7 Na poti nikamor? Razpletanje prepletov ugreznjenih poti Roads to nowhere? Disentangling meshworks of holloways © Dimitrij Mlekuž Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, Center za preventivno arheologijo in Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za arheologijo, dmlekuz@gmail.com Uvod Zračno lasersko skeniranje (ZLS, tudi lidar) nam je odprlo pogled na gozdna tla, torej krajino, ki je bila „zaprta“ za opazovanje z drugimi metodami daljinskega zaznavanja. Gozdovi so prekrili starejše krajine in jih tako obvarovali pred uničenjem zaradi oranja, gradnje in drugih vplivov, hkrati pa so v gozdu potekale specifične aktivnosti, ki so puščale nove sledove. Ena najpogostejših značilnosti gozdnih tal so ugreznje- ne poti. Ugreznjene poti (ang. hollow way, sunken lane, nem. Hohlwege, fr. chemin creux) so poti, ki jih je dol- gotrajna raba izdolbla v tla (Hindle 1993; Taylor 1979; Muir 2010, 67–93). Po gozdovih se vijejo kot široki ko- ridorji prepletenih poti, ki običajno tečejo po grebenih in se tako izogibajo zamočvirjenim dolinam potokov. Na robu gozda običajno izginejo, saj jih je kasnejša obdelava tal izbrisala (slika 1). Kljub vseprisotnosti ugreznjenih poti se z njimi ni nihče posebej ukvarjal. Preveč blatne, nezanimive, skrite, del moderne krajine, nekatere morda še danes v uporabi, niso bile nikoli zanimiv predmet preučevanja. Če sploh prepo- znane kot arheološki sledovi, so opisane kot primitivne komunikacije oziroma blatni začetki razvoja komunika- cij proti modernemu cestnemu sistemu (glej Muir 2010, 94–99; Hindle 2001, 1–11). Vendar so ugreznjene poti vse prej kot to. Ugreznjene poti kot materialni sledovi gibanja nas pripravijo k razmišlja- nju o mobilnosti, gibanju in premikanju kot konstitutiv- nemu elementu, ki medsebojno vzpostavlja ljudi in kra- jine. Ugreznjene poti nas lahko naučijo, kako so krajine vedno v procesu nastajanja, nikoli dokončane, narejene Izvleček: Ugreznjene poti so poti, ki so jih tokovi ljudi, živali – morda vozov – in vode erodirali ter izdolbli v tla. Po krajini se vijejo kot široki koridorji prepletenih poti, ki običajno tečejo po grebenih in se tako izogibajo zamočvirjenim dolinam potokov. A kaj predstavljajo ugreznjene poti in kam vodijo? V članku razvijam tezo, da koridorjev ugreznjenih poti ne moremo razumeti kot primitivne komunikacijske mreže, temveč kot sledove vsakdanjega življenja v krajini. Ugreznjene poti nam tako ponujajo, da preko njih vstopimo v pretekle krajine. Ključne besede: arheologija, krajina, gibanje, mobilnost, poti, ugreznjene poti Abstract: Holloways are paths and tracks that were eroded and hollowed out by the flow of people, animals – perhaps carts – and water. They usually run along ridges and avoid marshy valleys. What do holloways represent and where do they lead? In this paper, I argue that holloways do not represent fragments of primitve transportation networks, but traces of daily life in a landscape. As such, they can lead us into past landscapes. Keywords: archaeology, landscape, movement, mobility, paths, holloways in nato preurejene skozi gibanje, premikanje ljudi, stvari, snovi, živali ... Premikanje oziroma gibanje je materialna praksa, ki vzpostavlja nova razmerja med stvarmi – med predmeti, telesi, kraji, substancami … (Aldred, Sekedat 2012b). Prav zato imajo ugreznjene poti, kot materialni sledovi preteklega gibanja, tudi moč, da premikajo nas, krajinske arheologe, po pokrajini ter nam pomagajo po- novno splesti in ustvarjati pretekle pokrajine. Mobilnost, gibanje, kroženje – ljudi, stvari in idej – ter vzpostavljanje povezav in omrežij, brez katerih družbe ne delujejo, je v zadnjem času predmet mnogih študij v sociologiji, geografiji in drugje v družboslovju. Pomen tako imenovane nove paradigme mobilnosti (ang. new mobilities paradigm) ali obrata k mobilnosti (ang. mo- bility turn) je vključevanje pomena gibanja in mobilno- sti v širše diskusije (glej Sheler, Urry 2006; Urry 2007; Hannam et al. 2006). Študije mobilnosti se ukvarjajo z različnimi vidiki premikanja, gibanja in mobilnosti, od telesnega gibanja do transporta, komunikacijske infra- strukture, kapitalističnega prestrukturiranja prostora, mi- gracij in turizma (Hannam et al. 2006, 9–10). Te študije se ne ukvarjajo le z različnimi praksami, merili, lokaci- jami in tehnologijami mobilnosti, temveč se sprašujejo tudi o politiki mobilnosti in nemobilnosti, materialnih kontekstih, znotraj katerih je mobilnost umeščena, in o dinamiki njihovih predstavitev. Gre za novo paradigmo, ki vzpostavlja nova temeljna vprašanja o primernih pred- metih preučevanja družbe. Tradicionalni, „sedentarni“ koncepti – statične relacije med ljudmi v bližnjih stikih, strukture in inštitucije (Sheller, Urry 2006) – ne morejo zaobjeti ključne vloge mobilnosti in premikanja v sodob- ni družbi, kroženja idej, ljudi, informacij in predmetov (Sheler, Urry 2006, 217–219). Družbeno tako ni omejeno 1.01 Izvirni znanstveni članek Arheo 31, 2014, 7–18 8 Slika 1. Ugreznjene poti v okolici Vinjega Vrha pri Šmarjeških Toplicah. Figure 1. Holloways around Vinji Vrh near Šmarješke Toplice. le na odnose med ljudmi, ki so v bližnjih stikih, temveč ga sestavljajo skupek ljudi in stvari, ki so povezani in se povezujejo na različne načine, ter rekonfiguracije tega skupka v prostoru in času. Topološki obrazec teh skup- kov je omrežje; ne statična mreža, temveč omrežje, ki vznikne, nastaja in obstaja. Obrat k mobilnosti vključuje tudi iznajdbo novih, kreativnih, mobilnih metodologij preučevanja mobilnosti, in sicer „časovnoprostorskih“ dnevnikov, etnografij virtualnega in domišljijske mo- bilnosti na internetu, metod raziskovanja „atmosfere“ in „občutka“ krajev, uporabe fotografij za reproduciranje spominov srečanj in krajev, sledenja kroženju predme- tov, bodisi fizično ali tehnologije sledenja in metode pre- učevanja prostorske in časovne dinamike krajev prehoda, kot so letališča in železniške postaje (Urry 2007, 3–60). Arheologija ne sme biti in na srečo tudi ni imuna na te pomisleke (glej npr. Aldred, Sekedat 2010; ista 2011a; ista 2011b; ista 2011c; Leary 2014). Kako so se ljudje v preteklih pokrajinah premikali? Kako je gibanje medse- bojno vzpostavljalo ljudi in krajine? Kako lahko pretekle krajine premikajo nas, arheologe? S perspektive mobilnosti so krajine – pa tudi posamezni kraji, telesa in stvari – rezultat praks, trajektorij, medse- bojnih razmerij in tokov, ki se vzpostavljajo skozi giba- nje. Krajina je tako neprestano prepletanje, vzpostavlja- nje relacij in povezav, vedno v nastajanju. Ta pogled je mnogo bolj produktiven kot razumevanje krajine v kon- tekstu statičnih konceptov, kot so teritoriji, meje, obmo- čja, merila itd. Na poti nikamor? Razpletanje prepletov ugreznjenih poti 9 Ugreznjene poti: steze in reke Ugreznjene poti so materialni sledovi gibanja, ki je pusti- lo svoje sledove na površju zemlje (slika 1). Ugreznjene poti lahko razumemo kot sledove ljudi in jih preučuje- mo na enak način kot živalske sledove. S tem se ukvarja ihnologija, področje paleontologije, ki raziskuje procese interakcij med organizmom in substratom ter rezultate teh interakcij (glej Buatois, Mangano 2011; Baucon et al. 2008). Rezultati interakcij so sledovi, oblike biogenega izvora, katerih oblika izhaja iz morfologije ter vedenja organizma in lastnosti sedimentacijskega substrata. Sle- dovi so tako vir za razumevanje vedenja organizma, saj pričajo o tem, kako se je organizem premikal, počival, hranil in bival v krajini (Buatois, Mangano 2011). Živali – vključno z ljudmi – se premikajo po pokrajini. Ko hodijo, so njihova telesa v stiku s površjem, njihove noge in podplati se dotikajo tal ter teptajo in izhodijo tla, zemljo in vegetacijo. Teptanje spreminja fizikalne lastno- sti tal, kot so velikost por, zračnost tal in zmožnost za infiltracijo vode. Teptanje fizično poškoduje nadzemne dele rastlin in zmanjšuje njihovo sposobnost za regenera- cijo. Steptana zemlja zmanjšuje zmožnosti respiracije ter omejuje rast in obseg koreninjenja. Največjo škodo pov- zročita pritisk pete na tla, ko se noga spusti ob začetku koraka, in strižno gibanje prstov ob zaključku koraka, ko se noga dvigne od tal. Strižne sile ob dvigu prstov imajo še večji vpliv na strminah (Morgan, Smith 1980). Vpliv teptanja je nelinearen; največ posledic pusti prvih nekaj Slika 2. Simuliran tok vode po površju ugreznjenih poti pri Tupaličah. V oda se zliva po ugreznjenih poteh, ki postanejo struge. Figure 2. Simulated surface runoff on a landscape with holloways near Tupaliče. Holloways are diverting the flow of water over the landscape, becoming streams. Arheo 31, 2014, 7–18 10 prehodov. Lastnosti tal in rastja se lahko obnavljajo zelo dolgo in poškodbe lahko ostanejo tudi nekaj desetletij (Arnup 1998). Ko ljudje in živina hodijo po istih stezah, teptanje zmanj- šuje rast vegetacije in infiltracijo vode v tla. To povzro- či povečan površinski tok vode po stezah, še posebej na strmih pobočjih. V sušnem obdobju teptanje zrahlja in odstrani zemljo na površju, ki postane vir sedimentov v deževnem obdobju. Rahljanje površinske plasti zemlje in erozija potekata še preden je rastje izhojeno (Morgan, Smith 1980). Steze in poti postanejo struge za površinski tok vode in vir sedimenta, kar povzroči njihovo erozijo (slika 2). Tako nastanejo ugreznjene poti. Ugreznjene poti niso zgrajene, temveč so erodirane zaradi toka ljudi (bosih ali obutih), živali, morda vozov. Steze postanejo tudi vodi za vodo. Erozija poglobi poti ter jih naredi blatne in nepre- hodne. Ljudje zato uberejo alternativne poti, pri čemer nastanejo prepleti ugreznjenih poti, kjer se poti križajo, cepijo in spet združujejo, podobno kot pri prepletenih rečnih strugah (Edgeworth 2011, 109). Ugreznjene poti so hkrati reke, hudourniki, potoki, jarki in steze. So produkt narave ali kulture? Jih je potrebno preučevati kot sledove živali, kot ceste ali kot hudournike in reke? Tu je dihotomija med naravo in kulturo popol- noma brezpredmetna (Edgeworth 2011, 109). S „čišče- njem“ ugreznjenih poti ali reduciranjem na zgolj eno od domen izgubimo množino, raznovrstnost in bogastvo, ki je značilna za zapleteno realnost. Ko hodimo po pokra- jini, potrebujemo nekaj časa, da se privadimo ideji, da so jarki, ki jih vidimo na pobočju, ugreznjene poti. Toda vsak jarek je lahko ugreznjena pot, steza, ki omogoča gi- banje po pokrajini. Namesto načrtovane mreže urejenih povezav med kraji v krajini ugreznjene poti potekajo križemkražem (slika 3). So neurejen, zmeden, mrgoleč, kodrčav preplet stez, ki se cepijo, združujejo in križajo. Ugreznjene poti niso čiste, so umazane. Ne le blatne. Čiste niso zato, ker so nastale na umazan, kaotičen, zmeden, neurejen in blodnjav na- čin. Nemogoče je razbrati, kako so nastajale, kdaj je bila katera pot opuščena in kdaj izhojena nova. Poti niso stra- tificirane, niso rezultat počasnega akumuliranja, niti niso preprosti palimpsesti (prim. Mlekuž 2013a, 96–99; isti 2013b, 122–126), kjer bi lahko razločili posamezne slo- je dodajanja in brisanja poti. Ugreznjene poti so rezultat trajanja – ponavljajočih se dejanj premikanja s preupo- rabo starih poti in improvizacijo (glej Mlekuž 2012; isti 2013a, 96–99). Niso čiste, ker so nastale z uporabo, preu- porabo, opuščanjem, predelavo ali zgolj prepoznavanjem obstoječih poti, s pomočjo teles, vode, živali in drugih stvari v krajini. Čiste niso zato, ker jih niso izdelali zgolj ljudje, temveč jih je naredilo mnogo agentov, ki delujejo z različnimi ritmi in hitrostmi. Ustvarilo jih je gibanje ljudi, živali, materialne kulture, sedimentov, vegetacije in vode; v različnih kombinacijah ter v različnih ritmih in interakcijah na zapletene načine. Ugreznjene poti so narejene skozi trajanja in ponavljanje, zato jih ne moremo razločiti v preproste, čiste sloje ali zaporedja. Vprašanje, koliko so v resnici stare, je nesmi- selno (tako kot pri večini stvari v pokrajini); še vedno so lahko v uporabi, še vedno jih dolbe voda in izhojajo ljudje. Podobno so brezplodni poskusi datiranja s pomočjo rela- cij in povezav z drugimi stvarmi v krajini, stvarmi, ki jih lahko datiramo, kot so gomile, gradišča ali vasi. Ljudje so se premikali od kraja do kraja, uporabljali poti, ki so po- tekale ob gomilah, gradiščih, apnenicah, kopiščih, vaseh … Ozirali so se na te elemente – prav tako, kot so upo- števali obstoječe poti, in prav tako, kot so jih ignorirali ter izdelali nove poti. Poti in krajina vzpostavljajo drug drugega in ustvarjajo polno, veččasno krajino trajanj. Ugreznjene poti niso nastale s pomočjo preproste aku- mulacije ali naslojitev poti drugo na drugo. So rezultat ponavljajočega se gibanja in improvizacije. Ugreznjene poti pričajo o veččasni naravi krajine in zmedi časnosti (Mlekuž 2013a, 96–99; isti 2013b, 122–126), ki je ne moremo razložiti s pomočjo kronologije. Ker so jih naredili ljudje in druge stvari, ki so se premi- kale po pokrajini, imajo moč premikati tudi nas. Njihovi materialni sledovi nam omogočajo, da se gibljemo po pokrajini, nas vodijo po pokrajini, bodisi peš bodisi, ko interpretiramo rezultate daljinskega zaznavanja. So itine- rarji, ki povezujejo pretekle kraje. Ko se jim prepusti- mo, da nas vodijo, ponovno prepletemo povezave, ki so nekoč obstajale v krajini in tako poustvarjamo pretekle krajine. Ugreznjene poti nas učijo, da postanemo bolj dojemljivi za zamegljene, neostre, umazane, zapletene in blodnjave stvari, namesto da zahtevamo in ustvarjajmo čiste, ne- Na poti nikamor? Razpletanje prepletov ugreznjenih poti 11 problematične kategorije. Naše delo krajinskih arheolo- gov ni čiščenje. Ko se trudimo očistiti zapletene, mehke, umazane in blodnjave stvari, kot so krajine, ustvarjamo le še večjo zmedo (Law 2004). Krajina, kjer najdemo te sledove, ni zgolj ozadje ali ne- kaj, kar omejuje, ni zgolj substrat, v katerega so ti sle- dovi odtisnjeni, temveč sama postane »tok, spreminjajoč se asemblaž individualiziranih točk, nehomogenosti, trajektorij, kompleksnih odnosov, ki se sestavljajo in raz- stavljajo skozi gibanje« (Kwinter 2001, 31). Ugreznjene poti so sestavni, konstitutivni del pokrajine in hoja po njih je dejanje krajinjenja, ustvarjanja in preurejanja krajin. Ljudje kreativne odločitve sprejemajo iz trenutka v tre- nutek; odločitve, ki temeljijo na njihovi potopljenosti v okolico. Lahko se pustijo voditi potem, lahko pa se odlo- čijo ignorirati pravila, se izognejo obstoječim potem in se uprejo logiki prostorskega reda. Za razliko od vode lahko ljudje tudi premagujejo gravi- tacijo. Lahko se gibljejo navkreber prav tako kot nav- zdol; lahko se gibljejo v različne smeri. Na ta način se na pobočjih vzpostavijo razcepljene, razvejane ugreznjene poti, ki se zopet združujejo na prehodih in prelazih, kjer topografija vzpostavlja ozka grla v pokrajini (Edgeworth 2011, 109–110). Pobočja, zamočvirjena tla ali blato lah- ko upočasnijo gibanje in ovire je treba premagati. Prela- zi, prehodi in koridorji vodijo in usmerjajo gibanje. Ugreznjene poti niso načrtovane, izdelane in obliko- vane. Vznikanje prepletov ugreznjenih poti ni rezultat Slika 3. Preplet poti v okolici Semiča. Figure 3. Meshwork of tracks around Semič. Arheo 31, 2014, 7–18 12 programa ali načrta, ki bi v naprej določal njihove smeri in oblike, bodisi kot mentalni načrt v glavah ljudi ali v omejitvah, ki jih postavlja krajina. Nasprotno, vznikanje je dinamičen proces diferenciacije in evolucije ter stalna kreativna iznajdba, ali če uporabljamo izraz iz biologije, morfogeneza. Morfogenezo lahko definiramo kot obliko, ki je rezultat procesov diferenciacije. Nasprotje morfoge- nezi je načrt, oblika, ki jo je načrtoval načrtovalec, upora- bljena za realizacijo oblike. Ugreznjene poti morfogenet- ske figure, izoblikovane v prostoru in času. Tako so nas ugreznjene poti zopet pripeljale nazaj k ih- nologiji ali znanosti o sledovih. Novejši razmisleki v ihnologiji razumejo kompleksen vzorec sledov kot za- pis aktivnega obvladovanja habitata s strani organizma (Buatois, Mangano 2011, 24–25). Niso le pasivna sled, rezultat pasivnih odzivov na prevladujoče okoljske po- goje, temveč prej del razširjenega fenotipa organizma (Dawkins 1989); razširjenega v smislu, da ne vključu- je zgolj bioloških procesov rasti tkiv, temveč tudi druge vplive genov na okolje, bodisi znotraj ali zunaj posame- znega organizma. Tako lahko razumemo ugreznjene poti kot materialne sledove načinov, kako ljudje poseljujejo okolje, pokrajino. Ta pogled resonira z razvojem misli v krajinski arheolo- giji in študijah mobilnosti. Premikanje, potovanje in prepleti Tim Ingold (2004, 321–322; isti 2011, 37–39;) piše, da se je potovanje kot nekaj, kar se razlikuje od vsakodnevne- ga premikanja od opravila do opravila, hoje po opravkih, vzpostavilo šele sredi 18. stoletja. Potovanje je bila ak- tivnost premožnih, ki niso potovali zaradi potovanja sa- mega, ampak da bi nekam prišli. Potovanje je torej način, kako priti od ene točke v prostoru do druge; usmerjeno je k cilju, zato ga je potrebno skrajšati, optimizirati in poceniti. Med potovanjem se nič ne zgodi, zgodi se le na izhodišču in na cilju. Na ta način se popotnik ne premi- ka, temveč je raje premaknjen, prenesen, prepeljan – in tako postane potnik. Potovanje je premikanje, reducirano zgolj na mehanično prestavljanje med dvema točkama. Dihotomija med premikanjem in potovanjem se zdi pre- več ostra in historični pregled oblik mobilnosti bi gotovo našel množico vmesnih primerov, a je pomemben, ker pokaže na različne načine premikanja po pokrajini. Pred izgradnjo utrjenih cest in javnega transporta je bil skoraj edini način, kako priti nekam, pešačenje (Ingold 2004; isti 2011, 37–40). Pešačenje je bila dnevna, vsak- danja aktivnost, del življenja, neločljivo povezan z dru- gimi aktivnostmi, kot so delo na polju, prenašanje stvari v hišo, obiskovanjem cerkve … Čas, ki so ga ljudje porabili za hojo po krajini, ni bil iz- gubljen in ga ni bilo potrebno minimalizirati. Med hojo ljudje opravljajo aktivnosti, hoja jih povezuje v celoto – v to, kar Tim Ingold imenuje „krajina opravil“ ali ta- skscape, omrežje med seboj povezanih opravil (Ingold 2000, 194–198), in premikanje vključuje množico pri- ložnostnih opravil. Tako Claudio Aporta (2004, 14) piše o premikanju Inuitskih skupnosti: »za Inuita potovanje ni vmesna aktivnost med točkama A in B. Med potjo se odvija življenje. Srečanje z drugimi popotniki, rodijo se otroci, odvijajo se lov, ribolov in druge preživetvene ak- tivnosti«. Krajina se oblikuje skozi delanje, ukvarjanje s kraji, povezanimi z gibanjem in hojo (glej Olwig 2008). Življenje se ne odvija samo znotraj krajev, temveč na po- teh med njimi, skozi utelešene izkušnje gibanja (Ingold 2004). Življenje se odvija vzdolž poti. Kjer se hodci sre- čajo, se poti prepletajo; nastane vozel, kraj, kjer se življe- nje enega poveže z življenjem drugega. Kraji niso fiksne entitete, temveč vozlišča zapletenih, kompleksnih omrežij, vozli, kjer ljudje, živali, stva- ri, predmeti in substance pridejo v stik, se soočajo in ustvarjajo nove stvari, relacije, nove skupke ter nove povezave. Krajev ne definirajo zgolj njihov položaj, oblika ali njihova meja oziroma rob, temveč predvsem tokovi in konvergence skozi njih (Aldred, Sekedat 2011b). Kraji so zbirališča ter zgostitve ljudi in stvari, ki so vedno v gibanju. Preprosta apnenica na dnu vrtače je povezana z drugimi kraji, kjer potekajo drugačne aktivnosti in od koder pri- hajajo telesa in snovi. Je vozel, ki povezuje kopišča, vasi, kamnolome, pa tudi biografije ljudi, živali in predmetov, ki potujejo skoznje. Apnenice tako niso samo kraji, kjer iz oglja in apnenca nastaja apno, temveč tudi kraji, kjer se soočajo ljudje, kamen, gozd ... Ker so kraji povezani, ker so vozli poti, kraji zbirajo. Nastaja znanje o okolju in spretnosti, kjer se oblikujejo, ohranjajo ali so izzvane družbene vloge in identitete. Kraji so tako popolnoma Na poti nikamor? Razpletanje prepletov ugreznjenih poti 13 vključeni v okolico; njihova oblika, dimenzija, kontekst in struktura so rezultat kompleksnih in trajnih interakcij s krajino v spreminjanju. Različni načini gibanja naokoli ustvarjajo različne vzor- ce sledov. Bivanje – poseljevanje sveta, premikanje sem in tja, hoja po opravkih – ustvarja vzorec prepletenih, križemkražem potekajočih poti kot mrežo transportnih komunikacij (Ingold 2007, 80). Henri Lefebvre (1991, 117–118) govori o »mrežam podobnih vzorcih, ki jih pu- ščajo tako divje kot udomačene živali in ljudje okoli hiš v vasi ali mestu kot tudi v neposredni okolici mesta.« Tim Ingold ta vzorec imenuje preplet (ang. meshwork, Ingold 2007, 80). Preplet je križkraž, gneča, kodrčija … črt ali »stez, vzdolž katerih se odvija življenje«, ko ljudje »prihajajo in odhajajo« (Ingold 2007, 117), med pašniki, polji, vasmi … znotraj dnevnih in sezonskih ciklov. Ugreznjene poti so sledovi vsakdanjega življenja. Če je urejena, načrtovana mreža komunikacij rezultat „strate- gij“, kot jih imenuje Michel De Certau (1984), in delova- nja struktur moči, ki svojo moč vpisujejo v organizacijo krajine, so ugreznjene poti na drugi strani sledovi „tak- tik“ ljudi, živečih v prostoru, ki ga oblikujejo strategije. Njihove „taktike“ se marsikdaj izogibajo in prevračajo logiko moči, saj so »vedno na preži za priložnostmi, ki jih je treba izkoristiti takoj, ko se pojavijo« (de Certeau 1984, xix). Če je grajeno cestno omrežje rezultat strategij struktur moči, so križemkraži ugreznjenih poti izraz kre- ativnih vsakodnevnih „taktik“ ljudi, ki se bodisi ignorira- jo ali se celo upirajo prevladujočemu redu. Sklep Ugreznjene poti niso fragmenti transportnih mrež, ki bi povezovali točke v pokrajini. Ugreznjene poti so umaza- ni, zapleteni kraji gibanja, ki potekajo križemkražem po pokrajini, prepleteni v gneče različnih sledov in urezov gibanja, skoraj biološke oblike, organski prepleti črt, ki rastejo in se spreminjajo, vznikajo skozi diferenciacijo ritmov človeškega in živalskega gibanja, sezonskih spre- memb v okolju in dinamike vodnega cikla. Ugreznjene poti niso primitivne ceste. So kraji, ki jih ureže in označi tok človeškega življenja, so »vodi, ka- mor so vrezane človeške aktivnosti« (Weiner 1991, 38). Prepleti ugreznjenih poti niso nastali zato, da bi čim prej prišli iz točke A do točke B, temveč so rezultat bivanja, poseljevanje, „inhabitacije“ (Barett 1999) krajine ter pre- Arheo 31, 2014, 7–18 življanja vsakdanjega življenja v krajini. So črte, vzdolž katerih so nastale pretekle krajine, na zapleten in umazan način, skupaj s stvarmi, ki so jih srečali na poti. So vodi, preko katerih se stvari, ljudje, živali in snovi spajajo v vedno nove hibride. Ugreznjene poti nas vabijo, da razmišljamo o mobilnosti in gibanju – ne kot o statičnih, nespremenljivih mrežah komunikacij med stalnimi točkami, temveč kot o topo- logijah, ki so fluidne, ki vznikajo, se spreminjajo in so v procesu nastajanja. Razumevanje procesov vznikanja in razvoja, diferenciacije in evolucije teh vzorcev je vezano na raziskave kompleksnih dinamičnih sistemov (Hannam et al. 2006; Sheller, Urry 2006; Urry 2007). Kompleksni dinamični sistemi so rezultat preprostih lokalnih interak- cij, ki kot celota izkazujejo zapleteno, nepredvidljivo in odprto vedenje. Skozi optiko kompleksnih dinamičnih sistemov lahko krajino razumemo kot vedno nastajajoč preplet oziroma omrežje, ki ga pletejo dejanja premika- nja. Ali kot pravi Barbara Bender (2002, 103): »krajine, so čas, ki se materializira, in prav tako kot čas niso nikoli pri miru.« Tako so ugreznjene poti, čeprav rezultat tele- snega gibanja posameznikov in njihove preproste inte- rakcije z okoljem – hoje –, del nečesa mnogo večjega, nekaj kar presega posamezno interakcijo ali posamezni- ka. Ritmi lokalnih interakcij z okoljem ustvarjajo kom- pleksen, nepredvidljiv in odprt dinamičen sistem, kot je krajina. Prepoznavanje in preučevanje materialnih sledov prete- klega gibanja lahko tudi nas, krajinske arheologe, vodi po pokrajini (Aldred, Sekedat 2011d). Ugreznjene poti lahko pripomorejo k boljšem razumevanju krajin skozi perspektivo gibanja. Namesto, da bi se osredotočali le na nepremične, stalne kraje, nam ugreznjene poti pozor- nost obračajo na aktivnosti med njimi, na procese, sko- zi in vzdolž katerih se odvijata gibanje in življenje, ki kraje ustvarjata, ohranjata in razblinjata. Gibanje in kraji vzpostavljajo drug drugega. Ugreznjene poti lahko tudi strukturirajo zgodbe in naše naracije, so zapleti zgodb o krajinah, ki jih pišemo. Skromne, vseprisotne, blatne, zapletene, umazane in blo- dnjave ugreznjene poti ne vodijo nikamor, temveč so poti v pretekle krajine. 14 Roads to nowhere? Disentangling meshworks of holloways (Summary) Airborne laser scanning (ALS) reveals landscapes previ- ously hidden below a woodland canopy in amazing clar- ity. One of the most ubiquitous features of the woodland floor are holloways or sunken lanes. Despite their ubiquity, there has been surprisingly little done with them. Holloways are usually treated as primi- tive communications, a first, muddy step toward a devel- oped road system (see Muir 2000, 94–99; Hindle 2001, 1–11). Contrary to that, this paper argues that holloways are rather something else. Holloways are about the movement in the mutual constitutions of movement and landscapes. They can teach us how landscapes are always in the process of becoming, made and remade through the movement of people, material culture, substances and so on. Movement is a material practice that constantly creates new relations between things. In this way, holloways, as material traces of past movement, have the power to move us, landscape archaeologists, around the landscape, helping us to weave and re-make past landscapes. The recent rise of mobility studies in sociology, geography and other social sciences has to do with incorporating con- cerns of movement into a broader discourse (see Sheler, Urry 2006; Urry 2007; Hannam et al. 2006). Archaeology should also not be immune to these concerns (see Aldred, Sekedat 2010; ibid. 2011a; ibid. 2011b; ibid. 2011c; Leary 2014). How did people in past landscapes move? How did this movement mutually constitute people who moved in landscapes? How do landscapes move us? From the perspective of mobility, landscapes, places but also bodies and things can be understood as a product of practices, trajectories, interrelations and flows real- ized through movement. Landscape is thus a continuous weaving, relating and associating, forever in the making, always in motion, in the process of becoming. This per- spective is, in my opinion, much more productive than static notions of landscape in terms of territory, bounded- ness, area, scale and so on. Holloways are material traces of movement, movement that is being materialized in the form of traces left in the soil (Figure 1). We can tackle those traces using ichnol- ogy, or science of traces, a study of processes of interac- tion between organisms and substrates and their products (see Buatois, Mangano 2011; Baucon et al. 2008). The products are traces themselves, which comprise struc- tures of biogenic origin, related to the morphology and behaviour of producers and sedimentary fabric. Traces are evidence of the behaviour of organisms, the way they move, rest, graze, feed and dwell in the landscape (Buat- ois, Mangano 2011). Human animals, travellers, make their way through the landscape and as they walk they plant their feet on the ground (Morgan, Smith 1980). Soil compaction by tram- pling changes physical soil properties and affects site quality by reducing macropore space, soil infiltration capacity, soil aeration and increasing soil resistance to root penetration. It also affects regeneration success by injuring roots, reducing the respiratory activity of roots and restricting the effective rooting area and root growth. The severity of soil damage increases nonlinearly with the number of passes and most of the resulting compac- tion occurs during the first few passes. Effects of soil dis- turbance may persist for several decades because of very slow recovery rates (Arnup 1998). Regular trampling by people or livestock suppresses the growth of vegetation on trails and reduces the infiltra- tion rate. This results in increased surface runoff along trails, especially on steep slopes. During the dry season, trampling displaces surface soil, providing a source of sediment during the rainy season. The trails become a conduit for surface runoff and a source of sediment, re- sulting in increased erosion rates (Melvin et al. 2004). Holloways were thus never built, but eroded by the flow of people, animals and carts. As such, they became water conduits too. Water erosion speeded the hollowing-out process and made some lanes muddy and impassable. When this happened, alternative routes were taken by people travelling along them, leading in some place to formation of river-like braided channels, branching and converging (Edgeworth 2011, 109). Holloways are there- fore rivers, gullies and tracks at the same time. In this way, they render the nature/culture dichotomy meaning- less (Edgeworth 2011, 109). Instead of nice, planned connections between places in the landscape, they are rather unruly swarms of merg- ing, branching, diverging and re-uniting trackways. They are messy. They are not messy only in the sense of be- ing muddy, they are messy because they were built in Na poti nikamor? Razpletanje prepletov ugreznjenih poti 15 a messy way. They are not simply layered, accumulated one upon another as a palimpsest, but a result of the dura- tion of movement, created through repetition, improvisa- tion and reuse (see Mlekuž 2012; ibid. 2013a). They are messy because they were being made by using, reusing, reworking or just relating to existing tracks, water, mud and other features already present in the landscape. They are messy because they were being made by many agents who worked in different rhythms and at different speeds. Made by the movement of people, animals, material cul- ture, sediments, water, in various combinations, moving in different rhythms and interacting in many complex ways. Holloways are made through duration and repetition. We can therefore not disentangle them into nice simple layers, successions. In this perspective, questions such as how old are they are meaningless because they are still potentially in use and being hollowed. In a similar way, attempts to date them using their associations with dateable features are rather meaningless, as well. People moved from place to place and, moving along the tracks, they passed barrows, hillforts, limekilns and so forth. They related to these features in the same way they re- lated to existing tracks and created new ones. Thus track- ways and the rest of the landscape mutually constitute each other, creating thick, multi-temporal landscapes or landscapes of duration. Thus holloways are not simply layered, accumulated one upon another, but a result of duration of movement, cre- ated through repetition and improvisation, a truly mor- phogenetic figures forged in time and space. The mor- phogensis can thus be defined as a form obtained as a result of processes of differentiation and evolution. The opposite of such a process or emergence is design: it is a form conceived by a designer, which will be used as a blueprint for its realisation. Holloways were created by people and other things moving, but have, in reciproc- ity, the power to move us too. Their material traces can guide our movement through the landscape, either by walking or, as in our case, by interpreting remote sensing imagery. They can be itineraries that connect past places. By following them, we re-weave connections that once existed and create past landscapes. They teach us that to become more accepting of these blurred, messy things rather than demanding sharp clear ones. Our job is not to make them clean. Trying to describe complex, diffuse and messy things, landscapes, in simple terms would only make them more messy. The landscape where we find such traces is not just a background, or simple constraint, onto which these features are imprinted, but becomes »…a flow itself, changing assemblage of individualised points, inhomogeneities, trajectories, complex relations … being assembled and re-assembled« during move- ment, through walking (Kwinter 2001, 31). Holloways are constitutive parts of the landscape and acts of walk- ing along them are acts of landscaping, creating, making and reproducing landscape. People make creative deci- sions from moment-to-moment, based on observation, through negotiation with environment. They can choose to ignore rules, avoid regulated directions, resisting the predominant logic of spatial order. Unlike water, people are constrained, but not restricted by gravity. They can move uphill as well as downhill and in more than one direction at the same time. In this way, branching hollo- ways form on slopes, converging on passes and corridors (Edgeworth 2011, 109–110). Slopes, boggy terrain, mud and so on might slow down movement and obstacles might have to be negotiated. Contrariwise, passes, cor- ridors and passages are conduits of movement, directing and guiding movement. The development of swarms of holloways not progra- matically reproduce what is already there, formed and given in advance, either as a mental template in the heads of people and/or constraints of the landscape. Instead, it is an active, dynamic process of differentiation and evo- lution, a permanent creative invention; or if we use the biological term of morphogenesis, a form obtained as a result of processes of differentiation and evolution. This brings us back to the ichnology or trace science. The recent developments in ichnology see complex traces as a record of an active control of the habitat by organ- isms (Buatois, Mangano 2011, 24–25). Thus, they are not seen as a simple passive response to the prevailing environmental conditions, but as an extended phenotype (Dawkins 1989), extended in the sense that it contains not only biological processes such as tissue growth, but also other influences of a gene on its environment, either inside or outside the body of the individual organism. In this way, holloways can be understood as material traces of the ways people inhabit their environment. This perspective resonates with recent developments in landscape archaeology and mobility studies. Arheo 31, 2014, 7–18 16 Tim Ingold observes that travel, as a category distinct from walking, daily movement from task to task, emerged only around the 18th century (Ingold 2011, 37–39; ibid. 2004, 321–322). Travel was an activity of the wealthy, who did not undertake travel for its own sake, but to get to a certain destination. People in general seek to mini- mize the time spent on travelling. Travel is destination- oriented. In this way, traveller does not move, he or she is rather being moved, ‘carried across’, becoming a pas- senger. When travelling, movement is reduced to sheer mechanical displacement. Before the 17th century, most people walked on foot (and even barefoot; Ingold 2004; ibid. 2011, 37–40). Before paved roads and public transport, the only way to get around was on foot. Walking was a mundane, daily activ- ity, part of daily life and connected with other activities, such as management of animals, working on the field, getting stuff from the forest to the house, going to church and so forth Time spent moving, walking around the landscape is not dead time that people seek to minimize. Activities occur while on the move and being on the move can involve sets of ‘occasioned’ activities. Claudio Aporta (2004, 14) writes, when discussing movement of the Inuit commu- nities, »Travelling for the Inuit is not a transitional activ- ity of going from point A to point B. Life happens while travelling. Other travellers are met, children are born, and hunting, fishing and other subsistence activities are performed«. Landscape is shaped through doing, engag- ing with contiguous places through moving, walking (see Olwig 2008). Thus lives are not led only within places, but on the way from and to them, through embodied experience of per- ambulatory movement (Ingold 2004). Life unfolds along the paths. Where inhabitants meet, trails are entwined, they form a knot, a place where lives become bound with each other. Places are thus not fixed entities, but parts of complex networks, knots by which people, animals, things, sub- stances are brought together to produce new associations. This perspective on place suggests a continual process of becoming. Places are not so much defined by their lo- cation, their boundaries or shape, but by the flows and convergences flowing through them (Aldred, Sekedat 2011b). Places are gatherings of people and stuff that are continuously on the move. The different ways of moving around create different pat- terns. Inhabiting the world through moving, walking, cre- ates a pattern of interwoven trails rather than a network of intersecting transport routes (Ingold 2007, 80). Henri Lefebvre (1991, 117–118) speaks of »reticular patterns left by animals, both wild and domestic, and by people (in and around the houses of a village or a small town, as in towns’ immediate environs«. Tim Ingold calls this pattern meshwork (Ingold 2007, 80). It is an entangle- ment of lines, »trails along which life is lived« (Ingold 2007, 81), where people are »coming and going« (Ingold 2007, 117), as they move back and forth between pas- tures, fields, forests and villages within the daily and sea- sonal cycle. This coming and going creates an intricate web of paths, a meshwork that fans from the settlement to the landscape and back. This is a meshwork of inter- woven trails, along which life is lived rather than a fixed network of intersecting routes, made to reduce travel time and trouble. It is an extended phenotype, traces left by people engaging with the environment. This entan- glement, the meshwork, is the texture people and other creatures continuously weave while inhabiting the world (Ingold 2011, 71). Instead of fragments of transport networks connect- ing fixed points in the landscape, holloways are rather ‘messy’ landscapes of movement, interwoven swarms of different scrapes and traces of movement, almost biolog- ical shapes, ‘organic’ entanglement of lines that emerges from growth and differentiation through rhythms of hu- man and animal movement, change of seasons, water dy- namics and so forth. Holloways are not primitive roads. They are places marked by the passage of human life, »conduits of in- scribed activity« (Weiner 1991, 38). They are not about getting somewhere, from point A to point B, but about being in the landscape, living the daily life. People inhab- it the landscape along these paths. They are lines along which past landscapes were created, in a messy way, from things and features that were encountered along the path. They force us to move beyond static network topologies, of communications between fixed places, to also consider topologies that may be more fluid, emerging, changing, Na poti nikamor? Razpletanje prepletov ugreznjenih poti 17 always becoming. Modelling the emergence and devel- opment of such complex patterns is important for future research of mobilities as it intersects with the research of complex dynamic systems (Hannam et al. 2006; Shel- ler, Urry 2006; Urry 2007). In this way, we can approach landscape as ever-evolving meshworks, threaded from acts of movement. As Barbara Bender says (2002, 103), »landscape is time materialising: landscapes, like time, never stand still«. By studying material traces of the past movement, they structure how we move around the landscape (Aldred, Sekedat 2011d). They move us too. They move us to in- terpret the landscape from a moving point of view. In- stead of focusing on fixed places, our intention shifts to the spaces in between, through and along which move- ment occurs, and to the ways that movement and places mutually constitute each other. These paths also structure our narratives, they can be plot lines along which our nar- ratives about landscape are unwound. Thus humble, ubiquitous, muddy and messy holloways are not roads to nowhere, but ways into past landscapes. Literatura / References ALDRED, O., B. SEKEDAT 2011a, Part 1 of Moving on to Mobility: archaeological ambulations on the mobi- le world. – Archaeolog: http://traumwerk.stanford.edu/ archaeolog/2010/10/moving_on_to_mobility_archaeol. html (dostop, 15. 11. 2014). ALDRED, O., B. SEKEDAT 2011b, Part 2 of Moving on to Mobility: archaeological ambulations on the mo- bile world. – Archaeolog: http://traumwerk.stanford. edu/archaeolog/2011/01/part2ofmovingontomobilit.html (dostop, 15. 11. 2014). ALDRED, O., B. SEKEDAT 2011c, Part 3 of Moving on to Mobility: archaeological ambulations on the mo- bile world. – Archaeolog: http://traumwerk.stanford. edu/archaeolog/2011/02/part3ofmovingontomobilit.html (dostop, 15. 11. 2014). ALDRED, O., B. SEKEDAT 2011d, Part 4 of Moving on to Mobility: archaeological ambulations on the mo- bile world. – Archaeolog: http://traumwerk.stanford. edu/archaeolog/2011/05/part4ofmovingontomobilit.html (dostop, 15. 11. 2014). APORTA, C. 2004, Routes, trails and tracks: Trail brea- king among the Inuit of Igloolik’. – Études/Inuit/Studies, 28(2), 9–38. ARNUP, R. W. 1998, The extent, effect and management of forestry-related soil disturbance, with reference to im- plications for the Clay Belt: a literature review. Ottawa. BARETT, J. 1999, The mythical landscape of Iron Age Britain. – V/In: W. Ashmore, B. Knapp (ur./eds.), Archa- eologies of Landscape, Oxford, 253–265.
 BENDER, B. 2002, Time and Landscape. – Current Anthropology 43, 103–102. BAUCON, A., S. PRIVITERA, D. MORANDI BO- NACOSSI, A. CANCI, C. NETO DE CARV ALHO, E. KYRIAZI, J. LOBOREL, F. LOABOREL-DEUGEN, C. MORHANGE, N. MARRINER 2008, Principles of Ichnoarchaeology: new frontiers for studying past times. – Studi Trentini di scienze naturali – Acta Geologica 83, 43–72. Arheo 31, 2014, 7–18 18 BUATOIS, L. A., G. M. MANGANO 2011, Ichnology. Organism-Substrate Interactions in Space and Time. Cambridge. De CERTEAU, M. 1984, The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley. DAWKINS, R. 1989, The Extended Phenotype. Oxford. EDGEWORTH, M. 2011, Fluid Pasts. Archaeology of flow. Bristol. HANNAM, K., M. SHELLER, J. URRY , J. 2006, Edito- rial: Mobilities, Immobilities and Moorings. – Mobilities 1 (1), 1–22. HINDLE, B. P. 1993, Roads, tracks and their intepreta- tion. London. HINDLE, B. P. 2001, Roads and Tracks for Historians. Chichester. INGOLD, T. 2004, Culture on the ground: The world perceived through the feet. – Journal of Material Culture 9 (3), 315–340. INGOLD, T. 2007, Lines: A brief history. London, New York INGOLD, T. 2011, Being Alive. Essays on movement, knowledge and description. London, New York. KWINTER, S. 2001, Architectures of time: Towards a theory of Event in Modernist Architecture. Cambridge (Ma). LEARY , T. (ur./ed.) 2014, Past Mobilities: Archaeologi- cal Approaches to Movement and Mobility. Farnham. LEFEVBRE, H. 1991, The Production of Space. Oxford. LAW, J. 2004, After method. Mess in social science rese- arch. New York. MELVIN, G. R., R. E. LARSEN, N. K. McDOUGLAD, K. W. TATE, J. D. GERLACH, K. O. FULGHAM 2004, Cattle grazing has varying impact on stream-channel ero- sion in oak woodlands. – California agriculture 58 (3), 138–143. MLEKUŽ, D. 2012, Messy landscapes manifesto. – AARG News 44, 22–23. MLEKUŽ, D. 2013a, Messy landscapes: lidar and the practice of landscaping. –V/In: R. S. Opitz, D. C. Cowley (ur./eds.), Interpreting Archaeological Topography: 3D, Visualization and Observation, Oxford, 88–99. MLEKUŽ, D. 2013b, Skin Deep: LiDAR and Good Practice of Landscape Archaeology. –V/In: C. Corsi, B. Slapšak, F. Vermeulen (ur./eds.), Good Practice in Archa- eological Diagnostics. Non-invasive Survey of Complex Archaeological Sites, Cham, 113–129. MUIR, R. 2010, The New Reading the landscape. Exter. MORGAN, R. P. C., A. J. SMITH 1980, Simulation of soil erosion induced by human trampling. – Journal of Envrionmental Management 10, 155–165. OLWIG, K. R. 2008, Perambulatory Practice, Sight and the Sense of Belonging. – V/In: T. Ingold, J. L. Vergunst (ur./eds.), Ways of Walking: Ethnography and Practice on Foot, Farnham, 81–91. SHELLER, M., J. URRY 2006, The new mobilities para- digm. – Environment and Planning 38, 207–222. TAYLOR, C. 1979, Roads and Track of Britain. London. URRY , J. 2007, Mobilities. Cambridge. WEINER, J. F. 1991, The Empty Place: Poetry, Spa- ce and Being among the Foi of Papua New Guinea. Bloomington. Na poti nikamor? Razpletanje prepletov ugreznjenih poti