1JZGauQ

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1: INTRODUCTION they may be… It is not a process where the primary movement is that of cultural values trickling down and affecting the parts, but a process where the greater movement is that of parts soaring upwards” (Westin 2012:39). It is not in the discourse about heritage that heritage itself is created, but it is in the movement and networks of the smaller interconnecting parts, whether objects, humans or customs on which the discourses about heritage rests. In light of this I want to start at the things themselves and by looking at how the materials have been used, and viewed, over time, including their situation today, to get a better understanding of how a heritage can be created, out of the things themselves on their journey to their appropriation today. The discourse should have its grounding in the material we study. If not, it is possible that the materials and the discussions we carry out end up being out of phase, estranged and lost from each other or that generalisations are made which are not based on a solid foundation. In my fieldwork I have found Actor Network Theory (ANT) a useful inspiration in that it is descriptive rather than explanatory and this helps to understand how relations between different actors assemble (Latour 2005). By turning to the materials themselves and in my fieldwork focussing on the networks at work within the sites themselves, in the past and in the present, I attempt to discuss how heritage has been created, or not created as the case may be, in the study areas. Apart from the materials themselves these networks are created out of the actions of many different actors who have created the sites as they appear today as well as the attitudes people have towards them. Although the material is my starting point other sources, such as memories and stories, both oral and written, have been weaved together with the material, inseparable as they are. I have looked to other disciplines such as anthropology, history, art history, ethnology and human geography to assist me in tackling a vast material. Often the line between the disciplines is blurry and many points overlap. Harrison and Schofield suggest that studying the recent past “is always going to be simultaneously archaeology and anthropology, because it involves an archaeological approach while also existing as a form of participant observation or ethnographic inquiry into contemporary life” (Harrison and Schofield 2010:91). My starting point, as well as my point of return has, however, been archaeological. It is in the materials that have been left behind that I have started my investigations. By using the materials as a starting point and seeing them as the smaller building blocks that are, again in the words of Westin, “parts soaring upwards” (Westin 2012:39) rather than saturated with the cultural values 19
AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN and heritage categories trickling down from the top I hope to get a better understanding of how the material of the past is created at these sites. A large part of my fieldwork has been carried out in what can be called a walkover survey. Walkover survey is defined by English Heritage’s National Monuments Records Thesaurus as “A planned programme of investigation conducted within a defined area aimed at identifying and surveying previously unrecorded sites and checking the condition of known sites” (NMR Website). Similarly to this definition my investigation was carried out to identify and record remains of the former militarised border and its infrastructure that still remain in the border landscapes today. These investigations can also be considered a kind of observation. As the walkover surveys worked as a way to investigate what the border areas look like today and also how these areas are used in the present my own observations became very important. The researcher’s own influence on the material that is studied is, of course, nothing new. Whether we are conscious of it or not, we are always part of the results that we produce. Within archaeology there has been an increased focus on the reflexive since the 1990s, in particular through the work of archaeologist Ian Hodder who has written extensively on the subject and applied a more reflexive methodology at excavations at Çatalhöyük (Hodder 1997, 1999, 2000, 2003). Also involved in this research at Çatalhöyük as well as applying a reflexive methodology at the Citytunnel Project in Malmö, Sweden is archaeologist Åsa Berggren (2001, 2002, Berggren and Hodder 2000, 2003). Berggren points out that although reflexivity made a relatively late entrance on the archaeological scene it has been part of other fields such as sociology, anthropology and philosophy for longer (Berggren 2002:22). To put it simply one can say that reflexivity is about making the process of interpretation as clear as possible. To be reflexive means that we are aware that our thoughts and the choices that we make are affecting the results we get and that we as researchers have an impact on the material that we study. In this thesis I have tried to be as open as possible about the different stages I have gone through and about the development of the thought process in order to be as transparent as possible in the production of this text. Everyone makes observations but there is a distinction in using observations in a research capacity. Ethnologists Gösta Arvastson and Billy Ehn make a distinction between the everyday observations that we make as humans, an action that they claim is essential to being part of society, and the scientific observations that are part of the ethnographic method. They claim that the difference mainly lies in the reflexive nature of the latter 20
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 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 71 and 72:
AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
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?