Hollow, Rosemary
Description
Terrorism and atrocities have scarred the public memory in the
late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Three
atrocities, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the 1996 massacre at
Port Arthur Historic Site in Tasmania, Australia, and the 2002
Bali bombings, had a significant impact on the communities they
most affected. How did the differing governments and communities
at these sites respond to the sudden loss of life? How were the
competing agendas of...[Show more] these groups managed ? Are there shared and
distinctive characteristics in the memorialisation of atrocitites
across these countries at the turn of the millenium?
In responding to these questions, this study analyses cultural
differences in memorialisation at contemporary atrocity sites. It
examines the differing responses at the case study sites to the
planning and the timing of memorials, the engagement of those
affected, the memorial designs and the management of the
memorials, including tributes. It is an original comparative
study of contemporary memorialisation by a heritage professional
directly involved in the management of memorials at contemporary
atrocity sites.
The original research includes the identification of the role the
internet in contemporary memorialisation, an in-depth analysis of
the memorialisation of the 1996 massacre at Port Arthur Historic
Site, and the memorialisation in Bali and across Australia of the
2002 Bali bombings. It extends the current scholarship on the
memorialisation of the Oklahoma City bombing through identifying
the impact of the internet in the memorialisation and in the
timeframe of the analysis through to the 15th anniversary in
2010. The comparative analysis of the management of tributes at
all the sites identified issues not previously considered in
Australian scholarship: that tributes and the response to them
is part of the memorialisation and management of contemporary
atrocity sites.
A combined research method based on an interpretive social
science approach was adopted. A range of methodogies were used,
including literature reviews, analysis of electronic material,
site visits, unstructured in-depth interviews, and
participant-observation at memorial services. Studies on history,
memory and memorialisation provided the framework for my analysis
and led to an original proposal, that all three sites have shared
histories of the memorialisation of war and ‘missing’
memorialisation. These shared histories, I argue, strengthened
the justification for this comparative study.
This comparative study identified differences across the case
study countries in the designs of the built memorials, in
legislation enacted after the atrocities, the responses to the
perpetrators, the marking of anniversaries, and in the management
of tributes left at the sites. These differences highlight the
cultural divide that exists in contemporary memorialisation.
Issues identified for future research include the impact of the
internet and electronic social networking sites on
memorialisation, and how these sites will be captured and stored
for future heritage professionals and researchers. Scope also
exists for further comparative global studies: on legislative
responses to contemporary atrocities, and on the differing
responses of communities and governments to tributes, including
teddy bears and T-shirts, left at memorials and contemporary
atrocity sites.
Items in Open Research are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.