Kufer pełen wspomnień: (auto)biograficzne podejście do dziedzictwa
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18778/0208-6034.32.08Słowa kluczowe:
archeologia nas samych, dziedzictwo, materialność, pamięć, rzeczyAbstrakt
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.
Pobrania
Bibliografia
Benjamin W. (1975), Twórca jako wytwórca: eseje i rozprawy, Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, Poznań.
Google Scholar
Bjerck H.B. (2014), My father’s things, [w:] B. Olsen, Þ. Pétursdóttir (red.), Ruin memories: materialities, aesthetics and the archaeology of the recent past, Routledge, Abingdon–New York, s. 109–127.
Google Scholar
Buchli V., Lucas G. (red.) (2001), Archaeologies of the contemporary past, Routledge, London–New York.
Google Scholar
Choay F. (2001), The invention of the historic monument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Google Scholar
Darvill T. (2006), Stonehenge. The biography of a landscape, Tempus, Stroud.
Google Scholar
DeSilvey C. (2006), Observed decay: Telling stores with mutable things, „Journal of Material Culture” t. 11(3), s. 318–338.
Google Scholar
Domańska E. (1999), Mikrohistorie: Spotkania w międzyświatach, Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, Poznań.
Google Scholar
Domańska E. (2006), Historie niekonwencjonalne. Refleksja o przeszłości w nowej humanistyce, Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, Poznań.
Google Scholar
Fojut N. (2009), The philosophical, political and pragmatic roots of the conservation, [w:] Heritage and beyond, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, s. 13–22, https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/identities/PatrimoineBD_en.pdf (dostęp: 9.01.2017).
Google Scholar
Głosek M. (red.) (2010), Nekropolia z terenu byłego poligonu wojskowego na Brusie w Łodzi. Mogiła ekshumowana w 2008 roku, Uniwersytet Łódzki, Łódź.
Google Scholar
González-Ruibal A. (2008), Time to destroy. An archaeology of supermodernity, „Current Anthropology”, t. 49(2), s. 247–279.
Google Scholar
González-Ruibal A. (2014), Archaeology of the contemporary past, [w:] C. Smith (red.), Encyclopedia of global archaeology, Springer, New York, s. 1683–1694.
Google Scholar
Gould R.A., Schiffer M.B. (red.) (1981), Modern material culture: The archaeology of us, Academic, New York.
Google Scholar
Harrison R. (2013), Heritage: Critical approaches, Routledge, Abingdon–New York.
Google Scholar
Holtorf C. (2002), Notes on the life history of a pot sherd, „Journal of Material Culture”, t. 7(1), s. 49–71.
Google Scholar
Holtorf C. (2005), From Stonehenge to Las Vegas, Altamira Press, Lanham, MD.
Google Scholar
Holtorf C. (2014), Time for archaeology! A personal portfolio of fieldwork, [w:] H. Alexandersson, A. Andreeff, A. Bünz (red.), Med hjärta och hjärna: En vänbok till professor Elisabeth Arwill–Nordbladh, Universtity of Göteborg, Göteborg, s. 51–64.
Google Scholar
Holtorf C. (2015), Averting loss aversion in cultural heritage, „International Journal of Heritage Studies”, t. 21(4), s. 405–421.
Google Scholar
Holtorf C., Fairclough G. (2013), The New Heritage and re-shaping of the past, [w:] A. González-Ruibal (red.), Reclaiming archaeology. Beyond the tropes of modernity, Routledge, London, s. 197–210.
Google Scholar
Holtorf C., Piccini A. (red.) (2009), Contemporary archaeologies – excavating now, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main.
Google Scholar
Jones A. (2002), Archaeological theory and scientific practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Google Scholar
Kajda K., Kostyrko M. (2016), Contemporary dimension of heritage promotion – towards socially engaged archaeology, „Sprawozdania Archeologiczne”, t. 68, s. 9–23.
Google Scholar
Kobiałka D. (2008), Z życia dwóch naszyjników. Problemy biograficznego podejścia do rzeczy, „Kultura Współczesna”, t. 57(3), s. 201–216.
Google Scholar
Kobiałka D. (2014), Let heritage die! The ruins of trams at depot no. 5 in Wrocław, Poland, „Journal of Contemporary Archaeology”, t. 1(2), s. 351–368.
Google Scholar
Kobiałka D. (2015), Biografia rzeczy jako sposób interpretowania roli i znaczenia dziedzictwa, [w:] M. Kępski (red.), Z rzeką w tle. Biografia Śluzy Katedralnej/Framed by the River. The Biography of the Cathedral Lock, Centrum Turystyki Kulturowej Trakt, Poznań, s. 44–49.
Google Scholar
Kobiałka D., Frąckowiak M., Kajda K. (2015), Tree memories of the Second World War: a case study of common beeches from Chycina, Poland, „Antiquity”, t. 89(345), s. 683–696.
Google Scholar
Kobyliński Z. (2014), Krajobraz i pamięć, [w:] J. Wysocki (red.), Archaeologica Hereditas.
Google Scholar
Konserwacja zapobiegawcza środowiska 2. Krajobraz kulturowy, Wydawnictwo Fundacji Archeologicznej, Warszawa–Zielona Góra, s. 13–22.
Google Scholar
Kola A. (2000), Hitlerowski obóz zagłady Żydów w Bełżcu w świetle źródeł archeologicznych: badania 1997–1999, Rada Ochrony Pamięci Walk i Męczeństwa, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Warszawa–Waszyngton.
Google Scholar
Kopytoff I. (2005), Kulturowa biografia rzeczy. Utowarowienie jako proces, [w:] M. Kempny, E. Nowicka (red.), Badanie kultury. Elementy teorii antropologicznej. Kontynuacje, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa, s. 249–274.
Google Scholar
Ławrynowicz O., Żelazko J. (red.) (2015), Archeologia totalitaryzmu. Ślady represji 1939–1956, Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Instytut Pamięci Narodowej Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu Oddział w Łodzi, Łódź.
Google Scholar
Moshenska, G. (2013), The archaeology of the Second World War: Uncovering Britain’s wartime heritage, Pen & Sword Archaeology, Barnsley, UK.
Google Scholar
Olivier L. (2011), The dark abyss of time: archaeology and memory, Altamira Press, Lanham, MD.
Google Scholar
Olsen B., Shanks M., Webmoor T., Witmore C. (2012), Archaeology: The discipline of things, University of California Press, Berkeley–Los Angeles–London.
Google Scholar
Olsen B, Pétursdóttir Þ. (red.) (2014), Ruin memories: Materialities, aesthetics and the archaeology of the recent past, Routledge, Abingdon–New York.
Google Scholar
Prinke A. (1973), Możliwości porównawczego stosowania danych etnograficznych w archeologii, „Etnografia Polska”, t. 17, s. 41–66.
Google Scholar
Roymans N. (1995), The cultural biography of urnfields and the long-term history of a mythical landscape (with comments and reply), „Archaeological Dialogues”, t. 2(1), s. 2–38.
Google Scholar
Saunders N. (2007), Killing time: Archaeology and the First World War, Stroud, Sutton.
Google Scholar
Shanks M. (1998), The life of an artifact in an interpretive archaeology, „Fennoscandia Archaeologica”, t. 15, s. 15–30.
Google Scholar
Shanks M. (2012), The archaeological imagination, Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA.
Google Scholar
Smith L. (2006), The uses of heritage, Routledge, London–New York.
Google Scholar
Thomas J. (2004), Archaeology and modernity, Routledge, New York.
Google Scholar
Trigger B. (2006), A history of archaeological thought, second edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Google Scholar
Ulin J. (2009), Into the space of the past: A family archaeology, [w:] C. Holtorf, A. Piccini (red.), Contemporary archaeology – excavating now, Peter Lang, Frankfurt and Main, s. 145–160.
Google Scholar
Zalewska A. (red.) (2016), Archeologia współczesności, SNAP, Warszawa.
Google Scholar
Pobrania
Opublikowane
Jak cytować
Numer
Dział
Licencja
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Użycie niekomercyjne – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.
