1JZGauQ
1JZGauQ 1JZGauQ
1: INTRODUCTION itioned somewhere in between a visual ethnographic commentary and artwork (Hamilakis and Anagnostopoulos 2009:288–289). According to Hamilakis and Anagnostopoulos the problem with the way that photography has traditionally been viewed in archaeology is as a “faithful, disembodied representation of reality” (Hamilakis and Anagnostopoulos 2009: 283). Instead they suggest that photographs should be seen more as a material artefact and as a mnemonic, “[i]n other words they are memories, that is reworked renderings of the things they have witnessed. They do not represent but rather recall. They do not show, but rather evoke. As such, they are material mnemonics, and as all memory, they are reworkings of the past, not a faithful reproduction of it” (Hamilakis and Anagnostopoulos 2009:289). For me the photographs are an important part of my work not because of their differences to the text but rather their similarities to it. It is through the interaction with the material through site visits and again through the photographs that I have taken that this thesis has taken shape. It is also through the interaction of both text and photographs that these pages have been created. Archaeologists Þora Pétursdottír and Bjørnar Olsen (forthcoming) have discussed the relationship between text and images and suggest that photographs are often seen as more biased than text. They mean that photographs are often considered a supplement and instead they argue that photographs should be seen as an engagement with the material. Discussing the aesthetic aspects of ruined photographs they describe the aesthetic experience as a prelinguistic condition which can be described as “an immediate reaction to confrontation with reality” (Olsen and Pétursdottír, forthcoming). Although I started photographing as documentation during my fieldwork it became so much more than this. It became an extension of the bodily engagement with the material that I came across. Some of the photos in this thesis are more of documentary character while others may seem more art-like. There has been a lot of criticism both within as well as outside the archaeological field of the more art-like aesthetic style photos (see Olsen and Pétursdottír, forthcoming) but this may also depends on who is taking the photographs. Photographer Angus Boulton’s film and photographs of Forst Zinna (2007), a Soviet military base in former East Germany, has received a lot of positive feedback. Although speaking about moving images Harrison and Schofield discuss Boulton’s film of the Forst Zinna site where they describe how he captures the feeling of the place and its abandonment, and although they suggest Boulton uses techniques that are not all that different from traditional archaeological and building 27
AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN recording methods he also manages to convey a feeling of having been there: “One feels as though one knows the site intimately – not so much its layout and plan-form, but the character of the place, its aura, and the ghosts of place that inhabit the decrepit rooms and open spaces” (Harrison and Schofield 2010:119). There are several examples of archaeological research using artists to provide an alternative perspective on the sites investigated (for examples see Cocroft and Wilson 2006, Talbot and Bradley 2006, Schofield et al. 2012) but the recording of these sites have still tended to be traditional archaeological with the artist brought in to provide the aesthetic. Within the work for this thesis I have often found myself somewhere in between: between the archaeological, the ethnographical, the photographical, the literature, the emotional, the historical, the personal and the official. And maybe this is exactly what characterises the study of an archaeology of the contemporary, you are never quite at home but never completely lost, just somewhere in between. My hope is that I have been able to shed some light on this in-betweeness and how one can make this part of a functioning methodology. The structure of the thesis follows much the same way I have come to experience this material in my work. I started with the term Iron Curtain and tried to understand where it came from, what it meant and how people had seen it throughout the twentieth century. An image of the Iron Curtain started to take form, something which is described in Chapter 2. Even though my first fieldwork was carried out in Italy/Slovenia, not Berlin, the Berlin Wall had become an important site early in my work as it was highly connected with the metaphor of the Iron Curtain, as discussed in Chapter 2. Two visits to Berlin were the result of this emerging connection and in Chapter 3 I discuss the materiality of the Berlin Wall as experienced during these two visits as well as through archaeological and literary sources. The fieldwork in Italy/Slovenia (Chapter 4) and Czech Republic/Austria (Chapter 5) provides the majority of the empirical material on which my discussions and conclusions are based. These conclusions are mainly presented in Chapter 6 although they are also present in Chapters 4 and 5. Case studies The area used for my first field research is located on the border between Italy and Slovenia around the two towns of Gorizia (in Italy) and Nova Gorica (in Slovenia) (Chapter 4). The border was re-drawn here following 28
- 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 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: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 49 and 50: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 51 and 52: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 53 and 54: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 55 and 56: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 57 and 58: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 59 and 60: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 61 and 62: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 63 and 64: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 65 and 66: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 67 and 68: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 69 and 70: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- 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: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 77 and 78: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN<br />
recording methods he also manages to convey a feeling of having been<br />
there: “One feels as though one knows the site intimately – not so much its<br />
layout and plan-form, but the character of the place, its aura, and the ghosts<br />
of place that inhabit the decrepit rooms and open spaces” (Harrison and<br />
Schofield 2010:119). There are several examples of archaeological research<br />
using artists to provide an alternative perspective on the sites investigated<br />
(for examples see Cocroft and Wilson 2006, Talbot and Bradley 2006,<br />
Schofield et al. 2012) but the recording of these sites have still tended to be<br />
traditional archaeological with the artist brought in to provide the aesthetic.<br />
Within the work for this thesis I have often found myself somewhere in<br />
between: between the archaeological, the ethnographical, the photographical,<br />
the literature, the emotional, the historical, the personal and the<br />
official. And maybe this is exactly what characterises the study of an<br />
archaeology of the contemporary, you are never quite at home but never<br />
completely lost, just somewhere in between. My hope is that I have been<br />
able to shed some light on this in-betweeness and how one can make this<br />
part of a functioning methodology.<br />
The structure of the thesis follows much the same way I have come to<br />
experience this material in my work. I started with the term Iron Curtain<br />
and tried to understand where it came from, what it meant and how people<br />
had seen it throughout the twentieth century. An image of the Iron Curtain<br />
started to take form, something which is described in Chapter 2. Even<br />
though my first fieldwork was carried out in Italy/Slovenia, not Berlin, the<br />
Berlin Wall had become an important site early in my work as it was highly<br />
connected with the metaphor of the Iron Curtain, as discussed in Chapter 2.<br />
Two visits to Berlin were the result of this emerging connection and in<br />
Chapter 3 I discuss the materiality of the Berlin Wall as experienced during<br />
these two visits as well as through archaeological and literary sources. The<br />
fieldwork in Italy/Slovenia (Chapter 4) and Czech Republic/Austria<br />
(Chapter 5) provides the majority of the empirical material on which my<br />
discussions and conclusions are based. These conclusions are mainly presented<br />
in Chapter 6 although they are also present in Chapters 4 and 5.<br />
Case studies<br />
The area used for my first field research is located on the border between<br />
Italy and Slovenia around the two towns of Gorizia (in Italy) and Nova<br />
Gorica (in Slovenia) (Chapter 4). The border was re-drawn here following<br />
28
Change language