1JZGauQ

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN inherent in the material itself that is valuable and uses the provocative example of Stonehenge to make her point that it “is basically a collection of rocks in a field” (Smith 2006:3). Criticism of this statement from archaeologist Brit Solli on the other hand counterclaims that “Stonehenge’s essence is its durable ‘stoniness’” and that there is something inherent in its materiality and permanence (Solli 2011:45). What is missed in this discussion, as shown by Pétursdóttir, is to recognise the hierarchy that is implied within these discussions of tangible or intangible, with one seen as better than the other. Pétursdóttir agrees with Smith that Stonehenge is exactly that, a collection of rocks in a field but what she disagrees with is Smith’s way of seeing this to be meaningless and instead she claims that the ‘stoniness’ should be seen as valuable and important (Pétursdóttir 2013:47). She writes “Conversely though, it is not her [Smith’s] statement that ‘Stonehenge… is basically a collection of rocks in a field’… that is problematic; that is in fact exactly what it is. The problem, however, is to see that as meaningless. What characterizes the intangible heritage discourse (or even heritage discourses in general), as well as much of interpretative archaeology, is not only that meaning, value and significance are seen as inevitably subjective, but also that meaning is confused with or restricted, rather to symbolical or other modes of derivative meanings… is it so that Stonehenge itself, in its simple ‘stoniness’… brings nothing of value to the encounters with the subjective experiences that for centuries have circulated around it” (Pétursdóttir 2013:47, emphasis in original). Although the example of Stonehenge may appear exaggerated it is exactly because of its status as a monumental heritage that it becomes interesting and brings several questions forward. Most of all, I believe, it makes it clear that the discussions in which we place tangible and intangible against each other are not really going to bring the discussion of heritage forward. Similarly to discussions of the different sources we deal with in our research we have to be open to the different types of heritage we are faced with, tangible or intangible, and recognise the value in both. It is here that I fear this material turn is slipping over into the wrong type of focus in which strengthening the value and status of physical objects also means intensifying the divide between objects and other sources even further and with that we risk falling down in Andrén’s in-betweeness even further. I believe this material turn has its strength in the way it helps us interpret our sources in order not to load them with cultural and social values they are unfit to hold. It can help us to have an open and holistic methodology towards our sources so that we do not subject our narratives and metaphors to the mater- 191
AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN ial that we study and by making sure we do not make objects mere props in our history writing. Moving in memories In a story where we start at the materials themselves time is less relevant. We can see in the landscape today how the materials from all periods are intermingled and mixed, all there in the present. Archaeologist Laurent Olivier highlights archaeology’s close and problematic affiliation with history and that through this affiliation we are used to seeing time as unilinear. He suggests that the objects that archaeologists study are “memory recorded in materials” (Olivier 2004:211) and should be understood rather for their similarity to memory rather than to narrative history writing. This follows the Freudian idea of memory as fragmented and constantly created and recreated in the past and in the present. He means that the past exists in the present as “fragments of the past […] embedded in the physical reality of the present” (Olivier 2004:209) as well as the present exists in the past as we read it through our own horizon and our own behaviour (Olivier 2004:210). This idea of the present as multitemporal has also been expressed by archaeologist Gavin Lucas as he moves the attention of prehistory from its chronological emphasis to an ontological one and suggests that “prehistory was, above all, history studied through material culture, not through texts” with the consequence that “even archaeologists studying the material culture of the historic past … are doing prehistory, not history” (Lucas 2004:111). This is true to some extent and an important observation within historical archaeologies that are often so highly dependent on historical sources and narratives. At the same time we cannot, and neither should we want to, escape from the fact that in a period closer to our own we will always be affected by other sources apart from the physical ones. It is not in the distinction between the different sources that the problem lays but rather it is in our way of valuing them differently that the issues arise. We have to appreciate our past as fragmented, that all its pieces does not match up, and that sometimes it creates constellations that we do not expect. In the Podyji Park time intermingles. The monument to Felicia was constructed as a memorial by Countess of Mniszek and has stood there ever since but it has acted in different situations since its inception: as a memorial in the 1800s, reborn to become the target of the border guards’ shooting practice linking two parts of the park’s history that are otherwise unlikely to be connected, since reborn again in our present following a 192
Page 1 and 2:
An Archaeology of the Iron Curtain
Page 4 and 5:
An Archaeology of the Iron Curtain
Page 8 and 9:
Contents Acknowledgements 11 CHAPTE
Page 10:
The end of a journey 212 Sammanfatt
Page 13 and 14:
AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
Page 16 and 17:
CHAPTER 1 Introduction Standing on
Page 18 and 19:
1: INTRODUCTION carried out of the
Page 20 and 21:
1: INTRODUCTION they may be… It i
Page 22 and 23:
1: INTRODUCTION where the observer
Page 24 and 25:
1: INTRODUCTION former Iron Curtain
Page 26 and 27:
1: INTRODUCTION criticism from othe
Page 28 and 29:
1: INTRODUCTION itioned somewhere i
Page 30 and 31:
1: INTRODUCTION World War II dividi
Page 32 and 33:
CHAPTER 2 A physical metaphor Concr
Page 34 and 35:
2: A PHYSICAL METAPHOR established
Page 36 and 37:
2: A PHYSICAL METAPHOR The changing
Page 38 and 39:
2: A PHYSICAL METAPHOR the events t
Page 40 and 41:
2: A PHYSICAL METAPHOR As time has
Page 42 and 43:
2: A PHYSICAL METAPHOR highly influ
Page 44:
2: A PHYSICAL METAPHOR popular idea
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Figure 16: Postcard of the newly op
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
402 Kojsko Hum 402 THE OSIM
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Figure 50: Map demonstrating the bo
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 128 and 129:
CHAPTER 5 Case Study 2 The Czech/Au
Page 130 and 131:
5: CASE STUDY 2: THE CZECH/AUSTRIAN
Page 132 and 133:
Figure 55: Bunker near the crossing
Page 134 and 135:
Figure 59: Military map from 1980 o
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143: 5: CASE STUDY 2: THE CZECH/AUSTRIAN
Page 160 and 161: Figure 77-78: Painting inside the f
Page 188 and 189: CHAPTER 6 An archaeology of the Iro
Page 190 and 191: 6: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTA
Page 204 and 205: Figure 102: Fence and Watch Tower a
Page 216 and 217: Sammanfattning (Summary in Swedish)
Page 218 and 219: SAMMANFATTNING En fysisk metafor I
Page 220 and 221: SAMMANFATTNING komst och kunskapsf
Page 222 and 223: SAMMANFATTNING Fältstudier av läm
Page 224 and 225: SAMMANFATTNING som försöker ta si
Page 226: SAMMANFATTNING mets dilemma”. Han
Page 229 and 230: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
Page 242 and 243:
Södertörn Doctoral Dissertations
Page 244 and 245:
33. Sofie Bedford, Islamic activism
Page 246 and 247:
67. Anne Kaun, Civic Experiences an
Page 248 and 249:
Stockholm Studies in Archaeology Se
Page 250 and 251:
29. LINDGREN, Christina. 2004. Män
Page 252:
The Iron Curtain was seen as the di
show all

1JZGauQ

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?