Upload
aidusha
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/2/2019 Condappa_Cultural Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina
1/17
Cultural Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina; Destroying Heritage, Destroying Identity
Pamela de Condappa
Introduction
The killing of a person destroys an individual memory. The destruction of cultural
heritage erases the memory of a people. It is as if they were never there (Riedlmayer
2002). It is in this context that the intentional and systematic destruction of Muslim
cultural heritage in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the run up to and during conflict in the
early 1990s has been described as a form of cultural genocide, to some a heinous
counterpart to the crime of genocide (and/or ethnic cleansing) itself. The topic of
cultural genocide is a controversial one, it is nevertheless a term that has seen a
seemingly exponential increase in usage in recent years, along with associated
neologisms such as culturalcannibalism, identicide, warchitecture and urbicide (cf.
Meharg 2000; Bevan 2006; Coward 2001). In this paper I want to examine the
potential import of actions that have been described as such, in the context of Bosnia-
Herzegovina. One of the most infamous images of conflict in that region was the
obliteration of the beautifully constructed StariMost, the old Ottoman bridge at
Mostar. It was an image that arguably focused the outraged lens of international
condemnation more immediately than some of the preceding human rights abuses. It
is also a heuristic lens, for the ability of damage to cultural heritage to provoke
emotive responses is revealing. Revealing because material culture in the form of
cemeteries, religious monuments, historic buildings and so on, provides a powerful
and potent nexus fusing both group and individual memories, and equally importantly
in the context of the significance of cultural genocide; also offers a palpable and
potentially malleable reservoir of legitimacy which can be used to authenticate
8/2/2019 Condappa_Cultural Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina
2/17
historic claims over territory and identity, especially ethnic identity.1 I also want to
consider the relationship between cultural genocide and genocide. To destroy material
culture which defines or is perceived to define a group is certainly in part an exercise
in erasure, a form ofdamnatae memoriae that has characterised and consolidated the
victors version of history throughout the ages. But is this tantamount to genocide?
This question will be subject to debate across a variety of fields, however I do suggest
that such debates will be further informed by a wider understanding of the role of
cultural heritage in the formation, justification and delineation of group identity; a
role that firmly places such heritage as an latent weapon in the arena of conflict and
ultimately therefore genocidal activities.
Defining Cultural Genocide
Genocide, contrary to the views of some commentators, is never simply the result of
simmering primordial tensions imploding to create deadly schisms in society; it is
instead part of a complexprocess of dehumanisation (Roth 2002). As such, genocide
can be understood as the worst case scenario of a broad, fluid continuum of social
dynamics that involves the re-conceptualisation of group identity and legitimacy.
Moreover, processes of dehumanisation, which may or may notacquire genocidal
properties, are informed by didactic practices that draw upon resonant and symbolicsources of culture, including material culture. Thus, for ideologies that facilitate
genocide to be successful they need to resonate with the societies involved, and
therefore involve drawing upon a shared cultural base (Smith 1999:4). Equally,
destroying a victim groups culture can act as a threat to the group, as well as to deny
1 Utilising another term coined by Lemkin, ethnocide has also been used to describe the deliberatedestruction of that which is associated with a group's way of life (Hovanissian 1999:147).
8/2/2019 Condappa_Cultural Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina
3/17
that group a critical source of legitimacy.
Raphael Lemkin developed the term genocide in his 1944 book Axis Rule in
Occupied Europe, combining the Greek word genos (race or tribe) with the Latin
word cide (to kill). The United Nations Genocide convention, ratified on 9 December
1948, defined the crime of genocide as the intent to destroy in whole or in part, a
national, ethnic, racial or religious group by (a) killing members of the group, (b)
causing serious bodily harm to members of the group, (c) deliberately inflicting on the
group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or
in part, (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and (e)
forcibly transferring children of the group to other groups.
Lemkin, had also wanted to include the term cultural genocide as a crime to describe
the deliberate destruction of a groups cultural way of life (1944:84-5). He argued that
efforts to destroy the foundation of the life of groups would include the breakdown of
the political and social institutions of culture, language[and] national feelings
(ibid.). Utilising another term coined by Lemkin, scholars often refer to cultural
genocide as ethnocide to describe the deliberate destruction of that which is associated
with a group's way of life (Hovanissian 1999:147). It is however, a contentious term.
There are scholars who see the phenomenon as act of genocide in itself. Hence, Totten
argues that vandalism against Armenian cultural monuments constitutes an act of
genocide (1997; 1987:9-10), and Denitch suggests that genocide must now be
extended to include the disappearance of cultural markers from a territory (1993:50).
Other argue that cultural genocide is an inaccurate term, noting that 'cide' implies
killing, yet does not occur in all cases where ethnocide or cultural genocide occurs.
8/2/2019 Condappa_Cultural Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina
4/17
I want to look at cultural genocide from a material perspective because as
contemporary archaeological paradigms assert; material culture is notpassive, objects
actively construct and re-structure society (Tilley 2000:421-2; Giddens 1984 cf.
Renfrew 2004). Just as material culture structures society, so I suggest that material
culture has the potential to de-structure societies as groups effectively disengage
with other groups cultural identity. The potency of material culture as historically
and socially constructed discourse must also be considered as a factor in intentional
attempts at its re-negotiation and destruction. Thus, as contexts change for example
during times of conflict and stress, so does the potential role of material culture that
symbolizes, or is perceived to symbolize group identity (Sluka 1992:24 cf. Harrison
1995; Saunders 2002).
Archaeology and Destruction
The field of cultural destruction has increasingly become the subject of archaeological
scholarship, focusing on a variety of areas including the destruction caused by looting
(Renfrew 2000). Damage as a result of war has also been highlighted by
archaeologists and associated experts (Pollock & Lutz 1994 cf. ICOMOS statement
2002, University of Chicago Oriental Institute Statement of Concern 2003). Both
ICOMOS and the Oriental Institute have called upon authorities in charge in Iraq to
comply with the requirements set out by the Hague Convention on the protection of
Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1956).2 International recognition of
the importance of heritage led to the destruction of the Mostar Bridge and areas of
2 However, this convention has not been ratified by either the US or UK (cf. Merryman 1986).
8/2/2019 Condappa_Cultural Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina
5/17
Dubrovnik being prosecuted as a war crime by the ITCY (Prott, de la Torre & Levin
2001:13), and Colin Renfrew has argued that the time is ripe for an international
convention to make the destruction of cultural artefacts a crime against humanity
(Bone 2001). The destruction of the Bamiyam Buddhas by the Taliban (Colwell-
Chanthaphonh 2003, Meskell 2002) also attracted worldwide condemnation. Such
landmarks have been described as prized targets for terrorists targeting the cultural
icons that bind and inspire communities around the world (Meskell 2002:557; Perry &
Burnham 2001:3). Decried as cultural terrorism the iconic destruction in
Afghanistan amounted to a provocative affirmation of sovereignty not only upon the
territory but also upon values (Gamboni 2001:11). It is this conflation of material
culture and values that makes the arena of cultural destruction so potent. This position
reflects the international recognition of the importance of cultural heritage. Thus
UNESCOs draft declaration concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural
Heritage states that cultural heritage is a component of cultural identity and social
cohesion so that its intentional destruction may have adverse consequences on human
dignity and human rights.
Philip Roth, the head of the influential organisation, Human Rights Watch has argued
that; 'understanding the architecture of a society is valuable not only in its own
right...but also as a blueprint for change. It helps us identify the social pathologies that
lead to human rights abuse and the steps that can be taken to end or to prevent them'
(2002:ix). Archaeology as a discipline is equipped with the theoretical tools necessary
to elucidate some of the processes behind such social pathologies, and arguably has a
responsibility to do so (cf. Carman 1997). This is not to suggest that the discipline is
itself entirely objective. Indeed, it has been increasingly recognized that
8/2/2019 Condappa_Cultural Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina
6/17
archaeological and historical narratives are deeply imbricated within sociopolitical
realities (Meskell 1998:2 cf. Abu El-Haj 2001; Atkinson, Banks & OSullivan 1996,
Daz-Andreu & Champion 1996, Galaty & Watkinson 2004; Hall 2000, Kane 2003;
Kohl & Fawcett 1995; Silberman 1989). In particular, the work of Gustav Kossina,
which was influential in propagating ideas that supported the agenda of the Third
Reich, has been discussed as one of the darker points in archaeology's history (Arnold
2002 cf. Arnold 1990; Arnold & Hassmann 1995; Hrke 2002; Hassmann 2002;
Junker 1998; Wiwjorra 1996). Archaeologists are well aware of the passion and
violence that...surround the right to possess a culture, and themselves play a role in
such discourses (Layton, Thomas and Stone 2001). Thus, material culture provides a
tangible nexus that combines culture, identity and power, and a means to re-negotiate
such relationships. Discourses that parallel and draw upon this potent combination
have been critical elements in the vocabulary of many genocidal regimes.
Material conditions radically shape human actions, creating a charged field through
which power-relations operate (Graves-Brown 2000). Mead described artifacts as
collapsed acts in that they embody all that has been enacted upon them (1934 cf.
Appadurai 1986; Gell 1998). Understanding how such artifacts are used in cultural
strategies of destruction may therefore be a heuristic process. Halpern has argued that
there is a need for an ethno-archaeology of architectural destruction to understand
acts, which manifest strongly held cultural values (1993:2). Material culture makes up
symbolic and cultural landscapes which create a particularity of place, they also act as
narratives of collective memory that underpin the cohesion and identity of groups
(Meharg 2001 cf. Connerton 1989; Fentress & Wickham 1992; Gillis 1994;
Halbwachs 1992; Hutton 1993, Nora 1996). Destruction or debasement of such
8/2/2019 Condappa_Cultural Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina
7/17
landscapes therefore has the power to revise memory to the point where group
identity is itself endangered. Such destruction often takes place during times of stress
and conflict where groups feel the need to reappraise and reassert the past through
material processes. Rowlands has also noted that materiality is peculiarly responsive
to claims of authenticity and possession of unique identities (2002:108). Conversely
if the past resists revision, it can simply be destroyed (Rathje 1999:94). Cultural
memory has been described as highly selective, it highlights and foregrounds whilst at
the same time it silences and disavows, eliding those episodes that form the
opportunity for alternate narratives (Hall 2001:5). Cultural genocide therefore
threatens such opportunities, critically impacting on emic and etic conceptualisations
of group identity.
Cultural Heritage in Bosnia-Herzegovinia
Bosnia-Herzegovina had a distinct identity. It owed this distinction and its political
autonomy to two factors. One that is sat astride the main trade route from the East,
leading across Asia Minor towards Venice at the top of the Adriatic, which was
Europes gateway to the Orient. Since the Middle Ages, Bosnia had been a complex
and multi-faceted society, where cultural and religious influences had met and
impacted on each other. Alone in medieval Europe, the Kingdom of Bosnia was a place where three Christian churches, Roman Catholicism and schismatic local
Bosnian church, and around 500 years ago Islam arrived, by the 1700s more than half
the population had adopted the faith (Riedlmayer 2002:102). This is the second factor
that made Bosnian heritage so rich, as Ottoman sultans, including Sultan Suleyman
the Magnificent poured wealth into architectural and urban building projects, as a
distinct Bosnian-Muslim culture was formed also reflecting the cosmopolitan nature
8/2/2019 Condappa_Cultural Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina
8/17
of the region and its influences (ibid.). Among the new Ottoman towns in Bosnia were
Sarajevo, Banja Luka and Mostar, these were towns where Muslims, Christians and
Jews lived, worked and worshipped.
Riedlmayer has written that the placement of architecture is an intentional, thoughtful,
political act. People who cannot stand the thought of each other will not build their
houses and the most important monuments of their religious and communal life in the
shadows of those others. The mutual acceptance of communities is also illustrated by
architecture as building styles became cross-cultural, there are a number of mosques
in Bosnia which have the look of medieval churches, with minarets that resemble
Romanesque church steeples. Cultural heritage in Bosnia to put it reflected a multi-
cultural, urbane and sophisticated society, which apparently crossed symbolic
boundaries relatively un-problematically. This is not to suggest that society was
totally harmonious, but that the architectural landscape does suggest a certain amount
of cohesion.
Cultural Destruction
The Bosnian war was characterised by the deliberate targeting and destruction of
cultural, religious and historic landmarks. Targets included: the National Library at
Sarajevo, the Regional Archives in Mostar, local and national museums, the Academy
of Music, the National Gallery, entire historic districts, Muslim and Jewish cemeteries
and particularly places of worship. It is important to point out that the heritage of all
ethnicities were damaged, but by far the worst damage occurred to Muslim heritage.
The total number of destroyed objects has been estimated in several sources.
8/2/2019 Condappa_Cultural Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina
9/17
According to the data from the Institute for the Protection of the Cultural, Natural and
Historical Heritage of Bosnia and Herzegovina 1454 cultural monuments were
destroyed or damaged. Of those, 1284 were Islamic sacred and other objects, 237
Catholic, and 30 Serbian Orthodox. Other figures cited refer to over 1100 destroyed
mosques and Muslim buildings, over 300 Catholic churches and monasteries and 36
Serbian Orthodox churches (Bublin 1999:243; Perry 2002:2). Non-sacred structures
were also targeted for their symbolic significance, including the Ottoman-era Bridge
in Mostar, Roman ruins, archives, libraries, and medieval and archaeological sites.
Collateral damage is unfortunately a necessary fact of warfare, whilst this may
account for a small amount of the damage to cultural heritage in Bosnia Herzegovina,
there is indisputable evidence that the destruction of such material culture was
intentional and systematic. Indeed, the worst destruction actually occurred outside the
sites of direct military conflict. The majority of destruction has been attributed to
Bosnian Serbs. For example on the 25 August, 1992, the National Library at Sarajevo
was bombarded and set ablaze. It held rare documents and huge archives of material
that documented Bosnias history. The library was located in the centre of Sarajevos
old town, according to eyewitnesses the shells came from seven different Bosnian-
Serb army positions. Only the library was hit and adjacent building remained
unscathed, once the library had been set alight the shelling stopped but when firemen
and volunteers tried to save books from the building they came under direct gunfire.
A librarian who was there described the scene;
The fire lasted for days. The sun was obscured by the smoke of books and all over
the city sheets of burned paper, fragile pages of grey ashes, floated down like a dirty
black snow. Catching a page you could feel its heat, and for a moment read a
fragment of text in a strange kind of black and grey negative, until as the heat
8/2/2019 Condappa_Cultural Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina
10/17
dissipated, the page melted to dust in your hand.3 An estimated 1.5 million books
were destroyed, the largest single incident of book burning in modern history.
Consequences
Material culture presences communities, equally cultural destruction may also act to
cleanse a particular territory, for example the destruction of mosques. Such
destruction had powerful consequences. One report notes the destruction of a Mosque
in Hercegovina on the 27 January, 1993 by Serbian militiamen;
It burned all nightBy morning Trebinjes 500 year old mosque was ashes
andKemal Bubic, 29, joined thousands of numbed people moving eastward. At
that moment everything I had was burned down he said Its not that my family was
burned down, but its my foundation that burned. I was destroyed.4 In the eastern
Bosnian town of Zvornik, there were once a dozen mosques which were destroyed
systematically from April to September, 1993. At the same time its Muslim
population was systematically expelled. A 1991 census put 60% of its residents as
Bosnian Muslims. After the ethnic cleansing the town is officially 100 % Bosnian
Serbs, and Branko Grujic, the new Serb-appointed mayor, told foreign visitors;
There were never any mosques in Zvornik. At Banja Luka, all sixteen historic
mosques were destroyed. The place where the main mosque of Banja Luka, Ferhadija
(dating from 1579) once stood was turned into a car park after the mosque was
destroyed in 1993. Just months after in 1994, an exhibition opened marking the 65th
anniversary of Banja Luka as regional capital, it was organised by the regional
museum which had since been renamed The Museum of the Republika Srpska and3
Eyewitness account by Kemal Bakar_i_, 1994, in The Libraries of Sarajevo and the Book ThatSaved Our Lives, The New Combat: A Journal of Reason and Resistance, 3:13-15.4 Du_ko Doder, On Serb Holy Day, Hellfire for Foes, The Boston Globe, 10 February 1993
8/2/2019 Condappa_Cultural Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina
11/17
included historical photographs of Banja Luka from the 1920s and 30s. All the
photographs had been airbrushed; all traces of the mosque, which had formed such an
integral part of the town, had vanished. History proves that Banja Luka had in fact
always been a Serb town.
Denitch has argued that understanding the conflict in the Former Yugoslavia does not
lie in observable behaviors, but in perceived pasts as manipulated by elites (1994).
Such perceived pasts were substantiated and created through materiality, and its
erasure. There is a reason why some of the first victims of the conflict were cultural
monuments, cultural destruction in Bosnia was not aimed not just to cleansing a
particular ethnic group, but also to deny the possibility of a heterogeneous, tolerant
and multi-ethnic past (Riedlymayer 1995:1; Anteri_; Adams 1993; zkan 1994 cf
Hayden 1996:783). Denial of a tolerant past was epitomized by the destruction of
Stari Most. The ancient bridge at Mostar, has come to symbolise the ability of a
culturally pluralistic society to flourish for almost five centuries, despite the very real
tensions among different religious groups (Sells 1996:xv). The bridge was finally
destroyed after consistent shelling by Croatian gunners on 9th November, 1993, A
horribly ironic date, as fifty five years earlier on the same day, Jewish synagogues and
cultural institutions were destroyed onKristallnacht.
Riedlmayer suggests that there is increasing awareness of the link between the
systematic persecution and expulsion of ethnic and religious communities and the
destruction of the cultural and religious heritage associated with the targeted
community (2002: 3). If an ethnicity is a group that defines itself or is defined by
others as sharing common descent and cultureethnic cleansing is the removal by
members of one such group from a locality they define as their own (Mann
8/2/2019 Condappa_Cultural Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina
12/17
2004:11).5 Since ethnic groups are culturally defined, they can be eliminated if their
culture disappears, even if there is no physical removal of persons (ibid.). Therefore
the systematic and intentional destruction of material culture that in part comes to
define such an ethnic group forms an integral part of such cultural cleansing.
However, the erasure of such material culture does not just constitute cultural
cleansing but actually justifies the process by denying that which had gone before,
and in the case Bosnia, denied the existence and viability of ethnic heterogeneity.
Thus, cultural cleansing is more than a counterpart to ethnic cleansing, but is part of
the process whereby ethnic cleansing comes to be a legitimate and acceptable form of
action.
In effect material culture became ethnicised as categories of identity such as
Muslim were reified according to political and social needs. In Mostar for example,
before the war, Stari Mostwas not a Muslim monument but a Bosnian one, it was
the war that transformed it. A dialectical relationship is informed through materiality;
whilst groups engaged with material culture that defined a particular ethnicity, the
self-same material culture presented a medium for processes that facilitated the
delineation of the boundaries of group identity. This dialectic encapsulated and
justified more than identity, which as a concept itself is always part of a larger nexus
of meaning. Thus integrally linked to such processes were the territorial rights sought
by an extremely vociferous ethno-nationalist project; territories that ultimately needed
to be cleansed in order to assert those rights as well as legitimise them. Ethnic
cleansing in this regard required more than the removal of the incorrect ethnic groups,
but also the cultural markers that evidenced such groups
5
In discussing concepts such as ethnicity, one needs to note the danger of reproducing the categories ofnationalist thought, i.e. by using the terms Serb and Muslim; yet whole nations or ethnic groups neveract collectively (Mann 2004:20).
8/2/2019 Condappa_Cultural Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina
13/17
Conclusion
Material culture is historically and socially constituted, these qualities allow material
culture to serve as a source of discourse to be used, or negotiated, in processes of
dehumanisation. To re-iterate my earlier arguments genocide has been described as an
act that has plagued human beings for centuries: the intentional destruction of a group
because ofwho they are (Hinton 2001:1, my italics). Communities are not simply
imagined but materialized; as such symbols constitute agents, meanings and
power/knowledge relations as well as represent them (Robb 1998). In Bosnia conflicts
were symbolically manipulated to polarize public opinion along the lines of resurgent
ethnic identities and utilized historically pertinent material culture in the process
(Denitch 1994:369 cf. Bringa 1993; Werbart 1996). Moreover identity, and
particularly group identity are relational phenomena; one defines oneself in relation to
the other, communities are symbolically constituted at the boundaries (Cohen 1993;
cf. Barth 1969). Material culture associated with a particular group may represent
such differences. It also creates difference, even between groups that are actually
quite similar. Ignatieff, using Freuds term the narcissism of minor difference,
argues that as external differences between groups diminish, symbolic differences
become more salientthe more important it becomes to wear the differentiating
mask (1999:57). Particularly in times of stress, cultural symbols tend to take on
iconic qualities which increasing come to define and create a sense of difference. As
difference is reified, sameness can offer a source of legitimacy. Thus, Stolcke work
on cultural fundamentalism, predicates that formal political equality presupposes
cultural identity and hence cultural sameness is the essential prerequisite for access to
8/2/2019 Condappa_Cultural Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina
14/17
citizenship rights (1995). The conflation of bounded notions of culture and rights,
provides powerful, mobilizing dialectics that can alternately privilege and negate,
intimately affecting notions of legitimacy (Cowan et al 2001). The power to debase or
erase culture therefore fundamentally impacts on the legitimacy of a group, and in
extreme cases on its right to exist. For just as communities can be imagined; so it is
possible that they can be unimaginedor dematerialized.
References
ABU EL-HAJ, N. 2001.Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self Fashioningin Israeli Society. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.ADAMS, N. 1993. Architecture as the Target, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 52:389-390.ANDERSEN, B. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism.London: Verso.ANTERI_, M. 1998. Contested heritage in the former Yugoslavia. In D. Uzzell & R. Ballantyne (eds.),Contemporary Issues in Heritage and Environmental Interpretation. London: The Stationary Office.APPADURAI, A. 1986. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.ARNOLD, B. 2002. Justifying Genocide, Archaeology and the Construction of Difference, in A. L.
Hinton (ed.),Annihilating Difference - The Anthropology of Genocide. London: University ofCalifornia PressARNOLD, B. & HASSMANN, H. 1995. Archaeology in Nazi Germany: The Legacy of the FaustianBargain, in P. Kohl & C. Fawcett. (eds.),Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology: 70-81.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.ATKINSON, J., BANKS, I., & OSULLIVAN, J. 1996.Nationalism and Archaeology. Glasgow:Cruithne Press.BARTH, F. 1969. Introduction, in F. Barth (ed.),Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: 9-38. Boston: LittleBrown.BAUMAN, Z. 1991.Modernity and the Holocaust. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.BEVAN, R. 2005, Forthcoming. The Destruction of Memory: Architecture and Cultural Warfare.BRINGA, T. R. 1993. National Categories, National Identification and Identity Formation inMultinational Bosnia, Anthropology of East Europe Review 11(1-2).BONE, J. 2001. Afghan Warlord calls for statues to be rebuilt, in The Times, London.BOURDIEU, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CARMAN, J (ed.). 1997. Material Harm: Archaeological Studies of War and Violence. Glasgow:Cruithne Press.CHALK, F and JONASSOHN, K. 1990. The History and Sociology of Genocide: Analysis and CaseStudies. New Haven: Yale University Press.CHAPMAN, J. 1994. Destruction of a common heritage: the archaeology of war in Croatia, Bosnia andHercegovina,Antiquity 68: 120-6.CHARNY, I. W. 1999. A Proposed Definitional Matrix for Crimes of Genocide, in I. Charny (ed. inchief),Encyclopaedia of Genocide, Volume I. California: Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide.CHORBAJIAN, L. 1999. Introduction, in L. Chorbajian and G. Shirinian (eds.), Studies inComparative Genocide. London: Macmillan Press.COHEN, A. 1993. The Symbolic Construction of Community. London: Routledge.COHEN, A. 1994. Self-Consciousness: an alternative anthropology of identity. London: Routledge.COLWELL-CHANTHAPHONH, C. 2003. Dismembering/disremembering the Buddhas: renderings
8/2/2019 Condappa_Cultural Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina
15/17
on the internet during the Afghan purge of the past,Journal of Social Archaeology 3:75-98.CONNERTON, P. 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.COWAN, J. K., DEMBOUR, M-B. & WILSON, R. A. 2001. Culture and Rights: AnthropologicalPerspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DEMARRAIS, E, CASTILLO, J, L. & EARLE, T. 1996. Ideology, Materialization and PowerStrategies, Current Anthropology 37: 15-31.
DEMARRAIS, E, GOSDEN, C & RENFREW, C. 2004. Introduction, in E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden &C. Renfrew (eds.),Rethinking Materiality: the Engagements of Mind with the Material World: 1-7.Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.DENITCH, B. 1993. Unmaking multi-ethnicity in Yugoslavia: metamorphosis observed,Anthropologyof East Europe Review, 11 (1-2): 43-53.DENITCH, B. 1994. Dismembering Yugoslavia: nationalist ideologies and the symbolic revival ofgenocide,American Ethnologist21:367-90.DE VOS, G. A. 1995. Ethnic Pluralism: Conflict and Accommodation, in L. Romanucci-Ross & G. DeVos (eds.),Ethnic Identity: Creation, Conflict and Accommodation. London: Alta Mira Press.DAZ-ANDREU, M. & CHAMPION, T. 1996.Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe. Boulder,Colorado: Westview Press.DOUGLAS, M. 1966.Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, NewYork: Routledge.
EARLE, T. 2004. Culture Matters: Why Symbolic Objects Change, in E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden & C.Renfrew (eds.),Rethinking Materiality: the Engagements of Mind with the Material World: 153-165.Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.FENTRESS, J & WICKHAM, C. 1992. Social Memory: New Perspectives on the Past. Oxford:Blackwell.FEIN, H. 1984. Scenarios of genocide: Models of genocide and critical responses, in I. W. Charny(ed.), Towards the Understanding and Prevention of Genocide. London: Bowker PublishingGALATY, M, L. & WATKINSON, C. 2004.Archaeology under Dictatorship. New York: KluwerAcademic/Plenum Publishers.GAMBONI, D. 2001. World Heritage: Shield or Target?, The Getty Conservation Institute Newsletter16:5-11.GELL, A. 1998.Art and Agency. Oxford: Clarendon.GRAVES-BROWN, P. 2000. Introduction, in P. Graves-Brown (ed.),Matter; Materiality and Modern
Culture. London: Routledge.GIDDENS, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge:Polity Press.GILLIS, J. 1994. Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity. Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress.GRAVES- BROWN, P., JONES, S. & GAMBLE, C. 1996. Cultural Identity and Archaeology: TheConstruction of European Communities. London: Routledge.Hague Convention of the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. 1956. Citedfrom http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/hague/html_eng/page1.shtml.HALL, J. 1997. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.HALBWACHS, M. 1992. On Collective Memory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.HALL, M. 2000.Archaeology and the Modern World: Colonial Transcripts in South Africa and theChesapeake. London: Routledge.
HALL, M. 2001. District Six Museum, in B. Bender (ed.),Exile. Oxford: Berg.HALPERN, J. M. 1993. Introduction, Special Issue: War among the Yugoslavs,Anthropology of East
Europe Review, 11 (1-2). Cited fromhttp://condor:depaul.edu/~rrotenbe/aeer/aeer11_1/Introduction.htmlHRKE, H. (ed.). 2002.Archaeology, Ideology and Society: The German Experience. Frankfurt: PeterLang.HARRISON, S. 1995. Four Types of Symbolic Conflict, The Journal of the Royal AnthropologicalInstitute, 1(2): 255-272.HASSMANN, H. 2002. Archaeology and the Third Reich, in H. Hrke (ed.),Archaeology, Ideologyand Society: The German Experience: 65-139. Frankfurt: Peter LangHAYDEN, R. M. 1996. Imagined communities and real victims: self-determination and ethniccleansing in Yugoslavia,American Ethnologist23(4), pp.783-801.HINTON, A. L. 2001. Introduction in A. L. Hinton (eds.), Genocide: An Anthropological Reader, pp.
1-22. London: BlackwellHINTON, A. L. 2002. Introduction in A. L. Hinton (ed.),Annihilating Difference - The Anthropology
8/2/2019 Condappa_Cultural Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina
16/17
of Genocide. London: University of California PressHOBSBAWM, E. & RANGER, T (eds.). 1992. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.HODDER, I. & HUTSON, S. 2003.Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in
Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.HORVANISSIAN, A. 1999. Turkey: a Cultural Genocide, in L. Chorbajian and G. Shirinian (eds.),
Studies in Comparative Genocide. London: Macmillan Press.HUTTON, P. 1993. History as an Art of Memory. Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of NewEngland.ICOMOS. 2002. The Impact of War on Iraqs Cultural Heritage. Cited fromhttp://www.international.icomos.org/risk/2002/iraq2002.htm.IGNATIEFF, M. 1999. The Warriors Honor - Ethnic War and the Modern Conscience. London:Vintage.JONES, S. 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity. London : Routledge.JUNKER, K. 1998. Research Under Dictatorship: The German Archaeological Institute 1929-1945,
Antiquity 72: 282-92.KANE, S. 2003. The Politics of Archaeology and Identity in a Global Context. Boston, Ma: AmericanInstitute of America.KIERNAN, B. 2001. Myth, Nationalism and Genocide,Journal of Genocide Research, 3(2): 187-206.
KOHL, P & FAWCETT, C. 1995.Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.KUPER, L. 1981. Genocide: Its Political use in the Twentieth Century. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.LAYTON, R and THOMAS, J. 2001. Introduction: the destruction and conservation of cultural
property, in R. Layton, P. Stone and J. Thomas,Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property: 1-22. London: Routledge.LEADBETTER, B. 1996. Genocide in Antiquity, International Network on Holocaust and Genocide,11(3), 4-7.LEADBETTER, B. 1999. Genocide in Antiquity, in I. Charny (ed. in chief),Encyclopaedia ofGenocide, Volume I. California: Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide.LEMKIN, R. 1944Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. Washington: Carnegie Endowment for InternationalPeace.
MEAD, G. H. 1934. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: Chicago University Press.MEHARG, S. J. 2001. Identicide and Cultural Cannibalism: Warfares appetite for Symbolic Place,Peace Research Journal, 33(3):89-98.MERRYMAN, J. H. 1986. Two ways of Thinking about Cultural Property, The American Journal ofInternational Law, 80(4): 831-853.MESKELL, L. 1998. Introduction: Archaeology Matters, in L. Meskell (ed.),Archaeology under Fire -
Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East: 1-12. London:Routledge.MESKELL, L. 2002. Negative heritage and past mastering in archaeology,Anthropological Quarterly ,75: 557-574.
NANDY, A. 1998. The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self Under Colonialism. Delhi: OxfordUniversity Press.
NORA, P. 1996. Realms of Memory: The Construction of the French Past. New York: Columbia
University Press.OLSEN, B, J. 2001. The end of history? Archaeology and the politics of identity in a globalized world,in R. Layton, P. Stone and J. Thomas,Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property: 42-54.London: Routledge.ZKAN, S. 1994. The Destruction of Stari Most, Development Network 14: 5-7.PERRY, M & BURNHAM, B. 2001. A Critical Mission: the World Monuments Watch, in WorldMonuments Watch: 100 Most Endangered Sites 2002, 3-4.POLLOCK, S & LUTZ, C. 1994. Archaeology deployed for the Gulf War, Critique of Anthropology14(3): 263-84.POULIGNY, B. Quoted from SEMELIN, R. 2003. Toward a vocabulary of genocide and massacre,
Journal of Genocide Research.
PROTT, L. M., DE LA TORRE, & LEVIN, D. 2001. A conversation with Lyndel Prott, The GettyInstitute Newsletter 16:12-15.
RATHJE, W. L. 1999. Kosovo and the Archaeologists, Discovering Archaeology 1(4):92-5.RENFREW, C. 2000.Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership: The Ethical Crisis in Archaeology. London:
8/2/2019 Condappa_Cultural Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina
17/17
Duckworth.RENFREW, C. 2004. Towards a Theory of Material Engagement, in E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden & C.Renfrew (eds.),Rethinking Materiality: the Engagements of Mind with the Material World: 23-31.Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.RIEDLMAYER, A. 1995. Killing Memory: The Targeting of Bosnias Cultural Heritage TestimonyPresented at a Hearing of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Available at
http://haverford.edu/regl/sells/killing.html.RIEDLMAYER, A. 2002.Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Bosnia-Hercegovina, 1992-1996: APost-war Survey of Selected Municipalities.ROBB, J. 1998. The Archaeology of Symbols,Annual Review of Anthropology, 27; 329-346.ROTH, K. 2002. Foreword, in A. L. Hinton (ed.),Annihilating Difference - The Anthropology ofGenocide. London: University of California Press.ROWLANDS, M. 2002. Heritage and Cultural Property, in V. Buchli (ed.), The Material CultureReader: 105-115. Cornwall: Berg.SAUNDERS, N. 2002. Memory and Conflict, in V. Buchli (ed.), The Material Culture Reader: 175-181. Cornwall: Berg.SELLS, M. 1996. The Bridge Betrayed: Religion and Genocide in Bosnia. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.SLUKA, J. A. 1992. The Anthropology of Conflict, in C. Nordstrom and J. Martin (eds.), The Paths to
Domination, Resistance and Terror. Berkeley: University of California Press.SMITH, R. W. 1999. State Power and Genocidal Intent: On the Uses of Genocide in the TwentiethCentury, in L. Chorbajian and G. Shirinian (eds.), Studies in Comparative Genocide pp. 3-15. London:Macmillan Press Ltd.SILBERMAN, N. A. 1989.Between Past and Present: Archaeology, Ideology and Nationalism in the
Modern Near East. New York: Hold, Rinehart and Winston.STOLCKE, V. 1995. Talking Culture - New Boundaries, New Rhetorics of Exclusion in Europe,Current Anthropology 36, pp. 1-24TILLEY, C. 2000. Interpreting Material Culture, in J. Thomas (ed.), Interpretive Archaeology, areader: 418-429. London: Leicester University Press.TOTTEN, S., PARSONS, W, S., & CHARNY, I (eds.). 1997. Century of Genocide: Eye-witness
Accounts and Critical Views . New York: Garland Publishing.TOTTEN, S. 1998. Defining Genocide: Words do matter, in C. Danks, L. Rabinsky (eds.), Teaching
for a Tolerant World: Essays and Resources. Urbana, IL: National Council for Teachers of English, pp.141-151.WERBART, B. 1996. All these fantastic cultures? Concepts of archaeological cultures, identity andethnicity, Archaeologia Polona 34: 97-128.WIWJORRA, I. 1996. German Archaeology and Its Relation to Nationalism and Race, in M. Daz-Andreu & T. Champion (eds.), Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe: 164-188. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.WOLF, E, R, 1999. Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis.Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.