Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 14

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
Contemporary archaeologies are complex and diverse. It was New Archaeology which clearly showed the crucial role of theory in archaeological research (e.g. Binford 1962). Although post-processual archaeologists have been opposed to many ideas of New Archaeology, they have never questioned the need of theories in archaeology (e.g. Thomas 1996; Tilley 1997; Sørenson 2000). However, there are fields of archaeology which do not seem to be closely enough touched by theory. Without any doubt, one of them is the history of archaeological thought (but see Gillberg 2001; Gustafsson 2001; Jensen 2002). When one compares books which deal with the history of archaeology, one can discover that they are structured in a very similar way (e.g. Abramowicz 1991; Baudou 2004; Trigger 2006). In accordance with it, one sees chronological and linear way of writing about the history of archaeology, following hand in hand with cause and effect thinking. Surprisingly, the very same observation concerns theoreticians of archaeology too (Schnapp 1996; Shanks 1996; Thomas 1996; 2004). They are eager to present new ways of doing archaeology, always ready to criticise previous archaeologies, at any moment tempted to theorise on a particular topic. Nonetheless, the history of archaeology is unproblematic, something what resists theoretical reflection. That is why the goal of this paper is to discuss this allegedly unproblematic understanding of the history of archaeology.
EN
For many centuries, scientists, philosophers, artists and others have been fascinated with ruins. However, this fascination usually focused upon ancient and medieval relics. Indeed, it can be metaphorically said that archaeology was built upon ruins. Nonetheless, the archaeological analyses of ruins, their functions, meanings, uses and re-uses over the next centuries had been very selective. In short, modern ruins have been out of closer archaeological attention. It seems as if modern ruins were deprived of social, cultural, and archaeological dimensions. However, this changed during the first decade of the 21st century when archaeologists started to pay attention to the modern ruins. The so-called archaeology of (modern) ruins is one of the most interesting, provocative, and subversive fields of the contemporary archaeological discourses. The starting point of this paper is that there is no “ontological difference” between the Greek, the Roman and the Soviet ruins. All of them can and should be part of archaeological thinking. A two-step approach is applied here. First, the archaeological value of ruins in Chernobyl is discussed. A documentary entitled Czarnobyl – Wstęp Wzbroniony (2015) (Eng. Chernobyl – No Entry) is reviewed to highlight the processes of transformation of the unimaginable nuclear catastrophe into valuable heritage of the recent past. It is argued that Chernobyl can be seen as “Pompeii of our times”. Second, the review of Czarnobyl – Wstęp Wzbroniony is used as a pretext to shortly present different categories of modern ruins that one can encounter in contemporary Poland. Many of them are related with the Soviet occupation in Poland between 1945 and 1993. The point that I try to back up in this paper is that these Soviet ruins are also part of the archaeological heritage of the recent past. Accordingly, this paper is a call for a closer archaeological interest in the ruins of the recent past in general.  
PL
-
EN
This paper analyses the so-called biography of a thing as a way of thinking about the value and meaning of heritage. A certain, almost 100 years old, trunk is used as a case study to present how heritage is constituted trough relations between people, things, and places. Indeed, heritage is a kind of relation between humans and non-humans. To back up this thesis, this article offers a five-step approach. First, the starting point is Michael Shanks’ thesis that “we are all archaeologists now”. The British archaeologist – it can be said – argues for broadening the archaeological discourse and to look archaeologically at the world we all live in. From this point of view, a Neolithic pot sherd and a contemporary thing such as a trunk, for example, represent the same category of an archaeological artefact. Through their materiality, they both might be objects of an archaeological scrutiny. Second, I shortly discuss the archaeological research on the recent past. Archaeology is a practice anchored here and now. One of the archaeological perspectives that analyses the relics of the recent past is the approach where archaeologists study their own heritage i.e. the histories of their own families. This is the perspective developed further in this paper. Third, it is argued that the theoretical concept known as biography of a thing, can be useful in the context of the archaeology of the recent past. It is the concept that takes into account the past and present of each artefact, landscape or practice. This approach allows for studying both the social and the material memories which are crucial apropos of the archaeological research on the recent past. Here, archaeologists take into account things as well as people’s memories about them. Fourth, an analysis of a trunk which the author found in the grandmother’s basement is used as a case study to present the potential of the archaeological research on the recent past. Some episodes of the biography of a trunk are highlighted to claim that heritage is constituted through different kinds of relations between many agents, both humans and non-humans. And the last point, the trunk is a good example that shows the limitations of archaeological thinking about heritage through the lens of its preservation and management. Indeed, the crucial conclusion of this article is that, sometimes, the less preservation and management of (archaeological) heritage the better for heritage itself. In other words, destruction and decay of heritage are the very part of its biography.
PL
-
EN
Lidar-derivatives gathered during the realization of IT System of Country’s Protection Against Extreme Hazards (so-called ISOK programme) have initialized the non-invasive archaeological research concerning the preservation of the relicts of the former prisoner of war and internment camp in Tuchola, Poland. The camp functioned during the Great War (1914–1918) and the Polish-Soviet War (1919–1921). This paper discusses and summaries the preliminary results of this research. It argues that the use of ethnographic methods can supplement and enrich the historical records related to the camp. The article discusses in detail the assemblage of material culture made, remade, or personalized by prisoners and internees documented during the research. These artefacts are unique examples of trench art. Discussionconcerning the objects is the main goal of this paper. They are the first examples of the trench art related to the Tuchola camp analyzed in the archaeological literature.
EN
This paper discusses the results of the research carried out in a project entitled An archaeology of the Death Valley. First, the historical context related to mass killings on the outskirts of Chojnice during the Second World War is sketched. Then, the results of the archaeological field research are presented. The last part is about ethnographic research which allowed to document various memories related to mass killings in the Death Valley as well as human and non-human witnesses of these events. The idea behind this paper is to show that archaeology and ethnography are crucial in discovering and documenting sites of mass killings and their heritage.
EN
This article discusses the results of archaeological and anthropological research concerning material remains of a prisoner of war camp in Czersk (Pomeranian province, Poland) (Kriegsgefangenenlager Czersk). In the first part, I sketch a broader historical context related to building and functioning of the camp in forests around Czersk between 1914–1919. After that, the role and meaning of  archaeological research on such type of archaeological sites are presented. In the third part, I focus on a very special category of the camp heritage which is called trench art. The last part of this paper is a case study where an assemblage of objects classified as trench art that was found at the camp is described and interpreted. This text aims at highlighting the value of such prisoners and camp’s heritage. Such material culture is a material memory of extraordinary prisoners’ creativity behind barbed wire. It makes one aware of how every piece of trash, rubbish was re-cycled during day-to-day life behind barbed wire.
PL
Artykuł podejmuje problematykę tzw. trudnego dziedzictwa z perspektywy koncepcji teoretycznej określanej w literaturze mianem biografii rzeczy. W pierwszej części tekstu omawiam polskie badania w ramach archeologii współczesności nad trudnym dziedzictwem. Następnie szkicuję bliżej założenia biograficznego podejścia do badania relacji między ludźmi, rzeczami i miejscami. Ostatnia część pracy to studium przypadku, w którym krótko prezentuję biografie trzech przedmiotów pochodzących z terenu pierwszowojennego obozu jenieckiego w Czersku – obiektu niewątpliwie będącego przykładem trudnego dziedzictwa. Celem pracy jest próba prezentacji tezy mówiącej, że archeologie współczesności nie mogą być sprowadzane jedynie do archeologii martyrologii i że kultura materialna z niedawnej przeszłości pozwala na szkicowanie różnego rodzaju narracji związanych z trudnym dziedzictwem.
EN
This paper discusses the concept of difficult/dark heritage from a theoretical perspective known as the biography of things. First, I analyse Polish archaeological research on difficult/dark heritage. Second, I describe in greater detail the biography of things as a tool for studying relationships between people, things and places. The last part of the paper is a case study presenting the biographies of three objects found in the grounds of a prisoner-of-war camp in Czersk. I aim to prove the following theses: 1) archaeologies of the recent past cannot be understood simply as the archaeology of martyrdom; 2) material culture from the recent past allows us to create different kinds of narratives connected with dark heritage.
EN
Death Valley in Chojnice, Poland, is a mass murder site from World War II where Germans and various officials of the Third Reich organised and carried out mass executions of Poles. The site and the events that took place there have been the subject of scholarly research and war crimes prosecutions since 2020. This paper intends to outline three aspects of them: 1) how playing in Death Valley as a child determined the later scholarly interest in the site, 2) how reading of a book Chojnice 1939–1945, about World War II and the crimes committed in the region, drew attention to undiscovered aspects of the site, 3) the last parts present the course and preliminary results of three seasons of scientific research and prosecution of war crimes committed on the northern outskirts of the town.
Lud
|
2023
|
vol. 107
|
issue 1
170-201
PL
Artykuł dotyczy środowiskowych historii związanych z chojnicką Doliną Śmierci – miejscem kaźni z czasów II wojny światowej. Autorzy omawiają dotychczasowe historyczne oraz archeologiczne opracowania dotyczące dowodów niemieckich, masowych zbrodni dokonanych pod miastem, skupiając się na ich środowiskowym kontekście. Głównym założeniem jest pokazanie – w oparciu o wyniki etnograficznych badań terenowych – że Dolina Śmierci na przekór swej nazwie funkcjonuje w lokalnej pamięci jako miejsce pełne życia. Perspektywa antropologii środowiskowej umożliwia zidentyfikowanie naturalnych charakterystyk miejsc masowych mordów, które nie zostały ujęte w dotychczasowych badaniach historycznych i archeologicznych, a które są także istotne dla współczesnego oddolnego odczytania środowiskowej specyfiki powojennego krajobrazu Doliny Śmierci.
EN
The article concerns the environmental histories of Death Valley, Chojnice, Poland, the execution site from the Second World War. The authors discuss the historical and archaeological evidence related to German mass crimes committed near the town during the war, especially in the environmental context of the killing sites. The main assumption is to show – based on an ethnographic field study – that Death Valley despite its designation, appears in local memory as a lively place. Through the lens of environmental anthropology, it is possible to identify those natural features of mass killing sites that not only have not yet been included in the mainstream of historical and archaeological research but also are essential to the present vernacular recognition of environmental specificity of Death Valley’s post-war landscape.
PL
This paper is a case study of a prisoner of war and internment camp in Tuchola (Kujawsko-Pomorskie Province, Poland). The camp operated between 1914 and 1923. During the First World War it was run by Germans and later, during the Polish-Soviet War, by the Poles. The site provides a context for discussing two issues around archaeological research of the recent past. The first issue is how archaeology can be used to analyse the transformations of landscapes related to modern armed conflicts. The second point deals with the documentation and analysis of the remains of the camp using ALS derivatives. The main conclusion of this paper is that LiDAR technology can be also a useful tool in the context of approaching landscapes from the recent past.
EN
In this paper we analyze three places extensively used by the Soviets in Poland during the Cold War: Brzeźnica-Kolonia, Kłomino and Borne Sulinowo. We treat these places and artefacts found there as heritage. However, instead of calling for their urgent preservation, we try to argue that heritage does not need to be perceived as a dead past. Material culture and material transformations in landscapes of the recent past last and survive their own times. The goal of this paper is to pay archaeological attention to the duration of the things and landscapes from the recent past in the present.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.