Counter-monumentality and the vulnerability of memory

Abstract

Monuments have been a staple of archaeology since the beginning of the discipline and have been used as case-studies for a diverse range of topics. In recent years, monuments have been considered particularly often in studies of social memory. By materializing memorial ambitions, however, the creation of monuments provides a venue for collective memories to be challenged. Despite their outward appearance of strength and permanence, monuments additionally render the memory of their creators vulnerable and open to contestation. In particular, the practice of counter-monumentality, or active and deliberate interventions in traditional monuments, illustrates how the erection of monuments exposes the inherent fragility of memory. Examples from the present and the past demonstrate these points: a statue of Confederate generals Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson in Baltimore, Maryland, and a corpus of monumental statues from southeastern Anatolian and northern Syria during the Iron Age.

Agonistic interventions into public commemorative art: An innovative form of counter‐memorial practice?

“…The first of these, as James E. Young (1992) has argued, tends to challenge the aesthetic vocabulary of canonical nineteenth century public commemorative art, in terms of its rejection of heroism in favor of a focus on victims, its abstract or non‐representational strategies, and its refusal of architectural monumentality. These are therefore forms of public art “that are specifically intended to challenge monuments’ conventional tropes of scale and celebration” (Osborne, 2017: p. 165), an approach that fits within the cosmopolitan memory frame. The examples that Young addresses are memorials to the victims of the Holocaust, which is the key point of reference for cosmopolitan memory culture, but it is the formal aspects of these memorials that reinforce their cosmopolitan intent.…”

Abuse, Reuse, Recycle: The Uses of Basalt Orthostats at Hazor in the Bronze and Iron Ages

“…Over the course of several years, the column was gradually lowered into the ground as more names were added and covered the column, until only its top was visible (Young 1992, 274–8; Forty 1999, 6–7 and further examples there). Recently, this term has also been used in discussing the mutilation of large statues in Syro‐Anatolian city‐states in the Iron Age (Osborne 2017). The evidence presented above shows that the Iron Age builders of Hazor used the basalt orthostats in a demeaning manner, cutting them to pieces and using them as building blocks.…”

Societies in balance: Monumentality and feasting activities among southern Naga communities, Northeast India

“…Connected to the social sphere of megalithic building, the monuments are seen as an important aspect in the creation of social memories (cf. [ 80 , 81 ]), as well as central places for the interaction of communities. The close entanglement of monumentality and the importance of landscape is visible in the research focus on phenomenological approaches (e.g.…”