Th e memory of the past is fi xed and objectifi ed by the media such as art or architectural objects. Meaningful places in the urban area are one aspect of the media of memory (Schwartz 1982, 1991). For this reason it is important to study the functioning of urban objects in terms of how they represent the past. Th e question is how a place becomes a site of memory. An interesting issue is also why some objects do not become places of memory, what makes a place of memory aff ect people. Th e relationship between memory and space was underlined by Jan Assmann, who stressed that memory creates the space. Th e term les lieux de memoire, coined by Pierre Nora, underlines the bonds between space and mem-ory (Nora 1989). Explaining les lieux de memoire Nora stated that: “Memmem-ory takes root in the concrete, in spaces, gestures, images, and objects […] Memory attaches itself to sites, whereas history attaches itself to events” (Nora 1989, 9, 22).
Nora’s understanding of les lieux de memoire is general and, of course, it is not limited to the urban space alone. What is important in his notion is the media-tive function of places of memory and their symbolic meaning. How is the city space perceived in relation to memory? Th e city is a complex structure, there are diff erent types of objects, systems of activities and collectives. When we analyze the space of Wrocław in terms of collective memory, we can take into account the specifi c location and architectural objects, or mental images of the city, landmark sites, and also the importance of specifi c places for residents. Th us, the study of memory embodied in the city must address diff erent forms of relations between collective mentality and material forms of the city.
2 Th e issue of city identity is another fi eld of research which I cannot explore here; this notion refers also to other features of urban social life, e.g. “conditions and processes that shape social identity — such as the quality of the urban area, residents’ satisfaction, community identifi cation, and sense of cohesion — and the relationship between these factors, taken as a whole, and susta-inability” (Pol 2002). Another way of understanding the city identity is city branding via “the in-fl uence of iconic architecture through creating identifi able images on quality of life” (Riza et al.
2012).
In the study we propose to examine how diff erent urban objects can become memory media. First of all, it has to be remarked that for majority of the com-munity, utility is the most important criterion for the perception and interpreta-tion of urban space and objects. Th e symbolic value of memory sites may be in the name, the type of object or its sacralization by appropriate rituals and social practices, or by its location within the city (it has been discussed earlier in the paper, see Table 1). Only some places become sites of memory. In our research project we tested various types of objects: religious (temples), functional (shop, library, school, university, bridge), purely symbolic (monuments) coming from diff erent time periods and at the same time belonging to all states and cultures to which the city belonged: Polish, German, Prussian, Czech-Austrian. I cannot compare all of them here due to the limited space but let me analyze two examples to support the main thesis of the paper.
We applied the picture test during which respondents were asked to identify the objects, their origin and function, and comment on their appearance. Th is method gave us information concerning the population’s knowledge about urban sites. In order to do this we presented our respondents with pairs of pictures of the same site and objects both of pre-war and post war periods, and asked them to recognise these objects, indicate the date of their origin and their ethno-cultural origin.
Th e overall conclusion is that the knowledge of places is little, both as a com-petence to recognise them and as historical knowledge about them, which, aft er all, is not very surprising. One cannot expect from the general public detailed knowledge about architecture or monuments. What is worth more attention are the diff erences in remembering or forgetting among diff erent social groups. Th e sample of students in our research consisted of students in fi elds dealing with history, architecture, and culture. Students have little knowledge in comparison to the elite, and even less than the general population.
Based on the data, one can identify a few places that are places of memory, primarily because they are existing in the collective consciousness of Wrocław’s population. Th ese are: the Centennial Hall (Jahrhunderthalle), the statue of Fre-dro, the University building and the National Museum. Th e Jahrhunderthalle is a landmark of the city so it “must be popular”; similarly, the monument of Fredro, which is located in the very centre of the city is very recognisable, the University building likewise, and fi nally the National Museum — a symbol of culture. Th e question is whether they are representations of the past. I would argue that the recognition of these objects is not a result of historical memory, but is rather due to their function in the contemporary city landscape. Th ese objects are to a much greater extent places of memory for members of the elite. Th e elite plays the cru-cial role in forming memory. Th is is one of its social roles and oft en a professional task. But the results of this research both on the young people and the general population indicate that the effi ciency of elites’ actions and educational programs in the fi eld of politics of memory is low.
Another example proves this conclusion. Th ere is an invented place of memory called the Four Temples District. Th is site of memory was created by Wrocław’s elite and it was meant to be the symbol of the city’s multicultural character. It is the place of the ritual of tolerance and remembrance, like the march of Mutual Respect, which is organized every year on November 9 — the anniversary of Kristallnacht. Th e Four Temples District is very popular in tourist guides but its existence is not so prevalent in the consciousness of Wrocław’s population. Th e White Stork Synagogue, as the representation of the Jewish heritage and a build-ing that has existed in Wrocław for a long period of time, is not well recognised:
60% of Wroclaw’s population sample, and 80% of students did not recognise it (see Table 7). At present it is a place of active cultural life and leisure, but for many people it is not the temples but cafes, bars and restaurant that are its identifi cation mark. People visiting this area do not see its historical surroundings and the util-ity of this place has replaced its projected symbolic meaning. In the social practice of everyday life, the Four Temples District is more an area of entertainment than a site of memory (for the majority of Wrocław’s population), however, it still holds this function occasionally during rituals, cultural events which are organised and attended by the elite.
Among all of presented objects three are best memorised both in old and new pictures, these are: 1. Th e Jahrhunderthalle, 2. Th e University building and 3. Th e Friedrich Wilhelm III/Fredro monuments.
Th e following objects are least known:
— among new pictures: 1. the New Synagogue, 2. St. Mary Magdalene’s Church and 3. the Church of St. Anthony, and
— among old ones: 1. the former Silesian regency offi ce (now the National Museum), 2. surprisingly, the monument of Chrobry and 3. the commemorative plaque of the New Synagogue.
How to explain these diff erences? Let us take the example of two of the monu-ments mentioned above. We asked which monumonu-ments were associated with the history of Wrocław? Most oft en mentioned were the Fredro and king Chrobry monuments (the answers were given only by a minority of 49 persons in the sam-ple; Fredro was mentioned 24 times and Chrobry 15 times). In both cases the Fredro monument is more popular. Why is the Chrobry monument, which is so popular among right-wing nationalist supporters who who meet at this spot during the Independce Day march3 (for them of course it is a site of memory and ritual), less popular than for instance the Fredro monument? If I were to point out a place which could be described as a place of memory it would be precisely the Fredro monument.
3 About the role of sites of memory and rituals for the social memory see more for instance in (Connerton 1989, Chapter 3. Commemorative ceremonies).
Th e examples mentioned above indicate that memory sites cannot be pro-grammed arbitrarily without taking into account the necessary social factors.
Th e place where the Chrobry monument is situated was an empty space for half a century (the monument was built in 2007) and the Fredro monument has been present for decades (since 1956). If we compare the Fredro and Chrobry monu-ments we will notice that various voluntary local rituals developed in the plaza near the Fredro monument whereas the Chrobry monument is used mainly on the occasion of the nationalists’ street march. Second, these memorials have diff erent spatial locations: Fredro is located in a square in the city center and Chrobry is somewhat off the beaten track. And fi nally, the Fredro and Chrobry monuments represent two myths created during the communist period: the myth of Lviv and of the Piasts respectively (Kłopot 2012). Th e Piast myth is weaker in comparison to that of Lviv, which is well rooted in memory of Wroclaw’s community.
Table 7. Th e recognition of architectural objects in the photographs test
Objects on the photographs
% who did not recognize the following objects on photographs
city population
N=547 students
N=329 elite
N=64
Type of Photograph old new old new old new
Monuments of Wilhelm I/ Chrobry 95 35 97 54 38 1,6
Monuments of Friedrich Wilhelm III /
Fredro 60 10 87 36 39 0
New Synagogue / commemorative plaque 93 93 88 91 14 11
The church of st. Anthony 74 61 89 83
White Stork Synagogue 71 60 83 80
Gymnasium of st. Matthew/ Ossolineum
Library 92 44 98 52
Jahrhunderthalle 7 2
the former Silesian regency offi ce /
National Museum in Wrocław 97 15
Barash Brothers Dept store/ Feniks 89 24
University building 18 6
St. Mary Magdalene Church 72 63
Th ese results give grounds to conclude that the collective memory of Wrocław’s community has hardly any les lieux de memoire that would connect the pre- and post-war periods in memory.
Similar results were mentioned in Lewicka’s study (2008b): the lack of urban reminders weakens the place identity and of course makes collective memory
poorly developed. Monuments are not the only such reminders but appear to be “the best ones” (as has been explained earlier in the case of the Grunwaldzki bridge). Th e main and oft en the only function of monuments is to remind. Monu-ments being architectural objects, and sometimes objects of art, are better suited to express collective symbols and emotions which are crucial in the process of memory formation. Emotions strengthen memory, and they are the main element of values. A community remembers only what is important, and monuments be-come the sites of memory because of the values which they represent.