| View this email online if it doesn't display correctly |
|
|
|
| | | | Material Culture of the Khashaa: Fence Exigency in Ulaanbaatar’s Ger Districts - Björn Reichhardt |
| In the past century, the
city of Ulaanbaatar saw itself confronted with vast changes concerning its
structure, inhabitants and growth. The present outcome is, a relatively densely
populated city that is shaped by an increasing number of tall modern business
buildings and apartment complexes in its center, which are surrounded by a
still growing area of ger districts[1],
which implies a cityscape that is considerably segregated (Janzen et al. 2005).
While there are clearly recognizable differences between central and peripheral
areas of the city, it’s the phenomena on a smaller scale giving information
about how urban society interacts and about how it differs from and resembles a
traditional rural lifestyle (Sneath 2006). A remarkable phenomenon in this
context is the extensive emergence of fences in Ulaanbaatar’s ger districts: the khashaa[2] As
freestanding structures they define property of land. Enabling a visual
separation of space they are supposed to curtail or prevent the trespassing of
borders and are understood as objects that are “inseparable
with the human development phase of sedentariness” (Andries
& Rehder 2005). The fence structures of urban Mongolia picture a material
expression of Mongolia’s 20th century
urban history. Thereby “the need of building up and using fences
is dependent on historical, social and geographic circumstances” (Andres
& Rehder 2005). During fieldwork that was undertaken in three separate
research episodes in Mongolia during the months of August to October 2014,
March 2015 and September to October 2015 visual and verbal data was collected in
Ulaanbaatar’s periphery to analyze the desire to erect fences in such an
extensive way, what is called the fence exigency of the
respective population here.
A comprehensive
photographic documentation and several narrative accounts have been recorded to
figure out what kind of motivations, reasons, meanings, problems and action
patterns are linked to the fences in the ger
districts. There, the khashaa appears
mostly in a tallness of 1.7 to 2.0 meters rendering a direct view on the
property impossible. They are built densely in terms of space and transparency while
the construction material is predominantly wood, followed by sheet metal and
stone walls. The conversations with several local inhabitants concluded that
the main categories of fence usage and functions are as follows: property
protection from environmental impacts, invaders and thefts, privacy
protection in the manner of visual separation and
safeguarding a microcosm and the demarcation and declaration of
property ownership, which strongly depends on the judicial situation on land
privatization. These functions are accumulated around a more general desire for
security. By looking at these phenomena through the lens of material culture
studies the goal of the study is oriented towards an in-depth understanding of
the socio-cultural and material circumstances of the khashaa in Ulaanbaatar’s ger districts.
[1] Ger“ is the Mongolian word
for the traditional tent housing also called „yurt“. In this work I will mainly
stick to this terminology
[2] The Mongolian word “khashaa“
describes both the fence itself and the fenced in property. In this work the
term describes the fence itself.
|
| | | References
ANDRIES, N. & REHDER,
M. (2005): Zaunwelten. Zäune und Zeitzeugen -
Geschichten zur Alltagskultur der DDR. Marburg.
Jonas-Verlag. 78 p.
JANZEN, J. et al. (2005): Ulaanbaatar
at the Beginning of the 21st Century Massive In-Migration, Rapid Growth of
Ger-Settlements, Social Spatial Segregation and Pressing Urban Problems - The
Example of 4th Khoroo of Songinokhairkhan Duureg – National University of
Mongolia (NUM)/Center of Development Research (CDR). Financial Support: German Society for
International Cooperation (GIZ). Ulaanbaatar. 52 p.
SNEATH, D. (2006): The
Rural and the Urban in Pastoral Mongolia. In: Mongols from Country to City.
Floating Boundaries, Pastoralism and City Life in the Mongol Lands. Nordic
Institute of Asian Studies. Denmark. 316 p.
|
| |
|
|
Björn Reichhardt started
studying Human Geography at the Free University of Berlin in the winter
term of 2008 and graduated in the summer term of 2012. In 2010 he
participated in an excursion to Mongolia with the thematic focus on
rural development, which was managed by Prof. Dr. Jörg Janzen and the
Centre for Development Studies (ZELF) of the Free University of Berlin.
In
the winter term of 2012 he started studying Central Asian Studies in
the master’s course at the Humboldt University of Berlin where he also
became a student assistant in March 2014. In August 2014 he participated
in an international study program of young academics of Mongolian
studies organized by the Mongolian Ministry of Education and Science. In
the same year he started his fieldwork on the material culture of
fences in Ulaanbaatar’s ger districts, which is the subject of his
master thesis. His graduation from the Humboldt University of Berlin is
in progress and will be completed by summer 2016.
|
|
About "Mongolia Field Notes" Mongolia Field Notes connect research work conducted by Mongolian and international researchers to issues in contemporary Mongolia. The goal is to highlight researchers and their areas of expertise, and to provide information in a tight, concise format. Field Notes can cover any topic related to Mongolia, including politics, economics and business, science, environment and technology, or people, history and society.
We are currently encouraging American, Mongolian and other
international researchers to submit their short articles for review. A Field Note should explore an academic concept or research
related to contemporary Mongolia in a lively and jargon-free piece of 300 to 1000 words. At this time, only submissions in English are
accepted. Where possible, integrate current
events into your Field Note. Your submission should effectively convey a
key idea or point, backed up by concise arguments and evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
