1JZGauQ

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1: INTRODUCTION carried out of the materiality of the Inner German Border and the Berlin Wall (Klausmeier and Schmidt 2004, Schmidt and von Preuschen 2005, Faversham and Schmidt 2007, Rottman 2008, Klausmeier 2009). Elsewhere, however, there is little research to inform us of what the militarised borders looked like, how they functioned, how they affected the people around them and how the borders, and the remains thereof, have continued to affect people also after the events of 1989. I have used Churchill’s description of an Iron Curtain stretching from the Baltic to the Adriatic to limit myself geographically but this is of course just a limitation I have set as a necessary approach to what would otherwise be too vast a material. I have also limited myself to the time period between 1945, the end of World War II and 1989, the fall of many of the military borders in central Europe. The reader should be aware, however, that the Iron Curtain can be described in many different ways both metaphorically and geographically and can be seen to stretch throughout the world and across different time periods. Studying the Iron Curtain Discussions of methodology have been an important part of the work of my thesis from beginning to end. During a very early consultation with my tutor, before I was about to embark on my first fieldwork, we discussed recording methods. When I suggested that I would require some sort of GPS to record the coordinates of any finds that I made out in the terrain my tutor asked me why I needed to be so precise, why not just mark them on a map The question threw me and I thought to myself: “but this is what we do”. We identify, we measure, we record, we describe and we report and it all needs to be exact so that we can demonstrate that it has all been carried out to good scientific standards. Otherwise it is just not good archaeology. Or is it In her doctoral thesis archaeologist Laura McAtackney (2008:8 and 16) discusses the role of traditional archaeological empirical methods such as excavation and building surveys as well as artefact recording and suggests that sometimes we carry out our investigations just because that is what we are supposed to do. But does it always bring something to our research In an article about the role of contemporary archaeology or an archaeology of the present and following discussion in ‘Surface assemblages: Towards an archaeology in and of the present’ archaeologist Rodney Harrison (2011) suggests that the connection between archaeology and excavation has become too accepted 17
AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN and that we need to change our attitudes towards a stronger focus on archaeology through its surface assemblages. In a response to Harrison’s article archaeologist Paul Graves-Brown write: “Indeed, one might argue that the site and the digging thereof are what we have needed, subconsciously, to legitimate our practice” (Graves-Brown 2011:169). Harrison’s article can be seen as a way of rethinking the way we conduct archaeology and turn “interest towards an emerging present” (Harrison 2011:181). This shifts the emphasis of archaeology away from being a study of the past to be a study of the past in the present. A shift in perception of time is also present in the work of archaeologist Laurent Olivier who claims that we should view archaeology more in relation to memory as fragmented and constantly created and recreated instead of as fitting into a unilinear history writing (Olivier 2004:209–211). What happens when we apply these perspectives of time on the material that we study Methodologies for studies of contemporary archaeology sites are still somewhat experimental and unproven and as Harrison and archaeologist John Schofield (2010:88) write the productivity of the research techniques to be used in studies of a more recent material will only be demonstrated by further work. My research should therefore be seen as a part of this current discourse and a way to test and further the understanding of the study of sites from a contemporary past. I wanted to understand the materiality of the Iron Curtain and how this related to the popular idea of this iconic, Cold War divider between the East and West. The choice stood between concentrating on one site and studying several in order to compare. This comparison between sites along the former militarised borders throughout Europe offered the best possibility to understand the material and so I chose to include more than one case study in my research. Research into sites closer to our own time often provides a rich source material and it therefore becomes important to make decisions of how to approach what can be a vast assemblage of material evidence. Archaeologist Bjørnar Olsen, with his cry for a return to things within archaeology (2010, 2003), suggests that although materials are studied they are not seen as interesting in themselves but are always only used in order to reach something else: “The material is a source material, an incomplete representation of the past, traces of an absent presence – not part of the past (or society) itself” (Olsen 2003:90). It is by turning to the material and looking at the smaller pieces that we can begin to understand the bigger picture. Archaeologist Jonathan Westin writes: “…a single letter of [an] inscription is not accountable for the meaning of those words or sentences it helps form, political or religious as 18
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 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 69 and 70:
AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
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:
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?