01.02.2015 Views

1JZGauQ

1JZGauQ

1JZGauQ

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

6: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN<br />

border guard stations allowed for new stories, new perspectives. Something<br />

that would not have been noticeable when the border guards were here<br />

crowding these spaces or something the texts and documents in the archives<br />

could never convey. This is also what we somehow ‘expect’ from an<br />

archaeological site, for the people to have left, a hangover from studying<br />

periods where people are long gone and all that remains are pieces. Here<br />

studies of a more recent past do differ from studies of earlier periods. Often<br />

we study the abandoned, such as ruins, which we in some way seem to be<br />

more comfortable with. We know what to do here, our methods just work.<br />

But what happens with those sites that are still used<br />

Archaeologists are used to dealing with the abandoned. In fact one of the<br />

criteria for protecting an archaeological site through policy and legislation<br />

in Sweden is that it has been abandoned for a considerable amount of time<br />

(varaktigt övergiven) which means it is no longer in use and will not be<br />

taken into use again (SFS 1988:950). Even though this definition may not be<br />

present as such in other countries’ heritage laws it demonstrates a general<br />

attitude within archaeology of how we deal with that which is abandoned<br />

and no longer in use. But what does this mean when we are pushing the<br />

materials that we study further and further into the present I do not believe<br />

it to be a coincidence that the sites that contemporary archaeologists, including<br />

my own research, tend to search out are the places that are deserted<br />

and uninhabited (although see Kiddey and Schofield 2011 for a different<br />

approach). This is what we are used to and what our methods generally<br />

allow us to look at. Andreasson et al. as well as Pétursdottír and DeSilvey<br />

make a very good case for how the material stands out clearer when not<br />

crowded by people. How in the abandoned we can see the ‘thingness’ of the<br />

objects left behind. But what happens in places where people are still<br />

present Where materials and humans are still acting together creating<br />

networks and connections Do we ask people to leave the scene or should<br />

we wait until a place have been abandoned Something that has become<br />

clear during my research is that we need to develop and adjust the methods<br />

that we use to allow people and objects both to take centre stage without<br />

one crowding the other. Surely this emphasis on things in a ‘material turn’<br />

should not increase the divide between things and humans; rather it should<br />

bridge it by putting them on equal terms<br />

Of course ruins often entice our imagination. Political scientist Anca<br />

Pusca (2010) writes of how the decay of buildings is often connected with<br />

the notion of dystopia and explains that as spaces and buildings were often<br />

highly important for the communist utopia their subsequent fall and ruin<br />

197

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!