Anna Nilsson (Södertörns högskola/ CBEES)

The Iron Curtain was the border that divided Europe during a large part of the 20th century. It was a physical border with barbed wire, concrete walls and wide death strips patrolled by soldiers and diligent citizens. Apart from being a heavily militarised and physical border this was also a significant divider of people. Standing as a dividing monument of two ideologies, the communist East against the capitalist West, it has left more marks than those still visible in the landscape. Despite the fall of the Iron Curtain the division still exists in the minds of many people in Europe.

The definition of the word border is problematic in itself. We could talk about the physical boundary, the dividing line where one entity meets another like a kind of double ending. The border then becomes a sort of ‘no man’s land’ where the power of two different states end on either side. We can also look at the he human side of a border such as identity, ethnicity, language, culture and traditions. This would usually give us a much wider border area with gradual change depending on its history and interaction across boundaries. How does this social border landscape translate into the material culture? How do we as archaeologist recognise this within the material?

Within the context of the Cold War and its aftermaths the Iron Curtain has had, and to some extent still has, a major role to play. What can archaeology bring to the discussions about the former borders between East and West?

The border between Italy and Slovenia may not be the most obvious section of the former Iron Curtain, however, here the changing borders throughout the 20th century, both in location and in appearance, clearly demonstrate some of the issues involved with border studies. By looking at the border area between Italy and Slovenia I will discuss some of the advantages and problems when using archaeology to study a border that has left a lasting mark on both the landscape and its people.