冷战:全球遗产的跨国途径

IF 0.4 3区 历史学 0 ARCHAEOLOGY Post-Medieval Archaeology Pub Date : 2021-01-02 DOI:10.1080/00794236.2021.1896211
J. Schofield, W. Cocroft, Marina Dobronovskaya
{"title":"冷战:全球遗产的跨国途径","authors":"J. Schofield, W. Cocroft, Marina Dobronovskaya","doi":"10.1080/00794236.2021.1896211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"SUMMARY Although within living memory, many countries now consider their surviving Cold War architecture as part of their heritage. It can even be a priority for heritage managers given that significant buildings are often suitable for reuse while extensive ‘brownfield’ sites such as airfields can be used for large-scale redevelopment. In a number of countries whose work we refer to here (notably the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe), agencies responsible for managing their country’s heritage have approached this priority by creating national inventories of sites and buildings with a view to taking informed decisions on their future. This paper presents the argument that the wider international context of the Cold War provides a more appropriate (or additional, higher-level) framework for such decision making. Such a ‘transnational’ approach would allow the comparison of similar (e.g. European) sites not merely within national borders but across the full extent of their western NATO 1 deployment in Europe and North America. Taking this approach would also allow comparison with related sites in countries that formed part of the eastern-bloc Warsaw Pact. 2 After outlining some examples of how national agencies have approached their Cold War heritage, this paper presents the four stages of this transnational approach making provision for an improved understanding and management of Cold War heritage sites wherever they occur. With a specific focus on the direct comparison between England and Russia, and also referring to sites surviving elsewhere within the former NATO and Warsaw Pact regions, as well as the United States, we argue that this four-stage approach: provides new understandings of a complex archaeological and architectural record; gives fresh perspectives on significance; and (importantly in a time of geopolitical instability) does so in a spirit of cooperation and friendship.","PeriodicalId":43560,"journal":{"name":"Post-Medieval Archaeology","volume":"55 1","pages":"39 - 58"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00794236.2021.1896211","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cold War: a Transnational Approach to a Global Heritage\",\"authors\":\"J. Schofield, W. Cocroft, Marina Dobronovskaya\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00794236.2021.1896211\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"SUMMARY Although within living memory, many countries now consider their surviving Cold War architecture as part of their heritage. It can even be a priority for heritage managers given that significant buildings are often suitable for reuse while extensive ‘brownfield’ sites such as airfields can be used for large-scale redevelopment. In a number of countries whose work we refer to here (notably the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe), agencies responsible for managing their country’s heritage have approached this priority by creating national inventories of sites and buildings with a view to taking informed decisions on their future. This paper presents the argument that the wider international context of the Cold War provides a more appropriate (or additional, higher-level) framework for such decision making. Such a ‘transnational’ approach would allow the comparison of similar (e.g. European) sites not merely within national borders but across the full extent of their western NATO 1 deployment in Europe and North America. Taking this approach would also allow comparison with related sites in countries that formed part of the eastern-bloc Warsaw Pact. 2 After outlining some examples of how national agencies have approached their Cold War heritage, this paper presents the four stages of this transnational approach making provision for an improved understanding and management of Cold War heritage sites wherever they occur. With a specific focus on the direct comparison between England and Russia, and also referring to sites surviving elsewhere within the former NATO and Warsaw Pact regions, as well as the United States, we argue that this four-stage approach: provides new understandings of a complex archaeological and architectural record; gives fresh perspectives on significance; and (importantly in a time of geopolitical instability) does so in a spirit of cooperation and friendship.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43560,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Post-Medieval Archaeology\",\"volume\":\"55 1\",\"pages\":\"39 - 58\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00794236.2021.1896211\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Post-Medieval Archaeology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00794236.2021.1896211\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHAEOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Post-Medieval Archaeology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00794236.2021.1896211","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

摘要尽管在人们的记忆中,许多国家现在都将其幸存的冷战建筑视为其遗产的一部分。这甚至可以成为遗产管理者的优先事项,因为重要的建筑通常适合重复使用,而机场等广泛的“棕地”场地可以用于大规模重建。在我们这里提到的工作的一些国家(尤其是英国和欧洲其他地方),负责管理本国遗产的机构已经着手处理这一优先事项,建立了国家遗址和建筑清单,以期对其未来做出明智的决定。本文提出的论点是,冷战的更广泛的国际背景为这种决策提供了一个更合适的(或额外的、更高层次的)框架。这种“跨国”方法不仅可以在国家边界内,而且可以在北约1号在欧洲和北美的整个部署范围内,对类似的(例如欧洲)地点进行比较。采用这种方法还可以与东方集团华约成员国的相关网站进行比较。2在概述了一些国家机构如何处理其冷战遗产的例子后,本文介绍了这种跨国方法的四个阶段,为更好地了解和管理冷战遗产地提供了条件。我们特别关注英国和俄罗斯之间的直接比较,并参考前北约和华约地区以及美国其他地方的遗址,认为这四个阶段的方法:对复杂的考古和建筑记录提供了新的理解;对意义提出了新的观点;(重要的是,在地缘政治不稳定的时代)本着合作与友谊的精神这样做。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Cold War: a Transnational Approach to a Global Heritage
SUMMARY Although within living memory, many countries now consider their surviving Cold War architecture as part of their heritage. It can even be a priority for heritage managers given that significant buildings are often suitable for reuse while extensive ‘brownfield’ sites such as airfields can be used for large-scale redevelopment. In a number of countries whose work we refer to here (notably the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe), agencies responsible for managing their country’s heritage have approached this priority by creating national inventories of sites and buildings with a view to taking informed decisions on their future. This paper presents the argument that the wider international context of the Cold War provides a more appropriate (or additional, higher-level) framework for such decision making. Such a ‘transnational’ approach would allow the comparison of similar (e.g. European) sites not merely within national borders but across the full extent of their western NATO 1 deployment in Europe and North America. Taking this approach would also allow comparison with related sites in countries that formed part of the eastern-bloc Warsaw Pact. 2 After outlining some examples of how national agencies have approached their Cold War heritage, this paper presents the four stages of this transnational approach making provision for an improved understanding and management of Cold War heritage sites wherever they occur. With a specific focus on the direct comparison between England and Russia, and also referring to sites surviving elsewhere within the former NATO and Warsaw Pact regions, as well as the United States, we argue that this four-stage approach: provides new understandings of a complex archaeological and architectural record; gives fresh perspectives on significance; and (importantly in a time of geopolitical instability) does so in a spirit of cooperation and friendship.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
33.30%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Smoking histories: a bioarchaeological approach to tobacco consumption in two skeletal populations from The Netherlands (1300-1829 CE). Grave communications: how an understanding of gravedigging practices informs post-medieval cemetery excavations and interpretations Towards an archaeology of everyday life in British Ionian Islands: the cultural itineraries of the Kythera Gin Bottles James Winchester’s clay pipe factory: excavations at Glassfields, Bristol, 2016–2017 Early modern pewter from the castle of Middelburg-in-Flanders (Belgium): uses, material composition and ranges of quality
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1