Post-industrial landscape scars are traces of 20th century utopian visions of society; they relate to fear and resistance expressed by popular movements and to relations between industrial workers and those in power. The metaphor of the scar pinpoints the inherent ambiguity of memory work by signifying both positive and negative experiences, as well as the contemporary challenges of living with these physical and mental marks. In this book, Anna Storm explores post-industrial landscape scars caused by nuclear power production, mining, and iron and steel industry in Malmberget, Kiruna, Barsebäck and Avesta in Sweden; Ignalina and Visaginas/Sniečkus in Lithuania/former Soviet Union; and Duisburg in the Ruhr district of Germany. The scars are shaped by time and geographical scale; they carry the vestiges of life and work, of community spirit and hope, of betrayed dreams and repressive hierarchical structures. What is critical, Storm concludes, is the search for a legitimate politics of memory. The meanings of the scars must be acknowledged. Past and present experiences must be shared in order shape new understandings of old places.

A huge and continuously growing pit is about to divide the Swedish mining town of Malmberget into two halves. What once was the town centre is now a 200 metres deep hole, and private homes and key buildings like the old school and the church have had to be demolished or moved. The pit is a human imposed ‘landscape scar’ epitomising the town’s lost golden age of mining, its present situation of decline and uncertain future prospects – despite a recent recovery in the mining industry. Although the pit is decisively present in the local community, it is not articulated as significant, especially not from a heritage perspective. Why is this so? In this article, we examine the pit as a potential cultural tool for heritage processes, and find that it is indeed used by individuals in this respect, but not in collective memorialisation. We conclude that landscape scars definitely can constitute critical cultural tools, although they may not always need to be labelled as belonging to an ‘authorized heritage discourse’. Instead, the potential of the landscape scar is to enhance the amount and recognition of shared memories in the local community.