmana, Suha 31 pri Škofji Loki. Prodajalec je tedaj povedal, da so v klobaso in kleštre vole vpregali tja do let med 1875 in 1880, potem pa so »to staro vprego opustili« in »so prišli v rabo volovski komati«. Klobasa je narejena iz usnja, polnjena s suho travo. Na gornjem koncu je debelejša in se koncuje v rilec, na katerega sedejo kleštre, ki so jih pri vpreganju dajali cez klobaso. Na spodnjem koncu se da klobaso razpreti oziroma zapeti s pašckom in zaponko. Kleštre so narejene iz dveh ukrivljenih lesenih leteviz javorjevega lesa, ki sta spodaj in zgoraj povezani z mocno vr­OX COLLAR, klobasa in kleštre / Suha / leather, hay, maple, iron / sausage h = 64.5 cm / inner h = 43 cm / innerw = 16 cm (at the last hole on the spacer strap) / hame d = 58.5 cm / w = 4–5 cm / t = 2–3 cm The ox collar of the older form, so-called “sausage and hames” (klobasa in kleštre), was acquired for the museum collection from Valentin Starman, Suha 31, Škofja Loka in 1958. At the time, the seller explained that the 'sausage and hames’ was used up until 1875 or 1880, when “this old harnessing method was abandoned” and “replaced by ox collars”. The 'sausage’ is made of leather and stuffed with dry grass. It is thicker on top and finishes with a beak that holds the hames, which were put on the collar when harnessing. The 'sausage’ can open or close at the bottom with a strap and buckle. The hames are made of two curved maple wood laths lashed together at the top and bottom with a strong twine. In the middle of the outer edge of each hame is an iron loop with an oval ring for the shaft. The leather-clad 'sausage’ (of the otherwise well-preserved specimen) has several leather patches. 129. Inv. št. / Inv. no. 22832 Stara inv. št. Kranjskega deželnega muzeja / Old inv. no. of the Carniolan Provincial Museum 2128 VOLOVSKI KOMAT/ Jesenice / v klobase = 57 cm / notranja v = 40 cm / notranja š = 20 cm / v klešter = 59 cm / š = 5 cm / deb. = 3 cm Komat sestavljajo tako imenovana klobasa in kleštre, enako kakor volovski komat št. 128. Po tem in po manjših dimenzijah se razlikuje od vecine konjskih komatov iz muze­jske zbirke, ki imajo notranjo višino tam okoli 52 ali 54 cm in notranjo širino 25 cm. Zapis v stari inventarni knjigi Narodnega muzeja Slovenije (oziroma Kranjskega dežel­nega muzeja) namrec ta predmet oznacuje kakor konjski komat, kar je glede na navede-no manj verjetno. Besedilo omenjenega zapisa je naslednje: »Konjska oprema savskega vlacilca iz Jesenic pri Mokricah, poslal dr. Müllnerju odvetnik dr. Ignac Namorš, Jesenice na Gorenjskem (morda na Dolenjskem? op. I. S.) leta 1896, nakup 1896.« Klobasa je sešita iz goste vrecevine in usnja. Iz prve je tisti njen del, ki pride živali na kožo, na usn­jeni del pa sedejo lesene kleštre. Te so spodaj in zgoraj povezane s clenkastimi železnimi vezmi. Približno na sredini klešter sta na vsaki strani po dve okrogli odprtini, skozi kateri je pritrjena ojnica iz mocne vrvi. Vznemirja dejstvo, da je klobasa enovita; da se spodaj ne spenja. (Se torej vprega cez glavo? So morda volom, ki so vlekli ladje proti recnemu toku, porezali rogove?) Like no. 128, this collar is composed of so-called “sausage and clamp” (collar and hames). This, and smaller size distinguishes it from most horse collars from the museum collec­tion, which measure about 52 or 54 cm in inner height and 25 cm in inner width. The record in the old inventory book of the National Museum of Slovenia (or the Carniolan Provincial Museum) describes it as a horse collar, which is unlikely in view of the above. The record says: “Horse tack for the draught animal from the Sava Valley, Jesenice near Mokrice, sent to Dr. MüllnerbyattorneyDr. Ignac Namorš, Jesenice in Gorenjska (Do­lenjska?, I. S.) in 1896, purchased in 1896.” The 'sausage’ is sewn from thick burlap and leather. The part in contact with the animal’s skin is burlap, and the leather part sup­ports the wooden hames, which are tied at the top and bottom with iron link clamps. Approximately in the middle of each hame is a pair of round openings through which the shaft is attached, made from a strong rope. What is puzzling about this collar is that the 'sausage’ is a single piece and is not fastened at the bottom. (Is it put on the animal across the head? Did people cut off the horns of the oxen that pulled ships upstream?) GOŽ, za jarem, jármovka / Blecji Vrh / prašicja koža / v = okoli 26-28 cm / š = okoli 13 cm / deb. = okoli 2,5-4 cm Gož, »'jarmovko‘ iz prašiceve kože«, je leta 1949 pridobila ekipa Etnografskega muzeja na Terenu 2 (Šmarje - Sap – Polica). Ta pripomocek za povezovanje jarma z ojesom pluga ali voza, narejen iz zvite, sukane živalske kože, je podaril Janez Vovk iz zaselka Blecji Vrh 3. POLE RING, foryoke, jármovka / Blecji Vrh / pig hide / h = app. 26–28 cm / w = app. 13 cm / t = app. 2.5–4 cm The “pig hide pole ring” was obtained by the Ethnographic Museum team on Site 2 (Šmarje-Sap – Polica) in 1949. Donated by Janez Vovk from Blecji Vrh 3, the fitting made of twisted pig skin serves to connect the yoke with the plough or cart drawbar. GOŽ, za jarem, jeramlca / Velika Slevica / leska, usnje / d raztegnjene goži = 40 cm / p krogov iz leskove trte = 16 cm / d preglja = 36 cm Gož, »'jeramlco', iz ozkih usnjenih trakov zvito trto, spleteno v krogu, nato pa prepog­njeno v dvoje,« je leta 1960 pridobila ekipa Etnografskega muzeja na Terenu 17 (Velike Lašce). Podaril jo je Franc Prijatelj iz Velike Slevice 7. K njej sodita še dva kroga, zvita iz leskove trte (»kot rekonstrukcija za prikaz starega nacina vprege v jarem«), in pregelj oziroma »leskov klin za pretikanje skozi oje (rekonstrukcija za prikaz vprege)«. POLE RING, foryoke, jeramlca / Velika Slevica / hazel, leather / l of the unfolded pole ring = 40 cm / hazel ring D = 16 cm / linchpin l = 36 cm The jeramlca, i.e. a pole ring “made up of twisted leather strips braided into a circle and folded in half,” was acquired in 1960 by the Ethnographic Museum team on Site 17 (Velike Lašce). Donated by Franc Prijatelj from Velika Slevica 7, it comes with two rings of twisted hazel rod (“as a reconstruction for the demonstration of the old way of harnessing a team in a yoke”) and a linchpin, i.e. “a hazel wedge to hold the drawbar in place (reconstruction for the demonstration of harnessing)”. GOŽ, za jarem /leska / v = okoli 30 cm / š = okoli 15 cm / deb. = okoli 4 cm Ta gož, pripomocek za povezovanje jarma z ojesom, je brez podatkov o krajevnem izvo­ru in nacinu pridobitve. Primerek je najverjetneje iz leskove trte. POLE RING, foryoke / hazel / h = app. 30 cm / w = app. 15 cm / t = app. 4 cm This fitting used for connecting the yoke to the drawbar has no known provenance and mode of acquisition. The specimen is most likely made from hazel rods. DESKA Z MODELOM, za oblikovanje kamb, modu za kambe / Podboršt / les / 1920 / d = 75 cm ( sam model 61,6 cm) / š = 28 cm (sam model 21 cm) / v = 9,5 cm (sam model 6 cm) Desko z modelom za oblikovanje oziroma krivljenje kamb, »modu za kambe«, kakor ga je oznacil njegov darovalec Gabrijel Kastelic iz Podboršta 9, je leta 1950 pridobila ekipa Etnografskega muzeja na Terenu 5 (Šentvid pri Sticni). Na leseni plošci pravokotne ob-like (najverjetneje je bila ta narejena iz odslužene skrinje ali morda vrat) je pritrjen lesen model solzaste oblike. Okoli 3 do 4 cm od njegovega roba iz temeljne plošce štrlijo kratki leseni klini. Med rob in kline so pri izdelovanju kambe ukrivili ustrezno leseno palico. Zapis v inventarni knjigi sporoca, da je »modu za kambe« pred tridesetimi leti (torej leta 1920) naredil darovalec Gabriel Kastelic, roj. 1885. Kambe je delal iz kostanjevega lesa. Ustrezno debelo kostanjevo palico je najprej dal v pec, iz katere so vzeli kruh. Tam je ostala okoli 10 do 15 minut, da se je les paril. Potem jo je zvil okoli modela in vse skupaj obesil na steno za štirinajst dni. Ko je imela koncno obliko, jo je še obelil. BOARD WITH A BOW FORM, to bend bows, modu za kambe / Podboršt / wood / 1920 / l = 75 cm (bow form 61.6 cm) / w = 28 cm (bow form 21 cm) / h = 9.5 cm (bow form 6 cm) The board with a form around which bows are bent was acquired in 1950 by the Ethno­graphic Museum team on Site 5 (Šentvid near Sticna) as a donation from Gabrijel Kas­telic from Podboršt 9. The rectangularwooden board (probably made from an old chest or door that no longer served its purpose) has a tear-shaped form attached to it. Short wooden pegs stick out of the board some 3 to 4 cm from the edge of the form to keep the bow in place when bending. The inventory book record reports that the “bow form” was made thirtyyears prior (in 1920) by the donor, Gabriel Kastelic, b. 1885. He made bows from chestnut rods (of the appropriate diameter), which he put into a wood-fired oven after bread had been baked. The rod was left there for 10 to 15 minutes to steam. Then he bent it around the form and hung everything on the wall for a fortnight. When it hardened to its final form, he bleached it. 134. Inv. št. / Inv. no. 22855 DESKA Z MODELOM, za oblikovanje kamb / les / d = 82 cm (sam model 46 cm) / š = 25 cm (sam model 15 cm) / v = 16 cm (klini 13 cm, sam model oziroma ploh 7 cm) O tej deski z modelom za oblikovanje oziroma krivljenje kamb za jarme in jarmice ni podatkov niti o njenem krajevnem izvoru niti o nacinu pridobitve. Je pac iz krajev – naj­verjetneje v osrednji Sloveniji ali morda v njenem mediteranskem delu –, kjer so goveda vpregali vkambaste vihrove jarme. Na desko je pritrjen lesen model solzaste oblike, okoli njega pa so vsajeni leseni klini – malce odmaknjeni, da vmes sede palica, ki so jo krivili vkambo. BOARD WITH A BOW FORM, to bend bows / wood / l = 82 cm (bow form 46 cm) / w = 25 cm (bow form 15 cm) / h = 16 cm (pegs 13 cm, the bow form or board 7 cm) The board with a form for single and double yoke bows has no known provenance or mode of acquisition. It is safe to say that it comes from the region – most likely Central Slovenia or its Mediterranean part – where cattle was harnessed in withers bowyokes. A tear-shaped wooden form is attached to the board and wooden pegs inserted around it to hold in place the rod that was bent into a bow. AND SINGLE YOKES – MODELS, TOYS, SOUVENIRS 135. Inv. št. / Inv. no. 31 KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / enojni – model, jarmícek / Adlešici / 1923 / les, kovina / š = 5,5, cm / v = 6,4 cm / g = 1 cm Na podlagi besedila v III. inventarni knjigi predmetov SEM od št. 1–2843 je mogoce zapi­sati, da je model »jarmicka« leta 1923 naredil Viktor Grabrijan iz Adlešicev 17, star 12 let. Za muzej je bil kupljen leta 1924 skupaj z vec drugimi modeli raznovrstnih predmetov, otroškimi izdelki iz belokranjskih vasi. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single – model, jarmícek / Adlešici / 1923 / wood, metal / w = 5.5 cm / h = 6.4 cm / d = 1 cm According to the record in the third inventory book of SEM objects, no. 1–2843, the single yoke model was made in 1923 byViktor Grabrijan from Adlešici 17, 12 years old. It was purchased for the museum in 1924 together with other models of various objects made by children from the villages of Bela Krajina. KLJUKASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni – model, igraca / Resnik / bukov les, zapori iz leske / d = 51,5 cm / v = 31 cm (kolikor merita zunanji obvratni zapori) / g = 4 cm Model teleg je leta 1963 podarila Veronika Pacnik iz Resnika 21 pri Vitanju. Kakor sporoca inventarni zapis Angelosa Baša, je bil narejen pred nekaj leti »in je rabil tudi za otroške igre«. Primerek je izredno nazorno izdelan in deluje kakor pravi kljukasti vihrov jarem; le usnjena gož in leseni pregelj se zdita nesorazmerno velika. Krašen je s pušcicastimi vrezi. Nad dvema odprtinama za jermenasto gož ima manjšo, stopnicasto oblikovano krono. Na vrhu, na sredini pri odprtinah, ima celo vrezan Andrejev križ (crux decussata). Narejen je iz bukovine, zunanji obvratni zapori sta leskovi palici. WITHERS HOOK YOKE / double – model, toy / Resnik / beech, staves hazel / l = 51.5 cm / h = 31 cm (at the outer staves) / d = 4 cm The model was donated in 1963 byVeronika Pacnik from Resnik 21, Vitanje. Ange-los Baš’s inventory record says it was made several years prior “and served also for children’s play”. The specimen is extremely well made and appears like an authentic withers hook yoke, only the leather strap pole ring and the wooden linchpin seem dis­proportionately large. The yoke is decorated with arrow-shaped incisions. It has a small stepped crown rising above the two slots for the leather strap pole ring. It even has a cross of St, Andrew (crux decussata) incised on the top centre, at the hitch point. It is made of beech, the outer staves are hazel sticks. OKVIRASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni – model, igraca / les, kovina / d = 26,5 cm / v = 14,5 cm (višina notranjih obvratnih zapor)/ g = 2,8 cm (podvratna zapora 2,4 cm) Model teleg (ali morda igraca) s kovinsko gožjo, neznanega krajevnega izvora in nacina pridobitve. Je dokaj realisticno narejen. Telege so okovane, imajo eno kovinsko palicasto zunanjo obvratno zaporo (druga manjka) in proti vihru dvignjena ovratnika. Na modelu sta z nitko privezana listica z napisoma: »cel jarem«, »gož«. WITHERS FRAME YOKE / double – model, toy / wood, metal / l = 26.5 cm / h = 14.5 cm (inner staves)/ d = 2.8 cm (underneck crosspiece 2.4 cm) The model (perhaps a toy) with a metal pole ring, provenance and mode of acquisition unknown. It appears relatively realistic. The yoke is reinforced with iron fittings; it has one round, metal outer stave (the other one is missing) and neck seats lifted towards the withers. The notes attached with a string read: “full yoke”, “pole ring”. OKVIRAST (KLEŠCASTO-KAMBAST) VIHROV JAREM / enojni – model, igraca / les, kovina / š = 10 cm / v = 13,5 cm / g = 0,8 cm Model enojnega jarma s klešcasto kambo, neznanega krajevnega izvora in nacina prido­bitve. Je zelo poenostavljeno izdelan. Na primerku je z nitko privezan listek z napisom: »pol jarem«. WITHERS FRAME TONG BOWYOKE / single – model, toy / wood, metal / w = 10 cm / h = 13.5 cm / d = 0.8 cm A single yoke model with a tong-shaped bow, provenance and mode of acquisition un­known. A very rudimentary model. The note attached to the specimen with a string reads: “half-yoke”. OKVIRASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni – model, igraca / les, rafija / d = 11,1 cm / v = 9 cm / g = 1 cm Model teleg z gožinim sedežem in gožjo iz rafije, neznanega krajevnega izvora in nacina pridobitve. Krašen je z drobnimi, komaj vidnimi vrezi. Po obliki (ukrivljeni notranji ob-vratni in konkavno oblikovana podvratna zapora) spominja na primerke teleg z Dolenj­ske. Zunanji obvratni zapori manjkata. WITHERS FRAME YOKE / double – model, toy / wood, raffia / l = 11.1 cm / h = 9 cm / d = 1 cm A model with a hitch point and a raffia pole ring, provenance and mode of acquisition unknown. It is decorated with tiny, barelyvisible incisions. The shape (bent inner staves and concave underneck crosspiece) are reminiscent of telege specimens from Dolenjska. The outer staves are missing. KAMBASTVIHROVJAREM / enojni– spominek / Kanfanar, Hrvaška / les, kovina / š = 9 cm / v = 8,2 cm / g = 1,2 cm Obesek za kljuce, spominek v obliki enojnega kambastega jarma, je bil leta 2010 kupljen na sejmu v Kanfanarju v Istri. Zadnjo soboto v juliju v Kanfanarju vsako leto priredijo »pucko fešto Jakovlja«. Njena središcna prireditevje razstava istrskih volov, to pa sprem­ljajo tudi nekatere druge prireditve, na primer prodajna razstava istrskih spominkov. Na slednji sta bila za muzejsko zbirko spominkov na temo volov in vprege med drugim pridobljena tudi ta jarmic-obesek za kljuce in še jarem-obešalnik, št. 141. Majcen lesen enojni jarem je dokaj stvarno narejen; celo zatic za uravnavanje višine kambe je takšen, kakršne so uporabljali v Istri. Primerek je krašen z vžganimi okraski. Na vrhu ima pritr­jeno kovinsko verižico z obrocem za nizanje kljucev. WITHERS BOWYOKE / single – souvenir / Kanfanar, Croatia / wood, metal / w = 9 cm / h = 8.2 cm / d = 1.2 cm The key ring, souvenir in the shape of a single bowyoke was purchased in 2010 at a fair in Kanfanar, Istria. Every last Saturday in July, the village of Kanfanar throws a fair of St. Jacob. The highlight is the exhibition of Istrian oxen, accompanied with other events, including a commercial exhibition of Istrian souvenirs. Two of the items obtained there for the museum’s ox and harnessing-themed collection are this key ring and yoke-hang­er no. 141. The tinywooden single yoke is quite realistic, even the bow pin is identical to those used in Istria. The specimen is decorated with burned-in patterns. A metal chain with a ring that holds keys is attached to the top. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni – spominek/ Kanfanar, Hrvaška / les, kovina / d = 16,4 cm / v = 8,5 cm / g = 2 cm Glede krajevnega izvora in nacina pridobitve tudi za ta primerek spominka, za dvojni kambast vihrov jarem z namembnostjo obešalnika za kljuce, velja komentar k št. 140. Poldrug decimeter dolg oziroma širok lesen jarem s kambama je dokaj stvarno izveden; prav tako z »istrskima« zaticema za uravnavanje višine kambe. Na hrbtni strani ima pribiti dve obešali za pritrjanje na steno, spredaj ima privite tri žeblje v obliki crke L, ki služijo obešanju kljucev. WITHERS BOWYOKE / double – souvenir / Kanfanar, Croatia / wood, metal / l = 16.4 cm / h = 8.5 cm / d = 2 cm The provenance and mode of acquisition of this souvenir key hanger in the shape of a double withers bowyoke corresponds to no. 140. 15 cm long (wide) wooden yoke with bows is quite realistic and also features “Istrian-style” bow pins for depth adjustment. The rear side has two hanging hooks nailed in for wall mounting, and three L-shaped nails for keys. OKVIRASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni – spominek / les, kovina, steklo / d = 52,5 cm / v = 24 cm / g = 2,2 cm Male telege z ogledalcem so bile med 2001 in 2004 kupljene na stojnici enega izmed Ribnicanov na Ljubljanski tržnici. So zelo realisticno narejene: s kovinski-ma zunanjima obvratnima zaporama in gožjo. Med notranjima obvratnima zapo­rama, srednjim delom spodnje podvratne zapore in srednjim delom jarmovega telesa je pritrjeno ogledalce. WITHERS FRAME YOKE / double – souvenir / wood, metal, glass / l = 52.5 cm / h = 24 cm / d = 2.2 cm This small telege with a mirror was purchased between 2001 and 2004 at the Ljubljana open market at one of the stands that sell woodenware from Ribnica. The yoke is very realistic; it has metal outer staves and a pole ring. The mirror is framed by the inner staves, the middle of the underneck crosspiece, and the middle part of the yoke beam. KAMBASTVIHROV JAREM / dvojni – spominek / Breginj / les / d = 14,5 cm / v = 6 cm / g = 1,2 cm Primerek je bil kupljen leta 2010 v Breginju, v trgovinici muzeja Staro vaško jedro. Gre za miniaturen dvojni kambast vihrov jarem z vžganim napisom Breginj in brez vsakršne druge namembnosti poleg spominske. Prodajalka ga je oznacila kot oblikovni tip jarma, ki je bil uveljavljen v Breginju. Njegovi kambi nista solzaste oblike, temvec sta zgoraj razširjeni (podobno kakor pri nekaterih italijanskih primerkih s clenastimi kambami). WITHERS BOWYOKE / double – souvenir / Breginj / wood / l = 14.5 cm / h = 6 cm / d = 1.2 cm The specimen was purchased in 2010 in Breginj, in the Old Village Core museum shop. This miniature double withers bowyoke with burned-in inscription Breginj is a souvenir with no other function. The shop assistant described is as typical for Breginj. The bows are not tear-shaped, but extended on top (similar to certain Italian specimens with joint­ed bows). KATALOG RISANIH ZAPISOV / CATALOGUE OF DRAWN RECORDS R 1/23 Kambast vihrov jarem, dvojni. Marjeta Gal, 1948 (Teren 1, Šentjurij – Škocjan – Tur­jak). Tuširana risba, 22,3 x 15,9 cm. Zapis na risbi: Jarem, Bicje 3, Valentincic Janez. Withers bowyoke, double. Marjeta Gal, 1948 (Site 1, Šentjurij – Škocjan – Turjak). Ink drawing, 22.3 x 15.9 cm. Note on the drawing: Yoke, Bicje 3, Valentincic Janez. 2. R 1/26 Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Marjeta Gal, 1948 (Teren 1, Šentjurij – Škocjan – Turjak). Tuširana risba, 25 x 35,4 cm. Za-pis na risbi: Jarmicek, Vino 3, Anton Menard / a – kamba, b – iglica (kambin zatic), c – rin­ki (obroca), d – prusketne (vprežna veriga), e – štrange (ojnici). Withers bowyoke, single. Marjeta Gal, 1948 (Site 1, Šentjurij – Škocjan – Turjak). Ink drawing, 25 x 35.4 cm. Note on the drawing: Jarmicek, Vino 3, Anton Menard / a – kamba (bow), b – iglica (bow pin), c – rinki (hoops), d – prusketne (harness chain), e – štrange (shafts). R 2/35 4. R 2/36 Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Marija Šuštar, 1949 (Teren 2, Šmarje - Sap – Polica). Tuširana risba, 29,8 x 39,2 cm. Zapis na risbi: Jarmicek, žil, Veliki vrh 7 (Veliki Vrh pri Šmarju), pri Belin, Novak Franc / a – obroc, b – iglica (kambin zatic), c – šrauf, c – kamba, d – rinka, e – štrange (ojnici), f – prusketna (vprežna veriga), g – bedrak, h – rinka, i – riglc. Withers bowyoke, single. Marija Šuštar, 1949 (Site 2, Šmarje - Sap – Polica). Ink drawing, 29.8 x 39.2 cm. Note on the drawing: Jarmicek, žil, Veliki vrh 7 (Veliki Vrh near Šmarje), Pri Belin, Novak Franc / a – obroc (hoop), b – iglica (bow pin), c – šrauf (screw), c – kamba (bow), d – rinka (ring), e – štrange (shafts), f – prusketna (harness chain), g – bedrak, h – rinka (ring), i – riglc. R 2/38 in 2/39 Kambasta vihrova jarma, dvojna. Marija Šuštar, 1949 (Teren 2, Šmarje - Sap – Polica). Tuširana risba, 45 x 39 cm. Zapis na risbi: Volovski jarem, Blecji Vrh 12 (Gradec), pri Peskar­ji, Jože Groznik. Withers bowyokes, double. Marija Šuštar, 1949 (Site 2, Šmarje - Sap – Polica). Ink drawing, 45 x 39 cm. Note on the drawing: Ox yoke, Blecji Vrh 12 (Gradec), Pri Peskarji, Jože Groznik. R 3/35 Kambast vihrov jarem, dvojni. Kristina Slak, 1949 (Teren 3, Dekani). Tuširana risba, 22,7 x 11,9 cm. Zapis na risbi: Jarem, Dekani 111, Peter Fortuna. Withers bowyoke, double. Kristina Slak, 1949 (Site 3, Dekani). Ink drawing, 22.7 x 11.9 cm. Note on the drawing: Yoke, Dekani 111, Peter Fortuna. 7. R 5/53 in 5/54 Kambasta vihrova jarma, dvojni in enojni. Ivan Romih, 1950 (Teren 5, Šent­vid pri Sticni). Tuširana risba, 25,5 x 31,6 cm. Zapis na risbi: Jarm / Jarmicek / Mali Kal 5, Korevec Jože, pri Tomažu. Withers bowyokes, double and single. Ivan Romih, 1950 (Site 5, Šentvid near Sticna). Ink drawing, 25.5 x 31.6 cm. Note on the drawing: Jarm / Jarmicek / Mali Kal 5, Korevec Jože, Pri Tomažu. R 5/191 Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Franc Macek, 1950 (Teren 5, Šentvid pri Sticni). Tuširana risba, 18,9 x 22,2 cm. Zapis na risbi: Jarmicek (žilo), Artiža vas. Withers bowyoke, single. Franc Macek, 1950 (Site 5, Šentvid near Sticna). Ink drawing, 18.9 x 22.2 cm. Note on the drawing: Jarmicek, (žilo), Artiža vas. 9. R 5/215 Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Franc Macek, 1950 (Teren 5, Šentvid pri Sticni). Tuširana risba, 18,6 x 11,3 cm. Zapis na ris-bi: Jarmicek (žilo), Št. Pavel (Šentpavel na Dolenjskem) 18, Košir. Withers bowyoke, single. Franc Macek, 1950 (Site 5, Šentvid near Sticna). Ink drawing, 18.6 x 11.3 cm. Note on the draw­ing: Jarmicek, (žilo), Št. Pavel (Šentpavel in Dolenjska) 18, Košir. R 6/68 Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Ivan Romih, 1951 (Teren 6, Mokronog). Tušira­na risba, 23,8 x 32,4 cm. Zapis na risbi: Jarmc, Sv. Vrh (Sveti Vrh nad Mokronogom) 46, izd. Mikec Franc / a – štranga (ojnica), b – španga /precrtano: Jarmc – izdelal Mikec Franc, Mikec Julij, Sv. Vrh 46 (Brezovec). Withers bowyoke, single. Ivan Romih, 1951 (Site 6, Mokronog). Ink drawing, 23.8 x 32.4 cm. Note on the drawing: Jarmc, Sv. Vrh (Sveti Vrh above Mokronog) 46, made by Mikec Franc / a – štranga (shaft), b – španga /crossed: Jarmc – made by Mikec Franc, Mikec Julij, Sv. Vrh 46 (Brezovec). 11. R 7/173 R 7/180 in 7/181 Clenasto-kambast vihrov jarem, dvojni, in ovratnikast zatilni jarem, dvojni. Ivan Romih, 1951 (Teren 7, Kobarid). Tuširana risba, 25,6 x 36 cm. Zapis na risbi (trikrat pon­ovljen): Jarma prinešena iz Furlanije, 1918 l., Podbela 29. Romih je zapisoval tudi mere. Gornji jarem je na primer dolg 110 cm in spodnji 118 cm. Withers jointed bowyoke, double, and head collared yoke, double. Ivan Romih, 1951 (Site 7, Kobarid). Ink drawing, 25.6 x 36 cm. Note on the drawing (repeated three times): Yokes from Friuli, 1918, Podbela 29. Romih noted the measurements as well: the upper measures 110 cm and the bottom 118 cm in length. R 7/416 Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Franc Macek, 1951 (Teren 7, Kobarid). Tušira­na risba, 25,8 x 18,1 cm. Zapis na risbi (se ponavlja): Jarem, Staro sedlo (Staro selo) 8. Withers bowyoke, single. Franc Macek, 1951 (Site 7, Kobarid). Ink drawing, 25.8 x 18.1 cm. Note on the drawing (repeated): Yoke, Staro sedlo (Staro selo) 8. 14. R 8/106 R 8/162 Ovratnikast zatilni jarem, dvojni. Janez Lunar, 1952 (Teren 8, Trenta). Tuširana risba, 24,3 x 19 cm. Zapis na risbi: Igô, Koritnica 26 / svincnik, deloma precrtano: Igô. Koritnica št. 26, pri Špiki, Franc Mlekuž. Head collared yoke, double. Janez Lunar, 1952 (Site 8, Trenta). Ink drawing, 24.3 x 19 cm. Note on the drawing: Igô, Koritnica 26 / pencil, partly crossed out: Igô.Koritnica no. 26, Pri Špiki, Franc Mlekuž. 16. R 9/15 Okvirast (klešcasto-kambast) vihrov jarem, enojni. Ivan Romih, 1952 (Teren 9, Šentjernej). Tuširana risba, 26,3 x 35,9 cm. Zapis na risbi: Jarmc, Imenje 3 / svincnik, deloma precrtano: Jarm, Imenje 3, Hosta Janez. Withers frame tong-bowyoke, single. Ivan Romih, 1952 (Site 9, Šentjernej). Ink drawing, 26.3 x 35.9 cm. Note on the drawing: Jarmc, Imenje 3 / pencil, partly crossed-out: Jarm, Imenje 3, Hosta Janez. R 9/241 in 9/242 Okvirast vihrov jarem, dvojni in kam-bast vihrov jarem, enojni. Franc Macek, 1952 (Teren 9, Šentjernej). Tuširana risba, 25 x 33 cm. Zapis na risbi: Telege, Vel. Ban (Veliki Ban) / Jarmc, Vel. Ban. Withers frame yoke, double, and with­ers bowyoke, single. Franc Macek, 1952 (Site 9, Šentjernej). Ink drawing, 25 x 33 cm. Note on the drawing: Telege, Vel. Ban (Veliki Ban) / Jarmc, Vel. Ban. 18. R 10/59 Clenasto-kambast vihrov jarem, dvojni. Ivan Romih, 1953 (Teren 10, Goriška Brda). Tuširana risba, 35,6 x 25,4 cm. Zapis na risbi (delno s svincnikom): Jarm, Plešivo 9 (Kužinšce), pri Nincu. Zapisana jarmova dolžina je 114 cm. Withers jointed bowyoke, double. Ivan Romih, 1953 (Site 10, Goriška Brda). Ink drawing, 35.6 x 25.4 cm. Note on the drawing (partly in pencil): Jarm, Plešivo 9 (Kužinšce), Pri Nincu. The recorded yoke length is 114 cm. R 10/105 Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Ivan Romih, 1953 (Teren 10, Goriška Brda). Tuširana risba, 17,8 x 25 cm. Zapis na risbi (ponovljen): Komat – ragajn, Biljana 26, pri Hlipovih, Franc Sirk. Withers bowyoke, single. Ivan Romih, 1953 (Site 10, Goriška Brda). Ink drawing, 17.8 x 25 cm. Note on the drawing (repeat­ed): Komat – ragajn, Biljana 26, Pri Hlipovih, Franc Sirk. 20. R 10/106 R 11/106 Kronasto-palicast zatilni jarem, dvojni. Ivan Romih, 1954 (Teren 11, Cerkljansko). Tuširana risba, 25 x 17,2 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Jegó (nepopoln), Zakojca (Psti­nar). Zapisana dolžina ižesa je 117 cm. Head crown-topped stick yoke, double. Ivan Romih, 1954 (Site 11, Cerkljansko). Ink drawing, 25 x 17.2 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Jegó (incomplete), Zakojca (Psti­nar). The recorded yoke length is 117 cm. 22. R 11/129 Kambast vihrov jarem, dvojni. Ivan Romih, 1954 (Teren 11, Cerkljansko). Tuširana ris­ba, 35,5 x 25,3 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom in delno ponovljen s tušem): Jarm (jarmova trta), Cerkno (Celo) 10 (Pot v Celo 10), pri Plenkonu. Zapisana dolžina jarma je 120 cm. Withers bow yoke, double. Ivan Romih, 1954 (Site 11, Cerkljansko). Ink drawing, 35.5 x 25.3 cm. The note on the drawing (in pencil and partly repeated in ink):Jarm (yoke osier), Cerkno (Celo) 10 (Path to Celo 10), Pri Plenkonu. The recorded yoke length is 120 cm. R 12/14 Kambast vihrov jarem, dvojni. Ivan Romih, 1955 (Teren 12, Brkini). Tuširana risba, 35,5 x 25,3 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Jarm, Brezovica 42, pri Koblarjevih. Zapisana dolžina jarma je 117 cm. Withers bowyoke, double. Ivan Romih, 1955 (Site 12, Brkini). Ink drawing, 35.5 x 25.3 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Jarm, Brezovica 42, Pri Koblarjevih. The record­ed yoke length is 117 cm. 24. R 12/22 Kambast vihrov jarem, dvojni. Ivan Romih, 1955 (Teren 12, Brkini). Tuširana risba, 35,5 x 25,3 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Jarm, Bac št. 9, pri Škrku. Withers bowyoke, double. Ivan Romih, 1955 (Site 12, Brkini). Ink drawing, 35.5 x 25.3 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Jarm, Bac no. 9, Pri Škrku. R 12/60 Kambast vihrov jarem, dvojni. Ivan Romih, 1955 (Teren 12, Brkini). Tuširana risba, 25 x 17,9 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Jarm s cetverom in železno jarmnco, Markovšcina 31 in 32, pri Cepcevih. Zapisana dolžina jarma je 120 cm. Dolžina »cetvera«, kavljastega droga za cetverovprego (za vprego drugega para delovnih živali), je 245 cm. Withers bowyoke, double. Ivan Romih, 1955 (Site 12, Brkini). Ink drawing, 25 x 17.9 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Yoke with cetver and iron jarmnca (pole ring chain), Markovšcina 31 and 32, Pri Cepcevih. The recorded yoke length is 120 cm. The length of cetver, a wedge-shaped pole for a team of four animals (to hitch the second pair of draught animals) is 245 cm. 26. R 12/381 Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Rudolf Auersperg, 1955 (Teren 12, Brkini). Tušira­na risba, 25,1 x 11,4 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Pri Skocarjevih, Skocaj Anton, Mrše 10 / Jermic / gabrov les / širok 67 cm / rinka. Withers bowyoke, single. Rudolf Auer­sperg, 1955 (Site 12, Brkini). Ink drawing, 25.1 x 11.4 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Pri Skocarjevih, Skocaj Anton, Mrše 10 / Jermic / hornbeam / 67 cm wide / ring. R 12/392 28. R 13/68 Okvirast vihrov jarem, dvojni. Tine Bizjak, 1956 (Teren 13, Kostanjevi-ca). Tuširana risba, 25 x 21,5 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Jarm z ajckom (najverjetneje ojesom) in želez. klinom »pregl«, Kocarija 17, pri Debeljaku. Withers frame yoke, double. Tine Bizjak, 1956 (Site 13, Kostanjevica). Ink drawing, 25 x 21.5 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Jarm, yoke with ajcek (probably drawbar) and iron linchpin “pregl”, Kocarija 17, Pri Debeljaku. R 13/76 Okvirast (klešcasto-kambast) vihrov jarem, enojni. Tine Bizjak, 1956 (Teren 13, Kostanjevica). Tuširana risba, 25,3 x 35,3 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Jarmc / Kocarija 17, pri Debeljaku. Withers frame tong-bowyoke, single. Tine Bizjak, 1956 (Site 13, Kostanjevica). Ink drawing, 25.3 x 35.3 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Jarmc / Kocarija 17, Pri Debeljaku. 30. R 13/100 R 13/111 Okvirast vihrov jarem, dvojni. Tine Bizjak, 1956 (Teren 13, Kostanjevica). Tuširana risba, 46,1 x 30,5 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Jarem, Klemencic Janez, Oštrc 1. Withers frame yoke, double. Tine Bizjak, 1956 (Site 13, Kostanjevica). Ink drawing, 46.1 x 30.5 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Yoke, Klemencic Janez, Oštrc 1. 32. R 14/43 Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Ivan Romih, 1957 (Teren 14, Žužemberk). Tuširana risba, 17,7 x 25 cm. Zapis na ris-bi: Jarmce k, Žužemberk 151, Ivan Macarol, pri Babcevih. Withers bowyoke, single. Ivan Romih, 1957 (Site 14, Žužemberk). Ink drawing, 17.7 x 25 cm. Note on the drawing: Jarmc.k, Žužemberk 151, Ivan Macarol, Pri Babcevih. R 14/65 Kambast vihrov jarem, dvojni. Ivan Romih, 1957 (Teren 14, Žužemberk). Tuširana risba, 35,2 x 25 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Jarm, Gradenc 9, pri Gadnerjevih. / Jarm last Vedeževih, le posojen Gadnarjevim. Napravil Anton Pecjak, oce Feliksa Pecjaka, ko je bil F. P. star 12 let – torej star (leta 1957) cca. 60 let. / Les – orehov! Jarmovka (gož) iz leskove šibe! Kambe – iz hrastovine. Zapisana dolžina jarma je 108 cm. Withers bowyoke, double. Ivan Romih, 1957 (Site 14, Žužemberk). Ink drawing, 35.2 x 25 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Jarm, Gradenc 9, Pri Gadnerjevih. / The jarm be­longs to the Vedež family and is on loan to the Gadnars. Made by Anton Pecjak, father of Feliks Pecjak, when F. P. was 12 years old – i.e. ca. 60 years old (in 1957). / Wood – walnut! Jarmovka (pole ring) of hazel rod! Bows – oak. The recorded yoke length is 108 cm. 34. R 14/87 Okvirast vihrov jarem, dvojni. Ivan Romih, 1957 (Teren 14, Žužemberk). Tuširana risba, 35,2 x 25 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Jarm, Dobrava 8, pri Žvinklovih / napravil 1912 Anton Hren (Goršetov oce) iz Dobrave. Withers frame yoke, double. Ivan Romih, 1957 (Site 14, Žužemberk). Ink drawing, 35.2 x 25 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Jarm, Dobrava 8, Pri Žvinklovih / made in 1912 by Anton Hren (father of Gorše) from Dobrava. R 14/166 Kambast vihrov jarem, dvojni. Tine Bizjak, 1957 (Teren 14, Žužemberk). Tuširana risba, 35,2 x 25,1 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Jarm, Šmihel 6, pri Stebroe , Jože Pecjak. Withers bowyoke, double. Tine Bizjak, 1957 (Site 14, Žužemberk). Ink drawing, 35.2 x 25.1 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Jarm, Šmihel 6, Pri Stebroe , Jože Pecjak. 36. R 14/167 Kambast vihrov jarem, dvojni, detajl. Tine Bizjak, 1957 (Teren 14, Žužemberk). Tušira­na risba, 35,3 x 25,4 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Jarm (srednji del od druge strani), Šmihel 6, pri Stebroe , Jože Pecjak. Withers bowyoke, double, detail. Tine Bizjak, 1957 (Site 14, Žužemberk). Ink drawing, 35.3 x 25.4 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Jarm (mid part from the other side), Šmihel 6, Pri Stebroe , Jože Pecjak. R 15/31 Kambast vihrov jarem, dvojni. Ivan Romih, 1958 (Teren 15, Vipava). Tuširana risba, 25,2 x 17,6 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Jarm (kamba), Sanabor 16, pri Bezjaki. Zapisana dolžina jarma je 126 cm. Withers bowyoke, double. Ivan Romih, 1958 (Site 15, Vipava). Ink drawing, 25.2 x 17.6 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Jarm / Yoke (bow), Sanabor 16, Pri Bezjaki. The recorded yoke length is 126 cm. 38. R 15/149 Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Ivan Romih, 1958 (Teren 15, Vipava). Tušira­na risba, 25,1 x 35,1 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom in enako s tušem): Humat za vola, Duplje 40, pri Videževih. Withers bowyoke, single. Ivan Romih, 1958 (Site 15, Vipava). Ink drawing, 25.1 x 35.1 cm. The note on the drawing (in pencil and the same in ink): Humat(collar) for an ox, Duplje 40, Pri Videževih. R 15/339 Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Samo Pahor, 1958 (Teren 15, Vipava). Tuširana risba, 25 x 17,6 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Brestov komat, Jernejevi, Dobrava (Porece 25). Withers bowyoke, single. Samo Pahor, 1958 (Site 15, Vipava). Ink drawing, 25 x 17.6 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Elm komat (collar), the Jernej family, Dobrava (Porece 25). 40. R 15/340 Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Samo Pahor, 1958 (Teren 15, Vipava). Tuširana risba, 25 x 17,6 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Jernejcevi, Dolga Poljana 16, bukov komat, nare­dil Simon Pregel s Polja pri Colu (Pregelj z Malega Polja pri Colu). Withers bowyoke, single. Samo Pahor, 1958 (Site 15, Vipava). Ink drawing, 25 x 17.6 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): the Jernejc family, Dolga Poljana 16, beech komat(col­lar), made by Simon Pregel from Polje near Col (Pregelj from Malo Polje near Col). R 15/350 in/and 15/351 Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Samo Pahor, 1958 (Teren 15, Vipava). Tuširana risba, 25 x 17,6 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Bukov komat, pri Gorenjih Božicevih, Porece 16 (15/350), napravil France Turkov s Pulen (Franc Frelih) / pri Mihovih (Žvanuti), Lozice 49 (15/351). Withers bowyoke, single. Samo Pahor, 1958 (Site 15, Vipava). Ink drawing, 25 x 17.6 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Beech komat (collar), Pri Gorenjih Božicevih, Porece 16 (15/350), made by France Turkov from Pulene (Franc Frelih) / Pri Mihovih (Žvanuti), Lozice 49 (15/351). 42. R 15/395 Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Samo Pahor, 1958 (Teren 15, Vipava). Tuširana risba, 25 x 17,7 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincni­kom): Štefetcevi, Orehovica 15, delo domace­ga sina Vida Premroua * 1932 / vecji komat, rob Turk s Pulen / še enkrat pogledati / Turk s Pulen, star okrog 50. Withers bowyoke, single. Samo Pahor, 1958 (Site 15, Vipava). Ink drawing, 25 x 17.7 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Štefet family, Orehovica 15, work of the son Vid Premrou * 1932 / a largeryoke, edge Turk from Pulene / check / Turk from Pulene, about 50 years old. R 15/396 Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Samo Pahor, 1958 (Teren 15, Vipava). Tuširana risba, 25 x 17,7 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Supínjevi, Orehovica 19, Bukov komat. Withers bowyoke, single. Samo Pahor, 1958 (Site 15, Vipava). Ink drawing, 25 x 17.7 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Supínj family, Orehovica 19, Beech komat (collar). 44. R 15/397 Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Samo Pahor, 1958 (Teren 15, Vipava). Tušira­na risba, 25 x 17,7 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Podboršt 22, Mislejevi. Withers bowyoke, single. Samo Pahor, 1958 (Site 15, Vipava). Ink drawing, 25 x 17.7 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Podboršt 22, Mislej family. R 15/397 (risan zapis z isto inv. št. / drawn record with the same inv. no.) Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Samo Pahor, 1958 (Teren 15, Vipava). Tušira­na risba, 25 x 17,7 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Podboršt 22, Mislejevi, Bukov komat, rovtarski. Withers bowyoke, single. Samo Pahor, 1958 (Site 15, Vipava). Ink drawing, 25 x 17.7 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Podboršt 22, Mislej family, Beech komat(col­lar), from the Rovte hills. 46. R 15/398 Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Samo Pahor, 1958 (Teren 15, Vipava). Tuširana risba, 25 x 17,7 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): 1. Furlanovi, Goce 20, rovtarski, bukov / 2. Jud­jeee vi, Podbreg 6, z Vrabc, menda / Matjnževi, Dobrava (Porece 27), javorjev. Withers bowyoke, single. Samo Pahor, 1958 (Site 15, Vipava). Ink drawing, 25 x 17.7 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): 1. Furlan family, Goce 20, from Rovte, beech / 2. Judjev family, Podbreg 6, presumably from Vrabce, / Matje nžev family, Dobrava (Porece 27), maple. R 15/398 (risan zapis z isto inv. št. / drawn record with the same inv. no.) Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Samo Pahor, 1958 (Teren 15, Vipava). Tuširana risba, 25 x 17,7 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Pri Furlanovih, Goce 20, bukov komat iz Rovt (spredaj in zadaj enak okrasek). Withers bowyoke, single. Samo Pahor, 1958 (Site 15, Vipava). Ink drawing, 25 x 17.7 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Pri Furlanovih, Goce 20, beech komat (collar) from Rovte (the same ornament on the front and rear face). 48. R 15/399 Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Samo Pahor, 1958 (Teren 15, Vipava). Tušira­na risba, 25 x 17,7 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Rosovi, Porece 14. Withers bowyoke, single. Samo Pahor, 1958 (Site 15, Vipava). Ink drawing, 25 x 17.7 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Ros family, Porece 14. R 15/400 Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Samo Pahor, 1958 (Teren 15, Vipava). Tuširana risba, 25 x 17,7 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Ta Srednji Božicevi, Porece 15. Withers bowyoke, single. Samo Pahor, 1958 (Site 15, Vipava). Ink drawing, 25 x 17.7 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Ta Srednji Božicevi, Porece 15. 50. R 16/105, 16/106 in 16/107 51. R 16/113 Kambasti vihrovi jarmi, enojni. Slavka Cufer, 1959 (Teren 16, Crni Vrh – Vojs­ko). Tuširana risba, 17,5 x 25,2 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Jarmck, pri Figar­ju, Zdole 31, Zadlog / Jarmck, pri Lampetu, Zdole 27, Zadlog. Bow withers yokes, single. Slavka Cufer, 1959 (Site 16, Crni Vrh – Vojsko). Ink drawing, 17.5 x 25.2 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Jarmck, Pri Figarju, Zdole 31, Zadlog / Jarmck, Pri Lampetu, Zdole 27, Zadlog. Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Slavka Cufer, 1959 (Teren 16, Crni Vrh – Vojsko). Tuširana risba, 17,6 x 25 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Jarmck, pri Lampetu, Filip Kosmac, Zadlog 27 pri Crnem Vrhu. Withers bowyoke, single. Slavka Cufer, 1959 (Site 16, Crni Vrh – Vojsko). Ink drawing, 17.6 x 25 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Jarmck, Pri Lampetu, Filip Kos­mac, Zadlog 27 near Crni Vrh. R 16/142 Kambast vihrov jarem, dvojni. Slavka Cufer, 1959 (Teren 16, Crni Vrh – Vojsko). Tuširana risba, 25 x 17,5 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Jarm (brez kamb), Vojsko 57 (Hum), Peter Ogric. Zapisana dolžina jarma je 95 cm. Withers bowyoke, double. Slavka Cufer, 1959 (Site 16, Crni Vrh – Vojsko). Ink draw­ing, 25 x 17.5 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Jarm (without bows), Vojsko 57 (Hum), Peter Ogric. The recorded yoke length is 95 cm. 53. R 17/1 Okvirast vihrov jarem, dvojni. Gorazd Makarovic, 1960 (Teren 17, Velike Lašce). Tuširana risba, 25 x 22,3 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Prek Frenk, Gradež 7, Avšicev. Withers frame yoke, double. Gorazd Makarovic, 1960 (Site 17, Velike Lašce). Ink drawing, 25 x 22.3 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Prek Frenk, Gradež 7, Avšicev. R 17/2 55. R 17/3 in 17/4 Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Gorazd Makarovic, 1960 (Teren 17, Velike Lašce). Tuširana risba, 25,1 x 35,1 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Jarmice k (kravji), Male Lašce 13, pri ta Dolejnih, Janez Perfraj. Withers bowyoke, single. Gorazd Ma­karovic, 1960 (Site 17, Velike Lašce). Ink drawing, 25.1 x 35.1 cm. Note on the draw­ing (in pencil): Jarmic.k (for a cow), Male Lašce 13, Pri ta Dolejnih, Janez Perfraj. Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Gorazd Makarovic, 1960 (Teren 17, Velike Lašce). Tuširana risba, 25 x 35,3 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Pregl z jeramlco (brez jar-ma), Srnjak 4, pri Hišceee nh / Jarmick, Srnjak 4, pri Hišcee nh, izdelal Zakrajšek Jože. Withers bowyoke, single. Gorazd Ma­karovic, 1960 (Site 17, Velike Lašce). Ink drawing, 25 x 35.3 cm. Note on the draw­ing (in pencil): Pregl with jeramlca (linch­pin and braided pole ring) (without the yoke), Srnjak 4, Pri Hišcee nh / Jarmic.k, Srnjak 4, Pri Hišcee nh, made by Zakrajšek Jože. R 17/5, 17/6 in 17/7 Kambast vihrov jarem, dvojni. Gorazd Makarovic, 1960 (Teren 17, Velike Lašce). Tuširana risba, 25,2 x 35 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom in delno s tušem): Jarm, Pod-kraj 1, pri ta Zadne h, Jože Jaklic / Vprega – jarm (s ketno), od zadaj / Vprega – jarm, od spredaj. Withers bowyoke, double. Gorazd Ma­karovic, 1960 (Site 17, Velike Lašce). Ink drawing, 25.2 x 35 cm. The note on the drawing (in pencil and partly in ink): Jarm, Podkraj 1, Pri ta Zadne h, Jože Jaklic / Harness – yoke (with chain), from the back / Harness – yoke, from the front. 57. R 17/8 in 17/9 Povezava jarma z ojesom. Gorazd Ma­karovic, 1960 (Teren 17, Velike Lašce). Tuširana risba, 25 x 35,2 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Vprega goveje živine v jarm – pogled od zadaj / Vprega goveje živine v jarm (na sredi ojč, pregl in dve jeramlci – od spredaj) / Srnjak 4, pri Hišcee nh, Jože Zakrajšek. Yoke – drawbar connection. Gorazd Makarovic, 1960 (Site 17, Velike Lašce). Ink drawing, 25 x 35.2 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Cattle yoking – view from the back / Cattle yoking (in the middle: drawbar, linchpin and two braided pole rings – from the front) / Srnjak 4, Pri Hišcee nh, Jože Zakrajšek. R 17/10, 17/11 in 17/12 Povezava jarma z ojesom. Gorazd Ma­karovic, 1960 (Teren 17, Velike Lašce). Tuširana risba, 25 x 35 cm. Zapis na ris-bi (s svincnikom in tušem): Vprega (jarm), rekonstrukcija, Bavdki (Bavdek) 2, pri Ribci, Gradišar Peter / pogled od spredaj / pogled od zadaj / pogled od spodaj in od spredaj (narobe obrnjen jarm). Yoke – drawbar connection. Gorazd Makarovic, 1960 (Site 17, Velike Lašce). Ink drawing, 25 x 35 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil and ink): Harness (yoke), reconstruction, Bavdki (Bavdek) 2, Pri Ribci, Gradišar Peter / view from the front / view from the back / view from the bottom and the front (yoke turned upside down). 59. R 17/13 in 17/14 Povezava jarma z ojesom. Gorazd Ma­karovic, 1960 (Teren 17, Velike Lašce). Tuširana risba, 25 x 35,1 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Bavdki (Bavdek) 2, pri Ribci / Vprega (brez jarma) s plitoe ko (gožjo) in pre­glom / spredaj, zadaj / zadaj. Yoke – drawbar connection. Gorazd Makarovic, 1960 (Site 17, Velike Lašce). Ink drawing, 25 x 35.1 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Bavdki (Bavdek) 2, Pri Ribci / harnessing equipment (excluding yoke) with plito. ka (pole ring) and linchpin / front, back / back. R 17/15 in 17/16 Kambasta vihrova jarma, enojni in dvojni. Gorazd Makarovic, 1960 (Teren 17, Velike Lašce). Tuširana risba, 25,1 x 35,1 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Bavdki (Bavdek) 2, pri Ribci / Jarmice k / Jarm. Withers bowyokes, single and double. Gorazd Makarovic, 1960 (Site 17, Velike Lašce). Ink drawing, 25.1 x 35.1 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Bavdki (Bav­dek) 2, Pri Ribci / Jarmice k / Jarm. 61. R 17/17 in 17/18 Kambasta vihrova jarma, enojna. Go-razd Makarovic, 1960 (Teren 17, Velike Lašce). Tuširana risba, 25 x 35 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Jarmice k, Male Lašce 26, pri Brlogarji, Janez Šajn. Withers bowyokes, single. Gorazd Ma­karovic, 1960 (Site 17, Velike Lašce). Ink drawing, 25 x 35 cm. Note on the draw­ing (in pencil): Jarmic.k, Male Lašce 26, Pri Brlogarji, Janez Šajn. R 17/19 Kambast vihrov jarem, dvojni. Gorazd Makarovic, 1960 (Teren 17, Velike Lašce). Tuširana risba, 35,2 x 24,9 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): delal Andrejckov iz Zagorice okoli 1. svet. vojne / Hocevje, pri Strahi, 5, Matija Pajk / jarm. Withers bowyoke, double. Gorazd Makarovic, 1960 (Site 17, Velike Lašce). Ink draw­ing, 35.2 x 24.9 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): made by Andrejckov from Zagorica, around World War I / Hocevje, Pri Strahi, 5, Matija Pajk / jarm. 63. R 17/22 Kambast vihrov jarem, dvojni. Gorazd Makarovic, 1960 (Teren 17, Velike Lašce). Tuširana risba, 25,3 x 20 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Jarem / Pr Hocevarji, Janez Podržaj, Gradicek (Krka) 5. Withers bowyoke, double. Gorazd Makarovic, 1960 (Site 17, Velike Lašce). Ink draw­ing, 25.3 x 20 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Yoke / Pr Hocevarji, Janez Podržaj, Gradicek (Krka) 5. R 17/24 Kambast vihrov jarem, dvojni. Gorazd Makarovic, 1960 (Teren 17, Velike Lašce). Tuširana risba, 25 x 10,3 cm. Zapis na risbi (s tušem in svincnikom): Jarm brez kamb, Macki 5, nad Robom, Jože Rupar, pri Martini / jarm (brez kamb). Withers bowyoke, double. Gorazd Makarovic, 1960 (Site 17, Velike Lašce). Ink draw­ing, 25 x 10.3 cm. Note on the drawing (in ink and pencil): Yoke excl. bows, Macki 5, above Rob, Jože Rupar, Pri Martini / yoke (excl. bows). 65. R 17/27 Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Gorazd Makarovic, 1960 (Teren 17, Velike Lašce). Tuširana risba, 25 x 15 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Male Lašce 28, pri Martinovih. Withers bowyoke, single. Gorazd Makarovic, 1960 (Site 17, Velike Lašce). Ink draw­ing, 25 x 15 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Male Lašce 28, Pri Martinovih. R 18/78 Kambast vihrov jarem, dvojni. Slavka Cufer, 1961 (Teren 18, Šentrupert). Tuširana risba, 25,1 x 21,9 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Inicijalke na nasprotni strani / Jarm, pri Kelnišce k, Kašic Anton, Trstenik 4. Withers bowyoke, double. Slavka Cufer, 1961 (Site 18, Šentrupert). Ink drawing, 25.1 x 21.9 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Initials on the opposite side / Jarm, Pri Kelnišcek, Kašic Anton, Trstenik 4. R 18/79 Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Slavka Cufer, 1961 (Teren 18, Šentrupert). Tušira­na risba, 25,5 x 36,3 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Jarmc, Lampret Jože, Brinje 26 pri Šentrupertu / jarmc, canglc (najverjetneje kambin zatic), rinka, kamba, štrange (ojnici), prusketna (vprežna veriga). Withers bowyoke, single. Slavka Cufer, 1961 (Site 18, Šentrupert). Ink drawing, 25.5 x 36.3 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Jarmc, Lampret Jože, Brinje 26 pri Šentrupertu / jarmc, canglc(most likely bow pin), ring, bow, štrange (rope shafts), prus­ketna (harness chain). 68. R 19/9 Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Gorazd Makarovic, 1962 (Teren 19, Lož). Tušira­na risba, 35 x 25,2 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): »Jarmícuk« / Delal Baraga An­ton, Kozarišce 23, + 1955. Withers bowyoke, single. Gorazd Ma­karovic, 1962 (Site 19, Lož). Ink drawing, 35 x 25.2 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Jarmícuk / made by Baraga Anton, Kozarišce 23, + 1955. R 19/12 Kambast vihrov jarem, dvojni. Ivan Romih, 1962 (Teren 19, Lož). Tuširana risba, 24,6 x 17,4 cm. Zapis na risbi (s tušem in crnilom): Jarem – Vinko Kocevar – Podlož 9 / jeglica (kambin zatic) / bukovo, javor / kamba leska, brst, dren. Withers bowyoke, double. Ivan Romih, 1962 (Site 19, Lož). Ink drawing, 24.6 x 17.4 cm. Note on the drawing (in Indian ink and ink): Yoke – Vinko Kocevar – Podlož 9 / jeglica (bow pin) / beech, maple / bow hazel, brushwood, dogwood. 70. R 19/57 Kambast vihrov jarem, enojni. Ivan Romih, 1962 (Teren 19, Lož). Tuširana ris­ba, 17,2 x 24,5 cm. Zapis na risbi (s tušem in crnilom): Jarmicek – Vinko Kocevar – Pod-lož 9 / šranga (ojnica), prusketna (vprežna veriga). Withers bowyoke, single. Ivan Romih, 1962 (Site 19, Lož). Ink drawing, 17.2 x 24.5 cm. Note on the drawing (in Indi­an ink and ink): Jarmicek – Vinko Kocevar – Podlož 9 / šranga (rope shaft), prusketna (harness chain). R 20/9 Okvirast vihrov jarem, dvojni. Ivan Romih, 1963 (Teren 20, Vitanje). Tuširana risba, 31,5 x 22,8 cm. Zapis na risbi: Telega pri Tomažic, Franc Tomažic, Skomarje 33. Zapisana dolžina jarma je 100 cm. Withers frame yoke, double. Ivan Romih, 1963 (Site 20, Vitanje). Ink drawing, 31.5 x 22.8 cm. Note on the drawing: Telega from Pri Tomažic homestead, Franc Tomažic, Skomar­je 33. The recorded yoke length is 100 cm. 72. R 20/10 Kljukast vihrov jarem, dvojni. Ivan Romih, 1963 (Teren 20, Vitanje). Tuširana risba, 34,5 x 24,5 cm. Zapis na risbi: Telege, Brezen 44. Zapisana dolžina jarma je 100 cm. Withers hook yoke, double. Ivan Romih, 1963 (Site 20, Vitanje). Ink drawing, 34.5 x 24.5 cm. Note on the drawing: Telege, Brezen 44. The recorded yoke length is 100 cm. DESKE Z MODELI ZA OBLIKOVANJE KAMB / BOARDS WITH BOW FORMS 73. R 12/112 Deska z modelom, za oblikovanje kamb. Ivan Romih, 1955 (Teren 12, Brkini). Tušira­na risba, 17,2 x 25 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Modlo za kambe krivit, Materija 17, pri Me žani. Zapisane mere deske: dolga je 107 cm in široka 30 cm. Board with a bowform, to bend bows. Ivan Romih, 1955 (Site 12, Brkini). Ink draw­ing, 17.2 x 25 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Form for bow bending, Materija 17, Pri Me žani. Recorded board dimensions: 107 cm in length and 30 cm in width. R 12/542 Deska z modelom, za oblikovanje kamb. Rudolf Auersperg, 1955 (Teren 12, Brkini). Tuširana risba, 17,8 x 25,3 cm. Za-pis na risbi (s svincnikom): Pri Majdicevih, Krebelj Anton, Tublje 10 / Kamba za naprav­ljanje jermicev (na risbi je model za obliko­vanje kamb za jarme) / 60 cm dolgo, 36 cm široko, debelina 5,5 cm, zg. ploh 6,5 cm. Board with a bow form, to bend bows. Rudolf Auersperg, 1955 (Site 12, Brkini). Ink drawing, 17.8 x 25.3 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Pri Majdicevih, Krebelj Anton, Tublje 10 / Bow to make yokes (the drawing shows a yoke bow form) / 60 cm long, 36 cm wide, 5.5 cm thick, upper board 6.5 cm. 75. R 14/13 Model, za oblikovanje kamb. Ivan Romih, 1957 (Teren 14, Žužemberk). Tuširana risba, 17,9 x 25,2 cm. Zapis na ris-bi (s svincnikom): Mušter za kambo, Reber 20, Hrovat Matija. Bow form. Ivan Romih, 1957 (Site 14, Žužemberk). Ink drawing, 17.9 x 25.2 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Bow form, Reber 20, Hrovat Matija. R 17/46 Deska z modelom, za oblikovanje kamb. Gorazd Makarovic, 1960 (Teren 17, Velike Lašce). Tuširana risba, 35,2 x 25,1 cm. Zapis na risbi (s svincnikom): Modu za kambe, Podkraj 1, pri ta Zadne h, Jože Jaklic. Zapisane mere deske: dolga je 130 cm in široka 37 cm. Board with a bow form, to bend bows. Gorazd Makarovic, 1960 (Site 17, Velike Lašce). Ink drawing, 35.2 x 25.1 cm. Note on the drawing (in pencil): Bow form, Podkraj 1, Pri ta Zadne h, Jože Jaklic. Recorded board dimensions: 130 cm in length and 37 cm in width. KAZALA / INDEXES PLACES OF USE (OR ACQUISITION) OF OBJECTS Adlešici: 135 Bistrica ob Sotli: 52 Blecji vrh: 130 Borjana (Gornja): 1 Borovnica: 96 Branik nad Muto: 33 Brdo: 61 Breg pri Velikem Gabru: 109, 110 Breginj: 143 Brezovi Dol: 43, 44, 55, 56, 67, 70, 74, 81 Dešeca vas: 75 Dula: 68 Gaj: 42, 51 Glogovica: 45, 46, 71, 73 Gorjuše: 15 Gradec: 41 Gradenc: 85 Hocevje: 76, 77, 108 Jelša: 114 Jesenice: 129 Kal: 4 Kanfanar: 140, 141 Koprivnik: 16 Koritnica: 2, 3 Križ (S. Croce): 97, 126 Kunšperk: 39 Lokve: 101 Lom pod Storžicem: 13 Mala vas: 78 Male Cešnjice: 102 Male Lipljene: 84, 87, 92 Mali Kal: 123 Mali Konec: 65 Melvice (Mellweg): 3, 14 Merce: 127 Negastrn: 60 Paradišce: 105 Planina: 12, 18, 19 Podboršt: 133 Podlipje: 34, 35 Podvolovljek: 10 Prežganje: 80 Resnik: 136 Reštanj: 40 Rožnik: 58 Sela pri Šmarju: 48 Selce: 119, 120 Slavina: 121 Spodnje Vodale: 99 Srednji Vrh: 7 Suha: 128 Šmarje: 106 Šober: 37 Štrukljeva vas: 90, 91 Ter: 17 Topli Vrh: 54 Velika Slevica: 131 Velike Cešnjice: 47 Velike Poljane: 86 Vintarjevec: 107 Vrbicje: 88 Vrhpolje: 125 Zaboršt: 82 Zabukovje: 103, 104 Zgornja Slivnica: 59 Zgornje Gameljne: 113, 117, 118 Železnica: 89 488 ORIGIN OF DRAWINGS Artiža vas: 8 Bac: 24 Bavdek: 58, 59, 60 Bicje: 1 Biljana: 19, 20 Blecji Vrh: 5 Borjana (Zgornja): 11 Brezen: 72 Brezovica: 23 Brinje: 67 Dekani: 6 Dobrava: 34, 39 Dolga Poljana: 40 Duplje: 38 Goce: 46, 47 Gradenc: 33 Gradež: 53 Gradicek (Krka): 63 Hocevje: 62 Imenje: 16 Kal: 14 Kocarija: 28, 29, 30 Koritnica: 15 Kozarišce: 68 Macki: 64 Male Lašce: 54, 61, 65 Mali Kal: 7 Markovšcina: 25 Materija: 73 Mrše: 26, 27 Orehovica: 42, 43 Oštrc: 31 Podlož: 69, 70 Porece: 41, 48, 49 Plešivo: 18 Podbela: 12 Podboršt: 44, 45 Podkraj: 56, 76 Pot v Celo: 22 Reber: 75 Sanabor: 37 Skomarje: 71 Srnjak: 55, 57 Staro selo: 13 Sveti Vrh nad Mokronogom: 10 Šentpavel na Dolenjskem: 9 Šmihel: 35, 36 Trstenik: 66 Tublje: 74 Veliki Ban: 17 Veliki Vrh: 3 Vino: 2 Vojsko: 52 Zadlog: 51 Zakojca: 21 Zdole: 50 Zgornja Slivnica : 4 Žužemberk: 32 490 MATERIALS OFYOKE BODIES (BEAMS): Javorjev les / maple: 2, 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 45, 58, 59, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 85, 86, 87, 88, 93, 94, 95, 96; enojni jarmi / single yokes: 102, 103, 105, 107, 110, 111, 113, 115, 116, 120, 121, 123, 125, 128 Najverjetneje javorjev les / most likelymaple: 7, 46, 50, 60, 67, 80, 90, 92; enojni jarmi / single yokes: 109 Brezov les / birch: 33 Orehov les / walnut: 1, 4, 39, 47, 48, 49, 51, 55, 62, 72, 75, 83; enojni jarmi / single yokes: 98, 99, 100, 108, 114 Jesenov les / ash: 13, 43, 52, 61, 97; enojni jarmi / single yokes: 117, 126, 127 Najverjetneje jesenov les / most likely ash: 57 Les bukve / beech: 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, 38; enojni jarmi / single yokes: 101, 104, 106, 112, 118, 119, 122, 124 Najverjetneje les bukve / most likely beech: 44 Les bresta (najverjetneje) / elm (most likely): 63 Les gabra / white beech: 91 Najverjetneje les gabra / most likelywhite beech: 56 Lipov les / linden: 84 Najverjetneje lipov les / most likely linden: 6, 14, 81, 89 Nedognano / undefined: 6, 7, 11, 14, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 44, 46, 50, 53, 54, 56, 57, 60, 63, 67, 80, 81, 89, 90, 92 Slovene Ethnographic Museum Library 12 mag. Inja Smerdel JARMI: ZBIRKA SLOVENSKEGA ETNOGRAFSKEGA MUZEJA YOKES: THE COLLECTION OF THE SLOVENE ETHNOGRAPHIC MUSEUM Urednici / Editors: Barbara Sosic, dr. Nena Židov Recenzenta / Reviewers: dr. Rajko Muršic, dr. Mojca Marija Tercelj Jezikovni pregled / Proofreading: Maja Cerar Prevod / Translation: Romana Mlacak, Andreja Šalamon Verbic Fotografije – Katalog / Photo – Catalogue: Marko Habic Fotografija na naslovnici / Cover photo: Helena Šimonka (Dokumentacija Pokrajinskega muzeja Koper) / (Koper Regional Museum Documentation) Oblikovanje / Design: mag. Darja Klancar Izdal / Published by: Slovenski etnografski muzej / Slovene Ethnographic Museum Zanj / Represented by: Natalija Polenec Tisk / Printed by: Medium d.o.o. Naklada / Print run: 250 izvodov / copies Cena / Price 30 € Ljubljana, 2024 Za vsebino odgovarja avtorica. / The author is responsible for the content.