How might haunting reconfigure the histories and representations of past places, and reconsider the persistence and fallibility of memory in connection to architectural history? How can it shed new light on historiographical conventions and authorial voices in capturing the reverberations and atmospheres of historical sites and their representations? This issue of Fabrications was conceived in response to the Haunting, Memory, and Place symposium hosted by theAustralianCentre forArchitecturalHistory, Urban andCulturalHeritage at the University of Melbourne in September 2017. The symposium sought to interrogate whether haunting could be adopted, either as lens or method, to disrupt the practices that shape and constrain architectural history – to more closely interrogate the context and circumstances in which particular ways of thinking and seeing arise within our discipline. The symposium embraced methods and fields of research beyond our own, from cultural history, art, landscape, and architectural practice, in the interests of opening new and productive avenues of research. This issue rushes headlong down those avenues. Haunting occurs after the fact yet provides the impetus for something new. In differentiating haunting from the notion of trauma, sociologist Avery Gordon has suggested that haunting is accompanied by the sense that “something [remains] to be done.” Fittingly, the final essay in this issue contains the starting point from which this all unfolded. Kim Roberts observes, in her autoethnographic meditation on the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park, that the disciplined historian “attends more to the production than the reception of spaces . . . ironing out raw affects into coherent historic narratives . . . careful to anchor or even bury subjective experience in aggregated and concrete evidences.” Roberts first shared this idea at the University of Queensland’s Colloquium on Fictocriticism, held in August 2016. It became an idea we kept circling back to, wondering about the potential of haunting as a mechanism for stripping back the burdens that disciplinary practices unwittingly layer upon historical research. Like the symposium, this issue of Fabrications invited authors to join in this sense-making process. Maria Tumarkin’s article – an extension of her keynote address to the symposium – reflects on her 20-year body of work on Traumascapes (also the title of her 2005 book). She suggests that what makes traumascapes distinct

中文翻译：

---

困扰

困扰如何重新配置​​过去地方的历史和表现，并重新考虑与建筑历史相关的记忆的持久性和易错性？它如何在捕捉历史遗迹及其再现的回响和氛围时为史学惯例和作者声音提供新的启示？本期《制造》是为了回应由澳大利亚建筑历史、城市和文化遗产中心于 2017 年 9 月在墨尔本大学举办的闹鬼、记忆和地方研讨会而构思的。该研讨会试图询问是否可以采用闹鬼作为镜头或方法，破坏塑造和约束建筑历史的实践——更密切地询问我们学科中特定思维和观察方式出现的背景和环境。研讨会涵盖了超越我们自己的研究方法和领域，从文化历史、艺术、景观和建筑实践，以开辟新的和富有成效的研究途径。这个问题一头扎在这些途径上。困扰发生在事实之后，但为新事物提供了动力。在区分困扰与创伤的概念时，社会学家艾弗里·戈登 (Avery Gordon) 提出，困扰伴随着“有些事情 [仍然] 要做”的感觉。恰如其分地，本期的最后一篇文章包含了这一切展开的起点。金·罗伯茨观察到，在她对广岛和平纪念公园的自我民族志沉思中，这位纪律严明的历史学家“更多地关注生产而不是空间的接收。. . 将原始影响消除为连贯的历史叙述。. . 小心地将主观经验锚定甚至掩埋在聚合和具体的证据中。” 罗伯茨在 2016 年 8 月举行的昆士兰大学小说批评座谈会上首次分享了这个想法。它成为我们不断回溯的想法，想知道困扰作为一种机制的潜力，可以消除学科实践不知不觉地叠加在历史上的负担研究。与研讨会一样，本期 Fabrications 邀请作者加入这个意义构建过程。Maria Tumarkin 的文章——她在研讨会上的主题演讲的延伸——反映了她 20 年来在 Traumascapes 方面的工作（也是她 2005 年的书名）。她认为是什么让创伤场景与众不同