Rapallo Border Historical Society rapalskameja.si · 1920–1947
Rapallo border · 1920–1947

Marking the Border

Technical rules of delimitation, types of boundary stones and 3D documentation of Rapallo border markers


The Strategic Logic of the Border Line

The Rapallo border did not merely follow the text of the treaty — behind it stood a deliberate Italian military doctrine, described in the publication La linea del confine Giulio (1930) by General Italo Gariboldi, one of the key members of the Italian delimitation delegation. According to Gariboldi, a good border combines two qualities: an obstacle for a potential aggressor and a natural divide between human communities. The terrain between the Alps and the Adriatic did not offer both qualities in one place — each section was suitable only in specific stretches.

It is essential to understand that the border does not cross a uniform alpine landscape, but two entirely different geographical zones:

Particularly interesting is Gariboldi's attitude towards Lake Cerknica. At first glance it would seem an ideal natural obstacle — but because it is a karst and intermittent lake that often dries out in summer, Gariboldi dismisses it as unreliable. Instead, he places the border along the eastern edge of the Snežnik plateau and draws it through Prezid down towards the Kvarner.

Gariboldi, 1930 — on the ethnic logic of the border Gariboldi openly admits that a clean ethnic division in the Julian March cannot be achieved — Italians, Slavs and Germans were intermixed. Instead, he establishes a different hierarchy: because the coastal towns and economic centres are Italian, Italy has the right to a border that guarantees it control over the entire hinterland. He describes the Slavs in the interior as those who had "overstepped natural boundaries" and must yield before the "evidence of law." This perspective reveals that the Rapallo border was not merely a technical-cartographic project — it was also a political and ideological programme.

Cartographic Basis and Organisation of Works

Article 5 of the Treaty of Rapallo provided for three separate commissions to demarcate the border: one for the Julian March section between Italy and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, one for the territory of the Free State of Rijeka (Reka) and one for Zadar. All three operated according to the same technical procedure. The commission for the Julian March was by far the largest and most important.

For the cartographic basis, former Austria-Hungary maps at scales of 1:25,000 and 1:75,000 were used — at the time the most accurate available. The Commission transferred the border described in the treaty text onto these maps and handed them to the field sections for verification. Once the delegates had agreed in session on the alignment of each section, it was transferred to a 1:25,000 sheet and handed to field staff, who first temporarily marked the line with wooden stakes, then demarcated it permanently with concrete boundary markers.

The cartographic survey of the entire border was carried out by the Italian Military Geographic Institute in Florence (Istituto Geografico Militare, IGM). The result was 89 sheets at a scale of 1:5,000 entitled Rilievo della linea di confine e suo profilo in scala 1 : 5000 — 84 for the section north of Rubija (Rubesci) and 5 for the Rijeka territory — jointly covering the border and the border strip. Each sheet depicted approximately 3,400 m of the border line and included an elevation profile of the section with distances between boundary markers. The collection was published in two language editions between 1921 and 1926. The Yugoslav delegation received copies and on their basis prepared its own edition. The cartographic work was carried out by topographer Sgrilli, lieutenants Carasso and Monegatti, and captains di Grezia, Catardi, Latini, Covacivich, Maracci, Gallino, Lavizzari, Barbero, Barberini and Festa.

The geodetic basis of the survey was the Austrian triangulation network with its origin at the island of Ferro (El Hierro). The Commission received from the IGM three Starke theodolites accurate to two angular degrees, seven Salmoiraghi tacheometers and seven pretorian plane tables. Among the Yugoslav geodesists was also Alfonz pl. Gspan.

Sheet from the Rapallo border map at scale 1:5,000
One of the 89 sheets at 1:5,000 that documented the course of the Rapallo border. The Italian edition is shown. Source: O. Štanfel
Elevation profile of a border section with distances between markers
Elevation profile of a section with distances between individual boundary markers and the total distance from the tripoint at Peč. Source: O. Štanfel

Four Types of Boundary Markers

For the physical demarcation of the border line, both delegations agreed on concrete boundary markers (cippi di confine) of prismatic form made of reinforced concrete, where geology permitted fixed directly onto the bedrock — so that moving or destroying them without visible traces would be nearly impossible. Four types were agreed upon:

Inscriptions on the Markers

Each marker bore a standardised set of incised inscriptions. On the faces turned towards each respective country: the abbreviation I for Italy and SHS for the Kingdom of SCS. When in 1929 the Kingdom of SCS became the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the new designation J was incised on newly installed or renovated markers; following the annexation of Upper Carniola by Germany in 1941, some were replaced with the designation D.

On the faces turned towards the neighbouring markers: the sequential number of that marker. Below it the year 1920 — the year of the signing of the Treaty of Rapallo. On the top face: three incised straight lines — one pointing magnetic north, and two pointing towards the preceding and following markers. These inscriptions permitted orientation without additional instruments.

Sector boundary marker no. 52 on the Javorniki hills
Sector boundary marker no. 52 on the slopes of the Javorniki hills between Rakov Škocjan and the summit of Čela.

The Scope of Delimitation in Numbers

4,615
boundary stones
Peč – Rubija
244.5 km
length of this section
(244,523.73 m)
5,214
boundary stones in total
incl. Rijeka section
~50 m
average distance
between stones

On the section between the tripoint at Peč and the border of the Free State of Rijeka, the commission installed 69 principal, 4,508 intermediate and 38 special markers. Following the annexation of the Free State of Rijeka by Italy in 1924, the Julian March border was extended to 263,934.43 m; the Rijeka section added a further 9 principal and 590 intermediate markers.

The average distance between markers was merely a guideline — in practice the distribution was extremely flexible. On the steep alpine watersheds, where the alignment was beyond doubt, markers stood up to 479 metres apart (the greatest distance between markers 12/XII and 12/XIII on the high-mountain ridge). At the other extreme, where the border wound along narrow agricultural tracks near Kastav, markers stood side by side at a distance of only 2.62 metres.

For the installation of markers, the Italians used exclusively military labour; the Kingdom of SCS, in addition to soldiers, also hired local workers. Each delegation installed approximately half of all markers — the Italians predominantly in mountain terrain, the Yugoslavs in the lowlands.

The Rapallo Border and the Land Cadastre

The Rapallo border did not emerge in an administrative vacuum — it ran across territory precisely covered by the Austrian and later national cadastral system. Digitisation of the border and georeferencing of 268 sheets of the historical land cadastre enabled a precise spatial analysis of their relationship (Žorž 2022).

The land border crossed 45 historical cadastral municipalities with a combined area of 1,366 km². On the territory of present-day Slovenia, between Peč and marker 61/LXXIX, the border runs for 215.78 km; of this, only 25.1 km (11.6%) coincides with the boundaries of the cadastral municipalities of the time. This is no coincidence — where the border followed the watersheds of the Julian Alps, it was the first demarcation to fix the relief with geodetic precision, and in doing so it frequently exceeded the cadastral boundaries, which had been only approximately drawn.

The present situation is telling: comparison of the digitised layer of the Rapallo border with the current boundaries of cadastral municipalities shows a 91.2% correspondence. The Rapallo border has thus largely become part of the cadastral structure we know today — markers that were erected as demarcations of a former state border today mark parcel boundaries on the ground.

Visibility of the Border: Clearings and Documentation

In the forested central and southern part of the border — where forest cover predominates — the markers would have remained invisible among the trees. The Commission therefore opened clearings 6 to 8 metres wide along the border line, depending on the density of the forest. The border itself runs along the middle of the clearing; this ensured the line is clearly recognisable even without markers. On the northern, high-alpine part the border follows watersheds above the tree line and no clearings needed to be cut.

For each marker, comprehensive documentation was compiled and certified by the personnel of both delegations:

All these data were entered into a joint final record book, signed after each marker by the personnel of both delegations and the supervising technician. The originals were compiled in Italian and translated into the language of the Kingdom of SCS. The Austrian trigonometric network with its origin at the island of El Hierro (Ferro) was used as the geodetic basis for the survey.

Digital Documentation — 3D Models of Boundary Markers

The Society has produced photogrammetric 3D models of all three types of Rapallo border markers as part of its documentation project. The models are accessible on the Sketchfab platform and permit detailed examination of incised inscriptions, dimensions and surface condition.

Sector boundary marker no. 52 on the Javorniki hills
Sector marker
Principal marker

Sector boundary marker no. 52 on the slopes of the Javorniki hills between Rakov Škocjan and the summit of Čela.

↗ 3D model on Sketchfab
Special marker no. CXVIII of sector 49
Special marker
Special marker

Special marker no. CXVIII of sector 49 — by dimensions the largest type of Rapallo border markers.

↗ 3D model on Sketchfab
Intermediate marker no. II of sector 36
Intermediate marker
Standard marker

Intermediate marker no. II of sector 36. The top face indicates the directions to the neighbouring markers and magnetic north.

↗ 3D model on Sketchfab

The Customs Fence

Parallel to the work of the delimitation commission, the Italian Ministry of Finance — without agreement with the Yugoslav side — planned the construction of a three-metre-high metal mesh fence with locked gates at all customs crossings along the entire border. Its purpose was to stem smuggling, which had become widespread practice immediately after the border was established.

The fence was built only on the Rijeka section — along the rest of the border it was never erected. Because it had to be anchored to the ground on the Italian side, it was set slightly inward from the actual border line of the markers, which initially caused confusion about where exactly the state border ran. The fence had no connection with the work of the delimitation commission; it was a unilateral Italian infrastructure decision.

Symbolic Markers

Two markers acquired special symbolic value and were reproduced at remote locations, revealing how deeply the demarcation was inscribed in the fascist ideological project.

An intermediate marker on one of the summits of the ridge below Razor — a summit that the Italians had first traversed precisely during the delimitation work — had a replica installed at the Vittoriale in Gardone: the private museum-memorial complex of Gabriele D'Annunzio, one of the most important focal points of Italian nationalism in the interwar period.

The principal marker on Triglav was reproduced at the Redipuglia war cemetery near Monfalcone (Tržič) — the largest Italian war cemetery with 100,000 burials from the First World War. Gariboldi writes that the Italian delegation placed it there "in memory and gratitude to all those who gave their lives so that Italy would reach where the nation and history called it."

The Triglav dispute and the creation of the "Morbegno hut"

In the summer of 1919, Italian military cartographers produced a detailed map of the summit pyramid of Triglav at a scale of 1:11,000 with the watershed drawn in. The finding was unwelcome for Italy: the watershed runs west of the summit, which by consistent cartographic logic would have left Triglav entirely to the Kingdom of SCS. The summit was strategically and propagandistically crucial for Italy — soldiers reported from there on the view over the entire Ljubljana Basin.

Italy initially relied on the historical boundary between Carniola and the County of Gorizia, which ran across the very summit. This solution would have secured the summit, but access to it from the western side would have required a narrow strip with no path. As an alternative, they demanded a detailed determination of the demarcation line between Bovški Pihavec and Kanjavec — by this they had in mind control over the Bovška notch, which was at the time the only realistic route to the summit from the future Italian side. On this two-kilometre disputed section the Italians prepared five proposals, but all would have benefited exclusively them.

To secure access to the summit before official demarcation, the Italian supreme command in the summer of 1919 ordered the 52nd Division to build a mountain hut closer to the summit than any existing one. The Morbegno Alpine battalion named it after itself and ceremonially opened it in September 1919; a permanent garrison of one officer and seven soldiers was stationed there. From preserved archives it is apparent that all local place names at that time were still of Slovenian origin — Italian nomenclature was artificially introduced only by law in 1926.

Resolving the border question at Triglav required a further four years. The summit became a symbol — for Slovenes the last bastion of an already unjust border, for rising fascism a symbol of the suffering of the First World War. The Commission, politicians and press all knew that the watershed belonged to the Yugoslav side; Italy nevertheless held its ground. Colonel Daskalović clearly warned that in the event of such a demand he would refer the matter to the Swiss federal authority — the absolute mediator accepted in advance by both sides.

The decisive crisis came in July 1923. After a publication in the Trieste (Trst) newspaper Piccolo which accused the colonel of the Yugoslav section of the commission of cooperating with the nationalist organisation Orjuna, the Italian foreign ministry demanded a complete replacement of the Yugoslav members. The commission under Daskalović was replaced by Draškić from Zagreb — and shortly thereafter the border, despite the watershed, was confirmed at the very summit of Triglav. It remained there until the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947.

More on the disputes at Triglav · gore-ljudje.net

Sources and Bibliography