Border Karelia through rose-coloured glasses? Gazes upon a ceded territory
NETTA BÖÖK
Böök, Netta (2004). Border Karelia through rose-coloured glasses? Gazes upon a ceded territory. Fennia 182: 1, pp. 33–45. Helsinki. ISSN 0015-0010.
Border Karelia is the former heartland of the Finnish-Karelian Orthodox cul- ture. It has also been regarded, along with Viena Karelia, as a mythical place, the last reserve of the ‘original Finnish’ Kalevala culture. After the Continua- tion War ended in 1945, Finland was forced to cede Border Karelia to the Soviet Union. It was then populated with citizens from other parts of the Un- ion, and became for 45 years inaccessible for Finns. In post-war Finland the ceded Karelia gained a new nostalgic aura, while the Soviet (Russian) attitude towards the territories was largely determined by political constructions and ‘Soviet nationalism’. The present Border Karelia is a rather poor Russian terri- tory, characterized by a multifaceted identity and heritage. Remnants of pre- war cultural landscapes, villages and buildings are still evident. They arouse concern and emotions amongst Finns and pre-war inhabitants touring the area, but there’s currently also an increasing interest among the Russians in the his- tory and pre-war reality of the territory. The article discusses the concept of built heritage in relation to these different identities, and the uses of the Kare- lian past. The main objective of the research is to find a means to unite present- day Finnish and Russian interests regarding the maintenance and use of the heritage.
Netta Böök, Department of Architecture, Helsinki University of Technology, P.O. Box 1300, FIN-02130 Espoo, Finland. E-mail: [email protected].
Introduction ception of the “gaze”, a concept explored by John Urry in his book The Tourist Gaze (1990). The cen- The article focuses on the built landscape in Bor- tral question is, how can one unite present-day der Karelia, an area which Finland ceded to the Finnish and Russian interests in determining and Soviet Union in 1944. When the territory was protecting the surviving Finnish built heritage and opened for tourism in 1989, the collective repre- landscape in regard to cultural sustainability and sentation of the ceded Karelia, which Finns had tourism? nurtured over 45 years without actually inhabit- Apart from Urry’s book, other background ing the territory, could be up-dated. sources for this article have been historian David In particular, I shall discuss the concept of built Lowenthal’s The Past is a Foreign Country (1985), heritage (see ICOMOS 1976) in relation to differ- which provides an insight into a particular mode ent identities, primarily that of an architect and of using history, namely, heritage; Territories, researcher, as well as a cultural tourist and an Boundaries and Consciousness (1995) by geog- evacuated Karelian, but also, moreover, the rapher Anssi Paasi and Transformation of Religious present inhabitants of the area. I will also discuss Landscapes (1997) by geographer Petri J. Raivo, the shift from the nationalistic uses of the Kare- which provide bases for analysing the different lian past during the 19th century to its patriotic approaches Finns have of Karelia; architect Mart- and pedagogical uses during the 1920s and ti I. Jaatinen’s inventories in Border Karelia, pub- 1930s, in order to create a wider historical per- lished in his book Karjalan kartat (Karelian maps) 34 Netta Böök FENNIA 182: 1 (2004)
(1997), which have served as a starting point for Winter War (1939–1940) and the Continuation my own inventories in the region made in 2001– War (1941–1944), in accordance with the Treaty 2002; semiotician Henri Broms’ Paikan hengen of Moscow, Stalin incorporated the Finnish terri- semiotiikkaa (The semiotics of the spirit of place) tories of Border Karelia, Ladogan Karelia and the (1998); and French artist Sophie Calle’s exhibition Karelian Isthmus into the Soviet Republic of Kare- The Detachment (Helsinki, 2001) of photographs lia. Approximately 407,000 Karelians and 13,000 of the elimination of socialistic monuments in the Finns (Raninen-Siiskonen 1999, 360; in line with former East Germany. common practice, I shall refer to all the evacuat- ed residents of ceded Karelia as “resettled Kareli- ans”) from the ceded territories had to be resettled What is Border Karelia? elsewhere in a Finland dispossessed of 10% of its pre-war territory. Stalin populated the ceded ter- So-called Border Karelia is comprised of former ritories with citizens from other parts of the Sovi- Finnish parishes north of Lake Ladoga in present- et Union, but in spite of the arrival of new resi- day Russia: Soanlahti, Suistamo, Suojärvi, Impi- dents, the remaining Finnish heritage gradually lahti, Salmi and the eastern parts of Korpiselkä declined. This was accelerated in the 1960s un- and Ilomantsi. Suojärvi was the largest parish in der Khrushchev’s policy of liquidating “villages ceded Karelia, with two major settlements: the with no prospects” and building instead blocks ancient church village of Varpakylä, and the thriv- of flats in the new residential “agrocentres”. Ex- ing industrial community of Suvilahti. Suistamo tensive agriculture came to a halt, and the cultur- was famed for its living poem-singing tradition. al landscape has been becoming overrun with for- Salmi and Impilahti, with the major town of ests (Lintunen et al. 1998, 198). Pitkäranta, were located in the lush and scenic Southern Karelia and Northern Karelia are still Lake Ladoga region. located within the present boundaries of Finland, The name Border Karelia characterises the area yet in common speech “Karelia“ very often refers in many ways: since the 14th century, several wars to the ceded territories. In Finland the politically have been fought in these territories, first between delicate issue of ceded Karelia was played down Sweden and Russia, then between Finland and the until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989. Soviet Union. The first state border, dividing the Tourism to ceded Karelia was then initiated by the Karelian ethnic area into two, the Finnish and authorities after it had been out-of-bounds to for- Russian areas, was delineated in 1323 in the Trea- eigners for 45 years. ty of Nöteborg, but has since then shifted six times. Thus, for centuries Border Karelia has been a cross-cultural territory, and as a consequence, Non-place the area contains Karelian, Finnish, Swedish and Russian heritage, historical landscapes and archi- My first trip through ceded Karelia in 1994 raised tecture. no great positive emotions. I saw the derelict ne- Until 1944 Border Karelia was the heartland of oclassical church of Suistamo and the handsome the Finnish-Karelian Orthodox culture, where the yet decaying pre-war functionalism in Sortavala, majority of the population spoke the Karelian lan- but they left no great impression. I was passing guage and were members of the Orthodox through on my way to the real Karelia, that is, to Church. Karelian houses built of round logs, East Karelia. Ceded Karelia was no longer Kare- wooden village chapels (tsasounas) and spruce- lia at all; it had become a non-place, erased from growing cemeteries characteristic of Orthodox Finnish history and deprived of any Karelian iden- Karelian culture were common in Korpiselkä, tity. Suojärvi, Suistamo and Salmi. However, the tra- Years later, after studying the traditional Kare- ditional agricultural landscape had started to lian houses of East Karelia, I started to look more change already in the 1930s. The growing timber closely at the question of what the area between industry absorbed thousands of mainly Lutheran Finland’s present eastern border and East Karelia workers from other parts of Finland and created actually is. Old photographs of Border Karelia new, often aesthetically displeasing settlements. demonstrate the popularity of the decorative tim- The Soviet Union launched an attack on Fin- ber dwelling complex, providing shelter for both land in 1939. In 1944, in the aftermath of the people and their animals. These traditional dwell- FENNIA 182: 1 (2004) Border Karelia through rose-coloured glasses? Gazes upon … 35 ings had been “discovered” by Finns in the 1890s, Golden Age’ may sometimes be found in God-for- and had become a symbol of Karelianness and saken peripheries – here, in Karelia (Knuuttila an icon of the utopian representation of a great 1989). Nostalgia seems to gain a particular sig- Karelian past (Petrisalo 2001, 89). In fact, it was nificance as a culture-moulding factor at times of the predominant building type across the whole radical social change. The insecurity caused by of northern Russia, and not particular to this area. the ideological and political dissolution of com- Consequently, I set off looking for traditional munism in Eastern Europe, post-industrial root- Karelian houses in Border Karelia. I found some, lessness, globalisation and the crisis of values but mostly I found emptiness. This instigated an- have fuelled nostalgia and national movements all other development, ultimately linked with histor- across Europe. This is reflected on to individuals, ical facts and personal stories; the Border Kare- both as a national romantic yearning for the past lian landscapes began to relate to me personally. and as a desire for reform. Utopian thinking, like For me, they were no longer non-places. The myths about better bygone times, acts as recom- processes behind this development are intriguing, pense when there seems no hope of actually and I will touch upon them here. changing one’s circumstances. In the 19th centu- ry, the national romantic writers admired exotic ‘original’ cultures from a safe distance, assigning Myth, fiction, projection utopian properties to them; and a journey sufficed to fulfil the utopia. Today also tourism offers a For a Finn, it seems difficult to remain neutral channel to release the utopian and mythical pres- when dealing with the manifold complicity in the sures of a community (Petrisalo 2001, 66–68). question of Karelia. Karelia, particularly Viena According to Broms, tourism is not only about (White Sea Karelia) and Border Karelia, is for escaping from the common places of life, but also Finns a collective, mythical place, loaded with about pure myth-searching (Broms 1998, 36–40). meaning. It is the mythical cradle of Finnish cul- Utopian ideas may also include powerful vi- ture, connected with the national epic – the Ka- sions and lead to reform. The present-day ProKare- levala – national independence, as well as the lia movement has published a platform on the res- dream of a ‘Greater Finland’. Its relevance also titution of ceded Karelia to Finland (Reenpää et touches upon the myths of nature versus urban al. 2001). This view is also clearly advocated by life, nature versus culture, the countryside versus Markus Lehtipuu, author of Karjala – Suomalai- the city, and east versus west (Broms 1998, 29). nen matkaopas (2002). The ceding of southeastern Karelia in 1944, which also entailed the closure of the region to foreign- ers, indubitably deepened this mythical dimen- “Gazes” sion. The writer Olavi Paavolainen mourned that losing Karelia was the same as the loss of Olym- If Karelia is regarded as a screen to project de- pus, the scene of Greek mythology, would be for sired images upon, there has nevertheless been a Greece (Paavolainen 1940). shift from national and, later, educational and pa- According to semiotician Henri Broms, myths triotic images to commercial images of an imagi- are the well-spring of national culture (Broms nary Karelian past. The constructed images of 1998, 10). Thus, the argument goes, Finland needs Karelia initially emerged in connection with the the myth of Karelia to patch up the lost mythical creation of Finnish national culture, tradition and and symbolic dimension in its national existence. identity in the 19th century, when Finland had the Karelia is a screen upon which images are pro- autonomous status of Grand Duchy of Russia jected; images corresponding to relevant political (1809–1917). Due to a lack of a glorious nation- and national aspirations. al history, the nationalist movement resorted to Karelia also fulfils the idea of nostalgia – a long- emphasising the national language, the lake-and- ing for something that is presently non-existent in forest landscapes and the soil of the recently com- both time and place. According to cultural anthro- posed national epic, that is, the borderlands of pologist Seppo Knuuttila, fantasies of a Golden Karelia (Häyrynen 2003). According to late 19th Age, of a glorious past, as well as its disappear- century Karelianism, Karelia, specifically Border ance, not only in time but also in space, are part Karelia and Viena, was the last reserve of the ‘orig- of the history of human thought; fragments of ‘the inal Finnish’ Kalevala culture. Particularly be- 36 Netta Böök FENNIA 182: 1 (2004) tween 1890 and 1897, Finnish cultural life was of its political and ideological connections with imbued with Karelianism, a national romantic, Nazi Germany, Finland also utilised the idea of ideological tendency. The artist elite roamed Bor- Lebensraum as a motive to occupy East Karelia der Karelia in search of national romantic inspi- in order to create a ‘Greater Finland’ (Paasi 1995, ration; architects, for instance, looked to Karelia 107–108). This launched a new wave of Kareli- for a Finnish national building style. Architect Jac. anism, as well as motivating a more systematic Ahrenberg studied the vernacular architecture in recording of Orthodox Karelian heritage. Journal- Korpiselkä in 1880, architects Uno Ullberg, Ala- ists, architects, students and photographers were rik Tavaststjerna and Jalmari Kekkonen studied commissioned in the early 1940s to record the numerous villages in Suistamo in 1901. The book chapels, villages and cultural traditions of both Karjalaisia rakennuksia ja koristemuotoja (Kare- East and Border Karelia, a task which had already lian buildings and decorative motifs) (1901) by started in Border Karelia in the 1920s–1930s (Mat- architects Yrjö Blomstedt and Victor Sucksdorff, tila 2001). became a kind of architectural Kalevala. It is rare- After the Second World War, a collective col- ly mentioned, however, that in the nationalistic lection of acceptable images of a ‘Golden Kare- spirit of the 1890s, both the Finns and the Rus- lia’ was developed and glorified. Post-war Kareli- sians discovered the ‘wellspring’ of their cultures anism eventually turned to a more abstract mix- in one and the same peripheral geographical area, ture of cultural and regional consciousness, and Karelia. finally, in the politically more liberal climate of After winning independence in 1917, the new late 1970s and 1980s, it became commercialised Finnish state encouraged tourism in Border Kare- (Raninen-Siiskonen 1999, 381). The discovery of lia, to promote nationalism, to spiritually unite the the marketable values of the Karelian myth was country and to raise the morale for the nation’s first reflected in the practices of the tourist indus- defence (Raivo 1997, 118). The scenic Tolvajärvi try within Finland itself: a chain of tradition-based, area and Suojärvi, famous for its romantic lake pseudo-Karelian tourist attractions was built along landscapes and traditional Orthodox milieus, be- the eastern border of Finland. Among others the came significant tourist attractions in the 1920s. Bomba congress centre, built in Nurmes in 1978, The traditional Karelian house complex was the was an attempt to strengthen the Karelian identi- predominant type of dwelling in the area, the ty and heritage in post-war Finland. A re-interpre- most famous of which were the colossal Bombin tation of the original Bombin house in Suojärvi, house (1850s) in Kuikkaniemi and the Mensha- it “speaks the metalanguage of a mythological koff house in Kaipaa. For members of the nation- Karelia, but lacks authenticity, ignores historical al Finnish culture, the traditional agricultural mi- chronology and the cultural context of time and lieus also symbolised a sense of community and place” (Petrisalo 2001, 91). This has had its equiv- the conservative values of traditional country life. alents in the housing industry, particularly in the On the other hand, the Orthodox religion was sale of “Karelian-style” summer cottages. Later problematic, because it was considered a partic- there emerged even suburban residential houses ularly Russian phenomenon. Therefore, even in built of round timber logs and slightly modern- the Border Karelian landscape the visible Ortho- ised “Karelian” detailing (Böök 2000, 72). In dox elements had to remain within acceptable short, the ways of relating to the Border Karelian limits in regard to the prevailing national dis- heritage have varied ever since the ‘invention’ of course. For example, for the dominant culture, the that heritage, varying in accordance with differ- traditional onion cupolas of Orthodox churches ent identities: John Urry’s “tourist gaze” has its and chapels represented Russian culture, and thus subordinate variants amongst different identities. were considered alien elements unacceptable When ceded Karelia, East Karelia and Viena within the Finnish landscape, and hence were of- were opened for tourism in 1989, it became evi- ten removed (Raivo 1997, 129). dent that Karelia had retained its fascination – al- An even more nationalistic branch of post-Kare- beit that it had been transformed. If national, pa- lianism manifested a platform to integrate all East triotic and romantic motives animated the late Karelian territories into a Greater Finland. The 19th century artist elite and the journalists of the idea was revived during the Continuation War in young independent Finland, today motives such 1941–1944, which Finland had instigated in an as general enlightenment, education, entertain- attempt to recover its lost territories. As a result ment, and group solidarity encourage resettled FENNIA 182: 1 (2004) Border Karelia through rose-coloured glasses? Gazes upon … 37
Karelians, general tourists, culture-oriented tour- feel attached to their villages and responsible for ists, and professionals. As John Urry (1990, 111) them. puts it, “there is no sense in the complexity by The lack of proper materials and aesthetic prin- which different visitors can gaze upon the same ciples in planning has resulted in the terminally set of objects and read them in a quite different unpleasant, chaotic milieus seen prevailing from way. Indeed, it is not at all clear just what under- Karelia to Vladivostok. The most extreme exam- standing of history most people have.” The ques- ples of failed planning are the two major centres tion is, are they not all looking for the remnants of Border Karelia: the 18th century industrial town of a ‘lost time’, that is, remnants of unique times of Pitkäranta (Impilahti) on the shore of Lake and places? Ladoga and Suvilahti (present-day Suojärvi), which had been more or less completely de- The researching gaze stroyed in the Second World War. Against this background, Finnish houses can usually be dis- In addition to the identity-based approaches to tinguished by their “erect carriage“ and more har- Border Karelia mentioned above, there may well monious proportions. The wooden houses can be be overlaps in these ‘identities’. A researcher is characterised by the weatherboarding, vaguely expected to have a less emotionally charged, ra- classicistic window sashes and a ventilated stone tional attitude to the subject; yet, she or he might foundation – except for traditional Karelian hous- be an evacuated Karelian or the descendant of es, which have bare timber walls and no stone one. I myself am neither. On the other hand, the foundation. identity of a researcher comes close to that of a However, the Orthodox Karelian milieus, with cultural tourist – according to the ICOMOS defi- traditional Karelian houses and tsasounas, have nition, one of the objects of cultural tourism is almost totally disappeared. Spirdo Makkonen’s “the discovery of significant monuments and Karelian house (from the 1880s) from Moisein- sites” (ICOMOS 1976) – and despite the need to vaara, Suojärvi, is on display in the Seurasaari adapt a neutral standpoint, a romantic undercur- open-air museum in Helsinki, where it was prov- rent may be evident. Personal motives may, of identially moved in 1939 – just in time before the course, encourage the researcher. outbreak of the Winter War. Physically intact, but My own main objective – as an architect – in removed from its original, historical context, it has researching Border Karelia has been to study the lost a fundamental quality and become a pure remnants of pre-war cultural landscapes, villages museum exhibit. and buildings and to give suggestions regarding Although no whole settlement milieus survive, their maintenance and use. The first impression there are individual buildings and groups of build- is that there are few actual buildings remaining ings, which are nevertheless important from the to study, and one would have to find the material perspective of cultural history. The architecturally in archives: hundreds of nostalgia-evoking black- most remarkable Karelian house in Border Kare- and-white photographs. Most of the existing set- lia, the former Mertas’ house (Fig. 1) from early tlements were simply razed during the Second 20th century, stands alone in a totally transformed World War. During the Soviet era, a period of de- context in Leppäniemi, Suojärvi. It has been de- termined centralisation, the scattered dwellings, clared a historical monument by the local gov- typical of the Finnish lifestyle, which had sur- ernment, being, however, still in its original, resi- vived, succumbed to negligence or destruction. dential use. The quiet rural village of Hautavaara The post-war layer in the cultural landscape is in Suojärvi has preserved a relatively significant comprised of five-storey khrushchevkas built of portion of its pre-war layout: a number of Finnish greyish low-quality brick, standardised wooden houses, unpretentious Karelian houses and a run- houses, unpainted hovels, weatherboard fences, down wooden school building. Miinala in Salmi ruined kolkhozes, army bases and urban factories is a languishing, idyllic riverside village with a built of brick or concrete, and kitchen gardens. number of Finnish and Karelian timber houses, However, I would not necessarily classify these whereas Orusjärvi is a secluded, partly inhabited as normative Russian features. The old Russian vil- village with a church (1905) in a mysterious re- lages in Archangel Karelia are as well-kept as any vival-style and fine “Karelian” panoramas over Finnish village. Being descendants of several suc- tree-covered hills. The most fascinating milieu to cessive generations in the region, their inhabitants have survived, however, is Kirkonkylä in Impilahti, 38 Netta Böök FENNIA 182: 1 (2004)
Fig. 1. The most handsome Karelian house in Border Karelia, the former Mertas’ house (early 20th century) stands alone in a totally transformed context in Leppäniemi, Fig. 2. The handsome residence of apothecary Walldén is a Suojärvi. However, it is still in its original, residential use. striking rarity: the white-stuccoed 1920s classicistic bour- The house has been declared a historical monument by the geois house in Pitkäranta now houses a museum of local local government. (Photo Netta Böök, 2001). history. However, the museum has not always been famil- iar with the history of the former local apothecary. (Photo Netta Böök, 2001).
situated in a charming sloping landscape. It was fied neorenaissance style. One might also men- never a combat zone and thus passed through the tion the handsome residence of apothecary wartime relatively undamaged. When driving Walldén (Fig. 2) as a striking rarity: the white-stuc- along the old village street, which curves in line coed 1920s classicistic bourgeois house in with the lakeshore, one immediately associates Pitkäranta now houses a museum of local history. the settlement with what it basically is: a Finnish Border Karelia was generally left without any church village from the 1930s–1940s – albeit now prominent 20th century architecture. For exam- deprived of its church (Lintunen et al. 1998, 198). ple, no buildings erected in Border Karelia be- The pre-war population of Border Karelia con- tween 1903 and 1944 were published in Arkki- sisted mainly of common people, and the area tehti (The Finnish Architectural Review). Architects remained one of the poorest and least developed received commissions from the region only in the regions in Finland. There were few manor houses 1930s, when they introduced the international in the region – the Hosainoff manor house in Mii- functionalist style into the major settlements. nala, and the Dobroumoff villa in Impilahti, both Functionalism here primarily refers to the Inter- built from wood in the 19th century in a modi- national-Style white-stuccoed, predominantly ge- FENNIA 182: 1 (2004) Border Karelia through rose-coloured glasses? Gazes upon … 39
Kanttila, who was involved with the post-Winter War reconstruction, and completed during the Continuation War (1943). Although nowadays in poor condition, it still makes an impression as a truly “architectural“ element in the chaotic town- scape. The Orthodox congregational house in Suistamo is an individual interpretation of Func- tionalism by architect Juhani Viiste (1939). It now functions as a low-key guesthouse. The number of Finnish houses in Border Kare- lia is gradually decreasing – for instance, in Mans- sila, Salmi, in 1996 the number of Finnish build- ings was 16; the present number is seven (Koslo- nen 2001) – and no systematic inventory of what remains of the Finnish built heritage has yet been carried out. Therefore, even buildings of initially diminishing value attract one’s attention. Never- theless, one should put the destruction and aban- donment of Finnish buildings in this ceded region in relation to what has happened to the built her- itage and cultural landscapes in Finland itself dur- ing the past six decades. In Finland the heritage is threatened with destruction more by the chang- ing social and economic conditions than by de- cay. As a matter of fact, the traditional milieu of Border Karelia was already diminishing in the 1930s. In 1939 the Finnish journalist Olof Enc- Fig. 3. The architecturally most remarkable building from kell (1939, 180) described the growing industrial the Finnish era in Border Karelia is the communal house settlement of Suvilahti as the “Finnish Klondyke”, and fire station in the former Suvilahti (present-day Suojärvi) and that “I have never seen a community of such now accommodating a kindergarten and a youth club. The building complex, built in a mature functionalistic style, ugliness and parvenu spirit. The broad village with white stuccoed exterior walls, incorporating a semicir- street was lined with modern houses, rivalling in cular tower, etc., was designed by architect Erkki Koiso- lack of taste. I saw no trace of the past Karelian Kanttila, who was involved with the post-Winter War re- culture.” construction, and completed during the Continuation War (1943). (Photo Netta Böök, 2001). The romantic gaze Since the 1940s cultural tourism has increased ometrical architecture, with freed interior plans throughout the world. The tourist industry makes and façade compositions and flat roofs, which use of ethnic groups, their traditions and their her- was taken up throughout the Nordic countries itage. The Orthodox Karelian culture has become from the late 1920s onwards. This style was con- one of the most appealing attractions for the Finn- nected with economic growth and industrialisa- ish tourist industry. For the members of the pre- tion, and was mainly utilised in the urban con- dominant Finnish culture, it includes familiar yet text and in public building. exotic elements. It is also still vaguely associated The most outstanding modern building from the with the Karelia of the Kalevala. Hence, the cul- Finnish era is the communal house and fire sta- tural tourist travels to Border Karelia in search of tion in the former Suvilahti, present-day Suojärvi what Broms terms the “codes” of Karelianness (Fig. 3). It now accommodates a kindergarten and (Broms 1998, 38). Broms, basing his deliberations a youth club. The building complex, built in a on the theories of semiotician Rebecca Kaufmann, mature functionalistic style, with white stuccoed suggests that tourists may seek phenomena rep- exterior walls, incorporating a semicircular tow- resentative of the fantastic code, connected with er, etc., was designed by architect Erkki Koiso- the fact-based fantasies or visions they link with 40 Netta Böök FENNIA 182: 1 (2004)
Border Karelia, or of the anthropologic code, re- reminder of what we apparently escaped, when ferring to real or imaginary Karelian elements, Finland managed to preserve its independence such as Karelian houses, poem-singers and “an- (Åström 1993, 165–173). cestors”. Finnish place names also convey the Karelia can also provide for the needs of the former presence of Finns; ruins and wartime bat- adventure-seeking tourist. From the 1990s on- tlefields, for instance Kollaa in Suistamo, speak wards, the nostalgia, misery and dangers a tour- of times past. ist in ceded Karelia is exposed to have been pri- Paradoxically, the traditional Karelian culture mary topics in the media. There is always a shade relevant to the culture-oriented tourist cannot be of excitement and ultimately even danger in the found in post-Soviet Border Karelia. The non-ma- air. However, travels in Karelia differ from organ- terial heritage of the area was evacuated west- ised adventure and survival holidays in one fun- wards in 1944, and the surviving material herit- damental detail: not even the organisers of the age is meagre. The boundaries of the “authentic former can foresee the surprises that might come, Kalevala heritage” have shifted eastwards and and beyond the visible reality, there is no other, northwards, to Olonets and Viena; tourist agen- more comforting reality (Böök 1999, 110). cies advertise these regions with an emphasis on blue lakes, roaring rapids, wuthering heights, epic The pilgrim’s gaze poetry, traditional houses, authentic villagers and rituals; in a word, Karelia as a unique museum of The resettled Karelians, all getting on in age, were popular culture. A new object for Finnish patriot- the primary group to visit ceded Karelia when the ic heritage-making and tourism are the sites con- border was re-opened in 1989. Geographer Ans- nected with the Second World War, attracting si Paasi explains that people usually want to visit Finns of all ages (Raivo 2000, 139–150). Yet even their past history and the physical locality with in the line of regular tourism, Border Karelia is which it is connected. In Border Karelia the refu- seriously underdeveloped, offering only low-class gees try to find something they can associate to lodgings and practically no entertainment or arts- their personal history (Paasi 1995, 289), as if they related activities. were looking for a lost piece in a puzzle. Particu- However, the former Finnish towns of Vyborg larly the oldest evacuated generation in a sense (in Finnish Viipuri) on the Karelian Isthmus and lost their identity along with their homelands, be- Sortavala in Ladogan Karelia, as well as the mo- cause their identity was rooted in being physical- nastic islands of Valaam (Valamo), accommodate ly in the place itself. growing numbers of mainly Finnish tourists, A striking feature is that, almost without excep- which obviously contributes to the regional guide- tion, in reminiscing about their ceded native lo- lines of development. Even the notorious Finnish calities, the resettled Karelians describe them as “vodka tourists”, who since the 1960s provided places of inimitable beauty. In their collective nar- dramatic headlines for newspapers, appear to rative, the Karelian cultural landscape is also have reoriented from Leningrad (St. Petersburg) to “complete”: the meaning of the social reality in these presently more affordable resorts. Karelia has faded over the passing decades, At their best, the circumstances in Border Kare- whereas the landscapes, buildings and nature lia might be experienced as “something new and have remained as important sources of identifi- different”, compared to the abundance surround- cation and as principal objects of nostalgia (Paasi ing people in Finland. As Urry (1990, 134) re- 1995, 298). The collective and individual memo- marks, “Central to tourist objects is some notion ry have suppressed all negative features of the pre- of departure, particularly that there are distinct war life, as if looking at it through rose-coloured contrasts between what people routinely see and glasses. According to Tarja Raninen-Siiskonen, this experience and what is extraordinary.” The pov- suppression may have been a result of the abrupt erty, decay and low quality of housing and the loss of the native home-land, and of the age of general backwardness offer a “reversed exoti- the narrator, but also of the glorified “public nar- cism”, a counter-world that reveals the true na- ratives” about Karelia. Furthermore, the everyday ture of our own quotidian life. The ascetic milieu life in Karelia may have been less complicated may subconsciously evoke feelings of safety, as if and economically more stable than in the new the bygone times had returned. It also reminds place of residence in Finland (Raninen-Siiskonen Finns of their fortunate fate, serving as a sombre 1999, 82–85). Paasi remarks that the resettled FENNIA 182: 1 (2004) Border Karelia through rose-coloured glasses? Gazes upon … 41
Karelians often refer to the ceded territories using further back, to a more and more romanticised religious and mythical terms, metaphors like ‘holy time (Kotitie 2002). Nonetheless, the built envi- land’ or ‘promised land’, and the journey to Kare- ronment is susceptible to gradual destruction, in lia is described as a “pilgrimage”. Interestingly, the terms of both substance and meaning. The land- nationally-spirited cultural elite of the 1890s used scapes of Border Karelia are likely to gradually the same terminology (Paasi 1995, 295). It is in lose significance for Finns – or, at least, their in- part upon these personal experiences, stories, terpretation keeps changing (see Lowenthal 1985, reminiscences and utopias that the collective 240). post-war representations of a “Golden Karelia” were constructed (Paasi 1995, 59). The Russian gaze The actual journey shatters these utopian im- ages, cherished over 45 years of exile. They bear A fourth approach is that of the Russians who hardly any resemblance to the present-day reali- have inhabited Border Karelia since 1944. Initial- ty in Border Karelia. The evacuees repeatedly ly, the resettlers were mostly males from the compare the emptiness and destruction of the Ukraine and central Russia (Verigin 2002, 34); lat- present built heritage with recollections of a ro- er, people were recruited from various parts of the manticised and selectively recalled childhood. Soviet Union, where massive migrations of labour Absence emphasises the significance of the irre- were customary. Their attitude towards the ceded trievably lost elements. The surviving elements, territories has, to a large extent, been determined familiar from the pre-war era, can have been mod- by political constructions and ‘Soviet nationalism’ ified beyond recognition. The remaining buildings (see Paasi 1995, 51–52), to say nothing of purely often house functions different from those of the personal reasons. Finnish era: their identity is not what it used to Firstly, in the Sovietisation process, the symbols be. The most durable elements of the pre-war era and monuments with a clear symbolic evocation are above all the natural landscapes, resisting time of Finnish power lost their right to existence as and erosion. The whale-like chains of forested such. They had to be damaged, neglected, degrad- hills north of Lake Ladoga, the romantic lake ed or reshaped to enhance the new power. Thus, views around Varpajärvi, the lush, undulating ter- the abolition of the visible signs of Finnish rule rain of Suistamo, the fantastic lake and ridge land- and culture produced both material and spiritual scapes in Tolvajärvi, and the imposing rock walls emptiness. Subsequently, they were replaced with and firths of Impilahti can still make the nostal- monuments and symbols enhancing the commu- gic reminiscences of a “Golden Karelia” compre- nist power and ideology (these characteristic ele- hensible. ments of the landscape and townscape from the Most irrevocable, however, is time. The six dec- Soviet era are also now receding – again, produc- ades have not always relieved the emotions of bit- ing emptiness). Throughout the Soviet Union, sac- terness, anger and nostalgia. Some of the evacu- ral buildings were most endangered, and as a rule ated Karelians do not even want to visit the place, their interiors were torn down. The fate of the Or- and prefer not to face the disheartening reality. thodox Church of St. Nicholas in Suistamo serves Although Lowenthal (1985, 7–8) cites the old as a typical case. The wooden neoclassical church man’s dream “to travel back forty years to a time (1844), designed by the German-born architect when it was summer all year round”, it is maybe Carl Ludwig Engel (1778–1840) – whose main less painful merely to yearn for the past, “collect- commission in Finland was to design the build- ing its relics and celebrating its virtues – no mat- ings surrounding the Senate Square, the centre of ter if those days were in fact wretched”. power of the new Grand Duchy in Helsinki – be- The number of organised busloads of Karelians came host to a soviet workers’ canteen. After the visiting the land of their best adult years or child- collapse of the Soviet Union, the Finnish Suista- hood is decreasing as these generations are pass- mo Society changed it back to an Orthodox ing away. The younger generations may still re- Church. The Society provided the tools, materials gard these localities as a second “homeland”, and and workforce; nonetheless, the present private thus find an extension to their identity. Nowadays, owner of the church cashed in on the permission with extensive migration, people often have sev- to perform the work (Lehtipuu 2002, 419). The eral “homelands”, even beyond national borders. reconsecration can be seen as a merely symbolic In this particular case, their roots are moving even act. For the current locals it will probably remain 42 Netta Böök FENNIA 182: 1 (2004) a canteen transformed into a church, and basical- symbolically from the regions or nation-state of ly not only a product of an alien culture, but also the present (Paasi 1995, 55). Accordingly, the a building void of sacral meaning. Then again, Finnish media took advantage of the occasion of without adaptive reuse to then present-day pur- the opening of the territory to tourism to evaluate poses, many sacral buildings in the Soviet Union maliciously the consequences of the ceding of the would have succumbed to rapid decay or total area to the Soviet Union. The indirect message is destruction. However, Finns are not always warm- that under Finnish rule the results would have ly received, if they intend to buy or refurbish a been different, that is, better. The media contin- minor building, such as an individual house, in ues mainly in the same spirit, discussing mostly the territory; the building in question may sudden- negative features in the post-Soviet reality. On the ly be destroyed in an arson attack. other hand, Moscow apparently does not assign Secondly, the pioneering generation in a new Border Karelia – nor any part of ceded Karelia – homeland seldom adapts to it, but usually nos- adequate resources to prepare or maintain its in- talgically looks back to its own native locality. This frastructure (Paasi 1995, 282–295). applies to both the evacuated Karelians and the The political situation has now changed, and resettled Russians. Anchored to the present, they at least some Russian archives, which hold infor- lack not only memories, but also the connection mation on the ceded Finnish territories, have been with the mystical and mythical dimension, the opened. An issue not yet openly discussed in ei- symbolic qualities of the new “homeland” (Lo- ther Finland or Russia is the emotions and expe- wenthal 1985, 48). This is certainly true in the riences of the Russians who, voluntarily or less case of ceded Karelia, where the social content voluntarily, settled ceded Karelia after 1944. Yet, of the milieu became void after the evacuation of there is a growing tendency amongst the more its former inhabitants. Furthermore, many of the educated inhabitants of ceded Karelia to obtain a Soviet resettlers dreamt of returning to their own wider view of the past, and thus a more adequate native localities, which obviously hindered attach- picture of the present. Serious research and the ment to the new place of residence. Broms writes conservation of sites and buildings dating from the of “human magma”, violently removed from its Finnish era has got under way. However, the in- homeland to a foreign land, and has serious terests of the Russian researchers, conservation- doubts of these people ever restoring Alvar Aal- ists and common people diverge from Finns. Most to’s library in Vyborg or having any special rela- of the remaining Finnish buildings in Border Kare- tionship to the Monrepos Park outside Vyborg lia are of minor architectural value, often in a mis- (Broms 1998, 81). Both of these are presently be- erable condition and, lacking particular signifi- ing restored in co-operation between Russians cance to the locals, threatened by eradication. Its and Finns – as long as the financing keeps com- architectural sights from the Finnish era, listed in ing via Finland. the structure plan for tourism in Karelia (Interna- A strong commitment to an ethnic, political or tional… 2000), are limited to the district of Suo- religious ideology may lead to an inability to see järvi, with two or three Finnish buildings, and to objective historical facts. Since the 19th century, the remains of the church of St. Nicholas in Sal- both Russian and Finnish historians have often mi (1814–1825), which was ruined during the regarded their own “national“ or ethnic heritage Continuation War. The heritage industry plays on as principally superior to that of the other, and an unsubstantiated rumour that it was designed have attempted to appropriate the Karelian cul- by Carl Ludwig Engel (Kölhi 1995, 33). The church ture for their own purposes. A community’s atti- of St. Nicholas in Suistamo is mentioned, and tude to the past is a reflection of the impression it Tolvajärvi is described as a sight of natural beau- wishes to give of the present (Petrisalo 2001, 107): ty. The list also includes two battlefields connect- the Soviet attitude towards the ceded territories ed with war history. was ignorant and chauvinist, while the neo-Kare- lian movement chauvinistically declared East The global gaze Karelia a self-evident part of Finland. Paasi re- marks, that it appears to be typical of nation- Border Karelia has been totally deprived of all states, that they create a continuity for their exist- heritage of international significance. Its heritage ence through stories, which also provide a com- consists of minimal fragments of Fenno-Karelian mon past which does not diverge historically or buildings and landscapes, mixed with a pan-So- FENNIA 182: 1 (2004) Border Karelia through rose-coloured glasses? Gazes upon … 43 viet “heritage”. Nonetheless, its landscapes, build- monuments from the Second World War make up ings, prehistoric fortifications, discarded railroads the predominating category (International… and meadows are fixed points for the mind and 2000). However, in order to be marketed as in- memory. They are a means of preserving history, teresting destinations, the sights and their sur- and act as a collective memory. According to the roundings are in need of urgent repair, restoration ICOMOS Charter on Cultural Tourism, the partic- and general tidying up. According to a Finnish ular heritage and collective memory of each lo- study, also Impilahti has tourism potential, pro- cality or community is irreplaceable. It also forms vided that the risk of uncontrolled development a solid basis for development and cultural diver- is prevented through sustainable land use plan- sity at a time of increasing globalisation (ICOMOS ning and management of the cultural and natural 1976). heritage (Siirala 2000). UNESCO’s first declaration on culture and her- itage, from 1972, stressed the significance of cul- tural assets as the source of a national identity Collecting the pieces (UNESCO 1972). UNESCO’s recommendations imply that a cultural or ethnic community has the The identity and heritage of the present Border right to rule over its heritage, and that “spoils of Karelia is multifaceted. Both its physical and men- war” should be restored to the country of origin. tal realities have drastically changed since 1944. If this principle of “cultural ownership” is applied Its overall appearance has been devastated. The to geographical areas, ceded Karelia should be future of the few remnants of Finnish settlements returned to Finland. Ethnologist Katriina Petrisalo does not seem very hopeful. In the prevailing cir- remarks that this seemingly simple principle be- cumstances, their repair seems utopian as long as comes delicate when we look at any given area the general standard of the Border Karelian set- or culture in its historical framework. Sites and tlements and standard of dwellings cannot be im- cultures are not stable, closed units, rejecting or proved. successfully fighting off all alien influence intro- It is most important to strive towards a more duced by, for instance, colonialism, not to men- united attitude to both history and the present by tion the complete change of population, as in the bringing together the different ways of relating to case of ceded Karelia (Petrisalo 2001, 131–133). the Border Karelian landscape and heritage; to According to these charters, tourism may func- make Border Karelia a place with a more coher- tion as a medium that helps provide a personal ent past, present and future. Crucial in this proc- experience and understanding of both the present ess are history, memory and relics. History links and the past of other cultures. Conservation vi- us with past generations. Memory is crucial for tally contributes to the value of a site as an ob- our self-continuity and sense of identity, linking ject for cultural tourism, which should also pro- us with our earlier selves (Lowenthal 1985, 196– vide the means and motivation for host commu- 197). If we restore the memory, we might restore nities to maintain the heritage. According to the environment. According to Lowenthal (1985, UNESCO’s declaration, governments should sup- 263), “We need a stable past to validate tradition, port the identification, scientific research, protec- to confirm our own identity, and to make sense tion, conservation, presentation and rehabilitation of the present”, as “Relics mean only what histo- of [Finnish] heritage in the ceded territory, and ry and memory convey.” This holds true just as work out appropriate methods to maintain its well for Finns as for Russians living in Border most significant parts (UNESCO 1972). Karelia, and buildings – relics – have their singu- The relatively well-preserved pre-war town of lar potential. As Lowenthal (1985, 389) puts it: Sortavala in Ladogan Karelia has recognised the “They are the chief catalyst of collective histori- value of the Finnish heritage, both as a tourist at- cal identity because they seem intrinsic to their traction and as a cultural resource, and is invest- surroundings and outlast most other relics. Relics ing in its maintenance. The International Blue saved enhance our sense of history and length- Highway Association has evaluated seven places ens life’s reach by linking us with events and peo- along the so-called “Blue Highway”, which goes ple prior to ourselves.” He adds, citing from Wil- from Träna in Norway through Sweden and Fin- liam Morris’ Restoration from 1877: “… the visi- land to Petrozavodsk in Russia, as potentially at- ble evidence that the monument – like the nation tractive tourist sights, among which remnants and – has weathered centuries of storm and crisis and 44 Netta Böök FENNIA 182: 1 (2004) come through battered but unbowed” (Lowenthal ICOMOS (1976). Charter on cultural tourism.
of reminiscences of the evacuated Karelians). UNESCO (1972). Recommendation on cultural and SKS:n toimituksia 766. 387 p. natural heritage, UNESCO.