HOME     V O R T E X    V O R T E X    V O R T E X 3    V O R T E X 4    V O R T E X 5     P E R S O N A L  B L O G

Conference Papers

Online papers / Journal Articles

Paul Gough
'That Sacred Turf'
War Memorial Gardens as Theatres of War (and Peace)
in 'Monuments and the Millennium', James and James / English Heritage, 2001, 228 - 236, 4 x b and w illus. ISBN 1-873936 - 97 – 4
A version of this paper was given at 'Monuments and the Millennium' conference at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, UK in May 1998.

This paper examines the idea of garden spaces and planting regimes as a form of natural 'anti-monument'. Drawing upon examples from Gallipoli in Turkey and Caen in Northern France the paper shows how design teams are beginning to rely less on stone and cast bronze in preference to symbolic planting schemes that require the pilgrim-visitor to enter into a discursive, theatrical space. In these spaces the dramaturgical is prioritised over the purely visual in challenging and novel ways. The paper also reflects on the political and symbolic potency of the floral tribute suggesting that the direction and protocol of official mourning in the aftermath of the death of the Princess of Wales in 1997 was influenced by these private and transient memorials.

There had been problems with the planting. The grass at the cemetery was French grass, and it seemed to her of the coarser type, inappropriate for British soldiers to lie beneath. Her campaign over this with the commission led nowhere. So one spring she took out a small spade and a square yard of English turf kept damp in a plastic bag.
    After dark she dug out the offending French grass and relaid the softer English turf, patting it into place, then stamping it in. She was pleased with her work, and the next year, as she approached the grave, saw no indication of her mending. But when she knelt, she realised that her work had been undone: the French grass was back again.
    (Barnes, 1996)
The redoubtable Miss Moss (of Julian Barnes' short story Evermore) was never to find satisfaction with the foreign planting schemes of the Commonwealth War Graves Cemeteries in France. Her frequent attempts to personalise the graveside environment of her brother's stone was annually frustrated by the strict procedures of official protocol meant that Miss Moss had to resign herself to alien turf and 'dusty geraniums'. Barnes' story brings out some of the key issues in the tensions between a public and private agenda of grief. How, in the face of the vast monuments and cemeteries of the battlefields, could an individual mourner hope to personalise the symbolism of commemoration ? What role might plants, shrubs and trees play in opening up the processes of remembrance ? And, thirdly, could these arboreal devices act as metaphors for collaboration and interaction in the future design of new commemorative landscapes ?

This paper will attempt to answer these questions. In doing so we will examine three case studies. Firstly, a memorial park on the Somme battlefield in northern France. Secondly, a consecrated landscape on the beachhead at Gallipoli in Turkey. And third, a newly designed commemorative landscape in Normandy.(1) In the process of exploring these landscapes I will be concentrating on the role that trees, shrubs and plants can play in both extending and critiquing the language of monumentalism. I will also reflect on the current debates on the role played by memorials in asserting ideas of national identity and social memory.

Our exploration begins in north-east France, in a landscape that has been given a number of extraordinary and evocative titles : The Killing Fields, The Dying Zone, The Dead Ground, the Silent Cities. (Hurst, 1929, Coombs, 1983, Middlebrook, 1991, Slowe and Richards, 1986) Yet this landscape is only two hours by car from England. During the Great War it was within earshot of London, families took picnics at Beachy Head to the accompaniment of the great artillery barrages on the Western Front.

At first sight the Somme has little in common with the other great funerary landscapes of the world - the valley of the Kings in Thebes, or the buried city of Pompeii. The Somme is a prosperous and comfortable agricultural zone. The villages are compact and well-kept. In 1916 British soldiers who were sent there to prepare for the Great Push described it as something like Salisbury Plain with its long views, gently sloping downlands, many copses and small woods.

After the war, in the 1920s and 1930s, artists flocked to the old battlefields to record the painstaking restoration process as each building - irrespective of its original architectural merit - was returned to its pre-war state. Artists besieged the authorities for sketching permits. At the Royal College of Art, London, Professor William Rothenstein (himself an Official War Artist) despatched his students to the old front line to paint and draw the picturesque ruination of Picardy and Artois. One artist wrote that it was crucial that he too made the trip because he had missed out on seeing the aftermath of the terrible earthquake at Messina in 1908. (2) In her 1919-1920 folio of Western Front drawings, artist Olive Mudie-Cook made one with the title 'A Modern Pompeii'. (3)

The artists had to work quickly. The programme of restoration was impressive and resolute. It was, though, a process of replication rather than innovation. George Steiner has described this perfection of renewal as having little more than a 'lacqueured depth' resulting in an obsession with the literal. (Steiner, 1971) In some of the smaller Belgian villages - such as Passchendaele which was totally obliterated in the war - it is as if the buildings have been borrowed from a Wild West movie, comprising a frontage and little else, just a few props and supports to lend a sense of community and architectural continuity. Despite its antique appearance, one travel writer has written, the city of Ypres is actually more recent than Milton Keynes. (Fountain, 1998)

In his book on the Great War, Paul Fussell remarks on the difficulties in recovering a feeling for the actualities of the trench war (Fussell, 1975) Entrenchment, he argues has long been a dead metaphor. Nowhere is this more true than on the deserted agricultural plains of the Somme. It takes a giant leap of the imagination to re-connect this vast space with the teeming industrialised territory occupied by the British in 1916.

From contemporary film and photographs we know that for tens of miles the French landscape sustained a huge and complex supply line that required a massive logistics effort, hundreds of vehicles, thousands of men in supply depots, rail links, shipping lines, armament factories all working to maintain a handful of men holding a shallow ditch in the ground. The ditches, though, are still there. In some places, such as at Vimy Ridge, they have been preserved in concrete as a permanent marker to that most temporary existence.

But even where they have been ploughed over, the disturbed chalk still marks out the line of the former trenches, zig-zagging and weaving crazily across the gently sloping downland. At each ploughing the earth coughs up more of its iron lode - encrusted shells are heaped up at cross-roads to await collection by itinerant bomb-disposal squads. Scattered in the fields is the archaeological proof of the conflict - lead shrapnel balls, fragments of rusted shell casing, a crust of clavicle or rib bone, lengths of grotesquely twisted barbed wire. Historians speak of the importance of 'walking the ground' in gaining a true feel for battle terrain and its related fieldcraft. For others, the process of scouring the freshly ploughed fields of the Somme is to try to unite the volume of memory with today's actualities. It is, though, an almost unbridgeable chasm. As James Mayo has observed of ancient battleparks 'Place and event have been tied, but little more'. (Mayo, 1988)

There is then a restrained drama in this historicised landscape. The scattered metal fragments are potent scenic props on this stage. But the true players in this theatre of war are the monuments.

Much has been written on the symbolic role and social value of war memorials. For over fifty years the gigantic stone piles dotted across the Western Front and throughout Europe have been regarded with awe and deep respect. Despite their absurd size, the arches, gateways and towers designed and built by the Allied side were revered for their restrained neo-classical style and their subtle use of materials and scale. In the past ten years though, architectural and cultural historians have questioned the authority of the victor's monument.

The debate has been particularly energetic in post-unified Germany. By reflecting on the nation's fascist past and the rhetoric of military commemoration, artists and historians such as Martin Brozsat have argued that monuments do little but 'coarsen' historical understanding, rather than clarify meaning they bury events 'beneath layers of national myth'. (Brozsat, in Young, 1990)

Many commentators have pointed to the ideological function of the war memorial as 'something constructed after the event which it celebrates or indicates, and it entails an interpretation of the event which those who come later are called upon to accredit.' (van den Abbeele, 1994) James Young has argued that many war memorials are little more than the 'locus for self aggrandising national memory'. (Young, 1990) Artists such as The Critical Art Ensemble use the world wide web to actively critique our cultural assumptions about the status of monuments;
    Monuments are the means to forgetfulness. Memory dissipates in their shadow. We shall never forget. We will always forget. The monument does not protect its slaves from repetition. In fact, it ensures repetition. The classical ghettos of Derry and Palestine are the products of forgetfulness.
    (Buchler and Papastergiadis, 1996)
The last decade has seen the rise of the counter- or anti-memorial. Such artists as Jochen and Esther Gerz have argued and built interactive monuments that invite (indeed require) a public response, however contentious, and an active participation in its making, however critical of the larger cause. The resulting artworks are the antithesis of the grandiose ennobling stone and bronze monuments of the public domain. They are often crudely constructed, modestly located and, above all do not alleviate a sense of guilt. A point recognised by James Young when he writes that conventional memorials bear the brunt of national memory and in so doing these 'monuments may relieve viewers of their memory-burden'. (Young, 1990)

There is, though, little physical relief from the monuments on the Somme. As if to compensate for the fragmented evidence in the surrounding fields, memorials such as the Thiepval Arch and the Menin Gate are immense, solid objects. They speak of immutability, permanence and continuity of belief; everything that the infantryman's life was not. Not only is the Thiepval Memorial to the Missing of the Somme 'unmissable' writes Geoff Dyer:
    'it is also, strangely and appropriately, unphotographable. No photograph can convey its scale, its balance, its overwhelming effect on the senses.'
    (Dyer, 1994)

    'Everything seems to be exaggerated; the huge stone wreaths, the acres of carved names, the piling up of the arches, the way it dominates every vista on the battlefield. In this highly charged rhetorical space there is little room for personal negotiation; the spectator remains firmly on the outside looking in or, more often, up.'
    (Harbison, 1991, Winter, 1995)
To complement the emotional intensity of these architectural colossi, several fragments of the battlescape have been set aside as memorial gardens or peace parks. A good example of the former can be found on the Somme. The Sheffield Memorial Park is a tract of ground that has been periodically decorated with successive waves of commemorative icons.

The Park sits on the northern sector of the old battlefield at Serre. One of its perimeter edges is formed by the line of a British trench that was the startline for troops from northern England. The park is littered with official memorial architecture; a formal gateway, an arch that helps to announce the space, while also declaring it a place of reverence and designated memory, and a tract of conifer trees that both projects the symbolism of regeneration, while serving to maintain an uncluttered ground plane that makes it easy to read the cratered surface of the old battlefield.

Over the decades, these official signifiers have been supplemented by markers of local, individual memory - brass plaques hammered into the conifer trees, a cross placed by a bereaved relative and the annual harvest of poppy wreaths. More recently, a memorial wall has been sited at the corner of the wood. It follows the shallow line of trenches from which the doomed Accrington Pals advanced onto the German lines. It is a curious construction - half wall, half ruin. Visually it is reminiscent of the thousands of ruins caused by the siege warfare along this front. Symbolically, it may suggest that this is only a fragment of a building, that this is a job only half done. Its material construction is especially important - the bricks were made in Accrington and bought over to France for this specific purpose. (Middlebrook, 1991) As we shall see, this habit of sending native stones, plants, trees and even soil to distant battlefields is a feature of many commemorative gardens in France. It is part of the complex fetishism of remembrance which is best served by transient natural forms rather than fixed architectural emblems.

Aesthetically, the fragment of brick wall at Serre has upset the designed relationship between the neo-classical archway and the preserved battle space. But, in such rhetorically charged spaces, aesthetics count for little. Sheffield Memorial Park has been re-appropriated by a memory-interest group, as have many new sites in this part of France.(4) The brick fragment is evidence of a continued need to extend the iconography of mourning and to localise (and so rejuvenate) memory, instead of accepting grief as something national and abstract.

The Memorial Park is a piece of theatre, but one in which the memorial furnishings are props that only seem to accentuate the emptiness of the surrounding landscape. This notion of emptiness seems crucial to our understanding of the impact of many Great War memorials. After all, the 'first and best known' marker of martial memory - the Cenotaph in Whitehall - was designed as an empty tomb, dedicated to the honour of those buried elsewhere. (Greenberg, 1989) The Somme landscape is a place emptied of its military occupancy but still saturated with its memory. It is as one writer in the war put it 'not empty ... rather full of emptiness'. (Farrer, 1918)

Just as the Cenotaph remains largely invisible for 364 days of the year so the Sheffield Memorial Park becomes truly activated when swarming with visitors. Occasionally, the park is inundated with British schoolchildren. Their teachers line the children in signle file along the shallow trenches while relating the history of the space. The talk is bought to an abrupt end when the teacher blows hard on a whistle to mark the moment when the Pals battalions 'jumped the bags'.

The preserved battle gardens of the Western Front might almost have been expressly designed for this purpose. A favourite ploy of the battlefield tour guides at Vimy Ridge memorial park is to divide a coachloads of pilgrims and line them up either side of the craters that once divided the two front-lines. In pakkamacs and golfing caps they stand in mute rows just yards apart. Many commentators despise this form of vicarious entertainment. 'It is the contemporary visitor's duty to resist the "ease" of imaginary projection' argues George Van Den Abbeele, we must 'remain acutely aware of the gap between what is there, and what is not there (or there no longer)' (Van den Abbeele, 1994) Yet, despite its fraudulence, the physical act might help us appreciate the absurd compression of space on the 1917 battlefield, and gauge something of the sense of exposure experienced by men once they left the relative security of the trench world.

By way of contextualising the symbolic power of plants and trees in commemorative environments I cite a cartoon that appeared in the satirical press recently. It depicted an accident or a scene of disaster. Three figures clutching bouquets were trying to push their way through the crowd. One of them was shouting 'Stand back, we've got the floral tributes'.

The floral tribute extends the imagery of commemoration, acting as an initial marker to more formal and solid modes of memory. Cut flowers, wreaths and paper poppies allow anyone to participate in the public process of grieving. This was exemplified in the aftermath of the death of Princess Diana when the streets of Imperial and governmental London relinquished some of their vested authority. Normally, one can trace the routeways of civic power across central London to Whitehall by plotting a line through the statues and memorial architecture that are the 'public face of our national culture'. (Rutherford, 1997) In stone and bronze they are the powerpoints on an imperial and royal circuit board.

But as we know the funeral route had to be extended to encompass the crowds and to accommodate the volume of grief. It had to allow both spatial and symbolic respect for the acres of flowers spreading from the emotional pressure points - like a floral aneurysm - at St James Palace and Clarence House. It was extraordinary that the symbols of transience and ephemerality - balloons, candles, cut flowers wrapped in paper, messages and poems pinned to trees - should so divert the momentum of official protocol.

Our appreciation of the symbolic value of flowers is very sophisticated. It spans a spectrum of symbolism from the rose (the classical icon of nurtured grief) to its opposite - the poppy, symbol of unpredictable growth, ephemerality and the sleep of reason. On distant battlefields the symbolic value of certain flowers has become part of a complex process of nationalism and emotional jurisdiction. (Gough, 1996)

In Western Turkey - on the old battlefields of Gallipoli - there are 31 small Commonwealth War Graves Cemeteries. Despite poor drainage, insecure ground and occasional bush fires they survive the hostile climate and are tended with the customary care of the war graves commission. There have been some concessions to the conditions and to the social environment: high perimeter walls and deep, stone lined ha-has protect the lawns from animals and ensure adequate drainage. Many cemeteries have a single stone screen-wall which bears the cross of sacrifice in relief, as opposed to a free standing cross found in Christian countries. However, to the frustration of some Australian veterans most of the plants in the cemeteries are indigenous to Turkey. In the 1930s commission horticulturists attempted to acclimatise over 100 different types of eucalyptus, but only succeeded in developing a robust strain for the lower slopes. (Longworth, 1967)

Why should veterans show such frustration ? Partly it would seem, because the process of planting was an essential part of their grieving process. It was a process that was - and indeed still is - collaborative and inclusive. As early as 1915 the commission had put in place a scheme to plant home-grown maple seeds on Canadian graves in France and Belgium. That same year the Australian wattle had been planted around Anzac graves in Turkey and cuttings of olearia and other native seedlings had been shipped over from New Zealand. In cemeteries with Chinese or Indian graves the commission had to ensure that only plants considered sacred and appropriate for commemoration were planted. Indians, for example, regard iris, marigolds and cypresses as suitable. (Longworth, 1967)

Unlike the grand monuments on the Western Front, the rhetoric of commemoration in Gallipoli is best conveyed through its planting regimes. In one of the war cemeteries stands a lone tree planted by a bereaved father. Bought over from Manchester, it is reputedly the only English oak on the peninsula. It has an unofficial presence within the strict regime and protocol of the cemetery, and is doubly meaningful because of it.

The story of the Lone Pine is further evidence of the symbolic potency of particular trees. At the height of the battles in mid-1915 the Allies chose to name a Turkish strongpoint after a solitary dwarf pine that dominated the horizon above the beachheads. (Moorehead, 1956) After the war, Australians clearing the battlefield found the stump of the pine in a trench. A number of seeds were retrieved and sent to Australia where they were planted in the grounds of the National War Memorial in Canberra. One tree grew and flourished, bearing seeds that were replanted at other symbolic locations in Australia. Then, in a reversal of the original idea, seeds were sent back to Gallipoli and planted in the presumed location of the original tree. Luckily, that tree survived a terrible scrub fire that ravaged the Anzac battlefields in 1994.

Surprising as it at may seem, there is nothing unique about the Australian seed exchange. Last year a team of Bristol-based great War enthusiasts re-planted a tree on the site of 'The Lone Tree' which played a crucial part as a gathering spot and a datum point during the Battle of Loos. The ridges of Gallipoli are strewn with conifers planted by the returned Servicemen's league and other ex-service organisations.

The British reserve a special veneration for the few trees that survived the war. In a memorial park on the Somme stands 'the Danger Tree' or 'Tree of Death' which acted as a landmark in the centre of No Man's Land. The tree is long dead. It is now a petrified stalk held in position in a barrel of cement but that makes it no less popular as an icon for battlefield tourists.

Further south, in the middle of Delville Wood, is a hornbeam that is reckoned to be the only tree in the wood to have survived the terrible bombardments of 1916. Despite a shrapnel filled trunk it thrives and is the focus of near-devotional attention. A large stone marker proclaims its unique status. (Middlebrook, 1991)

It would be easy to put this down to a bizarre mix of arboreal sentimentality and regimental ritual. But (as Joseph Beuys and Ian Hamilton Finlay have constantly reminded us) tree planting is a political act. And, to return to my theatre analogy, on some old battlegrounds trees and shrubs are more than just stage scenery. After the fire in Gallipoli the Turkish authorities cleared the entire battlefield area; many commemorative trees were chopped down, war graves commission planting schemes were threatened and new shrubs and conifers were planted by the Turkish military. A compromise was agreed, but the tensions are still evident. The argument is about who controls memory. After all, the campaign in the Dardenelles was won by the Turkish army and the modern Islamic state was forged on these precipitous ridges. (Gough, 1996a)

The tension in who controls the historic perspective is being exacerbated by a recent wave of statues installed by the Turkish authorities. This new generation of memorials takes the form of giant striding figures, cast in bronze and mounted on imposing pedestals. They make a strange and uncomfortable contrast to the restrained and rather discordant neo-classical architecture of the Allied war cemeteries. They stand yards apart contesting control of ridge lines and once important vantage points, 'parallel monologues, acting as if the other were not present'. (Ayliffe et al, 1991)

So what have we understood by these strange horticultural games being played out between Turkey, Australia, northern Europe and South Africa ?

Firstly, for those of us who know anything about the highly ritualised mythologising of the Great War, the trans-continental seed exchange is typical of the veneration afforded certain icons from that period. In his book on the Canadian response to the memory of the war, Jonathan Vance, writes of the merchandise in stone fragments, shards of stained glass, and other relics of the Western Front that found their way back to Canada. (Vance, 1997)

Secondly, we must appreciate the symbolic value of tree planting. In many Great War battlefields individual trees planted by bereaved relatives help offset the formal planting of commission cemeteries and add an idiosyncratic, subjectivised contribution to the highly charged rhetoric of official mourning.

And, thirdly, arboreal intervention seems to have allowed the many Dominion countries a continuing role on the European battlefields of the Great War. The role is not a static role centred on repairing masonry and building new museums, but an evolving, transformative role channelled through plant life. Perhaps also, the trees and shrubs are crucial metaphors for those Dominion countries (particularly Australia and French-Canada) who are in the difficult process of re-negotiating their relationship with Britain.

My final case study is a memorial garden near Caen, in Normandy. It was designed by a team of students and staff from a Canadian University in an open competition. The brief was to design a garden that would make use of the valley and steep walls immediately beneath the huge museum of le memorial. It is intended that the museum will be ringed by gardens designed (and funded) by each of the nations whose armies liberated the city in 1944. (Gough, 1998)

The most ambitious garden has been built by American veterans organisations. It takes the form of a walk culminating in a vast pool, which then forms a continuous flow of water. Whereas there is something faintly sci-fi about the futuristic curves of the pool, the waterfall space is earthed in the spirit of seed and soil exchange that we have seen so often in memorial gardens. Each of the military units from the Normandy campaign has contributed a stone, a plaque, tablet or painted rock to create a synthesis of trophy room and fireside hearth.

The Canadian garden, by contrast, plays a much more subtle, but very demanding game. In effect the designers have used the topography of the valley to suggest a particular journey across water and land. This is not a garden at all; it is a provocative piece of landscape theatre which conflates a spatial symbolism with a temporal concept. The space has been designed to mimic the Canadian's soldiers progress during the Second World War - as he moves from home earth, across water, through a period of exposure and hazard, up an arduous, often disorientating climb, to the final breach in a seemingly solid defensive wall. The progress culminates in the pristine lawn (the ultimate symbol of horticultural supremacy) on the plateau above the valley sides.

The journey begins with water. Another Canadian memorial (this time in Green Park, London) also uses an unceasing flow of water to suggest cleansing and regeneration. In Green Park the water is studded with bronze maple leaves : at Caen the pool is inscribed with a Latin text (No day will erase your generation from our memory). Is it too fanciful to suggest that the pool acts as a metaphor for the Atlantic crossing, a point somehow reinforced by the grid like structure of the slabs which seem to echo the longitude and latitude lines of admiralty charts? (Gough, 1996b)

The second episode is the zig-zag path that makes a slow ascent of the steep valley side. Here, we are confronted by a steep wilderness of thick, prairie grass. But the grass changes colour and texture rather abruptly. A broad swathe some ten metres wide is planted with brown grass, while either side the grass grows in rich green clumps. The effect is rather disquieting: it is as if a broad band of the hillside has been scorched, leaving nothing but burnt plants. In addition, the tufts are knitted into the soil by a cellular plastic webbing that resembles a thin veneer of skin flowing over the hillside. These associations have caused considerable unrest amongst the gardens critics. Veterans organisations have objected to the symbolic inference that this part of the garden represents the fate of so many Canadian soldiers in the campaign to liberate Europe

This garden takes us into a new and very different landscape of commemoration. The burnt grass, the exaggerated awkwardness of the zig-zag slope and the oppressive weight of the concrete wall above make this a rather provocative design. It does not offer the solace and reverence of some of the other funerary terrains we have examined. If anything, it extends the vicarious role of the battlefield pilgrim, but in an uncomfortable, perhaps rather harsh fashion.

To conclude. I have argued that an understanding of the symbolic and metaphorical role of plants, trees and shrubs in a commemorative space is crucial in extending and opening out the process of remembrance. Plant life has a natural cycle of growth, fertility, decay and death which is assiduously avoided in the conventional iconography of martial memory. Plant life rarely has the permanence suggested by hewn rock and cast metals. Nor do trees and shrubs (however well tended) offer the illusion of permanence. Lewis Mumford astutely argued that 'stone gives a false sense of continuity, and a deceptive assurance of life'. (Mumford, 1938) Remembrance gardens, battlefield sites and symbolic plantings allow a much needed interaction and participation. Even the greatest of the post-war monument builders recognised the power of the unbuilt space of the battlefield. In 1917 Edwin Lutyens described to his wife the strange charisma of the military cemeteries, before (somewhat inevitably) dedicating himself to the great task of solidifying memory on solid metal:
    The graveyards, haphazard from the needs of much to do and little time for thought. And then a ribbon of isolated graves like a milky way across miles of country where men were tucked in where they fell. Ribbons of little crosses each touching each across a cemetery, set in a wilderness of annuals and where one sort of flower is grown the effect is charming, easy and oh so pathetic. One thinks for the moment no other monument is needed. Evanescent but for the moment is almost perfect and how misleading to surmise in this emotion and how some love to sermonise. But the only monument can be one in which the endeavour is sincere to make such monument permanent - a solid ball of bronze!
    (Percy and Ridley, 1985)
1 The fieldwork for this paper was made possible by research grants from the faculty of Art, Media and Design at the University of the West of England, Bristol. I am also indebted to Prof.Terry Copp, Wilfred Laurier University, Canada for his generous support during my research in Caen, France.

2 See artists file no. 346/7 part I, Department of Art, Imperial War Museum, London.

3 Portfolio held in The Liddle Collection, Leeds University.

4 On the old Somme battlefield, for example, there is a newly installed obelisk purchased and dedicated by Ulstermen to commemorate the Ulster Division attack on 1st July 1916

Ayliffe, R, Dubin M and Gawthorp J (1991) Turkey: the Rough Guide, London, Harrap Columbus.

Barnes J, 1996 Evermore, London, Penguin

Brozsat M (1988) 'A controversy about the Historicisation of National Socialism' Yad Vashem Studies, 19, 1-47

Critical Art Ensemble, 1996 in Ambient Fears (eds) Buchler P and Papastergiadis N, London, River Orams, 1996, 22-30

Coombs, R, 1983 Before Endeavours Fade, London, After the Battle

Dyer G, 1994 The Missing of the Somme, London, Penguin

Farrer R, 1918 The Void of War, Constable, London

Fountain N, 1998 'Fields forever England' The Guardian 9 May 1998, 8-9

Fussell P, 1975 The Great War and Modern Memory, Oxford University Press.

Gough P, 1996a 'Conifers and Commemoration: The Politics and Protocol of Planting', in Landscape Research, 21:1, 73-87

Gough P, 1996b 'Canada Conflict and Commemoration: An appraisal of the new Canadian War Memorial' in Canadian Military History, 5:1, 26-34

Gough P, 1998 War Memorial Gardens as Dramaturgical Space in International Journal of Heritage Studies

Greenberg A, 1989 Lutyens's Cenotaph, in JSAH, XLVIII, 5-23.

Harbison R, 1991 The Built, the Unbuilt and the Unbuildable, London, Thames and Hudson

Hurst S, 1929 The Silent Cities, London, Methuen

Longworth P, 1967 The Unending Vigil, London, Secker and Warburg

Mayo JM 1988 War Memorials as Political Landscape, New York, Praeger

Middlebrook M and M, 1991 The Somme Battlefields, London, Viking.

Moorehead A, 1956 Gallipoli, London, Hamish Hamilton

Mumford L, 1938 The Culture of Cities, New York.

Percy C and Ridley J (eds), 1985 The Letters of Edwin Lutyens to his Wife Lady Emily, London, Collins

Rutherford J, 1997 Forever England: Reflections on Masculinity and Empire, London, Lawrence and Wishart

Slowe P and Woods R, 1986 Fields of Death: Battle Scenes and the First World War, London, Hale

Steiner G, 1971 In Bluebeard's Castle London, Faber

Van Den Abeelle G, 1994 Armored Sights/Sites blindes, in Back to the front: Tourisms of War, (eds) Diller and Scofidio, FRAC Basse Normandie/Princeton Univ Press, 220-276.

Vance J, 1997 Death so Noble: Memory, Meaning and the First World War, Vancouver, UBC Press.

Winter J, 1995 Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Young J 1990, The Counter-Monument: Memory against Itself in Germany Today in Art and the Public Sphere, (ed) Mitchell WJT. Chicago, Chicago University Press, 49-78.

Lewis Mumford, The Culture of Cities, New York, 1938, p 435.