Pokaż uproszczony rekord

dc.contributor.authorKobiałka, Dawid
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-24T13:31:35Z
dc.date.available2018-07-24T13:31:35Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.issn0208-6034
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/25370
dc.description.abstractFor 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. en_GB
dc.language.isoplpl_PL
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl_PL
dc.relation.ispartofseriesActa Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Archaeologica;32
dc.subjectChernobylen_GB
dc.subjectcontemporary archaeologyen_GB
dc.subjectheritageen_GB
dc.subjectruinsen_GB
dc.subjectmaterialityen_GB
dc.subjectmemoryen_GB
dc.subjectCzarnobylpl_PL
dc.subjectarcheologia współczesnościpl_PL
dc.subjectdziedzictwopl_PL
dc.subjectruinypl_PL
dc.subjectmaterialnośćpl_PL
dc.subjectpamięćpl_PL
dc.titleRuiny, wszędzie ruiny: Czarnobyl i archeologiczny wymiar dziedzictwa niedawnej przeszłościpl_PL
dc.title.alternativeRuins, Ruins Everywhere: Chernobyl and an Archaeological Value of Heritage of the Recent Pasten_GB
dc.typeArticlepl_PL
dc.rights.holder© Copyright by Authors, Łódź 2017; © Copyright for this edition by Uniwersytet Łódzki, Łódź 2017pl_PL
dc.page.number365-384
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationInstytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN
dc.identifier.eissn2449-8300
dc.referencesAndreassen E., Bjerck H., Olsen B. (2010), Persistent memories. Pyramiden – a Soviet mining town in the High Arctic, Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim.pl_PL
dc.referencesAndrusieczko P. (2016), Czarnobyl – 30 lat po, „Gazeta Wyborcza”, 25.04.2016, http:// wyborcza.pl/1,75399,19975452,czarnobyl-30-lat-po.html (dostęp: 1.02.2017).pl_PL
dc.referencesBarriga T. (2015), Polskie miasta duchów, „TVN24”, 5.12.2015, http://www.tvn24.pl/ magazyn-tvn24-na-weekend/polskie-miasta-duchow,16,332 (dostęp: 1.02.2017).pl_PL
dc.referencesBenjamin W. (2010), Pasaże, Wydawnictwo Literackie, Kraków.pl_PL
dc.referencesBrooks E. (2016), Meet Chernobyl’s only archaeologists. And he happens to be an Aussie, „The Huffington Post Australia”, 24.04.2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/04/24/chernobyl-30-year-anniversary-archeology_n_9755996.html? utm_hp_ref.australia (dostęp: 1.02.2017).pl_PL
dc.referencesBuchli V., Lucas G. (red.) (2001), Archaeologies of the contemporary past, Routledge, London–New York.pl_PL
dc.referencesDawdy S.L. (2010), Clockpunk anthropology and the ruins of modernity, „Current Anthropology”, t. 51(6), s. 761–793.pl_PL
dc.referencesEdensor T. (2005), Industrial ruins: space, aesthetics and materiality, Berd, Oxford– New York.pl_PL
dc.referencesFowler S. (2015), Writing collapse, [w:] G. Emberling (red.), Social theory in archaeology and ancient history: the present and future of counternarratives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, s. 205–230.pl_PL
dc.referencesGołębiowska M. (2015), Urbex po dolnośląsku. Adrenalina z dozą rozsądku, „Gazeta Wyborcza” 20.01.2015, http://wroclaw.wyborcza.pl/wroclaw/1,35771,17284736,Urbex_ po_dolnoslasku__Adrenalina_z_doza_rozsadku__WIDEO_.html (dostęp: 1.02.2017).pl_PL
dc.referencesHanus K. (2015), Chronić i służyć – zastosowanie dronów w projektach ochrony dziedzictwa archeologicznego, „Biografia Archeologii”, t. 1(1), s. 92–102.pl_PL
dc.referencesHarman G. (2011), The quadruple object, John Hunt Publishing, Ropley.pl_PL
dc.referencesHarraway D. (2003), The companion species manifesto: dogs, people, and significant otherness, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.pl_PL
dc.referencesHarrison R., Schofield J. (2010), After modernity. Archaeological approaches to the contemporary past, Oxford University Press, Oxford.pl_PL
dc.referencesHoltorf C., Piccini A. (red.) (2009), Contemporary archaeologies – excavating now, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main.pl_PL
dc.referencesHoltorf C., Högberg A. (2013), Heritage futures and the future of heritage, [w:] S. Bergerbrant, S. Sabatini (red.), Counterpoint: essays in archaeology and heritage studies in honour of professor Kristian Kristiansen, Archaepress, Oxford, s. 739–746.pl_PL
dc.referencesHoltorf C., Högberg A. (2014), Communicating with future generations: what are the benefits of preserving cultural heritage, „European Journal of Post-Classical Archaeologies”, t. 4, s. 315–330.pl_PL
dc.referencesKadrow S. (1998), „Przesłanka pompejańska” a badania archeologiczne w Polsce – wybrane zagadnienia, „Zeszyty Ośrodka Ratowniczych Badań Archeologicznych. Seria A: Metody i zagadnienia prawne”, t. 2a, s. 9–26.pl_PL
dc.referencesKajda, K., Kostyrko M. (2016), Contemporary dimension of heritage promotion – towards socially engaged archaeology, „Sprawozdania Archeologiczne”, t. 68, s. 9–23.pl_PL
dc.referencesKobiałka 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.pl_PL
dc.referencesKobiałka D. (2016), UrbEx: archeologiczny flâneuryzm a multitemporalność dziedzictwa, „Biografia Archeologii”, t. 2(1), s. 3–12.pl_PL
dc.referencesKobiałka D., Kajda K., Frąckowiak F. (2015a), Archaeologies of the recent past and the Soviet remains of the Cold War in Poland: a case study of Brzeźnica-Kolonia, Kłomino and Borne Sulinowo, „Sprawozdania Archeologiczne”, t. 67, s. 9–22.pl_PL
dc.referencesKobiałka D., Frąckowiak M., Kajda K. (2015b), Tree memories of the Second World War: a case study of common beeches from Chycina, Poland, „Antiquity”, t. 89(345), s. 683–696.pl_PL
dc.referencesKusiak J. (2013), Walter Benjamin i metodologia antropologicznego materializmu.pl_PL
dc.referencesKrzesanie dialektycznych iskier na metalowej głowie Ernsta Thälmanna, „Praktyka Teoretyczna”, t. 2(8), s. 309–332.pl_PL
dc.referencesLatour B. (2011), Nigdy nie byliśmy nowocześni, Oficyna Naukowa, Warszawa.pl_PL
dc.referencesOliphant R. (2016), Chernobyl disaster: On the 30th anniversary of the nuclear accident, authorities plan for the next century, „The Telegraph”, 26.04.2016, http:// www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/26/chernobyl-anniversary-30-years-afterits- nuclear-disaster-author/ (dostęp: 1.02.2017).pl_PL
dc.referencesOlivier L. (2011), The dark abyss of time: archaeology and memory, Altamira Press, Lanham, DC.pl_PL
dc.referencesOlivier L. (2013), The business of archaeology is in the present, [w:] A. González-Ruibal (red.), Reclaiming archaeology. Beyond the tropes of modernity, Routledge, London, s. 117–129.pl_PL
dc.referencesOlsen B. (2013), W obronie rzeczy. Archeologia i ontologia przedmiotów, Wydawnictwo Instytutu Badań Literackich PAN, Warszawa.pl_PL
dc.referencesOlsen B., Pétursdóttir Þ. (red.) (2014), Ruin memories: materialities, aesthetics and the archaeology of the recent past, Routledge, Abingdon–New York.pl_PL
dc.referencesPaiva T. (2008), Night vision: the art of urban exploration, Chronicle Books, San Francisco.pl_PL
dc.referencesPajewska A. (2014), Urbex – ta zabawa nie jest dla dziewczynek? FOCH!, http://foch.pl/foch/1,132037,16035104,Urbex___ta_zabawa_nie_jest_dla_dziewczynek_.html (dostęp: 1.02.2017).pl_PL
dc.referencesPétursdóttir Þ. (2012a), Concrete matters: ruins of modernity and the things called heritage, „Journal of Social Archaeology”, t. 13(1), s. 31–53.pl_PL
dc.referencesPétursdóttir Þ. (2012b), Small things forgotten now included, or what else do things deserve?, „International Journal of Historical Archaeology”, t. 16(3), s. 577–603.pl_PL
dc.referencesPétursdóttir Þ., Olsen B. (2014), An archaeology of ruins, [w:] B. Olsen, Þ. Pétursdóttir (red.), Ruin memories: materialities, aesthetics and the archaeology of the recent past, Routledge, Abingdon–New York, s. 3–29.pl_PL
dc.referencesSchlanger N., Nespoulous L., Demoule J-P. (2016), Year 5 at Fukushima: a ‘disaster-led’ archaeology of the contemporary future, „Antiquity”, t. 90(350), s. 409–424.pl_PL
dc.referencesShanks M. (2012), The archaeological imagination, Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.pl_PL
dc.referencesWitmore C. (2014), Archaeology and the new materialisms, „Journal of Contemporary Archaeology”, t. 1(2), s. 203–224.pl_PL
dc.referencesWstęp Wzbroniony (2015), „TVN Turbo”, http://www.tvnturbo.pl/programy/wstep-wzbroniony,10994.html (dostęp: 1.02.2017).pl_PL
dc.contributor.authorEmaildawidkobialka@wp.pl
dc.identifier.doi10.18778/0208-6034.32.15


Pliki tej pozycji

Thumbnail

Pozycja umieszczona jest w następujących kolekcjach

Pokaż uproszczony rekord