Zprávy památkové péče 2017, 77(4):417-434

Contemporary borders. The archaeological potential of research on state borders and the borderlands of former Czechoslovakia

Michal Bureš¹, Michal Rak², Lukáš Funk³, Martin Tomášek⁴

¹ Archeo Pro o.p.s.

² Československá obec legionářská

³ Národní muzeum

⁴ NPÚ, GnŘ

Enthusiastic preparations for the protection of the state border in the later 1930's which ended with the ignominious resignation of the borderlands to the aggressor; the expulsion of the German national population and the subsequent attempt to resettle the borderlands which failed and led to its mass depopulation; the construction of a border surveillance system claimed to be directed against an external enemy but actually directed towards its own population - these are the neuralgic points of contemporary Czech history. Despite these being ultimately unpleasant memories, or perhaps because of it, they tend to be overlooked and forgotten at least in certain aspects, and the archaeological method is becoming one of the appropriate methods of exploring them.
The schematic map in Fig. 13 shows the settlement of the Novohradské mountains and foothills before and after World War II. The state border with Austria is represented by the bold dotted line in the south, while the thin dotted line defines the examined area from the inland. Although the map shows a clearly low density of settlements in the border area, this is given by higher altitudes and a high degree of afforestation. The increasing number of settlements on the actual border with Austria, in the later forbidden zone, is due to the connection of this border area to the agricultural territories of the Austrian side of the Novohradské mountains. The map in the following Fig. 14 shows the condition in about 1952, when the engineered barriers that made up the "iron curtain" were installed along the border, represented on the map by a thin red line. The next map in Fig. 15 documents the markedly sparse network of settlements around the year 1958. In the forbidden zone (i.e. in the area between the actual state border and the engineered technical barriers) and the border zone (the inland area immediately adjacent to the technical engineered barriers), all settlements disappeared, which could lead to the erroneous impression that these settlements disappeared mainly in the areas right next to the borders. This notion of settlement apparently corresponds to the generally surviving view that after the expulsion of the Germans, the villages at the borders were not resettled and were subsequently demolished so that the area would be easier to monitor in terms of military control of the movement of "undesirable persons". A closer study of the map clearly shows that a number of settlements disappeared in the inlands as well. Settlements became extinct to a comparable degree in the areas both directly next to the border and further inland. Depopulation occurred in different areas at different periods and for different reasons. The expulsion of the German national population was not the determinant factor which led to the definitive abandonment of settlements and the change of the landscape, but only one of several such factors. Many villages and settlements inland of the border but especially along the border itself were resettled. Even though the postwar migrants had differing patterns of migration, it may be presumed that in some places, particularly in the border areas with more favorable conditions for a lasting life, migration would cease and stabilize as it did in a number of inland areas. Before such stabilization could take place, however, the "forbidden zone" was established between 1951 and 1952 and was fortified on the inland side by engineered high-voltage barriers. The inhabited villages that lay within the forbidden zone were forcibly displaced. The construction of technical engineering barriers in the first half of the 1970's was no longer associated with the displacement of the population. The second-generation line of engineered barriers (Fig. 16) led along the border of what was the populated area at the time. The inland area of the monitored region was subject to different developments. Even though there were considerably less inhabitants than the original population, archaeological research shows that most of the agricultural settlements were resettled. In villages with a compact nucleus, as well as in settlements with more scattered agricultural buildings, research has confirmed that only some farmhouses were settled depending on the degree to which the new settlers were allocated more land than what had originally belonged to the individual farmhouses. In scattered areas as well as the compact nuclei, larger farmhouses with courtyards and with more advantageous locations were resettled first, while individual houses and cottages were left to gradually dilapidate. After 1948, however, the land was gradually confiscated from the new agricultural settlers, and agriculture was collectivized. Without their own land, the possibility of making a decent living, without having to depend on the dubious performance of other co-operatives, diminished. The best farmers, for whom the agricultural land was the main reason for coming, moved away when this land was confiscated. The progressive wave of socialization resulted in a decline in crafts and local services. The exodus of the most large-scale agriculturalists caused another wave of internal migration. The residents who remained then abandoned their newly resettled farmhouses and moved into the buildings that had been left empty by the exodus of the agriculturalists, which were in better technical and constructional condition. Some of these larger farmhouse estates often became the headquarters, usually temporarily but sometimes permanently, of the JZD agricultural cooperatives, later of the State-owned Farms (Státní statky). The Tachov area, as the hitherto best documented West Bohemian region, represents all the features of postwar changes that have been mentioned so far. There were 29 villages that disappeared here (with more than 10 large farmhouses) as well as 41 smaller settlements. In addition, virtually all mills became extinct, as did sawmills, hammer mills, glass engraving facilities, and the entire spectrum of the area's underlying economic structure with over 100 other buildings (game warden residences, knackeries, brick factories, pubs, etc.). The density of settlements never returned to as it was before 1945, and it was also heavily influenced by the construction of the technical engineering barriers and the creation of border and forbidden zones.
A survey of these extinct border settlements has shown that the extinction of human settlements throughout the entire area of the Novohradské mountains and foothills can not be unequivocally associated solely with the expulsion of the German national population nor solely with the establishment of technical engineering barriers along the state border and the creation of the forbidden zone. Changes in economic conditions, in particular the collectivization of agriculture and the disappearance of small trades which led to the gradual disappearance of a usable infrastructure, also played a role. All this led to a long-term phenomenon of depopulation that has still not been reversed. During the period of the centrally directed economy, the non-use of the potential of a territory whose economic benefits were still well remembered signified a considerable political problem that had to be ideologically justified and practically disguised. The establishment of a forbidden and border zone would have been useful in concealing this major political failure. The impoverished borderlands had to be hidden from enemies from abroad and within, both of whom could use it in "hostile" propaganda. The destruction and demolition of structures after 1951 was the most common way to render extinct the human dwellings affected by depopulation. The structures to be first demolished were either those that were visible from settlements in the Austrian border areas, or unoccupied and dilapidated buildings in partially inhabited villages. This resulted in either completely empty areas, or entire complete villages that were close to settlements or were visible from a functional village or from some roadway used by the civilian population. On the other hand, structures that were inaccessible and not visible to a domestic or foreign civilian observer were left to gradually dilapidate. There are exceptions, of course, or cases where the degree of visibility is difficult to judge today. The unspoken objective of communist propaganda - to manipulate historical consciousness and let the memory of the living border areas disappear into oblivion - succeeded almost without exception.

Keywords: recent archeology, borderland, postwar expulsion of German inhabitants

Published: December 1, 2017  Show citation