<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>RUIN MEMORIES</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ruinmemories.org/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ruinmemories.org</link>
	<description>Materiality, aesthetics and the archaeology of the recent past</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 19:31:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Burström Releases Book: Treasured memories</title>
		<link>http://ruinmemories.org/2012/03/burstrom-release-book-treasured-memories/</link>
		<comments>http://ruinmemories.org/2012/03/burstrom-release-book-treasured-memories/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2012 03:21:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ruinmemories.org/?p=687</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>Mats Burström: Treasured Memories. Tales of buried belongings in wartime Estonia. Lund, Nordic Academic Press (2012).</p>
<p>In the autumn of 1944, around 70,000 people fled Estonia in the face of the Red Army advance. Most of them believed the Soviet occupation would be shortlived and they would soon be able to return home, so many of them hid the most valuable of their belongings they were unable to carry, burying them in ‘safe’ places. Until Stalin’s death in 1953, Estonians continued [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-688" title="&quot;Treasured Memories&quot;" src="http://ruinmemories.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Fig.-1.1-150x150.jpg" alt="" width="150" height="150" /></p>
<p>Mats Burström: <em>Treasured Memories. Tales of buried belongings in wartime Estonia</em>. Lund, Nordic Academic Press (2012).</p>
<p>In the autumn of 1944, around 70,000 people fled Estonia in the face of the Red Army advance. Most of them believed the Soviet occupation would be shortlived and they would soon be able to return home, so many of them hid the most valuable of their belongings they were unable to carry, burying them in ‘safe’ places. Until Stalin’s death in 1953, Estonians continued to bury objects to hide them, now for fear of deportation to Siberia.</p>
<p>
<!-- Powered by Cincopa WordPress plugin wp1.76: http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/wordpress-plugin.aspx -->
<div id="_cp_widget_4fb850432643a"><img src="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/runtime/loading.gif" style="border:0;" alt="Powered by Cincopa WordPress plugin" /></div>
<script src="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/runtime/libasync.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
// PLEASE CHANGE DEFAULT EXCERPT HANDLING TO CLEAN OR FULL (go to your WordPress Dashboard/Settings/Cincopa Options ...
cp_load_widget("%5Bcincopa+AkEAg16pFH_Y%5D", "_cp_widget_4fb850432643a");
</script>
<noscript>Click <a href="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/view.aspx?fid=%5Bcincopa+AkEAg16pFH_Y%5D">here</a> to open the gallery.<br>Powered by Cincopa <a href="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/wordpress-plugin.aspx">wp content plugins</a> solution for your website and Cincopa MediaSend for <a href="http://www.cincopa.com/mediasend/start.aspx">file transfer</a>.</noscript></p>
<p>In Treasured memories, the archaeologist Mats Burström tells the stories of some of these hoards: the ones that remain buried, the ones that vanished, and the ones that were recovered and have found a place in new contexts. Their sheer variety brings together all levels of history, from personal memories to high politics, and reflects how events on the world stage can shape the fate of individual families, even across several generations.</p>
<p>The book is also published in a sister volume in Swedish.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ruinmemories.org/2012/03/burstrom-release-book-treasured-memories/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SVÆRHOLT: Memories of a Northern War Site</title>
		<link>http://ruinmemories.org/2012/03/svaerholt-memories-of-a-northern-war-site/</link>
		<comments>http://ruinmemories.org/2012/03/svaerholt-memories-of-a-northern-war-site/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2012 04:41:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ruin Vignettes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ruinmemories.org/?p=673</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>by Bjørnar Olsen and Christopher Witmore</p>
<p></p>
<p>Sværholt is a cape set between the wide fjords of Porsanger and Laksefjord in the northernmost Norwegian region of Finnmark (Figure 1).  The cape exhibits the characteristic topography of this northern coastline: a flat barren summit that from its northern edge plunges suddenly and steeply into the sea. On the southern side, the cape descends more or less evenly into a low isthmus connecting the cape with the main Sværholt peninsula. At either end of this [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>by Bjørnar Olsen and Christopher Witmore</p>
<p><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-675" title="Svaerholt" src="http://ruinmemories.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/introphotoA-590x442.jpg" alt="" width="590" height="442" /></p>
<p>Sværholt is a cape set between the wide fjords of Porsanger and Laksefjord in the northernmost Norwegian region of Finnmark (Figure 1).  The cape exhibits the characteristic topography of this northern coastline: a flat barren summit that from its northern edge plunges suddenly and steeply into the sea. On the southern side, the cape descends more or less evenly into a low isthmus connecting the cape with the main Sværholt peninsula. At either end of this isthmus are two small bays – the western is known as Eidsbukt, the eastern is called Sværholt proper, which for centuries hosted a small fishing hamlet (Figure 2).</p>
<p>In 1942 Sværholt became part of the gigantic German <em>Atlantikwall</em> defense line project mobilizing ca. 1500 costal batteries built along the Atlantic coastline from eastern Finnmark to the Spanish border. The artillery battery was perched at the summit of the cape (Figure 3) and comprised of six 145mm, long-range guns – capable of delivering a shell up to a distance of 18,000 m. The additional inventory of defensive weapons included anti-aircraft, anti-tank and field guns, flamethrowers, light machine guns, large spotlights, and 1778 land mines placed round the headland; another 800 naval mines were placed in the sea around the cape.</p>
<p>Accessed by a winding road built from the harbor in east bay, the fortified heights also included bunkers and various installations. The command and control bunker was set just a few meters from the northern crags and was connected with other units through an intricate system of dug-out tunnels that also acted as shelters, escape routes and munitions storage (Figure 4). Scattered along the upper slope to the south stood numerous buildings; mostly blockhouses serving various purposes (warming shelters, quartering and mess/kitchen for soldiers on duty). Their rear wall is often cut out of the escarpment while the front and gable walls are remarkable for their carefully stacked stone construction (Figure 5).</p>
<p>The main German garrison facilities were integrated within the fishing hamlet on the eastern side of the cape. Numerous buildings were erected out of prefabricated materials for living, storage, administration, health care, etc. In the west bay (Eidsbukt) the Germans placed the camp for the Soviet Prisoners-of-War along with watch posts, trenches, barbed wire obstacles and an extensive minefield. The coastal battery was manned by a German force of 150 soldiers and officers. The POW camp normally contained 50-60 Soviet prisoners. During WW2 Soviet prisoners of war served as a work force for the extensive German building projects in Norway. Out of approximately 90,000 prisoners, 13,000 would end their life here. 468 POW camps were established in Norway, far the most in the north.</p>
<p>In the fall 1944 the German occupation of Finnmark came to an end.  In October the Soviet troops launched a massive attack on the eastern Litza front (50 km east of the Norwegian-Russian border). The Germans were forced to flee and in anticipation of an invasion by the Soviet army (which never occurred) they gave up the eastern front and redrew from Finnmark. On October 28, 1944 Adolf Hitler issued a <em>Fürerbefhel</em> ordering the complete and forced evacuation also of the entire local population, as well as the implementation of <em>Verbrannte Erde</em>, scorched earth (Figure 6). Less than one month later 50,000 people had been evacuated, while the remaining 23,000 had escaped into the mountains.  Scorched in the course of this month in the high north were 10,563 homes, 4711 barns,  ca 350 bridges, piers and light houses, 106 schools, 471 shops, 53 hotels and guesthouses, 21 hospitals, 27 churches, 141 chapels and gathering houses,  and 229 factories and workshops. Boats and roads were destroyed, 22000 telegraph poles chopped down. Livestock and family pets killed. As the troops retreated nothing of advantage was to have been left for the enemy, including those locals who had escaped into the mountains.</p>
<p>Needless to say, Sværholt was part of this process. The locals were deported along with the soldiers and the POWs. Between the 11<sup>th</sup> and the 15<sup>th</sup> of November 1944 the settlement was burnt down and military installations destroyed or dismantled. The command bunker, gun emplacements, and auxiliary bunkers were all lined with explosives and blasted (Figure 7). All over these heights and along the slopes, shards of concrete and iron, chunks of stone and rebar, the remains of blast debris still lay more or less where they fell (Figure 8).</p>
<p>
<!-- Powered by Cincopa WordPress plugin wp1.76: http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/wordpress-plugin.aspx -->
<div id="_cp_widget_4fb8504331016"><img src="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/runtime/loading.gif" style="border:0;" alt="Powered by Cincopa WordPress plugin" /></div>
<script src="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/runtime/libasync.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
// PLEASE CHANGE DEFAULT EXCERPT HANDLING TO CLEAN OR FULL (go to your WordPress Dashboard/Settings/Cincopa Options ...
cp_load_widget("%5Bcincopa+AkPAo1Kb_x7l%5D", "_cp_widget_4fb8504331016");
</script>
<noscript>Click <a href="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/view.aspx?fid=%5Bcincopa+AkPAo1Kb_x7l%5D">here</a> to open the gallery.<br>Powered by Cincopa <a href="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/wordpress-plugin.aspx">wp content plugins</a> solution for your website and Cincopa MediaSend for <a href="http://www.cincopa.com/mediasend/start.aspx">file transfer</a>.</noscript> <em>Figures 1-8</em></p>
<p><strong>The POW camp at Sværholt</strong></p>
<p>Initial surveys conducted in 2001 and 2010 drew our attention to Sværholt’s war heritage and prompted us to consider how it could be approached archaeologically. A start at exploring some of this potential, a small crew of four archaeologists  - Radoslaw Grabowski, Bjørnar Olsen, Þóra Pétursdóttir, and Christopher Witmore -  conducted a preliminary investigation of the POW camp in July 2011 as part of the Ruin Memories project.  We set out to accomplish three main tasks: firstly, to conduct a detailed survey of the camp area and to map all structure visible at the surface; secondly, to undertake soil chemical sampling of the entire camp area, mostly for phosphate analysis, in order to identify activity and residue areas not visible at the surface; and finally, to excavate test trenches in dwellings and other structures.</p>
<p>The POW camp is situated on a flat and grassy area at the base of the raised-beach terrace at the end of a small drainage where the creek meets the broad platform of the lower fossil beach at Eidsbukt (Figure 9 and 10). It is sighted between the observation posts for the western bay and the two lines of barbed wire emplacements intersecting the wide fossil beach area. The surveillance infrastructure was established along the edge of the raised-beach terrace for the coastal defenses and doubled as a monitoring station for the POWs below. Consisting of erstwhile zigzag trenches, guard posts/gun emplacements, light poles and foundations for spotlights, the primary monitoring station for the camp was concentrated on either side of the drainage. The zigzag trench on the south side of the drainage terminates in an observation nest set in a stone revetment under a roof of reused railroad ties and turf.</p>
<p>Measuring 42 x 42 meters and quadratic in outline, the camp was completely surrounded by a double perimeter fence (Figure 11). On the south, this double line was set on vertical wooden posts; most of the stubs are still visible. Many of the poles lay where they fell. On the north, the second line was set on screw pickets, many still breaking through the heath. The main gate is situated next to the northeastern corner and connected to the road leading to the battery and the garrison. Along the creek, which intersects the south side of the camp, but outside the fence, a stone paved path provided an elevated route across the marshy ground. At its southern end stone built steps leads up to the presumed camp latrine set in a rock shelter (Figure 12). Two toilet benches are set in stacked stone – privacy is afforded by a low front stonewall, the height of which also allows for impromptu inspection. Immediately to the west of the rock shelter is another barbed wire fence, which terminates on a steep angle at a higher cliff face, and thus blocks any possibility of escape.</p>
<p>Inside the camp are the remains of six dwellings (see Figure 11). Of these sod foundations – remains of a turf lining set around the base of the structures to protect the inhabitants from the cold – four are circular and two are rectilinear. The circular tents were constructed of thin prefabricated plywood and the rectangular ones went with more ordinary barracks. In one of the circular dwellings, a large iron basin in the shape of a squat bell remains. Just a few meters east of the camp, and slightly elevated, we find the dwellings used as warming huts and rest by the guards on duty. These are hardly distinguishable from those provided for the inmates (the same plywood tent).  Near the gate at the northeast section of the camp is an intact stone-built oven (Figure 13). The oven was constructed of stacked stone. The interstices were packed with concrete by hand; fingerprints are still visible. Such open-air ovens are, in this area, an unmistakable Russian material signature; they are even called “Russian stoves”, and were used at least since the Middle Ages for baking bread.  Its presence in this context, even with a hybrid dash of German concrete, is a sign of at least some tolerance or acceptance of culturally specific behavior. For some reason it was among the few things not destroyed.</p>
<p>
<!-- Powered by Cincopa WordPress plugin wp1.76: http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/wordpress-plugin.aspx -->
<div id="_cp_widget_4fb85043317e2"><img src="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/runtime/loading.gif" style="border:0;" alt="Powered by Cincopa WordPress plugin" /></div>
<script src="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/runtime/libasync.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
// PLEASE CHANGE DEFAULT EXCERPT HANDLING TO CLEAN OR FULL (go to your WordPress Dashboard/Settings/Cincopa Options ...
cp_load_widget("%5Bcincopa+AAJAC1qf_RCn%5D", "_cp_widget_4fb85043317e2");
</script>
<noscript>Click <a href="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/view.aspx?fid=%5Bcincopa+AAJAC1qf_RCn%5D">here</a> to open the gallery.<br>Powered by Cincopa <a href="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/wordpress-plugin.aspx">wp content plugins</a> solution for your website and Cincopa MediaSend for <a href="http://www.cincopa.com/mediasend/start.aspx">file transfer</a>.</noscript> <em>Figures 9-13</em></p>
<p><strong>The investigations</strong></p>
<p>Our fieldwork began with the excavation of six small test trenches (see Figure 11). Excavation trenches were undertaken in areas where the remnants of sod foundations, stubs of posts, or other features suggested the likelihood of success with respect to gathering information about the camp and its daily life. Soil samples were extracted from a 75 x 65 m area covering the fenced area of the camp and the immediate surroundings. These were subsequently analyzed for inorganic phosphate content (CitP) (Figure 14) and magnetic susceptibility (MS) (Figure 15). Elevated phosphate levels are in this context likely to represent bone refuse and human and animal waste products, while MS may indicate high heat exposure and thus the presence of fires, hearths, etc. The sampling and analyses were conducted by Radoslaw Grabowski and the Environmental Archaeology Laboratory at Umeå University in Sweden.</p>
<p>Trench 1 was situated in the middle of the sod foundations for the south easternmost circular tents. Measuring 1 x 2 with a small 1 x .5 meter extension to the north, this trench was aligned with respect to the large iron basin (Figure 16). Just under the turf was a stone lined hearth containing coal and iron slag. Around the natural stone there was a thin layer of concrete that had been spread out in several phases. Assuming the large basin once set above this hearth, it is likely that it was enrolled either as a large cauldron or a bathtub. Originally this structure probably had an earth floor similar to the others, but at some point a circular stone-lined hearth was constructed – fitting the iron cauldron, while the rest of the floor was lined in a thin concrete covering.  In step with these changes the dwelling probably ceased to be used as living quarters, and became more of a tent for food preparation, bathing and/or laundry (this structure is situated next to the creek).  The low phosphate level and elevated MS levels in the samples from this structure may speak in favor of the latter option, though a few fish and animal bones were recovered from the trench.</p>
<p>Trench 2 was excavated across the turf lining and door opening towards the center of the floor in the westernmost circular tent (Figure 17). The floor level was formed when turf was removed from the inside and used as a basis for the turf layer around the outside of the plywood structure. This trench exposed a wooden doorstep, and  deposits of coal use for firing immediately outside of this opening (the trench did not extend far enough into the center to expose a possible central hearth). The floor had no stone or wood covering and consisted of trampled earth in which one posthole was found, and also some intentionally dug pits containing artifacts (possibly hideaways). Small amounts of plywood were found scattered on the floor along with some other wood fragments probably stemming from the framework.</p>
<p>A 1 x 2 meter unit, trench 3 was excavated at the opening of a concrete channel associated with the oven. The opening of the channel doubled as an exposed pit, which was filled with the front portion of an iron stove (Figure 18). Other debris from this stove, including the stone lining and the rear wall, was found near the two sod foundations to the west of the stone oven. The opening to the concrete channel was lined with stones. Inside, the channel remained an open void. Its bottom was covered with metal fragments, screws, nails, and barbed wire. The stone oven was constructed of stacked stone and packed with concrete by hand (see Figure 13). The top is covered with large stone slabs, with a small opening at center. This opening was crowned by a makeshift iron flue. Inside there were no discernable traces of cooking (blackened stone or wood). Wooded framing around the front opening, including a wooden lintel, suggests that it may have been used as a smoker and/or was built shortly before the evacuation.  It is interesting to note the high levels of phosphate (and MS) just to the east of this structure, possibly indicating an area intensively used in the preparation of animal-based food (see Figure 14 and 15).</p>
<p>Trench 4 was excavated across one of the rectangular turf-lined foundations, providing evidence for an elevated floor that resting o the stacked stones that remain in the interior. Finds in this trench were quite close to the surface, suggesting that they had fallen between, or had been hidden away beneath, the floor planks. Trench 5 was a 1 x 3 meter unit encompassing the remnants of the two gateposts (see Figure 28). The posts were set in holes packed tight with stones. The southern post had a slight rise on the exterior stone, perhaps to secure the gate at the base.</p>
<p>Trench 6 was a 1 x 1 meter test pit into a dump just outside the northern perimeter of the camp. The dump was recognized late in the course of taking soil samples and probably covers a quite substantial area as indicated by the phosphate and MS analyses. The test pit suggests that the trash had been deposited in large pits (Figure 19); probably dug by the inmates. Despite the small size of the trench, huge and varied amounts of garbage were found here; alcohol bottles, tin cans, bones, plastic, string, slag, coke and coal, wood, rubber, etc.</p>
<p>
<!-- Powered by Cincopa WordPress plugin wp1.76: http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/wordpress-plugin.aspx -->
<div id="_cp_widget_4fb8504331fb0"><img src="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/runtime/loading.gif" style="border:0;" alt="Powered by Cincopa WordPress plugin" /></div>
<script src="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/runtime/libasync.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
// PLEASE CHANGE DEFAULT EXCERPT HANDLING TO CLEAN OR FULL (go to your WordPress Dashboard/Settings/Cincopa Options ...
cp_load_widget("%5Bcincopa+AABA71qB_Vdo%5D", "_cp_widget_4fb8504331fb0");
</script>
<noscript>Click <a href="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/view.aspx?fid=%5Bcincopa+AABA71qB_Vdo%5D">here</a> to open the gallery.<br>Powered by Cincopa <a href="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/wordpress-plugin.aspx">wp content plugins</a> solution for your website and Cincopa MediaSend for <a href="http://www.cincopa.com/mediasend/start.aspx">file transfer</a>.</noscript> <em>Figures 14-19</em></p>
<p><strong>Finds</strong></p>
<p>The artifacts retrieved from this trench and the trenches inside the POW camp allow us to explore some issues with respect to our aim in flushing out the contributions of an archaeological approach at Sværholt. Most of the artifacts consisted of iron debris, nails, bolts, barbed wire fragments, wood pieces, coke/coal, etc, but among them were also other, more peculiar finds, which we shall briefly present.</p>
<p><em>Alcohol bottles</em> – A large number of the fragmented bottles once contained hard liquor (Figure 20); these relate most likely to the presence of guards in the camp area. It is well known that German soldier were given alcohol to cope with the misery of life on the frontlines and in battle, but Sværholt never witnessed the horrors of battle. Thus to find these bottles here in such large quantities may speak more to the hardship of manning an outpost in the far north. However, fragments of bottles were also found in the inmates dwellings. Could these be the remains of contraband activity or other illegal transactions? A medicine (or toiletry) bottle was also found in trench 1 (Figure 21).</p>
<p><em>Food items</em> – A substantial number of tin cans of various shapes and sizes were uncovered in both the midden and the camp dwellings (Figure 22).  The fragmented remains of the packaging for a field ration were also found. Fish and animal bones (yet to be determined) were also quite plentiful but mainly in the midden, which suggests the use of local resources.</p>
<p><em>Footwear –</em> Large quantities of debris from shoemaking – mostly cuts of rubber, but even a few pieces of leather – were found in trench 2 (Figure 23).  The most common footwear for the prisoners was clogs or “slippers”, and some of the half cuts that were found are probably hoods for such wooden footwear.  The amount of material from one dwelling suggests a certain allowance for the practicing of particular skills. In trench 1 a German, iron boot heal and toe plate were also found, the former partly encased in concrete.</p>
<p><em>Game pieces </em>– Two identical (one fragmented) game pieces made of white glass were found in two different dwellings (trench 2 and 4) (Figure 24). Such finds give face to another side of life in the camp and speak both to internal sharing, and outside transactions.</p>
<p><em>Pipe cleaners – </em>a set of pipe cleaners was found hidden underneath the floor in the barrack trench (Figure 25). What are such items doing in a POW camp? How did they get here? Along with alcohol, tobacco is not on the common list of rations for the prisoners<em>. </em>Still a tiny fragment of a pipe shaft was found in the round house nearby.</p>
<p><em>The 11.5 mm cartridge –</em> this cartridge was yet another find from trench 2. It is an 11.5 mm cartridge containing the head stamp “RA” and year “1941” (Figure 26).  RA may mean the Remington Arms company; however, this cartridge is produced by the Norwegian Raufoss Ammunisjonsfabrikk, that the Germans took over after their occupation in 1940. They produced these cartridges for a special pistol, the 11.25 mm Automatic Colt Pistol, manufactured by another Norwegian arms factory taken over by the Germans, Kongsberg Våpenfabrikk. In this factory the Germans produced more than 8000 pistols to be used as everyday “hand weapons” for officers. A proof of violence, a fatal accident; or even an execution inside a dwelling; or just a warning shot? The Colt was fired, no doubt, but so far we may just speculate as to what or who it was aiming at.</p>
<p>There were other finds such as a needle for mending fish nets, buttons (one from a Italian WWII camouflage <em>Zeltbahn</em>, carrying the inscription “EQUIPEMENTS MILITAIRES”), a homemade flat-pressed zinc bucket (found hidden (?) under the floor in trench 2) (Figure 27), and even a plectrum for a string instrument. Some of these small, recovered things suggest that rules were negotiated or at least that there were some acceptance of deviant behaviour. They possibly also suggest networks for the movement of contraband and for bartering; a hidden “economy” where desired goods were circulating.</p>
<p>
<!-- Powered by Cincopa WordPress plugin wp1.76: http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/wordpress-plugin.aspx -->
<div id="_cp_widget_4fb850433277e"><img src="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/runtime/loading.gif" style="border:0;" alt="Powered by Cincopa WordPress plugin" /></div>
<script src="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/runtime/libasync.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
// PLEASE CHANGE DEFAULT EXCERPT HANDLING TO CLEAN OR FULL (go to your WordPress Dashboard/Settings/Cincopa Options ...
cp_load_widget("%5Bcincopa+A4DAk1qH_10o%5D", "_cp_widget_4fb850433277e");
</script>
<noscript>Click <a href="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/view.aspx?fid=%5Bcincopa+A4DAk1qH_10o%5D">here</a> to open the gallery.<br>Powered by Cincopa <a href="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/wordpress-plugin.aspx">wp content plugins</a> solution for your website and Cincopa MediaSend for <a href="http://www.cincopa.com/mediasend/start.aspx">file transfer</a>.</noscript> <em>Figures 20-27</em></p>
<p><strong>The memories that things hold</strong></p>
<p>To speak of the memories that things hold does not imply that a bundle of pipe cleaners, fragments of burned glass, a machine gun nest or the vestiges of a wooden threshold are passive carriers of past meaning; neither do these things act as faithful intermediaries to those kinetic experiences which occurred around them. Nor should the memories that things hold be conflated with the conscious and willful faculty of human recollection. Rather what is crucial is the “isomorphic” capacity of things, a capacity of bringing the very <em>particular </em>aspect of their own pastness to us. This also involves a care for the ineffable, for that which escapes historical consciousness, for that which is regarded as too trivial, as self evident or even too embarrassing to be spoken or written about. Such concerns relate to how to make the outdoor oven work properly, how to replace the hood on a clog, how to keep warm using had-hoc materials in the middle of winter, how to fight lice, or how to defecate on a freezing stone bench in a rock shelter latrine.</p>
<p>Surely, things’ memories are also ambiguous; we cannot know for sure if the alcohol one held by the bottles in the garbage pits were consumed by the guards alone or shared. We cannot say if the guards were German or Austrian. We cannot say if they were old or young. We do not know who fired the shot inside the dwelling. The ambiguities of material memory often swallow any trace of human specificity. However, what this form of memory loses in anonymity, it gains in another kind of nearness, intimacy and directness; one whose eloquence lies not in words but is imbedded as expressive statements in rolls of barbed wired, in blasted bunker, or in a flattened zinc bucket stuck away under a floor. This is part of the propensity of things.</p>
<p>Clearly, we should not overdo the difference between conscious memory and material memory. Things also act as facilitators of memory of the first kind, as triggers of particular memories that by nature often are involuntary.  They may thus light up a wider field and provoke us to reflect in a conscious way about those no longer present.  Still, we think that these reflections somehow differ from other recollections. And without claiming any pretentious mode of reenactment, we are convinced that a material – or an archaeological engagement – with Sværholt also makes us think its past different. There is something else to the immanent craft of archaeology, to cutting heath and moving stone, to working on ones knees through the cold rain, to see, hear and feel the land and the sea, to drinking from the stream and washing with cold water in the midst of this place where Soviet POWs lived and suffered. This is all very different from reading about Sværholt in the comfort of our study. It adds an experiential and phenomenological dimension that should not be underrated when trying to understand what happened here 70 years ago (Figure 28).</p>
<p><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-674" title="Figure 28" src="http://ruinmemories.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Figure-28-590x442.jpg" alt="" width="590" height="442" /></p>
<p><em>Figure 28</em></p>
<p>Directly witnessing how close – and how similar – the guards and the guarded lived, for example, leads you to contemplate their <em>common</em> fate as stranded individuals from faraway southern places.  Sværholt is a lonely cape, and the winter is indeed long and dark at 71° N. There was no escape. Consider the experience of spending months watching each other through the fence, of climbing the winding road to the ice and snow covered summit of the cape during winter darkness with the foaming sea deep below, not knowing when – or if – you could leave. There is a common saying about those German soldiers that turned the blind eye to when POWs received food from locals or that broke the rules in any other ways: “those who looked away.” Maybe Sværholt, more than other place, afforded such behavior – even some fragile bonding – as also witnessed by the archaeological material.</p>
<p>The German POW camps have been described as technologies of terror, as theaters of bestiality, and, in retrospect, as painful heritage. And rightly so, they were undoubtedly not the place one wanted to end up.  Thus what we need is not yet another revisionist account but a thicker description; a more nuanced and detail-rich exposition that, for good or for bad, also allows for the less obvious, the over-looked, the othered, the non-canonical. The memories that things hold are less judgmental, less prejudiced, they are more subtle, more open. It is our conviction that archaeology, in both the most generous and explicit conception of the term, can contribute significantly to thickening this remembrance. The work undertaken at Sværholt, despite is very limited and preliminary character has for us proved this potential and revealed some of the many memories that it holds.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ruinmemories.org/2012/03/svaerholt-memories-of-a-northern-war-site/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The &#8220;Archaeology of Memory&#8221; at the Sorø Kuntsmuseum</title>
		<link>http://ruinmemories.org/2012/02/the-archaeology-of-memory-at-the-sor%c3%b8-kuntsmuseum/</link>
		<comments>http://ruinmemories.org/2012/02/the-archaeology-of-memory-at-the-sor%c3%b8-kuntsmuseum/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:16:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ruinmemories.org/?p=667</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>The Archaeology of Memory is the first of three projected exhibitions about materiality. The other materiality exhibitions will be in 2013 (soil) and 2014 (immateriality). This first exhibition takes its point of departure in materiality understood as things and the &#8216;thingness&#8217; of things. The tactile, sensuous qualities of things, and how things relate to our memory and our history. Things are not dead matter but play an active role in our lives, in learning and remembering. Things shape culture and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-thumbnail wp-image-668" title="Exhibition_Soro_Kunstmuseum" src="http://ruinmemories.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Exhibition_Soro_Kunstmuseum-150x150.jpg" alt="" width="150" height="150" /></p>
<p>The <em>Archaeology of Memory</em> is the first of three projected exhibitions about materiality. The other materiality exhibitions will be in 2013 (soil) and 2014 (immateriality). This first exhibition takes its point of departure in materiality understood as things and the &#8216;thingness&#8217; of things. The tactile, sensuous qualities of things, and how things relate to our memory and our history. Things are not dead matter but play an active role in our lives, in learning and remembering. Things shape culture and vic-versa. Things govern our movements, actions, experiences, and memories. And vice -versa. Things create meaning.</p>
<p>The science of things is archaeology. The artists featured at the exhibition all share an approximately archaeological practice. Like archaeologists they work with cultural and historical modes of expression, analyse them, translate them and transform them with a particular respect for materiality. The materialities at the exhibition are mahogany, cigarette butts, cloth, iron, plants, bronze, corn, porcelain, smell, paper, fox teeth, hair, whale bones, seashells, wax, seaweed, bamboo, sound, disco spots, soil, feathers and much more.</p>
<p>The works analyse the magical qualities of things and materiality per se; the museums’ representations of other cultures, translations of cultural traditions and their object-ive productions; the show presents the collective memory in the shape of the smell of First World War battlefields, and stone-like chunks, former STASI-files, shredded, pressed together, and thrown in the sewer system of Leipzig.</p>
<p>The artists are: Martin Erik Andersen (DK), Ib Braase (DK), Emil Westman Hertz (DK), Daniel Knorr (RO), Marie Søndergaard Lolk (DK), Gitte Schäfer (DE) og Sissel Tolaas (NO).</p>
<p>The exhibition is curated by Birgitte Kirkhoff Eriksen. It is accompanied by a catalogue with contributions from Bjørnar Olsen, Bruno Schulz, Francis Ponge/Teddy Josephsen, Peter H. Olesen and the artists. The exhibition is supported by The Danish Art Council and Overretssagfører L. Zeuthens Mindelegat.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ruinmemories.org/2012/02/the-archaeology-of-memory-at-the-sor%c3%b8-kuntsmuseum/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Falmouth Workshop</title>
		<link>http://ruinmemories.org/2011/12/falmouth-workshop/</link>
		<comments>http://ruinmemories.org/2011/12/falmouth-workshop/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 21:16:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Meetings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ruinmemories.org/?p=656</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>All images courtesy of Elin Andreassen.</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>
<!-- Powered by Cincopa WordPress plugin wp1.76: http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/wordpress-plugin.aspx -->
<div id="_cp_widget_4fb8504336214"><img src="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/runtime/loading.gif" style="border:0;" alt="Powered by Cincopa WordPress plugin" /></div>
<script src="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/runtime/libasync.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
// PLEASE CHANGE DEFAULT EXCERPT HANDLING TO CLEAN OR FULL (go to your WordPress Dashboard/Settings/Cincopa Options ...
cp_load_widget("%5Bcincopa+AEOA1yKzkVZl%5D", "_cp_widget_4fb8504336214");
</script>
<noscript>Click <a href="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/view.aspx?fid=%5Bcincopa+AEOA1yKzkVZl%5D">here</a> to open the gallery.<br>Powered by Cincopa <a href="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/wordpress-plugin.aspx">wp content plugins</a> solution for your website and Cincopa MediaSend for <a href="http://www.cincopa.com/mediasend/start.aspx">file transfer</a>.</noscript></p>
<p>All images courtesy of Elin Andreassen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ruinmemories.org/2011/12/falmouth-workshop/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ruin Memories: Materialities, aesthetics and the archaeology of the recent past</title>
		<link>http://ruinmemories.org/2011/11/a-book-for-routledge-ruin-memories-materialities-aesthetics-and-the-archaeology-of-the-recent-past/</link>
		<comments>http://ruinmemories.org/2011/11/a-book-for-routledge-ruin-memories-materialities-aesthetics-and-the-archaeology-of-the-recent-past/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:13:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ruinmemories.org/?p=650</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Numerous studies have focused on modernity’s destructive effect on traditional life-worlds, the desertion of villages and the ruination of rural areas. However, the fact that the modern condition also produces its own ruined materialities, its own marginalized pasts, has been less spoken about. Since the 19th century, mass-production, consumerism and cycles of material replacement have accelerated; increasingly larger amounts of things are increasingly rapidly victimized and made redundant. At the same time processes of destruction have immensely intensified, although largely [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Numerous studies have focused on modernity’s destructive effect on traditional life-worlds, the desertion of villages and the ruination of rural areas. However, the fact that the modern condition also produces its own ruined materialities, its own marginalized pasts, has been less spoken about. Since the 19th century, mass-production, consumerism and cycles of material replacement have accelerated; increasingly larger amounts of things are increasingly rapidly victimized and made redundant. At the same time processes of destruction have immensely intensified, although largely overlooked when compared to the research and social significance devoted to consumption and production (González-Ruibal 2006, 2008). The outcome is a ruin landscape of derelict factories, closed shopping malls, overgrown bunkers and redundant mining towns; a ghostly world of decaying modern debris normally left out of academic concerns and conventional histories. </p>
<p>The fate of these residues of the recent past typifies a dominant attitude towards things and materiality in western, modern society involving an oppositional hierarchy between, on the one hand, functional and/or aesthetically pleasing things and, on the other, waste – all rubbish supposed to be eradicated by increasingly more effective systems of disposal and recycling (Lucas 2002, Shanks et.al. 2004, Scanlan 2005). Heritage practices may at first be seen to be mediating this opposition, reflecting a care for and attentiveness to the useless and stranded. Heritage, however, contains its own regimes of cultural valuing and othering. In the dominant conception ruins are old, they have an “age-value” which is imperative also to their legal and cultural-historical appreciation. Judged by this criterion, modern ruins become ambiguous, even anachronistic. In their hybrid or uncanny state they become antonyms of the modern and blur established cultural categories of purity and dirt; in short, they become matter out of place – and out of time. Lingering on at the outskirts of society they have become places of abjection, giving face to a past too recent, too grim and repulsive to be embraced as heritage.</p>
<p>There are, however, signs of changing attitudes. The archaeology of the recent or contemporary past has grown fast during the last decade and the field’s “representational archive” has gained an impressive referential mass (e.g. Buchli and Lucas 2001, Olivier 2008, Piccini and Holtorf 2009, Harrison &#038; Schofield, 2010). This development has been concurrent with a broader popular, artistic and scholarly interest in modern ruins in general (Romany 2010, Rowsdower 2011).  Some scholars now even speak of a “turn to ruins… that is analogous to the craze for romantic ruins in the Victorian era” (Edensor 2011: 162). Moreover, this development also coincides remarkably with the fate of things in social and cultural research, where a long period of neglect has been claimed superseded by a current “turn to things” (Trentmann 2009, Olsen 2010). How do these twists and turns affect on the way we conceive the ruins of the recent past? To what extent will they change disciplinary perspectives and territories, heritage programs and practices, or ways of mediating and presenting the past? In short, to what extent do they signal a new ecology of practices (Stengers 2005) that significantly alters the way we conceive of materiality, aesthetics and the contemporary past itself? </p>
<p>This book addresses these topics and questions and sets out to accomplish two major goals. The first is to explore how the ruins of modernity are conceived and assigned cultural value in contemporary academic and public discourses.  Since their reception is changing this requires two seemingly opposing sets of inquiry. On the one hand, to scrutinize the normative categorization of modern ruins and the discourses and practices that have led to their academic and historical marginalization. Why is it that the ruins of our own time have been so devoid of value – historically, culturally and scientifically &#8211; compared to their ancient counterparts? To what extent, for example, does this bias reflect aesthetic preferences that also impinge on their academic and public reception?  On the other hand, and conversely, it involves exploring why, how &#8211; and to what extent &#8211; modern ruins after all this neglect now have reentered social and cultural discourses. Is there really a “turn to ruins”, and if so, why does it take place right now? The second, and most important goal, however, is to reassess the cultural and historical value of modern ruins and to suggest possible means for reaffirming their cultural and historic significance. Crucial for this reassessment is a concern with decay and ruination, and with the role things play in expressing the neglected, unsuccessful and ineffable. Abandonment and ruination is usually understood negatively through the tropes of loss and deprivation; things are degraded and humiliated while the information, knowledge and memory embedded in them become lost along the way. Without at all ignoring its many negative and traumatizing aspects, a main question addressed in this book is whether ruination also can be seen as an act of disclosure? If ruination disturbs the routinized and ready-to-hand, as convincingly argued by Tim Edensor (2005), to what extent can it also be seen as a recovery of memory (DeSilvey 2006), as exposing meanings and presences that perhaps are only possible to grasp at second hand when no longer immersed in their withdrawn and useful reality? </p>
<p>While we have seen an immense increase in the literature on modern ruins, much of this is concerned with discourses about and representations of ruins rather than direct engagements with them. Thus, there is today available an array of books and papers exploring the ruin themes in literature, philosophy, films, visual arts, etc (e.g. Yablon 2009, Hell and Schönle 2010, Dale and Burell 2011). Another prominent trope is what may be termed a new “ruin aesthetics”, especially as manifested in the fast growing number of photographic works expressing the nostalgia and entropy associated with decay and abandonment (e.g. Romany 2010). In addition, the more or less non-academic &#8211; and self-declared democratic &#8211; urban explorer community has been a driving force in making modern ruins an issue in popular culture (Ninjalicious/Chapman 2005, Rowsdower 2011). </p>
<p>These approaches are in their own respects all valuable contributions that enrich our understanding of modern ruins and create a public awareness about them. This book, however, takes a different position. While acknowledging and using the immensely important contributions from philosophers and theorists such as Walter Benjamin, Georg Simmel and others, it brings about a new confidence in and concern with the material itself. Moreover, while inter-disciplinary in scope and acknowledging the profound contributions to this field made by geographers, historians, anthropologists – and urban explorers, an archaeological sensibility permeates the book, not only as reflected in the numerous case studies presented, but also in its general orientation and take on things.</p>
<p> At the same time the book also positions itself in relation to the emerging field of contemporary archaeology. An underlying justifying subtext in most archaeological discourses on the recent past is its multi-vocal and democratic nature, and its ability to give voice to social groups and people that would generally not be heard or engaged in traditional historical narration (cf. e.g. Buchli and Lucas 2001, Harrison &#038; Schofield 2010, Olivier 2001). That is, its ability to produce other histories and inform alternative human pasts. Clearly, history is constantly constructed; constantly debated, contested, altered or reaffirmed. There is a danger, however, that even critical approaches reproduce the same plots, continue weaving new threads into the same old garment. While there are a number of good reasons, politically as well as ethically, to sympathize with the human emancipating perspective dominating the archaeology of the contemporary past, it still tends to assign things and ruins an essentially derivative or epiphenomenal being. Despite the many democratic pleas for the marginal and othered, things seem in no need of care or emancipation and continue to be regarded primarily as means to reach something else and presumably more important: neglected cultures and deprived human agents behind the redundant artifacts. </p>
<p>What this book emphasizes is not only that things are inextricable parts of the wished for “social”, being indispensable constituents of the very social fabric they are reduced to witnesses of, but that they are of interest in their own respect; that they have an “integrity” of their own (Olsen 2010). They make a difference to the world and to other beings and thus are “capable of an effect, of inflicting some kind of blow on reality” (Harman 2002: 21). This, moreover, causes a concern with how things exist, act and inflict on each other, also outside the human realm. And ruins provide an exemplary heuristic case in this respect. In their own withering and crumbling, where nature intrudes and mingles, they make manifest their own ruin ecologies, also blurring the previously clear distinction between the man-made and the natural (cf. Edensor 2005).</p>
<p>Acknowledging things’ integrity and otherness, and thus crediting them at least a partial autonomy, has several consequences for how the ruins of modernity are approached in this volume. Instead of domesticating them within the tropes of conventional historical narration, the book examines ways of embracing them in their unfamiliar “unuseful” state. This allows for three closely related “ruin effects” that will be explored in this volume. Firstly, modern ruins challenge conventional historical reconstructions and conceptions of the past. In their unstructured and fragmented state of accumulation these stranded materials object to both modernity and historicism’s wished-for ideal of completeness, order, and purified time. By stubbornly being (t)here they openly rebuke the conception of history as sequenced, biographical and progressive. In their very own positivistic manner they show that history is not a projected stream leaving the past behind, but that it bends and twists in a disorderly manner, interrupting the expectations of the have been and the becoming. Secondly, they carry the potential of fuelling a critical discourse on modern aesthetics. Through their difference, their disgraceful alteration and disintegration, they oppose and provide a contrast to the ideal of seamlessness and tactile sterility, the taken-for-granted aesthetic conventions of purity and order. Thirdly, they provoke an ontological and ethical rethinking of heritage. According to the dominant conception of cultural heritage the things of the past are primarily of value if they are somehow put into use, to serve as vehicles for defining identity, to attract tourists, inspire contemplation, etc. Things are little but things-for-us, reduced to what Heidegger termed Bestand, by which their manipulative being as “standing reserves” for us is all that remains (Heidegger 1993, Introna 2009, cf. Olsen 2010: 82). Perhaps the most radical implication of the position explored in this book is that things and ruins are also valuable in and of themselves. Being attentive to and respecting their integrity and otherness also involves acknowledging their right not to be meaningful in the dominant interpretative sense, where meaning has always been confused with socially derivative meanings, a signification always originating from somewhere else. A major challenge posed by this book is precisely the acceptance of the possibility that things themselves may be the source of their own signification (cf. Benso 2000: xxvii, Bennett 2010: 108). </p>
<p><strong>Outline:</strong></p>
<p>Apart from a general introduction, and an epilogue, the book will be divided into six sections. The first section will contain papers that outline the conceptual and theoretical terrain and discuss why modern ruins now seem to have caught the interest of so many artist, scholars and enthusiasts. The next four sections will focus on topics central to the debates of modern ruins and research within the archaeology of the recent past; ruin-heritage, memory-materiality, aesthetics-attraction, and abandonment-agency. While these sections also include research from a number of case studies, the sixth section will entirely be based on a number of novel case studies conducted as parts of the international research project Ruin Memories (see www.ruinmemories.org). Each section will consist of three to five papers, which including the (short) general introduction and the epilogue add to a total of 26 papers in this volume.  </p>
<p><strong>1. Ruins – concepts, theories and attitudes </strong></p>
<p>Ruin is a contested and ambiguous word. In our everyday conception it easily brings to mind ancient and enchanted monumental structures, an archaeological dream world featuring celebrities such as Machu Picchu, Pompeii and Angkor Wat. For centuries classical and Gothic ruins also inspired poets, artists and scholars, motivated philosophical mediations and served as instruments of contemplative and aesthetic pleasure. At the same time, the word ruin has a strong negative tone to it. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, “To ruin is to inflict or bring great and irretrievable disaster upon, to destroy agency, to reduce to a state of poverty, to demoralize completely” (1964: 1095). In this active verb form it is almost entirely associated with negative and violent processes, with destruction and demolition. </p>
<p>While the way we think of ancient ruins is hardly affected by these not so pleasing processual connotations, they seem to have overdetermined our conception of the residues of the modern. At the same time it is precisely these destructive aspects which theorists such as Walter Benjamin have emphasized as productive and revealing, as well as providing a more realistic picture of history than the conventional linear narratives. Ruins, he asserts, object to historicism’s image of history as harmonious and continuous. Their destructive character makes manifest the “at once scattered and preserved”; in the ruin all the forces and interests of history enter on a reduced scale and take the form of a “petrified unrest” (Benjamin 2003: 169). </p>
<p>These different, ambiguous and conflicting conceptions permeate the wide range of discourses and artistic expressions that for centuries have been concerned with ruins and ruination. Today they are accentuated, modified and rearticulated in the engagements and discourses brought about by the increased interests in modern ruins. </p>
<p>In this first section scholars from different disciplines explore the conceptual and theoretical terrain of ruins and ruination, and more generally the different attitudes to contemporary thing-worlds.  The section will also investigate the new interests in modern ruins as a cultural and academic phenomenon and scrutinize it not only in relation to current trends but also in terms of what the ruins themselves afford.    </p>
<p><strong>2. Modern ruins and heritage</strong></p>
<p>Heritage management and practices may at first be seen to be mediating the prevailing oppositional hierarchy between, on the one hand, functional and/or aesthetically pleasing things, and, on the other, waste – the useless and stranded. Heritage, however, contains its own regimes of cultural valuing and othering, including a regime of aesthetic preferences. The ancient and unquestioned “heritage ruin”, provides visitors with a disciplined, picturesque space where all extraneous material and pollutants are expunged (Edensor 2005). Seemingly frozen in time, further decay is staved off through restoration and preservation. Arresting decay and ruination, of course, has always been the imperative of modern museums and heritage management. Modern ruins, in contrast, are “untimely” ruins (Yablon 2009). Being “too young and too fast” they materialize a “petrified unrest” that is difficult to handle and tame. Modern ruins are withering and crumbling, they decompose and rot, invite gulls, insects, rats, fungus, scrubs and trees to premises formerly reserved for humans.  By generously affording uncanny reminders of ambiguity, death, and decay, their very presence becomes conspicuously at odds with the common cultural tropes of purity, sustainability and conservation (Lucas 2002, Shanks et.al. 2004). However, precisely through their state of transformation and unrest these ruins may be seen as uttering their own resistance and cultural critique. Thus, how can an archaeological/academic engagement with modern ruins challenge the politics and aesthetics of heritage and materiality? Do the recent claims of a “thing agency” (Gell 1998, Latour 2005) extend to the aesthetic field as well?</p>
<p>The ability to give voice to groups and people generally not heard or engaged in traditional historical narration (cf. e.g. Buchli &#038; Lucas 2001, Harrison &#038; Schofield 2010, Olivier 2008), and to produce other histories and inform alternative human pasts, appears as a justifying subtext in most archaeological discourses on the recent past. A similar humane perspective dominates the general archaeological codes of ethics, as well as the ethics/politics of heritage acts and resource management. Cultural heritage is our responsibility and our concerns are mostly dictated by human relevance. Loss of heritage is seen as a loss of roots and self; hence, heritage must be stewarded and conserved to secure the identity and well-being of the subjects involved (Rowlands 2002). Without dismissing these ethical concerns the papers in this section will also reclaim an archaeological ethical stand where the true subjects of inquiry are objects, and discuss how an engagement with modern ruins may alter heritage hierarchies and politics. How can these “missing masses of morality” (Latour 2002) be of significance, not only as concerned with our appeal or demand, but also in their sometimes less useful otherness (cf. Benso 2000)? </p>
<p><strong>3. Material memory</strong></p>
<p>In cultural and social studies much attention has been devoted to how memory crystallizes into sites or places of memory, locales of collective remembering (Nora 1984, Assman 1992). Memory is here associated with a “re-collective” conception, in other words, with memory as a conscious and willful human process of recalling the past. The materiality of the place is not decisive; the crucial issue is the past event and the will to remember it through subsequent site embodiments (monuments, memorials, etc). This book, however, is mostly concerned with different kinds of sites, which might be called “places of abjection”—“a no-man’s land too recent, conflicting and repulsive to be shaped as collective memory” (Gonzáles-Ruibal 2008: 256). Such places still contain the material causation for their abjection, and are haunted by a present past too grim or uncanny to be embraced. There is, of course, no ontological stability to such places. As also addressed in this book new historical circumstances and public attention might transform places of abjection into sites of commemoration and collective memory. </p>
<p>Places of abjection also relate materially (although ambiguously so) to another type of memory, a habit memory. While re-collective memory implies a conscious gaze directed towards a particular past, habit memory is an implicit act of re-membering embedded in our bodily routines and ways of dealing with things: “it no longer represents our past to us, it acts it” (Bergson 2004: 93). In Bergson’s formative conception, habit memory was largely a function of adaptive value: only those aspects of the past that are useful or compatible with our present conducts are habitually remembered. As the papers in this section explore, modern ruins were once useful, and thus embedded in repetitious practice and infused with habit memory. When discarded and outmoded, their habitual mnemonic significance is lost while their physical presence, albeit ruined, continues. As such they survive and gather as the material antonyms to the habitually useful, creating a tension-filled constellation that carries the potential of triggering a particular kind of involuntary memory (Benjamin 1999). Contributions in this section will explore how, by reverberating against the taken-for-granted materiality of habit memory, these ruins may become potential agents of disruption and “actualisation” which bring forth the abject memories that both the recollective and the habitual have displaced. </p>
<p><strong>4. Aesthetics, art, attraction</strong></p>
<p>Emphasizing the cultural and aesthetic critique driven by ruins of the modern is importantly not a quest to their romantization, domestication, or inclusion in traditional conceptions of heritage-politics or aesthetics. It is rather a quest that seeks to value them for what they are and take seriously the abject tensions they evoke. Such tensions, as for example provoked by their rebuking of the tactile sterility of the smooth and increasingly regulated urban spaces, are a crucial aspect of their critical potential (Edensor 2005, Dawdy 2010); a ruin lesson which also is about the mockery of human pretentions. Contributions to this section are, thus, rather directed towards “…the politics animated, to the common sense they disturb, to the critiques condensed or disallowed, and to the social relations avidly coalesced or shattered around them” (Stoler 2008: 196). In short to all the processes modern ruins manifest through their presence and transformation. </p>
<p>A common concern is also how to mediate the material utterances and effects made by these modern ruins.  How do we convey these site-specific experiences into our own media, discourses and expressions? Traditional means of archaeological documentation; drawings, plans, distribution maps, graphs, site- and artifact photos, may have an extraordinary power when applied to the recent past.  By making the recent archaeological, and thereby allowing for a critical distancing or Verstörung, these means can help to display and actualize that past in challenging ways. In addition, the growing field of interaction between archaeology and visual art suggests new ways of mediating our material encounters with the recent past. Of particular interest here is photography (Shanks 1997, Andreassen et.al. 2010, Crang 2010), partly because it transcends the boundaries between documentation and art but also because it promises to do more justice to the “physiognomy” of things than conventional narratives seem to do. Moreover, photography is promising also as a possible means of mediating or re-actualizing material “presence effects”, bringing forth the ephemeral simultaneities between presence and meaning (cf. Gumbrecht 2004) that often characterize our material encounters.</p>
<p>Therefore, and corresponding to the recent and concurrent development of interest in modern ruins within artistic and scholarly disciplines, chapters in this section will explore not only how the “turn to things” signals new ecologies of practice and conception, but also how that could be encouraged through the joint effort/perspectives of art-academia. And, as follows, how ruins of the modern are themselves encouraging such joint efforts, by transgressing or blurring disciplinary boundaries.</p>
<p><strong>5. Abandonment</strong></p>
<p>Archaeology as a discipline has long been defined by its temporal detachment from its subject matter. Archaeologists study phenomena that are final, over and gone and not processes that are here and now or ongoing. Abandonment, therefore, has been a central theme, while at the same time an unquestioned given, in archaeological research. The development of archaeology of the recent and contemporary past, of the here and now, does naturally challenge this conception. So has also the lately growing emphasis on biographical approaches in archaeological and material culture research. Such biographical approaches have, however, mostly been restricted to histories of use and hence not directly applied to challenge conceptions of abandonment as such. </p>
<p>To abandon or abandonment, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is “to go away” without intention of returning, “to withdraw” or “to stop”. Abandonment, thus, is final and marks the end of a process – and not the beginning of one. Similarly, in archaeology it represents a termination – and a moment of disinterest, which is ironic because it is generally at this moment of abandonment that a site becomes archaeologically interesting. Although common to all ruins, modern ruins visibly oppose to this static conception of abandonment. When the modern capitalist vitality abandons a building it is not simply written out of the social system, left in the past as the narrative progresses. The building lingers on and is in a way “returned” to unprescribed activities – both of its own as well as of the public’s (Dawdy 2010). It is, at least temporarily, turned into a democratic space of common access – a place, or an “inside”, for activities pressed to the outskirts of the social order; a heterotopia enabling opportunities for alternative modes of life. The papers in this section will address the question, and ambiguity it indicates, of whether, and to what extent modern ruins can be thought of as re-establishing or maintaining social order, while at the same time manifesting a cultural critique of the same?</p>
<p>Modern ruins are also in a “fluid state of material becoming” (Edensor 2005: 16). They are constantly changing in appearance and mood through the seasonal shifts and their own ruination. In their case abandonment is quite clearly not something momentary but a phase or an ongoing process – a ruin in making. How does this immediate dynamic and transforming character challenge not only our conceptions of ruin or abandonment but also our methods of inference? And how does an engagement with this ongoing biography, or auto-biography in writing, affect the stories we tell.</p>
<p><strong>6. Archaeologies of the recent past</strong></p>
<p>This last section will contain contributions from novel case studies carried out as part of the international and multi-disciplinary Ruin Memories project. These studies are conducted in a number of countries and cover a wide range of sites and topics, such as industrial ruins of Iceland; the materiality of the Spanish Civil War and Franco dictatorship; derelict mining landscapes and settlements in Montana, USA; the archaeology of the Third Reich harvest festival in Bückeberg, Germany, and a prisoner of war camp in Arctic Norway. Naturally, these studies engage with the themes explored in the previous sections (memory, heritage, aesthetics and abandonment), but also provide new arguments and detailed accounts of how a material and archaeological approach contributes to an enriched understanding of these “moments” of the recent past. By still being present, sites, things and ruins carry the potential of disclosing crucial and often neglected aspects of these pasts.  Through their direct and habitual involvement in them, these surviving constituents afford a more immediate and committed re-membering than most historical accounts allow for. Far from involving any neglect of the profound importance of such textual and oral accounts, what these studies amount to is rather to provide convincing cases for how an archaeology of the recent past can add nuances, differences and novelties to this past as well as inspire alternative modes of historical engagement.</p>
<p><strong>References:</strong></p>
<p>Andreassen, E., Bjerck, H.B. and Olsen, B. (2010) Persistent memories: Pyramiden – a Soviet mining town in the High Arctic. Trondheim: Tapir Academic Press.</p>
<p>Assmann, J. (1992) Das Kulturelle Gedächtniss. Munich: C. H. Beck.</p>
<p>Benjamin, W. (1999) The arcaedes project. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.</p>
<p>Benjamin, W. (2003) Selected writings, volume 4: 1938–1940. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.</p>
<p>Bennett, J. (2010) Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham: Duke University Press.</p>
<p>Benso, S. (2000) The face of things: A different side of ethics. Albany: State University of New York Press.</p>
<p>Bergson, H. (2004) Matter and memory. Dover philosophical classics. New York: Courier Dover Publications.</p>
<p>Buchli, V. and Lucas, G. (2001) Archaeologies of the contemporary past. London and New York: Routledge.</p>
<p>Concise Oxford Dictionary (1964). H. W. Fowler and F. G. Fowler (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.</p>
<p>Crang, M. (2010) The death of great ships: photography, politics, and waste<br />
in the global imaginary. Environment and Planning A, 42, pp. 1084-1102.</p>
<p>Edensor, T. (2005) Industrial ruins: Space, aesthetics and materiality. Oxford: Berg.</p>
<p>Edensor, T. (2011) Comments to G. Gordillo: Ships stranded in the forest. Current Anthropology 52:2, pp. 161-162.</p>
<p>Dale, K. and Burrell, G. (2011) Disturbing structure, reading the ruins. Culture and Organization, 17:2, pp. 107-121.</p>
<p>Dawdy, S.L. (2010) Clockpunk anthropology and the ruins of modernity. Current Anthropology, 51:6, pp. 761-793.</p>
<p>DeSilvey, C. (2006) Observed decay: Telling stories with mutable things. Journal of Material Culture, 11:3, pp. 318-338.</p>
<p>Gell, A. (1998) Art and agency: An anthropological theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press. </p>
<p>González-Ruibal, A. (2006) The dream of reason: An archaeology of the failures of modernity in Ethiopia. Journal of Social Archaeology, 6, pp. 175-201.</p>
<p>González-Ruibal, A. (2008) Time to destroy: An archaeology of supermodernity. Current Anthropology, 49:2 (april 2008), pp. 247-279.</p>
<p>Gumbrecht, H.U. (2004) Production of presence: What meaning cannot convey. Stanford: Stanford University Press.</p>
<p>Harman, G.  (2002) Tool-being: Heidegger and the metaphysics of objects. Chicago: Open Court.</p>
<p>Harrison, R. and Schofield, J. (2010) After modernity: Archaeological approaches to the contemporary past. New York: Oxford University Press.</p>
<p>Heidegger, M. (1993) The question concerning technology. D. Farell Krell (ed.) Martin Heidegger: Basic writings. San Francisco: Harper Collins.</p>
<p>Hell, J. and Schönle, A. (2010) Ruins of modernity. Durham NC: Duke University Press.</p>
<p>Holtorf, C. and Piccini, A. (2009) Contemporary archaeologies: Excavating now. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.</p>
<p>Introna, L.D. (2009) Ethics and the speaking if things. Theory, Culture &#038; Society, 26:4, pp. 398-419.</p>
<p>Latour, B. (2002) Morality and technology: The end of the means. Theory, Culture &#038; Society, 19:5/6, pp. 247-260. </p>
<p>Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.</p>
<p>Lucas, G. (2002) Disposability and dispossession in the twentieth century. Journal of material culture, 7, pp. 5-22.</p>
<p>Ninjalicious (aka Jeff Chapman) (2005) Access all areas: A user&#8217;s guide to the art of urban exploration. Toronto: Infilpress.</p>
<p>Nora, P. (1984) Entre mémoire et histoire: La problématique des lieux. In Les lieux de mémoire, Vol. 1, La République, Pierre Nora (ed.), xv-xlii. Paris: Gallimard.</p>
<p>Olivier, L. (2001) Duration, memory and the nature of the archaeological record. H. Karlson (ed.) It’s about time: The concept of time in archaeology. Gothenburgh: Bricoleur Press.</p>
<p>Olivier, L. (2008) Le sombre abîme du temps. Mémoire et archéologie. Paris: Seuil.</p>
<p>Olsen, B. (2010) In defense of things: Archaeology and the ontology of objects. Lanham: Alta Mira Press.</p>
<p>Romany, W.G. (2010) Beauty in decay: The art of urban exploration. Berkeley: Ginko Press.</p>
<p>Rowlands, M. (2002) The power of origins: Questions of cultural rights. V. Buchli (ed.) The material culture reader. Oxford: Berg.</p>
<p>Rowsdower, Z. (2011) Fresh rot: Urban exploration and the preservation of decay. Manitoba Anthropology. Journal of the Manitoba Anthropology Student’s Association, 29, pp. 1-15.</p>
<p>Scanlan, J. (2005) On garbage. London: Reaktion Books.</p>
<p>Shanks, M. (1997) Photography and archaeology. B. Leigh Molyneaux (ed.)The cultural life of images: Visual representations in archaeology. London: Routledge.</p>
<p>Shanks, M., Platt, D. and Rathje, W.L. (2004) The perfume of garbage. Modernity/Modernism, 11:1, pp. 68-83.</p>
<p>Stengers, I. (2005) Introductory notes on an ecology of practices. Cultural Studies Review, 11(1), pp. 183-196.</p>
<p>Stoler, A.L. (2008) Imperial debris: Reflections on ruins and ruination. Cultural Anthropology, 23:2, pp. 191-219.</p>
<p>Trentmann, F. (2009) Materiality in the Future of History: Things, Practices and Politics. Journal of British Studies, 48:2, pp. 283-307. </p>
<p>Yablon, N. (2009) Untimely ruins: An archaeology of American urban modernity, 1819-1919. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.                </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ruinmemories.org/2011/11/a-book-for-routledge-ruin-memories-materialities-aesthetics-and-the-archaeology-of-the-recent-past/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Program for 3rd Ruin Memories Workshop Falmouth, Nov. 18-19, 2011</title>
		<link>http://ruinmemories.org/2011/10/program-for-3rd-ruin-memories-workshop-falmouth-nov-18-19-2011/</link>
		<comments>http://ruinmemories.org/2011/10/program-for-3rd-ruin-memories-workshop-falmouth-nov-18-19-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 18:13:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Meetings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ruinmemories.org/?p=641</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>3RD RUIN MEMORIES WORKSHOP FALMOUTH NOV 18-19, 2011</p>
<p>St Michael&#8217;s Hotel &#038; Spa, Falmouth</p>
<p>Thursday Nov 17</p>
<p>Checking in, etc </p>
<p>20.00 Dinner at Gylly Beach</p>
<p>Friday Nov 18 </p>
<p>09.30 &#8211; 10.00   Introduction</p>
<p>10.00 -10.45 Gavin Lucas: Mobile Homes &#8211; ruination and the mobility of things</p>
<p>10.45 -11.30 Þóra Pétursdóttir: Things on the move and moments of intervention: A glimpse of the summer’s excavations at Eyri, Iceland</p>
<p>11.30 -11.45 Coffee/tea break</p>
<p>11.45 -12.30 Elin Andreassen/Hein Bjerck: Yuri’s Gym and Wall-E – Thrills and Troubles of the Abandoned [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>3RD RUIN MEMORIES WORKSHOP FALMOUTH NOV 18-19, 2011</p>
<p>St Michael&#8217;s Hotel &#038; Spa, Falmouth</p>
<p><strong>Thursday Nov 17</strong></p>
<p>Checking in, etc </p>
<p>20.00 Dinner at Gylly Beach</p>
<p><strong>Friday Nov 18 </strong></p>
<p>09.30 &#8211; 10.00   Introduction</p>
<p>10.00 -10.45 Gavin Lucas: Mobile Homes &#8211; ruination and the mobility of things</p>
<p>10.45 -11.30 Þóra Pétursdóttir: Things on the move and moments of intervention: A glimpse of the summer’s excavations at Eyri, Iceland</p>
<p>11.30 -11.45 Coffee/tea break</p>
<p>11.45 -12.30 Elin Andreassen/Hein Bjerck: Yuri’s Gym and Wall-E – Thrills and Troubles of the Abandoned Town </p>
<p>12.30-13.30 Lunch</p>
<p>13.30-14.45 Bjørnar Olsen:  Sværholt: Recovered memories of a WWII POW camp in the far north</p>
<p>14.45-15.30 Liv-Emma Thorsen: Animal Fragments in Gothenburg Natural History Museum</p>
<p>15.30-15.45 Coffee/tea break</p>
<p>15.45-16.30 Þóra Pétursdóttir/Bjørnar Olsen: Abandonment, Soviet heritage and survival: travel notes from the northern Kola coast, Russia.</p>
<p>17.00 – 18.30 Internal Ruin Memories team meeting</p>
<p>20.00 Dinner at Warehouse Bistro</p>
<p><strong>Saturday Nov 19</strong></p>
<p>9.30 – 10.15 Alfredo González-Ruibal: From here I saw what happened. Three sites/three sieges from the Spanish Civil War</p>
<p>10.15-11.00 Gareth Hoskins: A site of environmental conscience?  Malakoff Diggins and the muscular morality of destruction.</p>
<p>11.00-11.15 Coffee/tea break</p>
<p>11.15-12.00 Mats Burström: Dealing with Difficult Heritage. The Case of Bückeberg, Site of the Third Reich Harvest Festival</p>
<p>12.00 – 1300 Lunch</p>
<p>13.00 – 13.45 Tim LeCain: Remembering a Landscape of Mass Destruction: A World Environmental Memorial for an American Open Pit Copper Mine?</p>
<p>13.45 – 14.30 Caitlin DeSilvey: Butte, America: ruination, reclamation, and the remainder</p>
<p>14.30-14.45 Coffee/tea break</p>
<p>14.45-15.30 Hilary Orange: Benders, Benches and Bunkers: Recent Contestation and Commemoration at an Industrial (Heritage) Landscape</p>
<p>15.30-17.00 General discussion</p>
<p>20.00 Dinner at The Wheelhouse</p>
<p><strong>Sunday Nov 20</strong></p>
<p>10.00- 18.00 Excursions</p>
<p>19.00 Dinner at The Trengilly Wartha.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ruinmemories.org/2011/10/program-for-3rd-ruin-memories-workshop-falmouth-nov-18-19-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mats Burström and Ruin Memories at CHAT Boston</title>
		<link>http://ruinmemories.org/2011/10/mats-burstrom-and-ruin-memories-at-chat-boston/</link>
		<comments>http://ruinmemories.org/2011/10/mats-burstrom-and-ruin-memories-at-chat-boston/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Oct 2011 18:19:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ruinmemories.org/?p=644</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Mats Burström will be representing the Ruin Memories project at the upcoming CHAT (Contemporary and Historical Archaeology in Theory) conference at Boston University, Boston, MA. The general theme for the conference is ‘People and things in motion’ and it takes place November 11-13, 2011. </p>
<p>The full program of CHAT 2011 is available from their website here.</p>
<p>Mats Burström will give a talk titled ‘Artifactual Memories in Exile: Family Belongings Hidden in the Ground in Estonia during the Second World War’.

Figure: Set [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mats Burström will be representing the Ruin Memories project at the upcoming CHAT (Contemporary and Historical Archaeology in Theory) conference at Boston University, Boston, MA. The general theme for the conference is ‘People and things in motion’ and it takes place November 11-13, 2011. </p>
<p>The full program of CHAT 2011 is available from their website <a href="http://www.bu.edu/archaeology/news/chat-2011/">here.</a></p>
<p>Mats Burström will give a talk titled ‘Artifactual Memories in Exile: Family Belongings Hidden in the Ground in Estonia during the Second World War’.<br />
<img src="http://ruinmemories.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Fig.-CHAT-2011-590x388.jpg" alt="" title="Fig. CHAT 2011" width="590" height="388" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-645" /><br />
Figure: Set of silver cutlery hidden in the ground in Estonia during World War II. Later recovered and sent to the original owner’s daughter who had migrated to Australia. She later gave the cutlery to her own daughter living in the US who at present uses them on special occasions like Thanksgiving and Christmas.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ruinmemories.org/2011/10/mats-burstrom-and-ruin-memories-at-chat-boston/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mats Burström lectures in Tallinn and Tartu, Estonia</title>
		<link>http://ruinmemories.org/2011/09/mats-burstrom-lectures-in-tallinn-and-tartu-estonia/</link>
		<comments>http://ruinmemories.org/2011/09/mats-burstrom-lectures-in-tallinn-and-tartu-estonia/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 21:55:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ruinmemories.org/?p=630</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Image: Metal detecting in search for objects hidden in Estonia by people fleeing from the Soviet occupation in 1944.</p>
<p>Mats Burström will give a Introductory Lecture into the Archaeology of the Recent Past at the Theoretical Seminar “Landscape, Things and Theories” arranged by the Centre of Excellence in Culture Theory at Tallinn University September 14th.</p>
<p>The full program is available from their website.</p>
<p>The following day, September 15th, Mats Burström will give a lecture, “Artefactual Memories. Family Belongings Hidden in the Ground in [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://ruinmemories.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Burstrom_metal_detecting-590x442.gif" alt="" title="Burstrom_metal_detecting" width="590" height="442" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-633" /><em>Image: Metal detecting in search for objects hidden in Estonia by people fleeing from the Soviet occupation in 1944.</em></p>
<p>Mats Burström will give a Introductory Lecture into the Archaeology of the Recent Past at the Theoretical Seminar “Landscape, Things and Theories” arranged by the Centre of Excellence in Culture Theory at Tallinn University September 14th.</p>
<p>The full program is available from their <a href="http://kodu.ut.ee/~cect/teoreetiline%20seminar%2014.09.2011/Seminar_intro.pdf">website</a>.</p>
<p>The following day, September 15th, Mats Burström will give a lecture, “Artefactual Memories. Family Belongings Hidden in the Ground in Estonia during World War II”, at the University of Tartu.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ruinmemories.org/2011/09/mats-burstrom-lectures-in-tallinn-and-tartu-estonia/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Next Ruin Memories Workshop November 18-19, Falmouth, Cornwall, UK</title>
		<link>http://ruinmemories.org/2011/09/next-ruin-memories-workshop-november-18-19-falmouth-cornwall-uk/</link>
		<comments>http://ruinmemories.org/2011/09/next-ruin-memories-workshop-november-18-19-falmouth-cornwall-uk/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2011 21:02:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ruinmemories.org/?p=624</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The next Ruin Memories workshop will be arranged in Falmouth, Cornwall, at the St. Michaels hotel, on November 18-19 (Friday to Saturday). The workshop takes place on November 18 and 19 (Fri-Sat), and you need to arrive Thursday (17th) to Falmouth. There will be an excursion Sunday 20, those who can&#8217;t take part may leave then &#8211; the others return Monday (you may of course stay as long as you like at your own expenses!). To get there it is most convenient [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The next Ruin Memories workshop will be arranged in Falmouth, Cornwall, at the St. Michaels hotel, on November 18-19 (Friday to Saturday). The workshop takes place on November 18 and 19 (Fri-Sat), and you need to arrive Thursday (17th) to Falmouth. There will be an excursion Sunday 20, those who can&#8217;t take part may leave then &#8211; the others return Monday (you may of course stay as long as you like at your own expenses!). To get there it is most convenient to fly to Newquay (to UK via Gatwick, and then there is short Flybe flight to <a href="http://www.flybe.com/">Newquay</a>). They fly at least three times a day Gatwick-Newquay. Car/minibus transport from Newquay to Falmouth (ca. 40 minutes) will be arranged. You need to book your own tickets and get reimbursed. Contact me if there are any problems with this. Please do the bookings early to make the tickets as cheap as possible. Another option is to fly to Bristol (maybe some of you can get direct flight there) and then get the train all the way to Falmouth (via Truro). From the station it is just a short walk to the hotel.</p>
<p><iframe width="425" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&amp;source=s_q&amp;hl=en&amp;geocode=&amp;q=Falmouth,+Cornwall,+UK&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=Falmouth,+United+Kingdom&amp;ll=50.156009,-5.07108&amp;spn=0.962951,2.384033&amp;t=m&amp;z=9&amp;vpsrc=6&amp;output=embed"></iframe><br /><small><a href="http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&amp;source=embed&amp;hl=en&amp;geocode=&amp;q=Falmouth,+Cornwall,+UK&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=Falmouth,+United+Kingdom&amp;ll=50.156009,-5.07108&amp;spn=0.962951,2.384033&amp;t=m&amp;z=9&amp;vpsrc=6" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View Larger Map</a></small><br />
&nbsp;</p>
<p>You also need to do your own booking at the St. Michael hotel.The discounted room rate is £69, and I ask people to book their room at their <a href="http://www.stmichaelshotel.co.uk/">website</a>, quoting CBK &#8220;ruin memories&#8221; (<strong>important!</strong>). They will hold rooms for us until October 1. Breakfast, lunch, tea/coffee, etc will all be served at the hotel during the workshop.</p>
<p>Details as to programme to follow; presentation/discussion of fieldwork done this year will be central to the workshop.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ruinmemories.org/2011/09/next-ruin-memories-workshop-november-18-19-falmouth-cornwall-uk/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Butte, America: ruination, reclamation, and the remainder</title>
		<link>http://ruinmemories.org/2011/08/butte-america-ruination-reclamation-and-the-remainder/</link>
		<comments>http://ruinmemories.org/2011/08/butte-america-ruination-reclamation-and-the-remainder/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:07:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ruin Vignettes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ruinmemories.org/?p=620</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>by Caitlin Desilvey</p>
<p>I’m sitting in an apartment on the sixth floor of the Metals Bank building in Butte. Out the window to the east the city streets end abruptly at the rim of a mile-wide pit, a decommissioned open mine working that is gradually filling with acid mine drainage. The Beaux Arts highrise I’m staying in is a reclaimed ruin—largely vacant for thirty years, it was renovated into upscale condominiums a few years ago. In the 1880s Butte’s copper industry [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>by Caitlin Desilvey</em></p>
<p>I’m sitting in an apartment on the sixth floor of the Metals Bank building in Butte. Out the window to the east the city streets end abruptly at the rim of a mile-wide pit, a decommissioned open mine working that is gradually filling with acid mine drainage. The Beaux Arts highrise I’m staying in is a reclaimed ruin—largely vacant for thirty years, it was renovated into upscale condominiums a few years ago. In the 1880s Butte’s copper industry generated massive wealth from ‘The Richest Hill on Earth’; a century later, when operations ceased in the main Berkeley Pit, the town slipped into a decades-long interval of decline. Now, in 2011, the streets gleam with silver historic plaques, flower beds grace capped waste dumps, a system of paved paths (generously furnished with benches) weaves through the reclaimed landscape, and the headframes that once transported miners and materials in and out of the earth are lit each night with festive strings of red bulbs.  When I lived in Missoula (the university town 120 miles west down the Clark Fork River Valley) in the 1990s I visited Butte often, snagged by its raw charm and its rough edges. Heritage-led reinvestment has filed off the edge in the old uptown core; the patchy hillside settlements of decrepit workers’ cottages, weedy lots, and fenced off mine shafts are changing too, though more slowly.</p>
<p>
<!-- Powered by Cincopa WordPress plugin wp1.76: http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/wordpress-plugin.aspx -->
<div id="_cp_widget_4fb850434e89e"><img src="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/runtime/loading.gif" style="border:0;" alt="Powered by Cincopa WordPress plugin" /></div>
<script src="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/runtime/libasync.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
// PLEASE CHANGE DEFAULT EXCERPT HANDLING TO CLEAN OR FULL (go to your WordPress Dashboard/Settings/Cincopa Options ...
cp_load_widget("%5Bcincopa+AkJAMsqtdYcY%5D", "_cp_widget_4fb850434e89e");
</script>
<noscript>Click <a href="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/view.aspx?fid=%5Bcincopa+AkJAMsqtdYcY%5D">here</a> to open the gallery.<br>Powered by Cincopa <a href="http://www.cincopa.com/wpplugin/wordpress-plugin.aspx">wp content plugins</a> solution for your website and Cincopa MediaSend for <a href="http://www.cincopa.com/mediasend/start.aspx">file transfer</a>.</noscript></p>
<p>When I visited Butte in the past my gaze used to be drawn to the vacant spaces in the upper floors of its ornate downtown buildings. Many of the windows were boarded shut, and trapped pigeons fluttered against the dingy glass at others. Businesses struggled on in their streetfront premises under the stacked layers of dead space, the hollow husks of rooms built in more prosperous times. The emptiness of these interstitial ruins mirrored the abandonment of the mine workings below the surface of the city.  Butte’s downtown district, erected with earnings from mining ventures, can be understood as an ‘inverted minescape’, which replicates the belowground timber frameworks in aboveground steel and glass. The seven-story building where I am staying was likely the tallest structure between Minneapolis and Spokane when it was constructed by copper king Augustus Heinze in 1906. Heinze hired architect Cass Gilbert (who would go on to design New York’s Woolworth Building) to draw up the plans, which included a copper-plated entry and a marble-lined lobby. Earnings from the copper mines built these structures; the collapse of the mining industry emptied them; and now the mines are filling these spaces again, transitively, in facilitating consumption of their rich history by people who can afford to buy $200,000 condominiums and caviar at the reopened Hennessy Market.</p>
<p>The revitalisation of Butte as a heritage destination is more or less legible. But this landscape also offers up encounters that are not so easily packaged and polished, moments of perplexity or density when your attention is drawn away from the obvious, or you feel an impulse to look away because you’re not sure what you’re seeing. A collection of mugs hangs on a chain-link fence surrounding a closed mineyard. A flat section of lightly wooded land between Butte’s two open pit mines doesn’t make sense, until you detect the traces of streets and sidewalks, a faded spatial imprint of the neighbourhood that was depopulated and cleared to make way for the pit. A building, recently painted and apparently sound, with all of its doors and windows sealed. In the regraded and revegetated hills above town, a vast picnic shelter, and a bike rack stilled sheathed in its plastic wrapping. And driving down Montana, before the interstate on-ramp and just past a casino, a strange black mass on your right: closer inspection reveals a canyon of formed slag, a creekside thick with wild mint.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ruinmemories.org/2011/08/butte-america-ruination-reclamation-and-the-remainder/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

