CONFLICT ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE: \"Carso 2014+\" as a case study

CONFLICT
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
LANDSCAPE

 "Carso
2014+"
as
a
case
study
 
 Michela
Bassanelli
 Gennaro
Postiglione

 
 
 Once
we
assign
a
monumental
form
to
our
memory,
we
renounce
a
certain
degree
of
 ourselves
in
the
obligation
of
remembrance.
 (James
Young,
The
Texture
of
Memory)
 
 The
traces
of
war
that
are
present
in
the
urban
foundation
of
cities
as
landscapes
represent
 a
patrimony
that
is
difficult
to
manage
and
have
a
relationship
with
because
they
are
linked
 to
unpleasant
memories,
which
are
often
traumatic.

They
raise
issues
of
primary
 importance,
such
as
the
construction
of
a
collective
identity
on
a
European
scale
beyond
the
 local
context
that
they
refer
to
and
are
connected
to.
Signs
of
armed
conflict,
in
fact,
run
 through
Europe
like
its
backbone
and
could
also
help
unify
it,
but
the
signs
require
rewriting
 to
trigger
the
formation
and
alimentation
of
a
new
supranational
memory.
These
“Borders
 are
not
just
dividing
lines
[any
more],
places
where
differences
assert
themselves;
they
can
 also
be
places
of
exchanges
and
enrichment,
places
where
plural
identities
are
formed”1.
 
 The
importance
of
investigating
and
confronting
this
traumatic
patrimony
resides
in
the
 value
of
the
identity
and
memory
that
pervades
it:
“Having
a
heritage
–
i.e.
a
body
of


   




selected
history
and
its
material
traces
–
is
an
integral
part
of
having
an
identity,
and
it
 affirms
the
right
to
exist
in
the
present
and
continue
into
the
future”2.
 
 The
20th
century,
more
than
any
other
in
Europe,
was
characterized
by
a
lengthy
period
of
 wars
which
assumed
different
forms
and
raged
in
varying
degrees,
from
the
Great
World
 Wars
to
local
ethnic
conflicts.
Each
conflict
left
its
own
legacy:
ruins
and
rubble,
but
also
 buildings
and
infrastructures
that
act
as
stark,
unyielding
urban
reminders
of
a
past
that
 people
would
prefer
to
forget.
“The
residues
of
this
architecture
create
uncertainties,
reveal
 ambiguities
and
cause
embarrassment:

only
with
great
difficulty
(and
recently)
have
 museums
been
created
inside
them
to
collect
and
tell
the
history
and
the
meaning
of
these
 buildings”3.
 
 Analogously
long
lines
of
defence
(and
tension)
were
constructed
as
borders
between
 neighbouring
States
(such
as
those
at
Der
Atlantikwall
or
at
La
Line
Maginot)
during
the
 Great
World
Wars
and
later
during
the
Cold
War,
but
also
in
connection
with
more
local
 conflicts
(like
the
ethnic
wars
of
ex‐Yugoslavia,
for
example).
These
fortified
systems
are
 cumbersome
presences
which
sometimes
only
cross
one
country
and
at
other
times
traverse
 several
nations.
They
are
fragments
of
a
past
which
is
unable
to
find
its
own
emotional,
 functional
and
spatial
position
due
to
a
cumbersome
memory
which
was
never
re‐ elaborated,
and
was
too
often
simply
removed.
Added
to
this
are
the
presence
–
and
ruins
‐
 connected
to
the
battlefields.
These
constitute
systems
which
are
more
localised
and
are
 sometimes
also
in
urban
areas,
where
they
present
a
considerable
link
to
the
local,
 environmental
or
urban
framework.
This
is
true
of
e.g.
the
famous
”D‐Day”
beaches
in
 France,

the
battlefields
of
the
Civil
War
along
the
”Camin
Real
de
la
Mesa”
in
Spain,
and
the
 lesser‐known
mountains
of
the
Carso
in
Italy
where
the
bloodiest
battles
of
the
First
World
 War
were
fought.
 
    




On
one
hand,
people
would
like
to
obliterate
all
these
traumatic
places
and
memories,
but
at
 the
same
time
there
is
the
fear
of
losing
part
of
one’s
history
and
identity,
which
is
partly
 comprised
of
these
scars4.
There
must
be
a
third
possibility,
a
“third
space”,
as
H.K.
Bhabha5
 would
call
it:
a
space
to
develop
a
different
design
process
regarding
the
tangible
and
 intangible
patrimony
generated
by
the
conflicts
that
can
combine
to
have
a
therapeutic
 effect
and
be
a
catalyst
for
the
emergence
of
museums.

This
is
the
direction
that
the
 museography
of
“20th
Century
Conflict
Archaeological
Landscape”
is
going.
 
 The
museographic
project
is
intended
to
promote
knowledge,
conservation,
communication
 and
the
valorisation
of
the
traces
and
memories
that
are
suffused
in
the
landscapes
and
 urban
territories.
It
is
also
hoped
that
it
will
have
a
therapeutic
value
in
helping
people
 overcome
any
residual
trauma.

 
 Consequently,
several
crucial
questions
are
raised:
“[…]
should
sites
that
will
serve
to
remind
 people
of
past
troubles
be
retained
or
removed?
Is
it
better
to
confront
this
materiality,
or
 ignore
and
forget
it?
What
is
an
appropriate
way
of
presenting
and
interpreting
sites
of
 conflict?
[…]”6.

 
 A
call
for
”Carso
2014+“
was
recently
published
by
the
Province
of
Gorizia,
which
presents
a
 promising
model
for
approaching
this
patrimony.
The
identifying
objective
of
the
local
 administration
was
to
create
an
open‐air
museum
where
elements
of
history
(from
the
 trenches
still
present
to
the
memorials
built
in
the
1920s
and
‘30s)
and
remembrance
(of
the
 bloody
battles
and
the
refusal
of
the
local
population
to
fight)
could
be
integrated
with
the
 natural
environment
of
the
Carso
mountains
through
a
network
of
pathways
and
 interventions
to
connect
the
territory,
memories
and
populations.
The
winning
proposal,
a
 joint
venture
by
companies7
guided
by
Studio
Bürgi
from
Camorino
(CH),
presented
a
general
    




strategy
and
a
system
of
precise
interventions
which
at
least
partly
seem
to
offer
a
 convincing
solution
for
the
new
operative
paradigm.
 
 
 The
Carso
2014+
Case:
possible
good
practice.
The
diffused
museum
as
an
instrument
of
re‐ appropriation

 
 The
Gorizian
Carso,
a
strip
of
mountainous
land
wedged
in
the
extreme
north‐east
of
 present‐day
Italy,
has
been
a
contested
area
for
millennia:
first
it
was
Italian
(until
300
A.D.),
 then
Slavic
(until
1200
A.D.),
and
Hapsburg
and
again
Italian
since
1918.
Despite
its
remote
 location
part
of
the
mountain
has
always
been
characterised
by
conflict,
especially
during
 the
First
World
War,
and
this
profoundly
traumatised
a
whole
generation.
During
that
time
 the
Carso
”hosted”
the
“11
Battles
of
the
Isonz”
which
lasted
over
30
months,
from
May
 1915
to
October
1917,
as
Italian
and
Hapsburg
troops
fought
for
control
of
the
Trieste
 territory8.
The
evidence
of
this
sad
and
traumatic
period
is
comprised
of
military
works
 (artificial
caves,
shelters,
paths,
trenches,
etc.)
that
were
built
for
strategic
reasons,
but
also
 monuments
(tombstones,
plaques,
cemeteries,
etc.)
that
were
erected
to
commemorate
the
 men
who
fought
and
died
in
this
area.
Furthermore,
whole
towns
like
e.g.
San
Martino
del
 Carso
were
completely
razed
to
the
ground
amidst
the
heat
of
battle;
their
ruins
add
to
the
 evidence
that
preserves
the
memory
of
those
tragic
events.
 
 The
Great
War
was
a
total
war:
much
of
it
was

fought
in
the
trenches,
and
it
resulted
in
 more
than
10
million
deaths.
The
Italian
territory
which
was
most
damaged
by
the
war
was
 the
Carso
region
and
also
along
the
Isonzo
in
the
direction
of
Trieste
and
Lubiana.

 
    





 The
Battle
 
 At
the
beginning
of
the
summer
of
1915,
General
Luigi
Cadorna,
Commander‐in‐Chief
of
the
 Italian
Army,
launched
the
principal
attack
in
this
area
against
the
Austrian‐Hungarian
armies
 (commanded
by
the
Field
Marshall
Franz
Conrad
von
Hötzendorf),
which
almost
without
 exception
were
able
to
repulse
the
Italian
assaults.
After
the
dream
of
a
“short
war”
waned,
 the
conflict
assumed
the
characteristics
that
were
typical
of
a
trench
war
–
inch‐by‐inch
 fighting.
Since
the
Carsico
territory
is
mostly
barren
and
stony
it
was
impossible
for
the
 soldiers
of
either
side
to
find
any
shelter.
This
meant
that
both
the
Italian
and
the
Austrian‐ Hungarian
armies
were
forced
to
use
the
Carso’s
caves
and
natural
caverns
for
shelter
and
as
 hiding
places
and
trenches.
For
this
reason
the
War
and
its
history
are
deeply
rooted
in
the
 natural
environment
of
the
area.
They
are
symbolic
of
the
identity
and
memory
of
the
Italian
 villages
and
the
people
who
were
forced
to
take
part
in
a
conflict
they
did
not
believe
in,
and
 whose
fates
were
decided
by
the
impracticable
orography
of
the
battle
zones.
 
 With
the
Austrian‐Hungarian
troops
higher
up
on
the
mountainside,
in
a
stronger
position
 than
the
Italians
below
who
were
trapped
in
a
territory
that
offered
no
escape,
the
“Battles
 of
the
Isonzo”
resulted
in
thousands
of
Italian
deaths,
and
they
were
finally
forced
to
 withdraw
to
the
Piave
after
the
devastating
losses
of
Caporetto9.
 
 
 The
Call
and
the
Project
 


   




Due
to
both
the
peculiar
characteristics
and
historic
value
of
the
landscape,
the
province
of
 Gorizia
decided
in
2005
to
develop
a
detailed
programme
for
the
rediscovery
and
 reconciliation
of
this
territory,
which
is
awash
with
traumatic
memories
that
are
shared
by
 populations
from
outwith
the
local
area
too.
In
2007
the
”Carso
2014+“
project
began10
with
 a
call
that
aimed
to
valorize
the
region
by
fusing
the
elements
of
the
landscape
with
historic
 memory
in
the
areas
that
were
First
World
War
battlegrounds
in
order
to
promote
an
 elaboration
that
would
transcend
the
trauma
of
these
places
as
it
is
currently
represented
in
 the
collective
memory.
The
province
set
up
an
interdisciplinary
task
force
to
write
the
 competition
programme
and
identify
with
its
objectives:
the
environmental
study
was
 entrusted
to
the
landscapist
Andreas
Kipar;
the
research
and
collection
of
cultural
evidence
 was
undertaken
by
the
Triestine
writer
Maruo
Covacich,
who
also
had
the
task
of
identifying
 the
principal
narrative
themes
of
the
project;
and
the
investigation
and
collection
of
 documentary
information
was
coordinated
by
the
historian
Enrico
Cernigo11.
 
 It
was
the
writer
Mauro
Covacich
who,
in
delving
into
the
anthropological
dimension
of
the
 Carsico
territory,
insisted
on
the
introduction
of
the
concept
of
”porosity”12
to
the
call,
 opening
the
work
of
memoralization
in
a
direction
which
is
more
inclusive
than
exclusive,
 and
actualising
a
transformation
of
the
remembrance
sites
in
such
a
way
that
they
would
no
 longer
be
memorials
to
the
martyrs
and
heroes
but
pathways
of
reconciliation
and
a
meeting
 place
for
the
different
populations
and
cultures
that
have
called
the
Carso
home.
A
 clarification
of
the
trans‐cultural
and
hybrid
dimension
that
is
typical
of
this
border
territory,
 of
which
Trieste
is
the
capital,
demonstrates
the
peaceful
nature
of
the
local
population
 which,
historically,
has
lived
in
a
spirit
of
intercultural
dialogue
and
collaboration.
As
 Covacich
wrote
in
the
call:
“With
its
caves
and
underground
rivers,
the
Carso
has
an
identity
 and
multicultural
spirit
that
hides
and
re‐emerges,
a
territory
which
isn’t
empty
but
is
full
of
 life.
It
is
a
space
with
a
cultural
overlap
where
Latin
and
Slavic
cultures
meet,
where
they
 clash
and
mix,
with
an
exterior
and
an
interior.
Revolving
around
this
concept
the
project
 intends
to
construct
a
sort
of
permanent
speleological
laboratory
of
Carsic
cultures.”

    





 The
title,
Carso
2014+
refers
to
the
year
the
project
will
close,
coinciding
with
the
centenary
 of
the
Great
War.
The
objective
of
the
provincial
government
is
to
create
an
open
air
 museum
where
elements
of
history
will
fuse
with
the
region’s
natural
environment
through
 a
network
of
pathways
that
will
connect
it
with
surrounding
urban
systems.
In
this
way
they
 will
become
supporting
elements
for
a
new‐found
intercultural
dialogue.
The
traces
present
 in
the
Gorizian
area
of
the
Carso
will
therefore
become
important
symbols:
the
trenches
–
 wounds
to
heal;
the
pathways
of
the
circuits
–
a
way
to
know
and
live
the
history
and
 ongoing
impact
of
the
War.
 
 The
goal
of
the
call
was
thus
to
develop
a
very
articulated
project
which
would
reconcile
the
 strategic
planning
interventions
with
the
requalification
of
a
vast
area
of
the
territory
and
 specific
museographic
planning,
while
resolving
issues
related
to
the
conservation
and
 communication
of
traces
and
history
that
are
present
in
the
sites.
 
 The
interdisciplinary
study
of
the
group
has
identified
several
strategic
areas
for
the
project,
 along
with
the
relative
cultural,
historic,
narrative
and
functional
contents
which
have
been
 chosen
as
key
elements
for
a
system
of
interventions.
These
are
primarily
aimed
at
the
re‐ appropriation13
of
sites
by
populations
that
are
not
only
local,
namely
the
sacred
area
of
 Monte
San
Michele;
Lake
Doberdò
and
the
area
of
Redipuglia
Memorial.
 
 Along
with
these
three
principal
sites,
precise
interventions
that
correspond
to
war
findings
 have
been
identified,
including
trenches,
tunnels,
battlefields
of
particular
importance,
and
 also
panoramic
sites
that
stimulate
a
different
kind
of
remembrance
through
their
 exceptional
beauty.
Each
site,
though
treated
individually,
will
participate
in
the
overall
 project
of
rewriting
and
re‐appropriating
the
Carsic
territory
identified
by
Carso
2014+
and
    




the
realization
of
the
general
strategic
plan,
which
primarily
aims
to
reconcile
local
and
non‐ local
populations
alike
with
the
history
of
the
First
World
War
and
the
cultural
landscape
 connected
to
it.

 
 Mont
San
Michele,
the
first
site
identified,
represents
one
of
the
battlefields
of
the
“11
 Battles
of
the
Isonzo”.
Thanks
to
its
favourable
geographic
position
this
Carsico
landform,
 which
is
situated
between
the
towns
of
Sagrado
and
San
Martino
del
Carso,
was
chosen
by
 the
Austrian‐Hungarian
commander
as
the
site
of
a
fortified
position
that
would
be
dug
 directly
into
the
hillside
and
armed
with
large
calibre
cannons.
The
gunners
were
never
 captured
by
the
Italian
army,
and
because
of
this
they
became
very
strategic
sites
for
the
 project:
an
underground
network
for
a
re‐found
intercultural
dialogue
between
border
 populations
from
Italy,
Austria
and
Slovenia.
The
call
also
anticipates
a
redevelopment
of
the
 way
the
present
museum
functions:
Studio
Burgi
will
build
inside
the
hillside,
thus
enlarging
 its
size
and
activities.
One
pathway
through
the
old
cannon
sites
ends
at
the
new
 underground
museum,
closely
linking
these
two
parts
of
the
narration;
all
the
interventions
 aim
to
add
value
to
the
experientiality
of
the
exposition
with
regards
to
the
historic
 documents
and
also
the
personal
histories
which
over
time
have
constructed
a
new
version
 of
the
story.
This
will
result
in
a
new
narration,
which
in
certain
senses
has
a
plural
identity
 (in
search
of
a
dialogue
and
the
narration
of
the
history
shared
by
both
sides)
and
will
lack
 the
nationalistic
rhetoric
which
was
a
product
of
the
Fascist
gloss
that
was
applied
until
it
 became
the
only
true
great
history
of
the
Carso.

 
 The
second
site
is
mainly
based
on
landscape
and
includes
the
protected
area
of
the
Riserva
 Regionale
of
the
Doberdò
and
the
Pietrarossa
Lakes.
Its
main
objective
is
to
protect
the
great
 environmental
diversity
with
regards
to
flora
and
fauna
and
at
the
same
time
increase
the
 cultural
sensitivity
of
those
who
visit
it,
taking
advantage
of
the
natural
beauty
of
the
area:
 from
the
point
of
view
of
the
museum
the
intention
is
to
create
a
new
narration
which
can
    




restore
the
landscape
value
to
a
territory
that
was
once
solely
perceived
as
traumatic.
The
 museum
will
propose
a
more
articulated
vision
of
characters
and
identities.

 
 In
the
area
of
Castellazzo,
the
project
team
proposes
a
path
between
the
Carsic
rocks
which
 will
lead
to
a
suspended
panorama
over
the
surrounding
territory.
The
intention
is
to
suggest
 a
close
relationship
between
man
and
nature,
using
a
typical
war‐time
technique:
the
 realization
of
a
trench
between
the
Carsic
walls.
In
fact,
in
this
case,
the
trench
is
not
 functional
for
the
War,
nor
is
it
part
of
the
memories;
going
inside
the
rocks
is
only
an
 architectural
expedient
to
experiment
with
blocking
out
the
horizon,
moving
the
focus
in
a
 certain
direction,
and
creating
excitement.
It
is
the
affirmation
of
a
possible
different
use
of
 techniques
and
typologies,
or
even
military
architecture:
a
structure
to
unite,
involve,
and
 share,
juxtaposing
the
weight
of
an
unwanted
history
that
has
been
unfortunately
endured
 with
the
desire
to
build
a
different
present
and
future
in
which
the
Carsico
territory
can
find
 its
hospitable
and
multicultural
nature
once
again.

 
 The
last
site
identified
is
the
Sacrario
Militare
of
Redipuglia
(Military
Memorial),
the
largest
 Italian
cemetery
and
one
of
the
largest
in
Europe
which
was
overseen
by
the
architect
G.
 Greppi
and
the
sculptor
G.
Castiglioni
and
inaugurated
in
1938.
It
holds
the
bones
of
100,000
 soldiers
from
the
Great
War
and
represents
one
of
the
greatest
expressions
of
the
rhetoric
 of
the
Fascist
power14.
The
memorial,
built
on
the
slopes
of
Monte
dei
sei
Busi,
the
summit
 of
which
was
bitterly
contested
in
the
first
phase
of
the
Great
War,
is
the
scene
of
a
 particularly
rhetorical
installation.
It
is
similar
to
a
military
formation:
at
the
base
is
the
tomb
 of
Duca
d’Aosta,
Commander
of
the
III
Army
Corps;
on
the
sides
are
his
generals;
and
at
the
 back
are
22
immense
terraces
comprised
of
the
bodies
of
the
identified
soldiers
(evoked
and
 invoked
by
the
repeated
writing
of
‘present’
in
giant
letters).
The
two
great
common
tombs
 at
the
sides
of
the
votive
chapel
are
the
final
resting
place
for
60,000
unknown
soldiers.

 
    




In
front
of
the
Sacrario
is
Colle
Sant’Elia,
which
contains
the
war
cemetery
that
existed
 before
the
monument
was
constructed,
is
the
Parco
della
Rimembranza
(Memorial
Park).
 They
are
contrasting
symbols
of
a
discordant
remembrance:
on
one
hand
the
great
and
 rhetorical
Fascist
monument,
created
to
celebrate
the
ideals
of
National
Socialism,
and
on
 the
other
the
simple
memory
of
the
fallen
(Italians)
who
never
wanted
to
fight
that
war.
 They
are
symbols
of
a
wound
which
is
still
open
in
the
history
of
Italy.

 
 In
this
context
the
call
required
the
requalification
of
the
area
surrounding
the
mausoleum,
 in
particular
the
area
of
the
old
cemetery
on
the
hill
of
Sant’Elia,
with
the
aim
of
balancing
 history.
 
 The
proposal
elaborated
by
Studio
Burgi
and
its
project
team
plans
a
green
area
full
of
 cypresses
where
once
stood
the
crosses
of
the
fallen
soldiers.
The
intention
is
to
recover
a
 relationship
with
the
memory,
removing
it
from
the
exploitation
of
a
totally
political
 rhetoric.
This
will
breathe
life
into
the
project
as
it
aims
to
evoke
a
“sacred
landscape”15
to
 remember
and
commemorate
the
victims
of
war.

 
 In
the
final
area
of
the
Sacrario
is
a
large
shady
area
which
is
set
apart
from
the
rest
of
the
 site.
Here
people
can
stop
and
reflect
on
their
experience
of
the
site
and
its
history
as
the

 intervention
tries
to
communicate
with
the
instruments
of
the
museographic
project.
It
is
a
 diffused
museum
installation
that
connects
the
traces
that
are
present
in
the
territory
with
 the
aim
of
breathing
new
life
into
a
plural
and
inclusive
narrative,
taking
advantage
of
the
 potential
supplied
by
a
suggestive
landscape
that
has
been
transformed
from
a
passive
 theatre
of
remembrance
into
an
active
place
of
knowledge,
sharing,
meeting
and
memory.
 The
circuit
also
contributes
to
this
experience
as
it
can
be
traversed
on
bicycle
or
on
foot.
It
 integrates
the
three
main
issues
of
the
Great
War
into
a
system,
viewing
the
most
 interesting
sites
of
the
Carso
from
historic
and
also
naturalistic
points
of
view.
It
unites
and
    




intersects
history,
memories
and
landscapes,
avoiding
any
nationalistic
and
identity‐based
 rhetoric,
concentrating
on
knowledge
of
the
facts,
the
sites
themselves,
and
telling
the
 stories.
Informative
panels
and
signs
next
to
the
traditional
museum
spaces
and
the
 landscape
installations
from
the
Carso
2014+
museum
complex16
guarantee
the
 communicative
and
informative
structure
of
this
extraordinary
military
and
cultural
 landscape.
 
 The
interventions
aim
to
establish
a
new
relationship
between
the
Carso
sites,
the
bearers
of
 the
traumatic
history
and
the
local
and
wider
populations.
The
decision
to
use
a
multifaceted
 narration

means
that
topics
are
not
only
related
to
the
remembrance
of
war
but
also
to
the
 landscapes
and
nature,
as
well
as
the
personal
stories
of
individuals
who
had
to
endure
the
 war
not
only
as
victims
but
also
as
forced
perpetrators.


 
 This
territory
is
marked
by
conflicts,
from
the
death
of
many
soldiers
to
the
loss
of
whole
 towns
such
as
San
Martino
del
Carso,
but
it
finds
a
new
narrative
in
the
pathways
which
 navigate
the
crucial
points
through
which
the
museographic
project
is
articulated.
The
 findings
become
not
only
liberate
people
from
their
memory
but
also
help
bring
to
light
 other
stories
and
memories
that
have
been
suffocated
up
until
now.
The
interventions
in
the
 territory
are
conciliatory
and
aim
to
realize
the
objective
of
the
“New
Museography”:
to
act
 as
an
instrument
of
reconciliation
and
the
re‐appropriation
of
places
and
people17.
 
 
 
 
 
    





 References
 AAVV.
2004.
Dividing
lines, connecting lines – Europe’s cross‐border heritage.
Strasburgo:
 Council
of
Europe
Publishing.
 Agambén,
G.
2005.
Profanazioni.
Roma:
Nottempo.
 Augè,
M.
2004.
Rovine e macerie.
Torino:
Bollati
Boringhieri.
 Bhabha,
H.K.
1994.
The Location of Culture.
London
and
New
York:
Routledge.
 Benjamin,
W.
2007.
Immagini di città.
Einaudi:
Torino.
 Bennet,
T.
2006.
Museum frictions.
Durham
and
London:
Duke
University
Press.
 Carr,
G.
2010.
The slowly healing scars of Occupation.
Journal
of
War
and
Culture
Studies
3
 (2)
249‐265.

 Cernigoi,
E.,
and
Udo
Stocker.
1997.
Caverne militari a nord di San Michele del Carso, Istituto  per la storia della Resistenza e della società contemporanea a Reggio Emilia.
Reggio
Emilia:
 RSlibri.
 Constant,
C.
1994.
Spiritual Landscape.
Stockholm:
Byggforiaget.
 Evans,
M.,
Lunn,
K.
2007.
War and Memory in the Twentieth Century.
Oxford
and
New
York:
 Berg.
 Young,
J.
1993.
The Texture of Memory.
New
Haven
and
London:
Yale
University
Press.
 Nora,
P.
1984.
Les lieux de memoire.
Paris:
Gallimard.

 Pirazzoli,
E.
2010.
A partire da ciò che resta. Forme memoriali dal 1945 alle macerie del Muro  di Berlino.
Reggio
Emilia:
Diabasis.


   




Ruggeri
Tricoli,
M.
C.
2009.
Trauma. Memoriali e musei fra tragedia e controversia.
Milano:
 Maggioli
Editore.
 Schofield,
J.,
William
Gray
,
J.,
COLLEEN
M.
B.
2005.
Matériel Culture. The archaeology of  twentieth century conflict.
London
and
New
York:
Routledge.
 Schofield,
J.
2009.
Aftermath: Readings in the Archaeology of Recent Conflict.
New
York:
 Springer.
 Scrimali,
A.,
and
Furio
Scrimali.
1996.
Il carso della grande Guerra.
Trieste:
Lint.

 Tumarkin,
M.
2005.
Traumascapes: the power and fate of places transformed by tragedy.
 Melbourne:

Melbourne
University
Publishing.
 Winter,
J.,
Sivan
E.
1999.
War and Remembrance in the Twentieth Century.
Cambridge:
 Cambridge
University
Press.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 




























































 1


Warschawksi
2000,
11.


2


Macdonald
2009,
2.


3


Pirazzoli
2010,138‐139.


4


Carr
2010.


5


Bhabha
1994.


6


Schofield,
Gray
Johnson,
Beck
2005,
7.
????


7


The
temporary
business
association
consists
of:
Paolo
Bürgi
(parent
company,
landscape
design),
Glass
Urban
 Architecture
(architectural
design),
Thetis
(plant
and
structural
design),
Laut
Engineering
(mobility,
infrastructure)
 and
Stefano
Alonzi
(designer
of
the
“goriziano”landscape).
 8


Scrimali
1996.


9


Cernigoi
and
Stocker
1997.


10


http://www.carso2014.it.


11


ibid.


12


Benjamin
2007.


13


Agambén
2005.


14


Fiore
2003.
    








































































































































































































 15


Constant
1994.


16


Bennet
2009.
 
Euro
Med
2007.


17