1JZGauQ
1JZGauQ 1JZGauQ
3: THE MATERIALITY OF THE BERLIN WALL Figure 9: The course of the former wall is today marked through much of central Berlin, even in this restaurant near Potsdamer Platz. Photo: Anna McWilliams. This wall changed appearances several times in what is often referred to as ‘four generations’ of the wall. The first wall was hastily assembled in August 1961 and consisted of large square breeze blocks normally used for residential architecture. Tall Y-shaped iron rods were holding barbed wire in place on top of the wall. After some attempts at ramming the wall with heavy vehicles the breeze block wall was replaced in some areas with heavy concrete slabs. This is referred to as the second generation wall. From 1965 onwards the wall was replaced with a third generation wall of inserted concrete slabs into an H-shaped post structure of reinforced concrete. Sewage pipes were placed at the top of the wall to make it harder to climb. In the mid-1970s the co called ‘Border Wall 75’ was built. The result of several studies and tests, this wall was put together from prefabricated concrete sections, the L-shaped element UL12.41 (Klausmeier and Schmidt 2004:15– 16). This is the wall that has received the most attention and that corresponds with most peoples’ idea of what the Berlin Wall looked like. It is this wall we are used to seeing in media footage, the wall that Reagan demanded Gorbachev to move as well as the wall that hordes of tourists have had their photograph taken with since it’s erection in 1975. It is also the wall that eventually came down, the wall that we have seen images of being hacked down by crowds (Figure 10). 57
AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN Figure 10: Detail of ‘Border Wall 75’ showing iron rods clad in concrete. Photo: Anna McWilliams. 58
- 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 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: 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
- Page 79 and 80: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 81 and 82: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 83 and 84: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 85 and 86: 402 Kojsko Hum 402 THE OSIM
- Page 87 and 88: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 89 and 90: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 91 and 92: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 93 and 94: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 95 and 96: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 97 and 98: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 99 and 100: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 101 and 102: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 103 and 104: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 105 and 106: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
- Page 107 and 108: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
3: THE MATERIALITY OF THE BERLIN WALL<br />
Figure 9: The course of the former wall is today marked through much of central Berlin, even in<br />
this restaurant near Potsdamer Platz. Photo: Anna McWilliams.<br />
This wall changed appearances several times in what is often referred to as<br />
‘four generations’ of the wall. The first wall was hastily assembled in August<br />
1961 and consisted of large square breeze blocks normally used for<br />
residential architecture. Tall Y-shaped iron rods were holding barbed wire<br />
in place on top of the wall. After some attempts at ramming the wall with<br />
heavy vehicles the breeze block wall was replaced in some areas with heavy<br />
concrete slabs. This is referred to as the second generation wall. From 1965<br />
onwards the wall was replaced with a third generation wall of inserted concrete<br />
slabs into an H-shaped post structure of reinforced concrete. Sewage<br />
pipes were placed at the top of the wall to make it harder to climb. In the<br />
mid-1970s the co called ‘Border Wall 75’ was built. The result of several<br />
studies and tests, this wall was put together from prefabricated concrete<br />
sections, the L-shaped element UL12.41 (Klausmeier and Schmidt 2004:15–<br />
16). This is the wall that has received the most attention and that corresponds<br />
with most peoples’ idea of what the Berlin Wall looked like. It is<br />
this wall we are used to seeing in media footage, the wall that Reagan<br />
demanded Gorbachev to move as well as the wall that hordes of tourists<br />
have had their photograph taken with since it’s erection in 1975. It is also<br />
the wall that eventually came down, the wall that we have seen images of<br />
being hacked down by crowds (Figure 10).<br />
57