1JZGauQ

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1: INTRODUCTION World War II dividing the area between Italy and Yugoslavia. On either side of the border the two towns of Gorizia and Nova Gorica grew separately but still intertwined, affected by Cold War politics. The border between Italy and Slovenia has had a long and complex history and its relationship with the Iron Curtain is far from clear. Many would say this border, formerly between Yugoslavia and Italy, was never part of the Iron Curtain. This is why I chose this border for my first case study as it would help my discussions of what the Iron Curtain really was, or was not. Located in a valley south of the Alps and north of the Karst plateau this area consists of arable land which has been cultivated for centuries. Apart from my fieldwork in the Gorizia/Nova Gorica area I also travelled along the western and northern borders of Slovenia. Starting from the town of Koper, on the Adriatic Coast, I headed north until reaching the border with Austria and following the Slovenian-Austrian border I tried to cross the border in as many places as possible until I reached the tripoint between Austria, Slovenia and Hungary. I wanted to get an idea of how the landscape changed throughout this border and what the actual border and its crossing points look like today. My second field study was carried out on the border between the Czech Republic and Austria in the area around the Podyji Park located near the town of Znojmo in southern Czech area of South Moravia (Chapter 5). The park developed as part of the grounds of Vranov Castle in the 18 th century and became part of a war landscape from the 1930s as it was drawn into World War II and subsequently the Cold War. The, then Czechoslovakian, border was heavily militarised from the 1950s until early 1990s. My studies here, in contrast to the study in Slovenia, dealt with the type of border that we traditionally connect with the Iron Curtain. The study here was mainly focussed on the Czech side of the border although some observations were also made of the landscape on the Austrian side. I also conducted research into the situation along the Inner German Border and in particular Berlin (Chapter 3). Although I did not carry out fieldwork to the same extent as the two other studies I was able to get a good understanding of the history and the changing fabric also of this border. The Inner German Border, especially the Berlin Wall, is highly important for the understanding of what the Iron Curtain was, or still is, and the fact that I did not carry out a study to the same amount of detail here does not suggest I find it less important. In the study of the German-German border I was also able to rely on the fairly extensive research that has already been carried out here, including archaeological studies of the Berlin Wall. I also 29
AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN carried out two trips to Berlin to make observations of what the remains of this wall look like and how it is treated today. The fact that many people consider the Berlin Wall to be the symbol of the Iron Curtain and Cold War division makes this an important site, however, by stepping out of this area it is also possible to get new perspectives and challenge some of the preconceptions that exist about the Iron Curtain. The fact that I did not start my research in Berlin was, I believe, important in challenging some of my own preconceptions of what the Iron Curtain was. The study areas that I have chosen for my research represent three very different sites with highly varying material but also with many similarities. Studying these and comparing the results from all three sites has given me the opportunity to gain a broad understanding of a highly complex monument, the Iron Curtain. 30
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 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 73 and 74: Figure 16: Postcard of the newly op
Page 81 and 82:
AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
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:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Figure 77-78: Painting inside the f
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
CHAPTER 6 An archaeology of the Iro
Page 190 and 191:
6: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTA
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Figure 102: Fence and Watch Tower a
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
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:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?