Advertisement

International Journal of Historical Archaeology

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 574–592 | Cite as

The Fragment and the Testimony: Reflections on Absence and Time in the Archaeology of Prisons and Camps

  • Maresi Starzmann
Article

Abstract

The archaeological record forms around historical silences—moments of effacement, removal, or obliteration of traces of the past. Drawing on research conducted at a former Nazi forced labor camp in Berlin, Germany, I view historical silences as the interplay of inscriptions and erasures that constitute archaeological palimpsests. Highlighting both the fragmentary state of the archaeological record and the tangled nature of time, I consider archaeology a form of historical testimony. Taking a cue from an archival art project, archaeology offers new historical possibilities by engaging aspects of the material world that cannot easily be traced, disentangled, or contained.

Keywords

Archive Fragment Palimpsest Testimony 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper benefitted greatly from a close reading by Verity Whalen, who I would like to thank for identifying occasional stylistic idiosyncrasies as well as for offering gentle criticism on how to improve content. Much thanks is owed to Ella Littwitz for engaging in a sustained conversation about her artwork with me and for providing high resolution images for this publication.

References

  1. Agamben, G. (1998). Sovereign Power and Bare Life, Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
  2. Agamben, G. (1999). Remnants of Auschwitz: The Witness and the Archive, Zone Books, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Agamben, G. (2005). State of Exception, Chicago University Press, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Améry, J. (1986). At the Mind’s Limits: Contemplations by a Survivor on Auschwitz and its Realities, Schocken, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Assmann, A. (1999). Erinnerungsräume: Formen und Wandlungen des kulturellen Gedächtnisses, C. H. Beck, Munich.Google Scholar
  6. Assmann, A. (2013). Das neue Unbehagen an der Erinnerungskultur: Eine Intervention, C. H. Beck, Munich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bailey, D., and Simkin, M. (2015). Eleven minutes and forty seconds in the Neolithic: underneath archaeological time. In van Dyke, R. M., and Bernbeck, R. (eds.), Subjects and Narratives in Archaeology, University Press of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 189–216.Google Scholar
  8. Bailey, G. (2007). Time perspectives, palimpsests and the archaeology of time. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26: 198–223.Google Scholar
  9. Barthes, R. (1981). Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography, Hill and Wang, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Bernbeck, R. (2015). “Framed ambiguity”: Zum historiographischen Status der Dinge aus Grabungen in Konzentrationslagern und NS-Zwangsarbeitslagern. Historische Anthropologie 23(3):413−430.Google Scholar
  11. Bernbeck, R., Pollock, S., Trenner, J., Starzmann, M. T., Collins, E. and Davidovic, A. (2012). Die Ausgrabungen auf dem Tempelhofer Flugfeld 2012: Grabung 1873. Unpublished excavation report, Berlin State Preservation Office, Berlin.Google Scholar
  12. Bernbeck, R., Pollock, S., Trenner, J., Collins, E., Schwart, V., Voigtländer, D., Davidovic-Walther, A., Meyer, J. and Nordheim, B. (2013). Die Ausgrabungen auf dem Tempelhofer Flugfeld 2013: Grabung 1873. Unpublished excavation report, Berlin State Preservation Office, Berlin.Google Scholar
  13. Buchli, V., and Lucas, G. (2001). Archaeologies of the Contemporary Past, Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Budraß, L. (2001). Die Lufthansa und ihre ausländischen Arbeiter im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  15. Bunzl, M. (1983). Foreword: syntheses of a critical anthropology. In Fabian, J. (ed.), Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. vii–xxxii.Google Scholar
  16. Caswell, M. (2016). The future of the painful past: archival labor and materiality in the South Asian American Digital Archive. In Starzmann, M. T., and Roby, J. R. (eds.), Excavating Memory: Sites of Remembering and Forgetting, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 376–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crossland, Z. (2013). Evidential regimes of forensic archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 42: 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. van Dyke, R. M., and Bernbeck, R. (2015). Alternative narratives and the ethics of representation: an introduction. In van Dyke, R., and Bernbeck, R. (eds.), Subjects and Narratives in Archaeology, University Press of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
  19. Foster, H. (2004). An archival impulse. October 1(110): 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilead, I. (2015). Limits of archaeological emplotments from the perspective of excavating Nazi extermination centers. In van Dyke, R. M., and Bernbeck, R. (eds.), Subjects and Narratives in Archaeology, University Press of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 235–256.Google Scholar
  21. Graves-Brown, P., Harrison, R., and Piccini, A. (2013). Introduction. In Graves-Brown, P., Harrison, R., and Piccini, A. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Contemporary World, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamilakis, Y. (2010). Re-collecting the fragments: archaeology as mnemonic practice. In Lillios, K. T., and Tsamis, V. (eds.), Material Mnemonics: Everyday Memory in Prehistoric Europe, Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 188–199.Google Scholar
  23. Harris, V. (2012). Genres of the trace: memory, archives, and trouble. Archives and Mansucripts 40(3): 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hirsch, M., and Spitzer, L. (2006). Testimonial objects: memory, gender, and transmission. Poetics Today 27: 353–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoskin, J. (1998). Biographical Objects: How Things Tell the Stories of Peoples’ Lives, Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Jenkins, K. (1991). Re-thinking History, Routledge, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones, E. C. (2001). Empty shoes. In Benstock, S., and Ferriss, S. (eds.), Footnotes on Shoes, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, pp. 197–232.Google Scholar
  28. Keane, W. (2005). Signs are not the garb of meaning: on the social analysis of material things. In Miller, D. (ed.), Materiality, Duke University Press, Durham, pp. 182–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keenan, T., and Weizman, E. (2012). Mengele’s Skull: The Advent of a Forensic Aesthetics, Sternberg Press, Berlin.Google Scholar
  30. Limon, G. and Bechler, T. 2014. Commentary on “What there is/What is there?” http://ellalittwitz.com/what-there-is-what-is-there.html, accessed July 28, 2016.
  31. Lucas, G. (2005). The Archaeology of Time, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  32. Lucas, G. (2015). Archaeology and contemporaneity. Archaeological Dialogues 22(1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lyotard, J.-F. (1997). Streitgespräche oder: Sätze bilden ‘nach Auschwitz. In Weber, E., and Tholen, G. C. (eds.), Das Vergessen/e, Turia + Kant, Vienna, pp. 18–50.Google Scholar
  34. Macdonald, S. (2009). Difficult Heritage: Negotiating the Nazi Past in Nuremberg and Beyond, Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  35. Mehler, N. (2015). Die Archäologie des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts zwischen Akzeptanz und Relevanz. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Archäologie des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit 28: 23–28.Google Scholar
  36. Meskell, L. (2002). Negative heritage and past mastering in archaeology. Anthropological Quarterly 75: 557–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mills, B. J., and Walker, W. H. (eds.) (2008). Memory Work: Archaeologies of Material Practices, School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe.Google Scholar
  38. Müller, A.-K. (2010). Entsorgte Geschichte – Entsorgte Geschichten: Die Funde aus einer Abfallgrube auf dem Gelände der Gedenkstätte Sachsenhausen und die Bedeutung zeitgeschichtlicher Archäologie. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Humboldt University Berlin, Berlin.Google Scholar
  39. Navaro-Yashin, Y. (2009). Affective spaces, melancholic objects: ruination and the production of anthropological knowledge. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 15: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pollard, J. (2001). The aesthetics of depositional practice. World Archaeology 33(2): 315–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pollock, S., and Bernbeck, R. (2015). A gate to a darker world: excavating at the Tempelhof Airport. In González-Ruibal, A., and Moshenska, G. (eds.), Ethics and the Archaeology of Violence, Springer, New York, pp. 137–152.Google Scholar
  42. Rovelli, C. (2016). Seven Brief Lessons on Physics, Riverhead Books, New York.Google Scholar
  43. Schofield, J., Johnson, W. G., and Beck, C. M. (2002). Introduction: matériel culture in the modern world. In Schofield, J., Johnson, W. G., and Beck, C. M. (eds.), Matériel Culture: The Archaeology of Twentieth Century Conflict, Routledge, London, pp. 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sierp, A. (2016). Memory, identity, and a painful past: contesting the former Dachau concentration camp. In Starzmann, M. T., and Roby, J. R. (eds.), Excavating Memory: Sites of Remembering and Forgetting, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 316–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Snowden, E. (2016). Astro noise. In Poitras, L. (ed.), Astro Noise: A Survival Guide for Living Under Total Surveillance, Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, pp. 120–122.Google Scholar
  46. Starzmann, M. T. (2014). Excavating Tempelhof airfield: objects of memory and the politics of absence. Rethinking History 18(2): 211–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Starzmann, M. T. (2015a). The materiality of forced labor: an archaeological exploration of punishment in Nazi Germany. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 19: 647–663.Google Scholar
  48. Starzmann, M. T. (2015b). Zeitschichten/Bedeutungsschichten: Archäologische Untersuchungen zur NS-Zwangsarbeit in Berlin-Tempelhof. Historische Archäologie 2(2015): 1–20.Google Scholar
  49. Stewart, S. (1993). On Longing: Narratives of the Miniature, the Gigantic, the Souvenir, the Collection, Duke University Press, Durham.Google Scholar
  50. Stoler, A. L. (2002). Colonial archives and the arts of governance. Archival Science 2(1–2): 87–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sturdy Colls, C. (2012). Holocaust archaeology: archaeological approaches to landscapes of Nazi genocide and persecution. Journal of Conflict Archaeology 7:70–104.Google Scholar
  52. Sturdy Colls, C. (2015). Holocaust Archaeologies: Approaches and Future Directions, Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Theune, C. (2010). Historical archaeology in national socialist concentration camps in Central Europe. Historische Archäologie 2: 1–14.Google Scholar
  54. Theune, C. (2014). Archäologie an Tatorten des 20. Jahrhunderts. Archäologie in Deutschland Sonderheft 6/2014. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt.Google Scholar
  55. Theune, C. (2015). Bedeutung und Perspektiven einer Archäologie der Moderne. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Archäologie des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit 28: 11–22.Google Scholar
  56. Trouillot, M.-R. (1995). Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History, Beacon Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  57. Webster, J., Tolson, L., and Carlton, R. (2014). The artifact as interviewer: experimenting with oral history at the Ovenstone Miner’s Cottages site, Northumberland. Historical Archaeology 48(1): 11–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyBinghamton UniversityBinghamtonUSA
  2. 2.The Museum of Modern Art/MoMA PS1Long Island CityUSA

Personalised recommendations