Implications

At this point, my presentation comes to a close, which is not to say that this page would be its ending. Every link on this page will bring you back straight into the middle of this work!

Suggestions for future research

My work is intended to stimulate future research in a variety of ways. Here are some tentative suggestions:

Archaeologists who are interested in interpreting ancient monuments may want to ask some of the following questions in their future work:
- What future concepts are implied in monument building? How and why do monuments differ in their permanence and scale?
- What evidence from different periods is present at monuments? How diverse can interpretations of a single monument be at different times, and what will they necessarily have in common? To what extent do previous interpretations inform our current views?
- What past concepts are implied in monument interpretations and re-uses? Is there a special class of archaeological sites of memory and timemarks? How do cultural memory and history culture relate to specific monuments?
- What is the character of archaeology and its role in our society vis-à-vis alternative interpretations of both the past and monuments?
Archaeologists, who are interested in the meanings of the distant past and ancient artefacts, may want to study further and discuss the significance of different meanings for particular periods or types of objects; and the relations of these meanings to other factors such as the material texture, size, and shape, or spiritual factors present, or to certain commercial, emotional, aesthetic, and political parameters.
Archaeologists working on Mecklenburg-Vorpommern may want to study in more detail the megaliths described, the associated evidence from later prehistoric and historic periods, or some of the other examples and case-studies to which I have referred.
All archaeologists may want to explore further the potentials of hypermedia documents for expressing complex interrelations, and the wider implications of making sense by making connections.

Possible wider implications of my argument

Apart from the immediate implication of my gaining a higher academic degree and starting an academic career, there are potentially various wider implications of my work:

I am suggesting that the meanings of megaliths in later prehistoric Mecklenburg-Vorpommern were manifold. This point may also be applied to other periods and areas. It would follow that the meanings given by academic archaeology and heritage management of our age to ancient monuments are not necessarily more appropriate or more relevant than other meanings. I believe that professional archaeologists ought to embrace and work for all approaches to the distant past and its remains, rather than restrict their scope and ambitions to the interest of a few.
I have proposed that cultural memory and history culture be considered as useful concepts for understanding the meanings and significances of ancient monuments such as megaliths in later prehistoric Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. The usefulness of these concepts may extend also to other historic or present periods and areas. As a consequence, there is no need to restrain creativity and initiative in dealing with ancient monuments today, because they would have certain inherent meanings derived from the past which must be preserved for the future. It is up to everyone present to redefine the meaning and significance of ancient monuments. (This work does not reveal truths of the past, but is itself an attempt to give meaning to ancient monuments in the present.)
I have assumed that later prehistoric populations of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern made sense of megaliths by making connections. This assumption may be generalised on the basis of the insight that nothing is meaningful in isolation. If this is indeed the case, it follows that recipients will always link a given object or idea with their own knowledge, associations, examples, and ideas, in order to give them meaning. As Ian Hodder (1997: 694) stated, "conclusions are always momentary, fluid and flexible as new relations are considered." Any additional links suggested for this work are therefore very welcome (they would not contradict but confirm my position).

Finally, what about the 'monumental past'?

I have borrowed the term from Nietzsche, but I have been uncertain from the beginning whether the connection to his work is meaningful for this work. Nietzsche uses the term 'monumental' in a metaphorical sense (1909: 17):

"The great moments in the individual battle form a chain, a high road for humanity through the ages, and the highest points of those vanished moments are yet great and living for men; and this is the fundamental idea of the belief in humanity, that finds a voice in the demand for a 'monumental' history."

'Monumental' is, for Nietzsche, a history that is petrified and buries the living (Young 1993: 4). But I use the term 'monumental past' in a different sense, referring to physically monumental ancient structures such as megaliths with which many living generations were, and indeed are, surrounded in their everyday lives and landscapes. Not all receptions of monuments refer to a great and 'monumental' past in the sense of Nietzsche. The link to Nietzsche thus leads nowhere.

Literature

Hodder, Ian (1997) 'Always momentary, fluid and flexible': towards a reflexive excavation methodology. Antiquity 71, 691–700.

Nietzsche, Friedrich (1909) The use and abuse of history [1873]. In: F.Nietzsche, Thoughts out of Season. Part II, pp. 3–100. The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche. O.Levy (ed.), vol. 2, part 2. Edinburgh and London: Foulis.

Young, James E. (1993) The Texture of Memory. Holocaust, Memorials and Meaning. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.