Nation-Building in Memory and Space: A Case Study of Memorial Sites in the Municipality of Prijedor, Bosnia and Herzegovina

(1)

Nation-Building in Memory and Space

A Case Study of Memorial Sites in the Municipality of Prijedor, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Thomas Hammer

Peace and Conflict Studies

Department of Global Political Studies Bachelor Thesis

12 credits

Spring semester 2021 Supervisor: Ivan Gusic

(2)

Abstract

Ethnic nationalism produces conflicts through constructing identities that include certain groups and exclude or marginalize others. This process often continues in post-war periods and hinders inter-ethnic reconciliation. Political actors proceed with constructing ethno-national identities and (re-)writing national narratives in the realm of remembering. This thesis seeks to understand how memorial sites are used for nation-building processes in post-war contexts, based on the municipality of Prijedor, Bosnia and Herzegovina. This single instrumental case study analyzes two memorial sites through fieldwork, newspaper articles, and archival records.

The theoretical framework builds on concepts from nationalism studies, memory studies, as well as cultural and political geography. The analysis demonstrates that the studied memorial sites are used as follows: 1) to depict the nation's objects of identification for demarcating the national Self from the Other; 2) to promote myths of victimization for unifying the group and justifying atrocities; 3) to silence narratives and memories that contradict or challenge those of the own group; and 4) to mark territory as an integral part of the spatial narrative in which public places are transformed into “owned” places. All four practices are closely interrelated and give the memorial sites meaning and authority to convey the Bosnian-Serbian nation-building project.

Key words: Nationalism, Identity, Memorial sites, Space, Post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina

Words: 13.998

(3)

List of Abbreviations

BiH Bosnia and Herzegovina

BIRN Balkan Investigative Reporting Network CNA Center for Nonviolent Action

FBiH Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia IRMTC International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals

RS Republika Srpska

UN United Nations

VRS Army of Republika Srpska (Vojska Republike Srpske)

(4)

List of Figures

Figure 1: Monument “For the Honorable Cross” in the city center of Prijedor .... 28

Figure 2: Chapel next to the monument “For the Honorable Cross” ... 29

Figure 3: Memorial “Memorial to fallen RS soldiers from Trnopolje” in front of the former Trnopolje camp ... 30

Figure 4: Detail view of the monument “For the Honorable Cross” (front side) .. 32

Figure 5: Serbian Cross on coat of arms ... 32

Figure 6: The Serbian Cross used at the Church of the Holy Trinity in Prijedor .. 32

Figure 7: Culture Center in Miska Glava with nearby memorial ... 39

Figure 8: Memorial plaque in Stari Kevljani ... 40

Figure 9: Memorial complex at Kevljani Cemetery ... 40

Figure 10: Hoisted RS flag at the border of the RS, at the entrance to the city of Prijedor, and in front of the city hall in Prijedor ... 42

Figure 11: Memorial “Mining Park Composition” ... 46

Figure 12: Stickers on the memorial “Mining Park Composition” ... 47

Figure 13: Chalk painting on the monument’s pedestal ... 47

Figure 14: Pollution on the monument ... 47

Figure 15: Rusted chain fence and flagpoles at the memorial site in Trnopolje ... 48

Figure 16: Back view of the monument “For the Honorable Cross” ... 61

Figure 17: Monument “For the Honorable Cross” with chapel ... 61

Figure 18: Detail view of the depicted men on the monument ... 62

Figure 19: City fountain “Jereza” with the lighted monument and chapel ... 62

Figure 20: Chapel with inscription plaque next to the monument ... 63

Figure 21: Detail view of the inscription on the outside wall of the chapel ... 63

Figure 22: Inside view of the chapel ... 64

Figure 23: Detail view of the inscription plaque on the left in the chapel ... 64

Figure 24: Detail view of the inscription plaque on the right in the chapel ... 64

Figure 25: Memorial “Memorial to the fallen RS soldiers from Trnopolje” ... 65

Figure 26: Detail view of the memorial in Trnopolje ... 65

(5)

Figure 27: Detail view of the inscription plaques on the memorial in Trnopolje .. 66

Figure 28: Memorial plaque in front of the former detention camp Keraterm ... 67

Figure 29: Detail view of the inscription at the former Keraterm camp ... 67

Figure 30: Kozarac Central Memorial ... 68

Figure 31: Memorial plaque in Stari Kevljani ... 69

Figure 32: Memorial complex with stone plaques at Kevljani Cemetery ... 70

Figure 33: Memorial site at Kamičani-Kozarac Shahid Cemetery ... 70

Figure 34: Unmarked atrocity site: Public security station in Prijedor ... 71

Figure 35: Unmarked atrocity site: Former detention camp Trnopolje ... 71

Figure 36: Unmarked atrocity site: Culture Center in Miska Glava ... 72

Figure 37: Unmarked atrocity site: Ljubija Football Stadium ... 72

Figure 38: Memorial “Mining Park Composition” in Prijedor ... 73

Figure 39: “Memorial wall” of the memorial “Mining Park Composition” ... 73

Figure 40: Memorial plaque on the memorial “Mining Park Composition” ... 74

Figure 41: Memorial “Mining Park Composition” with inscription plaque ... 74

Figure 42: Museum of Kozara ... 75

Figure 43: Church of the Holy Trinity in Prijedor. ... 75

Figure 44: Statue of Mladen Stojanović at the Liberation Square ... 76

Figure 45: Busts near the monument in Prijedor ... 76

Figure 46: The flag of RS at the borders of RS and the city of Prijedor ... 77

Figure 47: The flag of BiH in FBiH ... 77

Figure 48: Serbian Cross at memorial sites ... 78

Figure 49: School next to former detention camp Trnopolje ... 78

(6)

List of Maps

Map 1: Immediate surrounding of the monument “For the Honorable Cross” in the city center of Prijedor ... 44 Map 2: Locations of memorial sites visited during fieldwork and of former detention camps ... 60

(7)

1. Introduction

[T]he nation […] is hardly the realization of an original essence, but a historical configuration which is designed to include certain groups and exclude or marginalize others – often violently.¹

Prasenjit Duara

There are many different types of nationalism (see Kecmanovic, 2013; Smith, 1969). On the one side of the spectrum, there is civic or liberal nationalism, that strives to secure civil liberties and unites people with a shared political identity.

And on the other side, there is ethnic nationalism that derives its force from a sense of kinship and has a proclivity to domestic and/or interstate violence (Kecmanovic, 2013; Roshwald, 2015). An example for the latter is Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), where, in the late 20^th century, ethnic nationalisms constructed identities based on ethnic attributes that differentiate the national Self from other groups. Due to this relational aspect in differentiation, Prasenjit Duara (1996:163) conceives nationalism as relational identity – national identification is defined at any point in time by a the Other who is (then) excluded or marginalized.

After Josip Broz Tito’s death in 1980, nationalist movements in Yugoslavia mobilized people along ethnic lines for independence and separation. In BiH, nationalist leaders inflamed rivalries between the three main ethnic groups – Bosniaks², Croats, and Serbs –, and the declaration of independence of BiH as well as the proclamation of the Republic of the Serb People of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992 eventually triggered the so-called Bosnian War. In 1995, the involved parties officially ended the war by signing the Dayton Agreement and divided BiH into two entities: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH) and the Republika Srpska (RS).³

1 Quoted from “Historicizing National Identity, or Who Imagines What and When” (Duara, 1996:163).

2 Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

3 There is also the Brčko District in western BiH, which is a self-governing district (see e.g., Office of the High Representative, 2000).

(10)

However, since there was no victor in the war, the three nation-building projects continued to proceed side-by-side. Regional governments, political actors, and other groups within the two newly formed entities continued with constructing ethno-national identities and (re-)writing exclusive national narratives. To this end, they used, among others, the school curriculum, public places that were filled with ethno-national symbols, and memorial sites. In spheres like these, national governments are still promoting divisive and repressive messages with the aim to unite “their” people as a nation by excluding and marginalizing other groups.

1.1. Research Problem

Nationalism is considered as an ideological movement that aims for unity and a shared identity while simultaneously excluding Others by defining boundaries of the nation(-to-be). This means that nationalism has the potential to create unity, but it can also foster division and produce conflict. Researchers have studied various means used by states or national movements for constructing national identities, on the one hand, and the multiple roles of memorial sites in post-war contexts, on the other. Even though nationalism and memorialization are directly linked to spatiality and all three converge in memorial sites, a combined perspective on the utilization of memorial sites in post-war contexts has not been considered to a greater extent.

In the aftermath of ethnic conflicts, such as in BiH, one way of promoting and realizing nation-building projects is through constructed places, including memorial sites. How memorials and monuments are being used to dictate a one-sided history and to construct an ethno-national identity is essential to fully comprehend post- war societies and practices that hinder (re)building their social fabric.

1.2. Aim and Research Question

The aim of this study is to explore how memorial sites (monuments and memorials) in the RS have been used in the ethnic nation-building process after the Bosnian War. The focus is on the municipality of Prijedor and on memorial sites that were

(11)

built, financed, or co-financed by the municipal administration. My research question proceeds from this and is as follows:

How have memorial sites in the municipality of Prijedor been used to promote the ethnic nation-building process of the RS?

The operational questions that are deduced from relevant literature in the theoretical framework and guide the analysis are the following:

1. What are the (linguistic, religious, cultural, etc.) boundaries for the alleged

“nation-to-be” that are represented on the memorial sites?

2. How are heroism and victimization reflected in the memorial sites?

3. Whose historical past is being told and remembered – and whose past is silenced?

4. How are the memorial sites being used to give them authority and meaning?

1.3. Relevance to Peace and Conflict Studies

Memorial sites erected during or after ethnic conflicts can adopt two main functions regarding national developments. First, they can promote ethno-national identities and narratives that help to sustain ethnocentrism⁴, which, in turn, is the source and driver of ethnic conflicts, as Donald Horowitz (2008) demonstrates. After a violent conflict without a clear victor, as it was the case in BiH after 1995, memorials and monuments often serve as political tools to impose an artificial collective identity with certain objects of identification on the nation, which simultaneously marginalizes other groups (Naidu, 2004). Memorial sites can serve as zones of symbolic politics where national governments promote divisive or repressive messages in ways they may cannot in other spheres (see Brett et al., 2007:3). This can “have a negative effect of deepening divisions between groups or perpetuating distinctions between perpetrators and victims as fixed identities of the whole group”

(Đureinović, n.d.).

4 A strategy of identity formation that typically includes in-group favoritism and inserts positive values into one’s self-image and negative values into the image of the Other (see e.g., Rüsen, 2012).

(12)

Second, memorials and monuments can promote inclusiveness that fosters reconciliation within a divided society. Here, they have the potential to recast the national identity and to repair damaged relations among groups (Barsalou and Baxter, 2007). They can serve as loci for interactive exchanges among the members of a society about their shared past and for public education and debate (Blustein, 2012:22). In this sense, memorial sites are central in reconciliation—which, according to Paul Lederach (1997:34–5), represents a social space where people come together and where relationships between antagonists are (re-)built. Public memorial sites can open spaces for dialogue (Brett et al., 2007), and, thus, allow encounters between the open expression of the painful past and the search for a common future (see Lederach, 1997:23–35, on reconciliation).

By examining memorial sites in the municipality of Prijedor, this study contributes to the understanding of how memorial sites are used in post-war ethnic nation-building processes. This understanding is essential for peace-building activities that aim to create inclusive societies and to convert exclusive ethno- national memorial sites into “shared public places” (Komarova and O’Dowd, 2016:266). Peacebuilders need to understand the memorial sites’ current purpose and their transmitted messages first, before these sites can effectively be transformed into “sites of conscience” that open public dialogue about the past and foster reconciliation (see Brett et al., 2007).

1.4. Outline of the Thesis

The study is organized into six chapters. The introduction presented the context of the study and stated the research problem as well as the research aim and question.

The second chapter addresses relevant previous research on nationalism, memory and memorial sites, and spatiality in post-war contexts. The third chapter presents the theoretical framework that is based on concepts within the fields of nationalism studies, memory studies, as well as cultural and political geography. After that, chapter four describes the selected research design, the data collection method, and the analysis of the material. Chapter five consists of the analysis, which is guided and structured according to the operational questions deduced from relevant

(13)

literature in the theoretical framework. The last chapter presents the findings of the study and ends with suggestions for future research.

(14)

2. Previous Research

The following chapter offers an overview of relevant, previously conducted research and is divided into four sections. It starts with research within nationalism studies that discusses the state’s role in constructing national consciousness and continues with previous studies on memory and memorial sites. Thereafter, the spatiality in peace research and in terms of memorial sites is addressed before, lastly, the thesis’ positioning within relevant fields of research and its contribution to them will be addressed.

2.1. Nationalism and the Construction of National Consciousness

Many scholars wrote about nationalism and tried to define what it is that represents a nation, and how national consciousness emerges. While some scholars argue that nationalism as an ideology “invents” nations where they do not exist (Balibar, 1990;

Gellner, 1964), others claim that nationalism is the awakening of nations to self- consciousness (Anderson, 2006; Smith, 1989). Within this discussion, there is further disagreement about whether nations possess an ethnic base on which the nation rests naturally (Smith, 1989) or whether it is constructed by the modern state (Balibar, 1990). Either way the formation and continued existence of a nation depend on the raising of consciousness of a common identity that is reinforced through education, legal codes, and administrative centralization (Balibar, 1990;

Duara, 1996; Smith, 1989). There is an agreement among scholars that nations and nationalism are modern phenomena that did not exist in pre-modern times. It needed mass media and the modern state apparatus with centralized education, administration (bureaucracy), and legislative to form and sustain nations, nation- states, and the entire nation-state-system (Anderson, 2006; Balibar, 1990; Duara, 1996; Hroch, 1993; Smith, 1989).

(15)

Within nationalism research, the construction and maintenance of national consciousness and identity through the state is addressed in different ways. Duara (1996), for instance, discusses the forging of cultural signifiers through symbols, practices, and narratives, while Balibar (1990) identifies the state’s political intervention into the family and school as principal means to “fabricate” national consciousness and unity. In terms of BiH, Torsti (2004) demonstrated that in BiH’s public history, cultural symbols are drawn from the past and used to impact people’s identity and to make claims in the present. Baranovicé (2001) examined school textbooks in BiH and concluded that those contribute to ethnocentric identities.

Other scholars addressed the use of flags to foster a sense of national unity among people (Kolstø, 2006; Pauker, 2012), the politics and general political landscape (Zdeb, 2019), museums (Lozic, 2011; Taylor, 2012), and to some extent memorial sites – which I will address in the next section. Basically, all these studies confirm the influence of the state apparatus – represented through the two entities in BiH – on constructing common identity for one of the competing nation-building projects.

2.2. Memory and Memorial Sites in Post-war Contexts

It became widely accepted within the field of memory that memorial sites often serve to write history, to erase a traumatic past, and to construct identity (see e.g., Hite and Collins, 2009; Ahonen, 2012). This affected other research fields as well, and material and non-material sites of memory⁵ became topic of discussions in several studies about nationalism and the construction of national identity (e.g., Edensor, 1997; Ingimundarson, 2007; Light and Dumbraveanu‐Andone, 1997;

Sumartojo, 2016).

In the fields of Peace and Conflict Studies and Human Rights Studies, memory and memorial sites in post-war contexts have mostly been addressed in terms of their role in transitional justice processes and their effects on victims.

Scholars discuss, among others, the aspects of providing symbolic reparation to victims, affirming the moral imperative of “never again”, symbolizing a nation’s

5 See section 3.2.2.

(16)

commitment to values, such as democracy and human rights, and the powerful moral, psychological, and social effects on victims and their relatives (see Barsalou and Baxter, 2007; Blustein, 2012; Magarell, 2011; Naidu, 2004).

However, some studies also discuss how memorial sites either promote or hinder (re)building the social fabric of post-war societies. In this regard, King (2010) and Clark (2013) examine the memory landscape after the wars in Rwanda and Croatia, respectively. Both revealed that in the memorial landscape certain aspects of the past are not addressed by the states to sustain a particular narrative and identity, but also mention that “too much memory” can negatively affect interethnic reconciliation. Similar research in BiH was performed by Sokol (2014), in which she compared memorials of the three main ethnic groups in the Bosnian War (Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks). Sokol’s conclusion was that memorial sites construct and reinforce mutually exclusive narratives, and that only rare memory initiatives are directed towards civic nation-building that includes all groups. The reviewed literature discussing memory in post-war BiH often has its primary focus on contrasting the war narratives and memorials of the three main ethnic groups in a more general way (see e.g., Ahonen, 2012; Božić, 2019; Sokol, 2014). In-depth studies with a particular focus on the use of memorial sites for the individual nation- building projects are, by contrast, rather rare.

2.3. Spatiality in Peace Research

Memorials and monuments are also of central interest in cultural and political geography. It is acknowledged that the construction, interpretation, and contestation of spaces and places play an important role in the politics of remembering, but also in exercising power (Alderman et al., 2020; Hoelscher, 2009). Several scholars have examined street names, memorial sites, and other public places to conceive their political functions as well as the normative social order proceeding from them (e.g., Alderman, 2003; Brasher et al., 2020; Dwyer, 2002; Hoelscher, 2006).

Since the “spatial turn” in peace research, scholars have also been discussing the significance of the organization of space for the structure and function of peace and war (see e.g., Björkdahl and Buckley-Zistel, 2016a; Gusic, 2019). Demmers

(17)

and Venhovens (2016) and Doevenspeck (2016) illustrate that there is a clear connection between space, meaning, and the power exerted by political actors.

Through the “production” of place and territory, the state aims to gain control over people, things, and the relations between them. This also applies to memorial and atrocity sites, since these spaces are inextricably linked to memory, memorialization, and identity. They remind people of what has happened in the past and mediate how this relates to the present and the future (Alderman et al., 2020;

Michael et al., 2016; Naidu, 2004). However, although spatiality in postwar condition has received more attention in peace research the recent years, the studied literature suggests that memorial sites seem to remain a less explored area in this respect.

2.4. Positioning this Thesis

The reading of relevant literature points to the fact the use of memorial sites for nation-building in post-war contexts, and particularly in terms of BiH, has not been fully addressed yet. Previous studies often lack to address the spatial dimension of memorial sites and do not provide a comprehensive in-depth study on that matter.

Since nation-building, memorialization, and spatiality converge in memorial sites, I argue that these interrelated aspects should be closely examined together in order to gain better insights into how memorial sites have been utilized. This thesis aims to partially close this gap by conducting a case study on the municipality of Prijedor.

(18)

3. Theoretical Framework

This chapter discusses selected theoretical concepts from the fields of nationalism studies, memory studies, as well as political and cultural geography. First, the concepts of nation and nationalism are defined, followed by a discussion on the constructed boundaries of the former and the role of memory in the latter. Second, memorial sites are defined and their relation to memorialization and identity formation is explained. Third, the spatial aspect in memorialization and in ethnic nation-building practices is introduced.

3.1. Nation and Nationalism

3.1.1. Defining Nation and Nationalism

In order to analyze the utilization of memorial sites in a nation-building project, it is necessary to define nation and nationalism. In the field of nationalism studies, a nation is understood as a vast solidarity of people who developed a collective consciousness as a community with the desire to live together (Hroch, 1993; Renan, 2018). The most frequently used definition of a nation, and which I use in this thesis, is that of an “imagined community” by Benedict Andersson (2006). The nation is

“imagined” because its members will never meet or know most of their fellow- members; and it is a “community” because regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail within a nation, it is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship.

Nationalism is defined as an ideology that determines the attitudes and sentiments of national consciousness and gives absolute priority to the value of the nation over all other value and interests (Hroch, 1993:6). In contrast to the defensive nature of patriotism, which does not aim to impose devotion to a particular place and a way of life on others, the nature of nationalism is regarded as being aggressive: it wants to acquire as much power and prestige as possible for its nation

(19)

on a defined “homeland” (Orwell et al., 1968:362) for which it seeks political self- administration, first in the form of autonomy and ultimately of independence (Hroch, 1993:6; Smith, 1989:342–3). At its core, nationalism can be referred to as

“an ideological movement for attaining and maintaining the autonomy, unity and identity of an existing or potential ‘nation’” (Smith, 1989:343) that is constructed or visioned by nationalist (or other) elites (ibid.).

3.1.2. The Nation and its Boundaries

The nation is a historical configuration which is designed to include certain groups and exclude or marginalize others – often violently (Duara, 1996:163). This includes that national group identity is subjective, and the national Self is a social construction that depends on the perceptions of both in-group and out-group members (Duara, 1996; Takei, 1998:60; Rusciano, 2003).

Within an existing community, groups always have some sort of boundaries in relation to other groups, but their members are sometimes so unselfconscious of their differences that these neither pose a threat to coexistence nor play a significant role in the perception of the Self and the community or nation. The groups tolerate the sharing of some and the non-sharing of other boundaries (Duara, 1996). Duara (1996) calls these boundaries “soft boundaries”. An incipient nationality is developing when the perception of such soft boundaries transformed into “hard boundaries”. This happens when national movements, with the goal to form a distinctive political community, define and mobilize a community by privileging particular symbolic meanings and cultural differences. This could be, among others, religious and spiritual practices, or forms of artistic expression. The members of the groups then privilege their disparity and tend to develop an intolerance and suspicion towards the Other’s practices. Intellectuals and politicians develop and advance a narrative that links history to differentiation of the Self to the Other and push the nation(-to-be) towards a cohesive ideal with particular objects of identification (Duara, 1996:168–9). Religion, cultural practices, and other group affiliations transform into symbols of aspiration and sense of identity—and thereby from soft to hard boundaries.

(20)

3.1.3. Heroism and Victimization

As scholars emphasize (e.g., Hroch, 1993; Renan, 2018), common historical memories are essential – or even a precondition – in forming and sustaining a nation. Identification with a national group includes the construction of a personalized image of the nation, and the glorious past of this personality comes to be lived as part of the individual memory of each citizen (Hroch, 1993:15).

Although there is some disagreement on whether the nation’s self- consciousness is awakened or invented, most scholars agree that intellectuals (re- )discover the past and provide the nation-to-be with its genealogy and purpose (see Hroch, 1993; Renan, 2018; Smith, 1989). The capital stock upon which a national idea usually is based, is on a heroic past, great men, and full of glory (Renan, 2018:261). It requires the narration of history as a series of foundation and liberation myths and as a cult of heroes for the political mobilization of the people (Smith, 1989:357). At the same time, nothing mobilizes and unites more than a common enemy (Duara, 1996:169) and common suffering (Renan, 2018:261). “Having suffered in common” not only unites more than joy does, but it also imposes duties and common efforts – such as to achieve liberation. Therefore, grief is of greater value than triumph where national memories are concerned (ibid.).

Common suffering and grief in post-war contexts often emerge in a national narrative of victimization. This narrative ascribes the guilt of the war to the Others and contributes to a sense of superiority and “we-ness”. It is important for the imagined community to know who “we” are as distinct from the Others, and what obliges “us” and the Others. Myths organize the duties and obligations of its members, and myths of guilt and victimization are the most common kind of socially obligating myths. And they are exclusive as they convey that “we” are the victims, and the other party must then be the perpetrators (Ahonen, 2012:17–20).

Ana Mijić (2020:3–5) states that collective self-victimization in post-war contexts has three functions. First, it constructs and stabilizes the historically consolidated symbolic and social boundaries between in-group and out-group and constitutes to a deep-rooted “we-ness”. Second, it promotes a moral superiority, as in the post- war victim-perpetrator dichotomy collective self-victimization reduces feelings of guilt by depicting the own group as the “good” party and the counterpart to the

“evil” perpetrator(s). Third, it fosters support and sympathy of third parties.

(21)

3.1.4. Operationalization of the Nation’s Boundaries and Victimization

The presence and emphasis of both national boundaries and the representation of myths of heroism and victimization to demarcate “us” from the Other and to promote a moral superiority are indicators that confirm the utilization of the memorial sites by the municipality for its nation-building project.

The first operational question deduced from the discussed concepts in this regard is: What are the (linguistic, religious, cultural, etc.) boundaries for the alleged “nation-to-be” that are represented on the memorial sites? The focus in the analysis will be on cultural characteristics and ethno-national symbols (used in and before the Bosnian War) that are emphasized in the memorial sites’ visual representation and inscriptions. For example, the cross as religious symbol could signify the Christian faith as an object of identification for the nation.

The second operational question concerns the narrative of victimization and heroism, from which the image of the national Self is derived: How are heroism and victimization reflected in the memorial sites? Here, I will look into how inscriptions and visual representations refer to common suffering and the collective efforts that are required to achieve liberation. For example, myths of prolonged suppression can be used to deliver the victimized image of one’s own group to unite its members for liberation attempts and/or to ascribe guilt of the occurred violence in liberation war(s) to the Other.

3.2. Memorial Sites

3.2.1. Collective Memory and Sites of Memory

The concept of collective memory, originally coined by Maurice Halbwachs, illustrates that individual memory is based on social frameworks and shaped by social groups. In other words, it is socially organized and reconstructed (Unfried, 1991:80). Communities, social groups, and nations possess memories of their own and reinforce and secure their collective identity through these shared memories (Ahonen, 2012:14; Ijabs, 2014:992). Collective memory is embedded in social

(22)

practices and refers to social knowledge about the past that influence the emergence, transformation, and extinction of social identities (Ijabs, 2014:992).

This also includes their social and symbolic boundaries – such as those between different ethnic groups and nations (Mijić, 2018:141). Collective memory is constantly negotiated, reinforced by symbols, rituals, and commemorative practices, and instrumentalized for political purposes (Ijabs, 2014: 992).

According to Pierre Nora (1989:18–9), collective memory manifests itself in symbolic representations of the past in material, symbolic, and functional sites of memory (lieux de mémoire). Sites of memory can be physical places, like memorials and monuments, but also non-material “sites”, such as cultural practices and commemorations (Unfried, 1991:81). And they bring to the fore the importance of particular places in the collective memory of nations, communities, and social groups, where the past is remembered, commemorated, and constructed in the present day (Reeves, 2018:65).

Although some scholars make a distinction between monuments that are characterized by triumph and memorials that embody loss, both are part of the memorial infrastructure and represent material sites of memory through which social or collective interpretations of the past are constituted (Alderman et al., 2020:40). In this thesis, these two kinds of material sites of memory are consolidated and referred to as “memorial sites”.

3.2.2. Memorialization and the Role of Memorial Sites

Memorial sites and the process of preserving memories of events or people who suffered or died during conflict – known as memorialization (see Barsalou and Baxter, 2007) – serve multiple functions. First, they can provide symbolic reparations for victims in post-war situations and allow spaces for mourning (Naidu, 2004). Memorial sites give meaning to the suffering of victims and express the larger community’s solidarity with them (Blustein, 2012:21). Second, they can document human rights violations and reaffirm the moral imperative of “never again” (Barsalou and Baxter, 2007; Naidu, 2004). Third, they can negotiate common values for the present and future and are important for education and critical engagement with the past (Brett et al., 2007).

(23)

However, as we have seen in the previous section, memorialization may also be part of constructing and maintaining collective memory by political agents. This is called politics of history (politics of memory) and understood as the administration of the past in which certain events are highlighted while others are abridged or omitted (e.g., Nora, 1989:8–9). It determines the way history is written and passed on, wherefore it is directly linked to social remembering and forgetting (Naidu, 2004). The official discourses of memory produced by the state’s ideological apparatus serves the interests in the present and are meant to become the hegemonic narrative – in other words, “history”. This hegemonic narrative can be – but does not always have to be – cut off from real experiences (Molden, 2016:134–9).

In post-war contexts, the victorious party to the conflict usually imposes what (and how) is remembered and what must be forgotten (Cairns and Roe, 2003:14;

Rufer, 2012). Political actors can not only use memorial sites to publicly depict the nation and its boundaries, but also to impose an artificial collective identity on the nation (Naidu, 2004). In a struggle for dominating the narrative of the past, the experiences and narratives of other groups are silenced – an act of “forced forgetting” (see Esbenshade, 1995:74). However, silencing is not only restricted to the views or interpretations of the defeated party or out-group; it is also used to veil, and thus to forget, unpleasant historical facts related to the own group. Both the silencing of atrocities, conducted by members of the own ethnic group, and the concealment of interpretations of the past that are incompatible with the group’s collective memory serve the interest of the nation. It “reinforces the group’s we- ideal and hence consolidates the symbolic boundaries between the ethnic groups”

(Mijić, 2018:153).

3.2.3. Counter-Memory

Based on works of Michael Foucault and José Medina, Molden (2016:128) explains that even in places with a hegemonic narrative, there never is one collective memory or history as there never is only one truth. There are always counter-memories and counter-histories of people and groups who remember against the grain and whose experiences and memories are excluded from the official histories. In their struggle for recognition of their memories, these groups build counterhegemonic

(24)

monuments⁶ or transform memorial sites through (re)inscriptions, performances, resistances, or some other forms of counter-commemoration that challenge the dominant narratives and interpretations of the past (Alderman et al., 2020:40–5).

This thesis will include counterhegemonic monuments and “counter-activities” to illustrate the silencing of certain memories and experiences.

3.2.4. Operationalization of Remembering and Forgetting

As the previous sections have shown, memorial sites are important symbolic conduits in politics of history. They can determine what is remembered and what forgotten. They not only express certain versions of history but also cast legitimacy upon them (Alderman et al., 2020:40). The operational question in this regard is:

Whose historical past is being told and remembered – and whose past is silenced?

To answer this question, I will explore the stories told by the memorial sites by using the dominant ethno-national narrative of the RS as a basis and reference point. Further, I will examine the sites’ historical background and “counter- activities” to determine which facts about the past are omitted or altered – in other words, what and who is silenced. Silenced atrocities executed by the own group, and thus the suffering resulting from these atrocities experienced by the Others, indicate that memorial sites are used to “write history” and to construct collective memory only on the behalf of the own group.

3.3. Spatiality

3.3.1. Territoriality and the Politics of Place

Another key element in forming a nation is a common territory or “homeland”, or an association with one (e.g., Duara, 1996; Hroch, 1993; Smith, 1989). Territorial references are central to the construction of Self and the Other (Chojnacki and Engels, 2016:33), and identities are secured and ensured by ascribing them into the landscape (Björkdahl and Buckley-Zistel, 2016b:10). Territory consists of material

6 A monument created to challenge a dominant interpretation of the past (Alderman et al., 2020).

(25)

elements such as land, symbolic dimensions such as identity, but also functional elements such as control over a space (Doevenspeck, 2016:50). Hence, the defined common territory is not only important for constructing a nation but also for maintaining the collective identity. Moreover, as Chojnacki and Engels (2016:33) demonstrate, territory is used for exerting authority and domination. Thus, territory can be understood as a social process of making and maintaining identity and exerting power.

Territoriality also relates to the concepts of space and place. Demmers and Venhovens (2016:162) argue that social actors in conflict aim to strategically manipulate and resignify the meaning of certain spaces and to turn them into

“places” – what they call the politics of place. These places are imbued spaces with meaning; ﬁlled up by actors with practices, objects, and representation. Space is thus not only a physical location, but also a political instrument (Pauker, 2012:289).

Places help to “reconstitute an ‘imagined community’ that binds people and place in the service of contemporary politics and ideological hegemonies, and in the marginalization of a disagreeable ‘other’” (Michael et al., 2016:224). Places become collective social symbols with the ability to encapsulate and perpetuate ethno-national identities and claims (ibid.) and serve as mediums for the collective memory’s preservation (Volčič and Simić, 2016:289).

The geographic organization and configuration of places contribute to creating a “spatial narrative” in which each element is affecting people’s interpretation of the past (Alderman et al., 2020:40). The memorial site’s placement, with its visibility, accessibility, symbolic elements, and its adjacency to other parts of the landscape, is central for delivering this narrative and for giving it authority. Relevant issues here include its proximity to power-ﬁlled sites such as the central business district, historical markers, parks, other memorials, or streets named after influential individuals (Alderman et al., 2020:40; Dwyer and Alderman, 2008:167–8).

3.3.2. The Production of Ethno-National Geography

The previous discussions illustrate how states are constructing people and unity – in this case, through both the politics of history and the politics of place. However, they not only emphasize the relationship between constructed places (such as sites

(26)

of memory) and the construction of society but also the construction of these places through society—especially in terms of its social actors in the state apparatus. A similar point is made by Gusic (2019), who argues that “neither space nor society hold primacy over or are reducible to the other but rather exist in a mutually constitutive ‘socio-spatial dialectic’ through which they produce each other”

(2019:49). This means that, on the one hand, society (which includes political actors) is producing ethno-national spaces, and, on the other hand, these ethno- national spaces simultaneously produce societal divisions.

In terms of the former, ethno-national geography is materially produced by marking as well as delineating space. With “marking” Gusic (2019) refers to spaces that are marked as “ours” by using material objects to signal “ownership”. These markers are, among others, ethno-national monuments that remember victims and/or glorify war heroes, which are rendered by the “other side” as war criminals, or less evident material objects, such as the exclusive use of “our” alphabet.

“Delineating” means the use of material objects to produce borders between “our”

and “their” space. This could be, for instance, walls or barbwires to delineate the line beyond which the Other is not welcomed. Important is that the ethno-national geography is not “just there” but produced by the society, and, as demonstrated earlier, the politics of place. Ethno-national perceptions that render what is “our”

and what is “their” space, are produced too – and the “production” of fear is particularly efficient in this regard (2019:51–2).

In terms of the latter, ethno-national geography is not “passive” – it affects society, which leads to lived parallelism (mutual isolation from the Other). The lack of contact and interaction produces further division. Hence, the ethno-national geography constantly produces the ethnocentric society that produces it (2019:53).

3.3.3. Operationalization of the Spatiality in Nation-building

The combination of “marking” and “delineating” of spaces in Gusic’s framework and the concept of politics of places taken from Demmers and Venhovens allows to examine how the municipality of Prijedor is producing ethno-national places that serve the RS nation-building project. The operational question concerning this aspect is: How are the memorial sites being used to give them authority and meaning? In the analysis, I will address this question by examining the historical

(27)

background of the memorial sites’ locations to determine whether and how these sites are used to mark territory. Additionally, I will explore their immediate surroundings and investigate how they are – with their ethno-national symbols and objects filled by the authorities – embedded in a “spatial narrative” about the past.

Lastly, I will focus whether and how the memorial sites, are given authority through their placement within constructed “places”.

(28)

4. Methodology

4.1. Research Design

The chosen research design is a single instrumental case study. I use a qualitative research design as the aim of this thesis is to explore and understand a socially constructed phenomenon, that is, nation-building, rather than testing objective theories by examining the relationship among variables (quantitative research) (Creswell, 2013:70, 2009:4). A case study is “a type of design in qualitative research that may be an object of study, as well as a product of the inquiry”

(Creswell, 2013:97). It allows an in-depth exploration of an issue or phenomenon within a contemporary bounded system (bounded by time and place). The focus is on studying a selected case within a real-life, contemporary context or setting and on developing an in-depth description and analysis of that case (ibid.). The research can be either on a unique case (intrinsic) or an issue (instrumental) that is studied on a single or multiple cases (Creswell, 2013:99).

The single instrumental study is well suited for answering my research question as it allows to explore an issue in-depth that is illustrated on one selected bounded case. The interest here is not on examining an unusual case itself, as it would be done in an intrinsic case study, but rather on understanding the issue through the chosen case. In this thesis, the issue is the use of memorials and monuments for the purpose of nation-building, while the chosen case is the post- war municipality of Prijedor (1995-2021). Since the core of the present study is on material aspects of memorial sites, the main focus is on the period from their erection until today, that is, from 2000 until 2021.

One of the main points of criticism on case studies is that they may not allow generalizability (Yin 2018:20–1). This affects the present research only to a limited extent as the main aim of the study is not to generalize findings. Instead, the in- depth examination of nation-building in the municipality of Prijedor can lead to new, closer insights that otherwise might have been neglected, which indeed can be regarded as a strength of the chosen design. Moreover, when tested in a new case

(29)

setting, qualitative case study results can be generalized to some broader theory (Creswell and Creswell, 2018:276). Case study as methodology has also been challenged because it may be a time-consuming approach. However, in accordance with Yin (2018:21), I argue and will demonstrate in my analysis that a case study does not necessarily depend on a laborious collection of ethnographic or participant-observer data. Finally, the difficulty that the researcher’s subjectivity might influence the study, as the researcher is the primary instrument of data collection and analysis (researcher bias) (Creswell and Creswell, 2018:278), will be counteracted by employing several validity procedures, which are discussed in section 4.5.

Other approaches, such as ethnography or phenomenology, would have allowed to include perspectives and experiences of local people. However, both approaches could not be applied, neither as a strategy of inquiry nor as a method, due to the requirement of direct and/or long-time engagement with participants (interviews and observations) amidst the COVID-19 pandemic⁷ and the scarcity of time.

4.2. Case Selection

I chose the municipality of Prijedor in the RS as a relevant case for analyzing memorial sites in relation with nation-building processes for several reasons. First, the Bosnian War ended without a victorious party who could have imposed a common narrative and identity on the population of BiH, as it has been demonstrated for other post-war countries.⁸ Instead, three different nation-building processes subsisted side by side.

Second, the municipality of Prijedor was a highly contested area during the Bosnian War. In this region, mass atrocities on civilians took place and (Bosnian) Serb forces established detainment camps⁹ in which hundreds of detained people had died. While the state is internationally be considered to having the greatest

7 Social distancing regulations did not allow close (physical) engagement with people (especially for a prolonged time) to protect them, but also the researcher, from the coronavirus disease.

8 For example, Ahonen (2012) writes about the aftermath of the Finnish Civil War and how “the Whites” as victorious party dominated the identity construction and narrative in Finland.

9 Also often referred to as “internment camps” or “concentration camps”.

(30)

obligation to initiate and support memorialization and inter-group reconciliation under such circumstances (e.g., Blustein, 2012; Brett et al., 2007; UN General Assembly, 2006), for example, through erecting memorials that may serve as places for mourning and symbolic reparations for all war victims, the municipality of Prijedor erected or (co)financed memorial sites that only remember members of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS).¹⁰

Third, in contrast to other regions in today’s RS, where non-Serb populations had been expelled during the Bosnian War to a great extent, Prijedor still had a high number of members from the Bosniak ethnic group in 2013 (Statistika.ba, n.d.).¹¹ This coexistence of Serb and Bosniak populations in Prijedor may allow to take into account counter-activities of marginalized groups.

The selection of memorial sites for this case is based on the research project

“War Monuments in Bosnia and Herzegovina (since 1991)” that had the aim to document the existing culture of remembrance of the Bosnian War in BiH. It was conducted by the organization Center for Nonviolent Action (CNA) between 2012 and 2015 and subsequently published as the book War of Memories – Places of suffering and remembrance of war in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 2016 (Franović et al., 2016).¹² According to the memorial sites documented in this project, only the monument “For the Honorable Cross”¹³ in the city Prijedor and the memorial

“Memorial to fallen RS soldiers from Trnopolje” in the village Trnopolje were either erected or funded by the municipality of Prijedor.

10 The VRS emerged in 1992 from Yugoslav Army units in BiH.

11 According to the census of 2013, 32,5% Bosniaks and 62,5% Serbs lived in the municipality of Prijedor by that time.

12 CNA is a regional peace organization, contributing to the development of lasting peace in the former Yugoslavia by promoting a culture of non-violence and dialogue. For the study “War Monuments in Bosnia and Herzegovina (since 1991)” and its publication, the organization got financial support from the Diakonie Austria and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ).

13 The original name is “Spomenik za Krst časni”. While some sources translate the monument’s name as “For the Honorable Cross” (e.g., Sokol, 2014:115) others translate it as “For the Holy Cross” (e.g., Franović et al., 2016:85).

(31)

4.3. Data Collection and Material

Using a case study as a methodology requires data collection from multiple sources of information (Creswell, 2013:97). According to Yin (2018:113–26; see also Yazan, 2015), sources that can be used include: interviews, direct observations, participant-observation, physical artifacts, documents, and archival records. This case study uses physical artifacts, documents, and archival records for data collection.

During the fieldwork in Prijedor,¹⁴ I collected primary data from the physical artifacts, the memorial sites. Personal photographs of the memorial sites and fieldnotes document the collected data and constitute the main source for the analysis. The different types of primary data include inscriptions, material shape and condition, and visual representations of the memorial sites, as well as data about the geographical placement and immediate surroundings.

In addition to the collected primary data, I use data from the previously mentioned research project about memorials in BiH conducted by CNA (Franović et al., 2016). These include photographs of the memorial sites, translations of the inscriptions, and other contextual information that inform the sites. To counteract any subjective bias, the data from the CNA project is used to verify the collected primary data. The translations of the inscriptions that were published in War of Memories – Places of suffering and remembrance of war in Bosnia-Herzegovina have been reviewed by an external person.¹⁵

Other secondary data that is used in this research originates from documentation. Documentation can be relevant to any case study topic and includes, but is not limited to, administrative documents, newspaper articles, and formal studies related to the selected case (Yin, 2018:113). For this thesis, I use newspaper articles and official statements about commemorations, protests, and other activities that took place at and around the memorial sites. Documentation sources often are easily accessible through online searches and are “useful even though [they are] not always accurate and may not be lacking in bias” (Yin,

14 The fieldwork in Prijedor was conducted from May 1 until May 4, 2021.

15 The review of the translations was conducted by Hana Adamović, student at the Study Center for Social Work at the University of Zagreb. For photographs of the inscriptions with their original texts confronted with the used translations see the appendix.

(32)

2018:114). It is important to note that even though this does not mean that these sources are unreliable, a researcher must keep in mind that they are written for some specific purpose and some specific audience other than those of the case study being done (Yin, 2018:116). Lastly, archival records from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) are used to investigate the sites’ context and historical background in terms of conducted atrocities during the war.¹⁶

Through a triangulation of all used sources and comparing them with one another, the thesis aims to reduce the risk of bias as much as possible and to guarantee construct validity (Yazan, 2015).

4.4. Analysis of Material

Essential for both collecting relevant data and conducting a case study analysis is to have an initial analytic strategy (Yin, 2018:200). The strategy to analyze the selected material in this thesis is to follow the four operational questions. These questions shaped the process and types of data collection, as seen above, and yielded analytic priorities. They helped to organize the analysis and pointed to contextual conditions that were relevant to be described, explored, and interpreted (see Yazan, 2015:141; Yin, 2018:167–8). This means that the first step was to collect the data guided by the operational questions, and in the second step answers to these questions were sought by analyzing and interpreting the data. This procedure aimed to avoid bias in terms of only seeking information that would substantiate a preconceived position. Specifically, the operational questions reveal whether and how the memorial sites in the municipality of Prijedor are used for the nation-building project of the RS. When the respective indicators – the nation’s boundaries and ethno-national symbols, heroism and victimization, one-sided remembering and forgetting, and territorial marking – can be detected in the data, this strongly indicates that the memorial sites serve as means to pursue the RS nation-building project.

16 Data is used from the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT), which took over the role to preserve and promote the legacy of the ICTY after its closure on 31 December 2017.

(33)

4.5. Ethical Considerations

Despite this research does neither directly involve any participants nor interferes in their lives, still some ethical issues needed to be considered throughout the study.

The main ethical issue to which any researcher conducting a case study is prone to, as they must understand the issue beforehand, is that the findings will be inaccurate if the researcher only seeks to use a case study to substantiate a preconceived position (Yin, 2018:86–7). This refers to the ethical standard of avoiding bias and achieving valid results. In this thesis, I aim to minimize bias as much as possible through staying open as a researcher to contrary evidence that may not fit my own preconceptions (ibid.), being sincere about the research procedures (Chambliss and Schutt, 2019:83), and triangulating gathered information (Creswell, 2009:199;

Shenton, 2004:66). To enhance validity, this thesis uses an extensive theoretical framework and also discusses negative or discrepant information that runs counter to the themes or preconceived position (see Chambliss and Schutt, 2019:82–4;

Creswell, 2009:190–2). Finally, photographs of the studied sites, including their inscription plaques with the original text and the translations, are provided in the analysis and/or are attached in the appendix.

4.6. Delimitations

This study is based on material aspects of the memorial sites, secondary sources, and archival records, and the construction of meaning relies on the researcher’s interpretation of the data. Thus, the study does not (or only indirectly) account what meaning local people may give to the memorial sites and what their views on these may be.

The thesis does not suggest the deconstruction of any memorial sites that may convey ethno-national narratives, nor recommend any actions for altering the sites so that they become, for instance, more inclusive. Instead, this study could be conceived as a “starting point”, because the sites and their use in terms of promoting ethnic nation-building must be understood before measures can be developed.

Moreover, since this study does not involve local people and their views, opinions,

(34)

and experiences, their inclusion should be an essential further step before any measures can be commonly elaborated, suggested, and finally implemented.

The study is limited to two memorial sites in the municipality of Prijedor.

Therefore, the findings relate to the case under study and cannot be representative for the entire RS, or even BiH. However, the approach and the findings of this thesis may be used to examine other locations or contexts and to develop a holistic overview and understanding through further research.

(35)

5. Analysis

This chapter analyses the memorial sites built and funded by the municipality of Prijedor. It starts with a brief description of the memorial sites, followed by the analysis that is guided by the four operational questions presented in the theoretical framework. Firstly, the national boundaries are examined; secondly, narrated myths of heroism and victimization are explored; thirdly, the indication aspects of remembering and forgetting are discussed; and, lastly, memorial sites will be investigated for the territorial marking and the production of place.¹⁷

5.1. The Memorial Sites under Study

The municipality of Prijedor erected or funded only two memorial sites, as it was documented by the study of CNA. It erected the monument “For the Honorable Cross” in the city of Prijedor, and it (co-)financed the memorial “Memorial to fallen RS soldiers from Trnopolje” in the village Trnopolje with public fundings (see Franović et al., 2016).¹⁸ Both memorial sites will be examined in the following study.

The monument “For the Honorable Cross” was erected in 2000 and is situated in a park in the center of the city Prijedor, vis-à-vis to the city hall and next to several schools, the Museum of Kozara, and other cultural and gastronomical infrastructure. It was designed by the Serbian sculptor Miodrag Živković, who also established several monuments in BiH dedicated to Serbian victims of WW2 (under

17 All photographs used in the analysis were taken by the author during the fieldwork in Prijedor.

The provided maps were created by the author himself using QGIS, OpenStreetMaps (background layer), and collected data from the fieldwork. The translations of the inscriptions are taken from the CNA study, unless it is stated otherwise.

18 In the following analysis, the monument “For the Honorable Cross” is referred to as “monument”

while the memorial “Memorial to fallen RS soldiers from Trnopolje” is referred to as “memorial”.

(36)

the Ustaša regime) and the Bosnian War.¹⁹ The monument in Prijedor is dedicated to the VRS and the local police. It is made of stone (gray, black, and gold colored) and is about 7 meters high. As seen in Figure 1, the monument has the shape of a cross and portrays men in its middle, who are parted through a (not consistent) fissure or hole. On the front and on the back side of the monument, there are several figures of men emerging out of the stone, whose faces have clear contours and who appear to be of different ages. The background of the men’s faces is modelled more indistinctly, with blurred faces and heads, and insinuates that each side represents a larger group of people. On the forwardmost person of both groups, the Serbian Cross, that is, a cross bracketed by four Cyrillic “c” (or “s”), is engraved on either the upper arm or the chest of the man.

Figure 1: Monument “For the Honorable Cross” in the city center of Prijedor

The monument has no inscriptions, but a plaque is placed on the outside wall of a chapel situated next to the monument. It is dedicated to “the fallen soldiers of the homeland war 1990—1996” by the Veterans Association of the municipality of Prijedor. The inscription is dated to 21 September 2012, which implies that the

19 Such as the “Monument to the Serbian Defenders of Brčko” (1997), the “Monument to the Fighters of Bijeljina and Semberija in Bijeljina” (1998), the “Monument to the Soldiers of the Fatherland War” in Derventa (2002), the “Monument to the Soldiers of the Fatherland” in Mrkonjić Grad (2002), and the “Monument to the Fighters for Freedom” in Modriča (2002) (Sokol, 2014:115).

(37)

plaque was attached about two years after the monument had been erected. On the outside wall of the chapel there are seven portrays of saints of the Serbian Orthodox Church, and an Orthodox cross is placed on its roof (see Figure 2).²⁰

Figure 2: Chapel next to the monument “For the Honorable Cross”

In the inside, several memorial plaques are wall-mounted. They include the last, middle, and given names, years of birth, and years of death of those killed, and surround a well in the middle of the room. Two further inscription plaques are put on the inside walls, saying “Heroes standing in formation in death, who gave their lives for their people and for Republika Srpska” and “Let their names be celebrated on Earth, as they are in Heaven”. Such as the inscriptions on the outside wall, the two inscription plagues inside the chapel are facing towards the monument “For the Honorable Cross” and are written in Cyrillic script.²¹

The second memorial site, the memorial “Memorial to fallen RS soldiers from Trnopolje”, is placed in a rural area in Trnopolje and was erected in 2000 by the Veterans Association with funds from the municipality budget. It is shaped like an eagle, about 2.5 meters high and 2 meters wide, with open wings made of grey concrete. In the middle of the eagle is an approximately 30 centimeters big cross (see Figure 3).

Two inscription plaques are attached around that cross: one above and one on its left handside, on the eagle’s wing. In addition, mounting holes and pictures from the CNA study show that there was another plaque mounted on the right wing too.

The inscription on the top is dedicated “To soldiers who gave their lives to build

20 In this paper, “Orthodox” and “Orthodox Church” always refers to the Serbian Orthodox faith and the Serbian Orthodox Church, respectively.

21 For photographs of the inscription plaques and the translations of the texts see the appendix.

(38)

the foundations of Republic of Srpska” and the inscription on the left cites verses from Petar Kočić with the prefix “to freedom”.²² Kočić was a Bosnian Serb writer, activist, and politician who is by many Bosnian Serbs considered as a hero who fought for the Serbian people – which also brought him on the Republika-Srpska- Dinar notes during the 1990s war. The removed plaque on the right included verses from Taras Shevchenko, a poet who contributed greatly to the growth of Ukrainian national consciousness (see Rory Finnin, 2011). The latter inscription was the only one that was not written in Serbian language and in Serbian Cyrillic script. It was in Ukrainian language and used the Ukrainian version of the Cyrillic script.²³

Figure 3: Memorial “Memorial to fallen RS soldiers from Trnopolje” in front of the former Trnopolje camp

The last noteworthy features are two flagpoles that are located at the site and a chain fence with an open entrance that encloses the entire memorial site. Right next to the memorial is the former Trnopolje Cultural Center, which previously served as an internment camp during the Bosnian War.

5.2. Boundaries of the Nation

Several scholarly works (e.g., Bougarel et al., 2007; Maček, 2009) show how pre- war intergroup contact and co-existence stopped during the Bosnian War to a large extent, and how religious belief and practices transformed from soft boundaries to

22 See appendix for the verses from Kočić and their translations.

23 The study by CNA documented the memorial before the plaque was removed (Franović et al., 2016). The translation of the cited verses, used from this study, can be found in the appendix.

Nation-Building in Memory and Space: A Case Study of Memorial Sites in the Municipality of Prijedor, Bosnia and Herzegovina