Sie sind auf Seite 1von 16

37-Tilley-3290-Ch31.

qxd 11/16/2005 5:54 PM Page 500

31
MONUMENTS AND MEMORIALS

Michael Rowlands and Christopher Tilley

MONUMENTALIZING THE PAST monument lies in the distance it creates for the
viewer from both past and present; it belongs
neither to an original setting from which it has
Monuments and memorials exist as a means of been abstracted or copied nor to the present, in
fixing history. They provide stability and a which it resists assimilation (cf. Maleuvre 1999:
degree of permanence through the collective 59). Monuments create uncanny spaces of public
remembering of an event, person or sacrifice display and ritual that also function to perform
around which public rites can be organized. This what Boyer refers to as ‘civic compositions that
is a fairly straightforward understanding of why teach us about our national heritage and our
tangible heritages of objects, archives, museums, public responsibilities and assume that the urban
monuments and memorials exist in order to landscape is the emblematic embodiment of
make us believe in the permanence of identity. power and memory’ (Boyer 1994: 321). Johnson
Moreover, following Nora’s now classic work also emphasizes the duplicitous character of
on lieux de mémoires, these sites of memory are monuments that are materially experienced
consciously held ideas of the past, constructed memorially through the visual and other senses
usually in the midst of upheaval (Nora 1989). while simultaneously functioning as social
The rise of national memory emerged in Europe symbols (Johnson 2004: 317). Monuments are
in the midst of a crisis of authority. The founda- powerful because they appear to be permanent
tion of the Louvre museum in 1793 belongs to a markers of memory and history and because
revolutionary era in France, whose agents, in the they do so both iconically and indexically, i.e.
midst of upheaval, needed to fashion a stable they can evoke feelings through their material-
image of the past. As Lowenthal suggests, the ity and form as well as symbolize social narra-
projection of of an image of permanence on to a tives of events and sacrifices retold in public
landscape serves to deny the realities of change rituals.
(Lowenthal 1985). As history destroys the capa- Alois Riegl also argued that the appearance of
city for ‘real memories’, Nora argued that it con- the ‘modern monument cult’ depended on a
structs instead sites of memory as a social and combination of different value judgements; ‘his-
encompassing symbiosis maintained through torical value’ as time-specific and documentary
objects and performances (cf. Nora 1989; and ‘age value’, which includes signs of tempo-
Connerton 1989). He draws attention to the ral duration from patina and damage to incom-
alienated status of memory in modern times: an pleteness and everyday wear and tear. Both
estrangement concretized in monuments, muse- defer to time and yet lace it with anxiety over
ums and sites of memory (Maleuvre 1999: 59). the consequences of change (Starn 2002: 51).
The monumentalizing of time is therefore Monumental time is constructed as an index of
inseparable from changes in social memory. an unchanging value but does so only by losing
A monument is an object taken out of history, by touch with what is actually remembered. As
history. Yet it stands for history in terms of what such monuments and memorials resist memory
it has left behind, as a mnemonic trace that also as much as they celebrate it. On the one hand we
separates it from the present. The nature of the have museums for everything from agricultural
37-Tilley-3290-Ch31.qxd 11/16/2005 5:54 PM Page 501

MONUMENTS AND MEMORIALS 501

tools to space exploration as part of the fear that objectified in material culture becomes an active
everything in our self-liquidating modernity is agent with therapeutic powers (cf. Hoskins
threatened with oblivion (cf. Berman 1982) and 1998; Young 1993). Memory as re-enchantment
on the other, for anything to deserve to be pre- merges with recent work on trauma theory
served suggests that it has already been forgot- to promise recovery from loss and denial
ten. The real becomes cultural heritage, because (Feuchtwang 2003). Memory work is thought
according to Nora, reality as unproblematic most likely to subvert the totalizing varieties
memory has already disappeared. As many of historicism because our epoch has been
have observed, the cult of modern monumen- uniquely structured by trauma and its effects.
tal time is therefore imbued with nostalgia. Moreover Nora’s belief that true memory has
‘Nostalgia is the repetition that mourns the inau- disappeared could be challenged by the growth
thenticity of all repetition and denies the repeti- of heritage studies showing that memory sur-
tion’s capacity to form identity’ (Stewart 1984: vived as an authentic mode of discourse in the
23). Instead the failures of the present must be use of material culture or as a counter-history
apprehended through the acquisition of some that challenged the false generalizations of
redemptive history that promises eventual sal- exclusionary history (Samuel 1994).
vation. This combines with mourning for lost We have therefore several explanations for a
individual autonomy, loss of spontaneity and new memorializing of the past. Klein (2000: 143)
simplicity and the claim that monumental time summarizes these rather well as, first, following
is a form of historical consciousness that leads Pierre Nora, that we are obsessed with memory
to alienation from our surroundings. Susan because we have destroyed it with historical
Stewart argues that nostalgia is a form of sad- consciousness. Modern memory is a conscious
ness without an object; that it always only exists construct projected on to a sense of place.
as a narrative, which attaches itself to an impos- A second holds that memory is a new experience
sibly pure belief in the experience of a utopian that grew out of the modernist crisis of the self
origin. As such ‘This point of desire which the in the late nineteenth century and has evolved
nostalgic seeks is in fact the absence that is the into current usage as part of a cure and a heal-
very generating mechanism of desire – nostalgia ing process. A third would identify memory as
is the desire for desire’ (Stewart 1984: 23). the pre-modern that, contra Nora, we still dis-
A distinct fascination with things memorable cover in the ethnographic periphery or as ‘real-
is therefore a feature of modernity. ‘Collective life’ experience of the poor, of minorities and
memory’ emerged as an object of scholarly the oppressed. Fourth, and following on from
inquiry in the early twentieth century. In The the third, that memory is a mode of discourse
Social Frameworks of Memory Maurice Halbwachs natural to people without history and so its re-
argued, against the neurobiologizing, individu- emergence is a salutary feature of decoloniza-
alizing or racial views of the time, that memory tion. Finally that memory is now inseparable
is a specifically social and collective phenome- from identity politics as a post-1980s feature
non (cf. Connerton 1989). The boom in memory linked to postmodern crises in historical con-
studies, as a feature of the 1980s, is witnessed by sciousness and the production of totalizing
the appearance of influential works such as narratives.
Pierre Nora’s Realms of Memory volumes (1996)
and David Lowenthal’s The Past is a Foreign
Country (1985). They share a dissatisfaction with
historicist approaches which claim to provide MONUMENTS AND PUBLIC MEMORY
objective, critical reconstructions of the past. In
part the heritage debate relates to various anti- There is a large literature on how official urban
historicist trends in postmodernism, claiming landscapes of memory – e.g. museums, memo-
that heritage is a late twentieth-century form of rials and monuments – act as stages or back-
social memory which appeals to a sense of the drops in framing myths of national identity (cf.
popular and the sensory which had become lost Johnson 2004; Till 1999: 254). It is practically
to the objectivism of history. The most common impossible to conceive of any modern urban
strategy identified public memory with a collec- landscape which is not saturated with the
tion of practices associated with material culture, materiality and style of public buildings and
most obviously in the form of public architec- spaces, designed and built in a relevant phase
ture, archives, museums and monuments, and of nation building (in Euro-America e.g.
with more everyday forms of material culture – c. 1870–1914). Always they were intended to
domestic objects, photographs, mementoes inculcate a sense of belonging, civic conscious-
and souvenirs, children’s toys, etc. Memory ness combined with the everyday familiarity of
37-Tilley-3290-Ch31.qxd 11/16/2005 5:54 PM Page 502

502 PRESENTATION AND POLITICS

moving and working in an urban environment. other cultural productions of collective memory.
The redesign of the Ringstrasse in Vienna By collective memory is meant the way in
(Schorske 1980) or Haussman’s rebuilding of which groups map their myths about them-
Paris (Edholm 1993) exemplify the monumen- selves and their worlds on to a specific time and
talizing of urban form in late nineteenth- place (Connerton 1989, and Chapter 20 in this
cèntury Europe and North America as the volume). Collective memory is not an accumu-
expression of triumphant middle-class values. lation of individual memories but includes all
Mosse’s study of the rise of German national- the activities that go into making a version of
ism from the Napoleonic Wars to the rise of the past resonate with group members. This
National Socialism shows how this ‘new poli- borrows from Halbwachs (1950) the notion that
tics’ drew people into a common sense of personal recall is localized in specific social and
belonging through their participation in spatial contexts and is reconstructed in the
national rites and festivals (Johnson 1995; Mosse social environments of the present. Hence col-
1975). These spaces of public display and ritual lective memories are always open to renegotia-
are civic compositions that aim to teach us tion and change. But as Till (1999), Sturken
about national heritage and our public respon- (1991) and others stress, ‘the cultural arena
sibilities and assume that the urban landscape rather than the academy is the domain of public
is the emblematic embodiment of power and memory‘ (Till 1999: 255). They contrast the pro-
memory (Boyer 1994: 321). Cultural practices duction of public memory through the media,
and rituals such as laying wreaths at national cultural landscapes, entertainment and public
memorials or festive parades that take place ceremonies and festivals with historical dis-
along a prescribed route serve still to ‘natural- courses relying on scholarly exegeses and formal
ize’ a collective identity as citizens enact what is university and other institutional networks. The
normal and appropriate for a group in a partic- struggle between social groups to gain cultural
ular setting (cf. Till 1999: 254). More often still, authority to selectively represent and narrate
the twentieth century became associated with their pasts includes the production of these
totalitarianism and the transfixing of fantasies means and therefore the right to engage in a cul-
of total and enduring power in highly person- tural politics and to participate in a democratiz-
alized monumental landscapes. Saddam ing process (cf. Hall 2000).
Hussein’s ‘victory arch’ in Baghdad, built to Since the 1980s this struggle has increas-
nearly twice the size of the Arc de Triomphe, ingly taken the form of ‘heritage’ to describe
was made from a cast of his forearms, showing the expanding range of commemoration in our
every bump and follicle (Makiya 2004). time (Bodnar 2000: 957). Lowenthal argues that
Dissident groups may not agree with these heritage is at present much less about ‘grand
rhetorics and may fight to take them over or to monuments, unique treasures and great heroes’
create alternatives that are territorially and and now ‘touts the typical and the vernacular’
socially distinct. In the nineteenth century, (Lowenthal 1995). Samuel concludes that ‘her-
there were many such disputes over the appro- itage’ has become a nomadic concept that is
priate nature of monumental urban landscapes, attached to almost anything, including land-
(e.g. Johnson 1995). But disputes over who has scapes, houses, family albums, souvenirs, street
the authority to create, define, interpret and signs and sport. The suspicion exists that an
represent collective pasts through the creation earlier nationalist link between public memory
of place also serves to reinforce the principle and official space is being drained of politics
that this is how identity should be framed and inequality. A commodified ‘heritage’ may
(cf. Kaplan 1994; Mitchell 1988). The formation instead promote a pseudo-democracy where
of nineteenth-century urban imperial landscapes people are free to pursue a myriad of personal-
was also inseparable from the building of colo- ized pasts and leisure-time fantasies and thus
nial urban landscapes. The building of Delhi by be diverted from reality (Bodnar 2000: 957).
Lutyens, for example, which grafted British By contrast, Philippe Aries’s description of
imperial ambitions on to earlier Mughal archi- the rise of commemorative monuments and
tectural styles created built forms that were practices in the nineteenth-century in Europe
imported back into metropolitan colonial archi- informs us that the passing of loved ones and
tecture in Britain and the construction of war their commemoration was related to a new per-
memorials after the First World War. sonal awareness of the fact that lived experience
Public memory can become even more of the past can never be directly recalled (Aries
‘entangled’ with the very objects of its negotia- 1974; Hutton 1993: 2). ‘Heritage’ is part of col-
tion, including historical narratives, oral histo- lective memory and inseparable from the rise of
ries, street landscapes, films, photographs and a modernist identity politics. It is a modern and
37-Tilley-3290-Ch31.qxd 11/16/2005 5:54 PM Page 503

MONUMENTS AND MEMORIALS 503

more conscious sense of past that promotes a but was only fully recognized and demanded
politics of belonging by embedding it in per- by the families of the dead as a consequence of
sonal narratives of loss, redemption and recon- First World War trauma (cf. Winter 1995). Aries
ciliation. Aries argued that such a need for recognized that commemorating the dead had
personal commemoration and longing for a become an increasing personal and family
past flowed over into various public acts of matter during the latter part of the nineteenth
monumentalizing heroic figures and events in century and that this had enervated a sense of
the nineteenth century as the personal was har- national belonging. (Aries 1974). It was also to
nessed to galvanize the public realm (Aries become the basis for the refusal by the living
1974). Tensions and conflicts existed in harness- survivors and families to accept lack of recog-
ing the forces of tradition to promote a national nition of the sacrifice of loved ones. Recovery
culture but it became increasingly difficult for from death and trauma is invariably associated
an alternative, more personal, desire for a future with the assertion of love and intimacy in the
to exist without them. This relates to Nora’s mourning process and twentieth-century mass
claim that the nineteenth century saw a transi- death projected this on to a landscape of mourn-
tion from ‘pre-modern environments of memory’ ing and suffering.
where the personal was embedded in a living In the aftermath of the First World War
memory to ‘sites of memory’ as places designed each combatant state attempted to inaugurate a
to perpetuate a consciously held sense of the landscape of national remembrance (Saunders
past (Nora 1989). 2004). In France, the state agreed, where possi-
Bodnar argues that whilst the monumentalis- ble, to pay for the return home of the bodies of
ing of the public realm in the nineteenth the dead and frequently their individual names
century was consistent with the rise of civic were inscribed on local memorials (Sherman
consciousness and tensions over the relation of 1994; Johnson 1995: 56). In Britain it was decided
democracy and tradition in France and America, (controversially) to bury the bodies of the dead
the twentieth century saw this uneasy relation- near the battlefields of the western front and
ship shattered by war. Violence and the demands resist any attempt to return them to their fami-
of the state for personal sacrifice on a huge lies. Instead enormous efforts were made to
scale undermined a nineteenth-century ‘natu- identify individuals, initially to be inscribed on
ralizing’ of personal commemoration and the monuments and subsequently on individual
public sphere and replaced it with grief and a headstones in cemeteries of standard dimen-
struggle to justify enormous loss through the sions and materials regardless of status or
iconography and presence of war memorials. rank. The recognition of individual dead con-
(Bodnar 1992, 2000; Sturken 1991). The rise of tinued after the Second World War where
‘heritage’ as nomadic and detached from any names were often added to First World War
particular sense of place or monument repre- memorials. The Vietnam war memorial in
sents therefore a distinct change in the nature of Washington extends the principle of equality
public memory. A late twentieth-century turn to the point of listing the dead chronologically
towards the personalization of local groups and by the day of the year of their death (Sturken
identities is inseparable from a growing recog- 1991; Rowlands 1998).
nition of cultural diversity, the objectification First World War sites were grouped to form
of cultural memory and increasingly a sense landscapes in which cemeteries, memorials, bat-
of crisis in claims to cultural authority (cf. tlefield sites and museums are ‘mapped’ to
Johnson 2004). facilitate the visitor’s experience of an event that
personally they can have little means of imagin-
ing at first hand. The principal site for war
remembrance in the United Kingdom is the
MOURNING AND WAR MEMORIALS cenotaph, an empty memorial designed by
Edwin Lutyens and placed in Whitehall. This
During the twentieth century, public memory was accompanied by the burial of the Unknown
became charged with the responsibility to Soldier in Westminster Abbey and both are
recognise the suffering caused by warfare. Prior linked with rites conducted at the same time
to this memorials and statues were built for war throughout the country at similar memorials in
heroes or for military triumphs but the majority towns and cities (Lacqueur 1994; Johnson 2004).
of those who died in war disappeared unrecog- What was considered to be an appropriate mon-
nized into unmarked graves. Individual recog- ument to the dead was already hotly disputed
nition of the dead from major conflicts begins immediately after the First World War (cf.
with the American Civil War and the Boer War Saunders 2004). The cenotaph was attacked as
37-Tilley-3290-Ch31.qxd 11/16/2005 5:54 PM Page 504

504 PRESENTATION AND POLITICS

‘nothing more or less than a pagan memorial’ and hostility. If an imperial project could be
(cited in Johnson 2004: 324) whilst a memorial pursued through developing an appropriate
to the Anzacs in Sydney was finally never memory space where only the ‘thinkable’ would
accepted because of the public outcry over its be allowed, equally the opposite can occur. In
lack of respect for the dead (Rowlands 1998). part this may be as much a question of neglect,
Controversy over the Vietnam war memorial since monuments, as supposedly permanent
also centred on what was considered to be (lack markers of memory and history, require both
of) proper respect (Sturken 1991). Werbner physical and symbolic maintenance. There is
describes the monument built outside Harare no reason to assume therefore that nineteenth-
in honour of the dead who fought against white century national and imperial projects were
supremacy in Zimbabwe as a form of anti- always successful in achieving their purpose
memory, given its precise objective to ‘forget’ (Johnson 1995). In Dublin, for instance, statues
the mass slaughter of the Ndebele that also celebrating overtly nationalist leaders like
formed the basis of the creation of the O’Connell and Parnell were erected side by side
state (Werbner 1998). The Peace Museum in with existing statues to George II or Queen
Hiroshima is equally an attempt to break with Victoria. As the latter were either destroyed or
a memorializing tradition that promotes accep- removed, Irish nationalism asserted itself
tance of mass sacrifice and promotes instead through a lengthy process of transforming the
a wish never to forget and recognition of the urban memory space of Dublin (Johnson 1995).
consequences of mass death. Disturbance and Widespread destruction of a previously
shock can be seen as the aims of the counter- unwanted past is particularly a feature of post-
monuments described by Young (1993) and socialist states in Eastern Europe and Russia. In
more broadly those representations of mass Budapest the city council removed over twenty
trauma that lead inevitably for many to ask monuments erected in the previous communist
why so many had to suffer and die. era. Statues in Moscow, St Petersburg and else-
Of these, the Holocaust has undoubtedly been where in Russia have been removed and taken
the focus both of an effective means to silence to special parks or a heritage space where those
the past and to come to terms with it. The US who want to can come and see them. Forest and
Holocaust Memorial Museum, for example, has Johnson (2002) explore the formation of a post-
been criticized for the way in which the memo- Soviet national identity through a study of the
ries of survivors are appropriated for the display political struggles over key Soviet era monu-
of an idealized and liberal American identity, for ments and memorials in Moscow. They show
the way that Jews are exhibited only in death or how the new elites used the decision to pre-
as a people and culture that exist only as having serve or remove these sites to define their own
a past (Crysler and Kusno 1997). Young also positions within the new political hierarchy
points out that, whilst America puts so much of and with the public in order to gain prestige,
its resources into a Jewish Holocaust Museum, it legitimacy and influence (Forest and Johnson
refuses a similar commitment to a museum of 2002). By erecting memorials in a public space,
slavery or the genocide committed against attempts are made to define the historical
Native Americans. Via the Holocaust America figures and events that become the formative
can remember its tolerance and liberalism and events of a national identity. Disgracing exist-
forget its own past (Young 1993). Post-Nine- ing monuments is a process of redefining this
eleven and the debate over the memorializing of agenda and replacing them with new narra-
the ground zero site has effectively transformed tives. For example, Till has described the con-
the issue of remembering into a more charged flicts between different groups that negotiated
issue of what should never be forgotten regard- the redesign of the Neue Wache memorial in
less of any crimes or intolerances endured along Berlin (Till 1999). The destruction of the Berlin
the way. The state and its citizens are now united Wall was a more overt expression of the public
in the assertion of a single identity the future of ‘speaking back’ to the state whilst the history of
which is seen to be in peril and in their intoler- Tianeman Square and the events of 1989 show
ance of critique (cf. Kapferer 2002: 149). an alternative sequence when the state ‘strikes
back’ (Wu Hung 1991). What they share is the
power to transcend time, to bring historical
events back into the present and make bodies,
DISGRACED MONUMENTS objects and monuments effective again in
mobilizing social movements. Verderey, in the
Since the nineteenth century and earlier, mon- context of Romania, describes how the wielding
uments and statues have attracted controversy of ‘symbolic capital’ by political elites is essential
37-Tilley-3290-Ch31.qxd 11/16/2005 5:54 PM Page 505

MONUMENTS AND MEMORIALS 505

to political transformation. (Verderey 1999) relation to the past and with the world (Klein
and Coombes’s discussion of the fate of the 2000: 145).
Vortrekker monument outside Johannesburg Monuments and memorials, however, share
illustrates how even ‘disgrace’ may be an some of the oppressive influence of historical
ambivalent notion when the monument is discourse, shaping our sense of the past in defi-
retained in a ‘state of disgrace’ to remind future nite and figurative ways. By contrast, much of
generations (Coombes 2003). The aim is not the writing on memory evokes a tendency to
to challenge the need for national identity nor employ it as a mode of discourse natural to
the desire to create a sense of sacred identity people without history. The reification of sub-
through the manipulation of the past but to jectivity and the revival of a primordialism of
reassert that after a short period of struggle, origins is a view of authentic memory that
identities crystallize again and become once resolves that it should no longer be consigned to
more difficult to challenge. a pre-modern world destroyed by history but
Finally the destruction of monuments shades recognized as still with us and capable of taking
into descriptions of iconoclastic destruction of the place of the latter. The tension between
emotionally charged sites and objects. Barry history and memory is therefore being reborn
Flood’s description (Flood 2002) of the destruc- as one between discourse and feeling, between
tion of the Bamiyan Buddhas by the Taliban in secular critical practice and therapeutic practice
Afghanistan specifically warns against some (cf. Klein 2000). But it need not be so and we
attributioin of atavistic fury to the destruction seem to be moving towards some kind of recon-
of images in Islam but rather their destruction ciliation. Memory has now subsumed what
as a consequence of a calculated act by Mullah used to be called oral history or popular history
Omar to make the point that the West was more into a single field, described as the leading term
concerned with the loss of a heritage site than in the new cultural history (Megill 1998). It is
the consequences of economic sanctions on the not surprising that material culture has played a
lives of Afghans. The destruction of the mosque significant role in this reconciliation between
at Ayodhya is an even more telling description history and memory. Objects provide more than
of how the emotional attachment to objects and a mnemonic device for memory to be attached
monuments can be manipulated for political but also the means to privatize and secularize
nationalist purposes (cf. Layton et al. 2001). memorial practice. The idea of building per-
sonal archives through photographs, memen-
toes and other mnemonic traces implies that
COUNTER-MONUMENTS AND this new ‘historical consciousness’ married
history and memory in new personal and mate-
NON-MONUMENTS rial terms. It links monuments, memorials and
museums with a much more diverse range of
The association of public memory with monu- non-monumental sites, including intangible
ments and memorials is biased towards a forms of song, music, design, dance and cul-
particular historical experience. Although tural performance. The danger here perhaps is
monuments are powerful because they appear to reiterate an earlier dichotomy espoused by
to be permanent markers of history and Nora, that memory in opposition to history
memory, they can weigh heavily on the capacity and consciousness belongs specifically to the
to change and to allow alternative renditions of peoples of Africa, the Americas and the Pacific
the past. We should not be surprised therefore as pre-modern sensibility. But a more careful
to detect strong evidence that we are moving strategy can pursue the useful insights drawn
perhaps towards the end of monumentalizing on the relationship between memory and mate-
the past. Young suggests that counter-monu- rial culture to suggest that a continuity of forms
ments in Germany are more subversive than exist, which subverts the dichotomies of both
providing alternative modes of representing pre-modern/modern and memory/historical
historical events and personalities. Counter- consciousness.
monuments serve more radically to destabilize
the basic premise that the past is stable and
enduring (Young 1993). Klein summarizes THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF
some of the evidence suggesting that we suffer
from a ‘surfeit of memory’ and a politics of vic- MONUMENTS
timization at present. Memory and identity are
typically yoked together in postmodernist dis- Given the enormous number and variety
course to replace history and to re-enchant our of monuments worldwide any attempt to
37-Tilley-3290-Ch31.qxd 11/16/2005 5:54 PM Page 506

506 PRESENTATION AND POLITICS

summarize the archaeological literature on graves in Brittany and local land forms (Scarre
monument building is impossible. Instead we 2000). He also notes the liminal sea edge loca-
review some innovative archaeological inter- tions of tombs and a preference for a marine
pretative approaches to Neolithic and Bronze backdrop in the lineal arrangements of cairns,
Age monuments in Britain and north-west and links this with the transformative power of
Europe. Even just within this literature there is the land/sea boundary (Scarre 2002a). Bradley
now an extraordinarily rich and varied discus- (2000) and Tilley and Bennett (Tilley et al. 2000;
sion about different aspects of monument con- Tilley and Bennett 2001) have discussed rela-
struction and use with regard to earlier Neolithic tionships between granite rock outcrops and
long mounds and megaliths, cursus monuments chambered tombs in south-west England and
(long linear monuments defined by parallel whether the latter resembled the former or the
banks and ditches), causewayed (circular inter- former provided direct inspiration for the con-
rupted ditched) enclosures, later Neolithic struction of the latter and the manner in which
henge monuments (circular enclosures with an later prehistoric populations may not have
external bank and internal ditch broken by one found it easy to distinguish between natural
or a number of entrances), Bronze Age stone features such as tors, or rock outcrops, and
circles, barrows and cairns. We consider five ruined monuments (see also Bender et al. 2005).
interlinked areas of inquiry: studies of monu- The orientations and locations of the mounds
ments and landscapes, the architectural forms of of Neolithic long barrows and long cairns and
monuments, monuments in relation to cosmolo- the passages and chambers of megaliths and
gies, mortuary practices, time and memory. Bronze Age cairns have been studied in relation
to such topographic features as prominent hills,
rock outcrops and ridges, hill spurs and valley
systems (Tilley 1994, 1996b; Cummings 2002)
MONUMENTS AND LANDSCAPES and their relationship to topographic features of
the coastline, waterfalls and river systems inves-
There have been a number of recent archaeolog- tigated (Bradley 1998; Fowler and Cummings
ical studies which have suggested a mimetic 2003; Fraser 1998; Scarre 2002a; Tilley 1999;
relationship between monuments and land- Tilley and Bennett 2001). The locations and sig-
scapes, with the monument being a microcosm nificance of other types of Neolithic and Bronze
of the surrounding world. Tilley has argued that Age monuments such as temples, henges and
the megalithic tombs in Västergötland, central stone circles have also been studied in relation
southern Sweden, reflect the landscape in which to their landscape settings (Bender et al. 2005;
they are found in terms of the use of building Berg 2002; Bradley 1998; 2002; Cooney 2000;
materials and chamber and passage orientation. Edmonds 1999; Edmonds and Seabourne 2002;
The megalithic tombs here rest on a flat plain Richards 1996; Tilley 1995, 2004a) and standing
composed of sedimentary rocks. Blocks of these stones or menhirs (Calado 2002; Tilley 2004a).
materials were used for the orthostats of the These studies have all suggested that in various
tomb passages and chambers. The plain is ways the significance of the monuments and the
broken up dramatically by steep-sided and flat- activities that took place in and around them
topped hills of igneous rocks. These were pref- was dialectically related to their landscape set-
erentially used for the roofing stones. Thus the tings: the land itself, its forms and features, gave
choice of building materials duplicates the power and significance to the monument and
high/low contrast between the sedimentary vice versa.
rocks and the igneous hills towards which one The materiality of the monuments themselves
faces entering the tomb. The tombs frequently has been a significant point of departure for
occur in staggered north-south rows and their their study: the shapes, textures, colours, the
chambers are orientated north-south. This also hardness or softness and roughness or smooth-
duplicates a north-south axis of the landscape ness of the stones and other materials used to
as defined by the orientation of the igneous hills construct them (Jones and MacGregor 2002;
and valley edges. The passages are low and ori- Cummings 2002; Tilley 2004a). Cummings has
entated west-east, the chambers high. On enter- shown how different parts of monuments were
ing the tombs a person metaphorically makes built of rough or smooth stones and argues that
his or her way towards the mountain, crawling this relates metaphorically to the general role of
down the low passage but being able to stand such monuments in transforming human expe-
up in the chamber (Tilley 1996a: 208ff). rience as one moves in and out of and around
Scarre has noted similarities in shape and them. Tilley has contrasted the visual appear-
profile between the mounds of some passage ance and the feel of stone monuments as part
37-Tilley-3290-Ch31.qxd 11/16/2005 5:54 PM Page 507

MONUMENTS AND MEMORIALS 507

of their phenomenological experience. For quartz from the Wicklow mountains at least
example, some Breton menhirs appear visually 40 km to the south and granite and siltstones
to be smooth yet feel incredibly rough and from the Carlingford mountains about the
coarse. Others look rough, gnarled and cracked same distance to the north, together with a vari-
yet feel smooth and silky. He has related this to ety of more local stones: greywacke, limestones
the changing forms of the stones, the manner in and sandstones (Mitchell 1992; Cooney 2000:
which they can look dramatically different 136). Similarly numerous types of stones were
when approached from different directions. used to construct Swedish passage graves
White quartz, a substance that has very special (Tilley 1996a: 127). This bringing together of
properties (it glows when pieces are rubbed raw materials from different local and more
together, creates sparks, gives off an acrid smell, distant sources suggests that these monuments
gleams and shines in the sun and artificial light) had an integrative role, linking human experi-
and is frequently found on mountain tops, was ence of different local and distant landscapes in
not only deposited in megalithic monuments the form of the monument itself through the
but was frequently used to embellish their exter- transported raw materials used to construct it.
nal appearance, the most famous example being
Newgrange in Ireland (O’Kelly 1982; see discus-
sion in Fowler and Cummings 2003). MONUMENTAL ARCHITECTURE
Parker-Pearson and Ramilisonina (1998)
have argued, on the basis of analogies with AND ITS EXPERIENCE
monument construction in Madagascar (see
Bloch 1971; Feeley-Harnik 1991) that the hard- The recent use of a phenomenological perspec-
ness and durability of stone was symbolic of tive has stressed the sensuous dimensions of the
the fixed nature of ancestors and ancestral human experience of monuments and its rela-
powers and in opposition to wood, associated tionship to the manipulation of architectural
with the living. They contrast the nearby henge space. Prior to this these monuments tended to
monument of Durrington Walls with its inter- be both archaeologically represented and inter-
nal wooden circles surrounded by earthen preted as plans, providing an entirely abstract
banks and ditches and the construction of the and somewhat surreal two-dimensional view of
stone circle of Stonehenge, suggesting that them in which the only questions that tended to
the former was associated with feasting and be asked were of a typological or classificatory
the world of the living and the latter with the nature (Richards 1993: 147). The majority of pas-
ancestral dead. They argue that a processional sage tombs, such as Maes Howe on Orkney,
route led between the two, at first following have spacious chambers which contrast with
the course of the river Avon, and then marked low, narrow passages to move along which one
by the earthen banks and ditches of the monu- must stoop, or crawl. This physically restricts
ment known as the Avenue that runs from the movement into and out of the tomb and empha-
river up to Stonehenge. The study of monu- sizes the liminal character of the passage linking
ments in relation to paths of movement through the outside world of the living with the world of
the landscape has formed a major focus of the ancestral dead buired in the chamber. Loud
research (see, e.g., Barclay and Harding 1999; noise is dampened in the chamber but projected
Barrett 1994; Bradley 1998, 2000, 2002; out down the passage to the outside like a
Exon et al. 2000; Edmonds 1999; Tilley 1994, megaphone. Such sound effects have been stud-
1995, 1999). ied in detail (Watson and Keating 1999).
For the construction of some monuments the Visibility and degrees of illumination by the sun
materials came from some considerable dis- at different times of the year have been shown
tance away, the most famous example being the to be crucial to the interpretation of the spaces
bluestones at Stonehenge, transported from the (Bradley 1989b), as has passage orientation and
Prescelli mountains of south Wales (see discus- mound orientation (see e.g. Burl 1987; Ruggles
sions in Cunliffe and Renfrew 1997). Part of 1997) and the direction in which the passage
their significance was not only that they were of entrance faces (Tilley 1994). The passage entrance
an exotic non-local material but also where they to Maes Howe in Orkney faces north-east,
came from, their place of origin and its charac- allowing the rays of the setting sun to shine
teristics, their paths of movement, and the down it and into the chamber on the midwinter
myths and stories associated with them. The solstice. A special roof box constructed above
sources for lithic materials used for construct- the passage entrance at New Grange in Ireland
ing megalithic monuments in the Boyne valley, allows the sun’s rays to enter the chamber on
Ireland, were many and numerous, including the midwinter sunrise (O’Kelly 1982). Passages
37-Tilley-3290-Ch31.qxd 11/16/2005 5:54 PM Page 508

508 PRESENTATION AND POLITICS

of other tombs are often aligned with relation to might specifically mean. The power of certain
the equinoxes. individuals may have only been manifested in
Such experiences of light and darkness, relation to particular types of monument in par-
sound, and warmth and coldness, dampness ticular places (Thomas 1996). Many were the
and dryness, have been linked by some to medium for different and competing discourses
trance experiences and altered states of con- and interpretations (Bender 1998; Brück 2001;
sciousness, and the geometric art found in some Edmonds 1999). Bender (1998) stresses the way
tombs has been interpreted as entoptic images in which Stonehenge has been during the past
(Bradley 1989a; Dronfield 1995). The more gen- few hundred years a place radically open to dif-
eral point is that the architecture of monuments ferent kinds of interpretation in relation to dif-
acts on people. It structures where and how ferent interests of individuals and groups: ‘a
they can move, bodily posture, and so on, and multitude of voices and landscapes through
thus may be a fundamental element structuring time, mobilising different histories, differentially
the interpretation and understanding of these empowered, fragmented, but explicable within
places. This embodied perspective on monu- the historical particularity of British social and
ments has been linked by a number of authors economic relations’ (1998: 131). In her account the
to the ideological legitimation of power, the ‘contested’ nature of the Stonehenge landscape
masking of social inequalities and the reproduc- is much more evident and nuanced in the pre-
tion of dominant discourses. sent than in the past. Perhaps this is just simply
The idea that monumental architecture a reflection of the far greater evidence available
was often periodically remodelled in relation to for interpretation today (we can see the people
the production of a new social order has been and hear the cacophony of contemporary dis-
widely discussed (Barrett 1994: 24; Bradley courses), or alternatively, it might suggest a fun-
1998: Chapter 6; Thomas 1991: 43, 1996: 170 ff.). damental difference between the ordering of
Tilley (1996a) has used an emulation model of social life and the relation of the individual to
social competition to explain the changes in society in the past contrasting with the present.
architectural form of megalithic monuments Edmonds stresses the multiple possibilities
from long dolmens to round dolmens to pas- for interpreting the evidence from monuments
sage graves in southern Scandinavia in an such as the Etton causewayed enclosure:
attempt to account for (1) the close spatial
groupings of these different tombs in some There are bundles of cattle bone placed in ditches
areas and (2) their great differences in size and while still fresh. Some may have still held flesh
morphology. He argues that initially different when buried. Fragments of people were often
groups competed in terms of building longer treated in a similar manner, but there were also
and longer dolmen mounds with more and human bones that were overlooked. Scattered
more chambers. This is subverted by one group unnoticed from one part of the enclosure to
building a new type of tomb, the round dolmen another, these were weathered and gnawed at by
with a chamber in a round mound. A final dogs. It is difficult to make sense of the material.
phase in this model attempts to account for the The residues of formal moments lie cheek by jowl
fact that some large monuments have compar- with traces of domestic activity, an amalgam of rit-
atively few artefacts deposited in and around ual and routine. There is an entanglement of roles
them while much smaller ones may have many. and values, as if different qualities of the monu-
He argues that social competition for prestige ment were pulled in and out of focus over time.
and power switches from monument building (Edmonds 1999: 111)
to ceremonies involving the deposition and
ritual sacrifice of wealth in the form of artefacts. In relation to the Mount Pleasant henge monu-
In general the architecture of Neolithic funer- ment Brück (2001) similarly argues that its
ary and ceremonial monuments divides up and meaning and social relevance would very
creates segmented spaces with varying degrees much have depended on who visited and how
of accessibility knowledge of which, deemed and when, on their social role and status, and
essential for the well-being of the social group, this might account for the ‘messy’ and often
may have been socially restricted in relation to contradictory sets of artefacts and their associa-
age and/or gender (e.g. Barrett 1994; Richards tions: ‘people would have experienced several
1993; Shanks and Tilley 1982; Thomas 1991: 51, parallel versions of social reality constructed
1993; Tilley 1984). The basic argument is that through different kinds of knowledge and
human subjects were formed through their informed by different concerns and interests’
differential engagement with, and knowledge (2001: 663). It seems quite clear that certain
of, the material forms of these monuments, types of monument such as causewayed enclo-
what the architecture does, rather than what it sures and henges had multiple meanings and
37-Tilley-3290-Ch31.qxd 11/16/2005 5:54 PM Page 509

MONUMENTS AND MEMORIALS 509

identities, perhaps precisely because they had a rocky outcrops, or tors (Tilley 1995, 1996;
wide variety of different uses criss-crossing any Bender et al. 1997, 2005). The houses on settle-
division between the ‘domestic’ and the ‘ritual’. ment sites have entrances that are oriented so
Other types of monuments such as long barrows as to look out towards distant cairns and tors.
or dolmens may have had a far more restricted Huge boulder spreads below the main rock
range of meaning and greater formality and outcrops, known locally as clitter, may have
control in their use. been deliberately manipulated so as to create
different visual and experiential effects and
‘monuments’ that ambiguously transcend a
COSMOLOGIES nature/culture distinction (Tilley et al. 2000;
Bender et al. 2005). Unaltered stones were just
as significant and meaningful as culturally
The cosmological significance of monuments erected stones such as the stone circles and
has been widely discussed, their link with the houses. The houses themselves incorporated
seasons of the year, the passage of day and large ‘natural’ stones, or grounders, in their
night, the rising and setting of the sun, and the perimeters at particular cardinal points or as
movements of the moon, their relationship to back stones opposite the house entrances.
land forms, etc., as mentioned above. Bradley Some abandoned houses were turned into
has argued that the circular form of monu- cairns, or houses for the dead, and were modi-
ments in the British (Bradley 1998: Chapters fied by having their interiors and entrances
8–10) Neolithic and Bronze Age suggests that altered or blocked (Bender et al. 2005).
the circle was a basic template for understand- The origins of European megalithic monu-
ing the world. The burial mounds and cairns ments and long mounds have created endless
are circular, surrounded by circular kerbs of controversy and discussion. They have been
stones or ditches, the ceremonial monuments: variously argued to be objectifications of
henges and stone circles are circular and may movements of people or religious ideas (e.g.
contain circular structures within their interiors, Childe 1957), territorial markers erected along
and so are domestic dwellings. The whole the Atlantic seaboard of Europe as a result of
world was, in effect, circles within circles, and in population pressure (Renfrew 1973a, 1976), or
some cases the internal organization of domes- a new set of ideas involving house symbol-
tic houses and burials is very similar in terms of ism (Hodder 1984, 1990; Bradley 1998) and
the locations of pits, entrances, burials, metal the manipulation of the body and the dead
deposits, etc. The houses of the living and those (Thomas 1991, 1999a; Tilley 1996a) in various
of the dead appear to be a structural transfor- ways. Despite huge variety in the forms of these
mation of the other. monuments at a European or even at a local scale
Bradley draws an interesting distinction of analysis it is always assumed that something
between ‘permeable’ monuments such as stone broader links them together (for a discourse
circles where one can look out beyond and have analysis see Tilley 1999: Chapter 3). The most
a view of the world and the enclosed interior significant general points about these monu-
spaces of henges where the world is blocked ments are (1) their durability and the manner in
out. Henges are generally located in lowland which they mark the landscape and relate to it;
landscapes, stone circles in much more dra- (2) the variability in their architectural forms;
matic rocky and rugged highland landscapes. (3) the burials and artefact deposits found in and
Stone circles, he argues, often acted as around them. The first two points have been dis-
metaphors for the surrounding landscape (see cussed above and we will now consider the third.
also Richards 1996):
the building of such permeable enclosures in such a
varied topography made it possible for the features MONUMENTALITY AND DEATH
of these monuments to refer directly to the world
around them. This is what seems to have happened
through the astronomical alignments in the plan- A close connection has been suggested between
ning of some of these sites. They located the newly different ways of treating the dead and the archi-
built monuments within a wider sacred geography. tectural forms of Neolithic megalithic monu-
ments. Often the dead were buried in sealed
(Bradley 1998: 145)
chambers in the earlier monuments. Many of
Fieldwork on the Bronze Age of Bodmin Moor these were single burials of intact bodies. Later
has again emphasized the importance of a monuments were constructed so as to permit
circular template for making sense of the access to the burial chamber via a shorter or
world. Ring cairns enclose not only burials but longer passage. In these monuments collective
37-Tilley-3290-Ch31.qxd 11/16/2005 5:54 PM Page 510

510 PRESENTATION AND POLITICS

burial was practised of unfleshed bones. This purposes. The former bring the living into the
involved the selection, disarticulation, arrange- presence of the ancestral dead located in special
ment and rearrangement of bones in various places – megalithic monuments. These rites
ways (see e.g. Edmonds 1999; Jones 1998; need not necessarily involve fresh interments
Fowler 2001; Richards 1988; Shanks and Tilley but presence ancestral remains in relation to the
1982; Thomas 2000) Some of the ‘absent’ or social strategies of the living. The architecture
‘missing’ bones were taken out of these monu- of these monuments including forecourts and
ments to circulate as relics among the living or accessible chambers containing ancestral bones,
deposited in other monuments in a variety of provided spaces for the congregation of the
ancestor rites (see e.g. Barrett 1988; Bradley living and places for the deposition of offerings.
1998; Thomas 1991, 1999a; Tilley 1996a). The It was during the Bronze Age that the land-
practice of collective burial has been variously scape became filled up with thousands of
interpreted – as a sign of an egalitarian society round barrows and cairns many of which cov-
in which the individual on death becomes ered a single primary act of body interment.
dissolved into the social body, as an ideological The funerary rituals associated with these
representation masking social inequalities in life places were explicitly concerned with the burial
(Shanks and Tilley 1982), or as citations of dif- of the deceased and the realignment of social
ferent types of personal relations in life, indicat- relations among the living. These graves repre-
ing agency as ‘partible’ or ‘fractual’ in which sent the concluding moment in a complex series
personal identity is in a continuous process of of funerary rituals and symbolically sever the
contextualization, as argued by Strathern (1988) ties between the living and the dead. Burial was
in relation to Melanesia (Fowler 2001). thus a means of forgetting. Subsequently fresh
Homologies have been argued to exist burials, often cremations, might be inserted in
between the treatment and circulation of the mound or cairn or others built in its vicinity
human bones and the deposition of artefacts. leading to the development of a barrow ceme-
Tilley notes that elaborately decorated pottery tery. In each case these subsequent events
and stone axes were smashed up and sacrificed related back to the first burial so that genealog-
outside the entrances to Scandinavian passage ical lines of descent could be traced in, for
graves, being disarticulated and rearranged in example, the spatial distribution of barrow
a comparable manner to the skeletal remains lines or clusters. Barrett links these changes in
inside the tombs. These artefacts were ‘persons’ burial practice to different ways of inhabiting
that were destroyed and turned into ‘corpses’ the landscape, much more mobile and fleeting
of their original forms (Tilley 1996a: 315 ff.). during the Neolithic, much more fixed and
Edmonds has made similar arguments in rela- tenurial during the Bronze Age. In the Neolithic
tion to the deposition of artefacts in earlier the ancestral dead were co-present with the
British Neolithic monuments (Edmonds 1999: living, during the Bronze Age they became part
124 ff.) while Thomas has argued that the circu- of the past, placing them in a genealogical rela-
lation of people between places and monuments tionship to the living. While this interpreta-
and the circulation of bones and artefacts were tion remains excellent as a general model it
homologous in a variety of ways. For example, necessarily ignores and cannot cope with the
the ‘quarrying and depositing of artefacts, enormous variability in the Neolithic and
extraction and backfilling of monumental build- Bronze Age mortuary practices being discussed
ing materials … amounts to a set of relations of (Thomas 2000: 658 ff.) nor the distinctive
reciprocity with the earth itself in which extrac- regional relationships of the barrows and cairns
tive labour and acts of deposition brought mean- to the landscape. (For recent work see Tilley
ing to place’ (Thomas 1999b: 76). He contrasts 1996a, 1999: Chapter 6; Tilley 2004a,b; Woodward
the earlier Neolithic pattern with that in the later 2000; Exon et al. 2000.)
Neolithic, where contexts for social action multi-
plied and became mutually exclusive, objectified
in a very different ‘economy of substances and MONUMENTALITY, TIME AND
depositions’ (Thomas 1996: Chapter 6).
A shift from Neolithic collective burials to MEMORY
individual burials under barrows and cairns in
the early Bronze Age of Britain has been ele- Earlier ‘processual’ functionalist models of
gantly interpreted by Barrett as a movement monument types attempted to slot and iden-
from ancestor rituals to funerary rites (Barrett tify them in relation to an evolution of social
1988, 1991, 1994). The two, he argues, are quite types. So while long barrows and megalithic
distinct in terms of their organization and monuments and causewayed enclosures might
37-Tilley-3290-Ch31.qxd 11/16/2005 5:54 PM Page 511

MONUMENTS AND MEMORIALS 511

represent small-scale segmentary ‘lineage’ type particular. Bradley (2002) has written an
societies, henges were linked with the evolu- intriguing study of how past monuments might
tion of hierarchy and ranking in the form of have been understood in the past. Ancient mon-
chiefdoms (Renfrew 1973). For Barrett (1994) uments would, of course, have been visible in
and others (e.g. Edmonds 1999; Thomas 1996) the past, as they are today. How might people in
by contrast, monuments do not passively reflect the past have experienced and understood their
changing social relations, they actively serve to past and how might they have used it as a
produce those relations or bring them into resource to construct their future? They could
being. Barrett succinctly puts it this way: be ignored, destroyed, reworked, renewed or
reinterpreted in various ways, for example the
architecture structures the possible dispositions ruins of earlier structures could be used in cre-
employed between those who inhabit its spaces. It ating later ones or earlier structures incorpo-
creates the physical conditions of a locale which are rated in new monuments in new ways to create
drawn upon by practices which, in turn, sustain new structures of experience, as can be seen, for
their meanings by reference to the conditions which example in the relationship between Bronze
they occupy. Architecture is a material technology Age stone rows and reaves (linear boundary
enabling the regionalization of a place to emerge systems), cairns and houses on Dartmoor
through practice, creating different categories and (Bradley 2002: Chapter 3).
moments of being.
(Barrett 1994: 18)

Monument construction may have had CONCLUSION


intended consequences in terms of the effects it
had on people. It also almost certainly had unin-
From the Neolithic onwards monuments and
tended effects on social practices. Interpretations
memorials have littered the landscapes of the
of the structural sequences of monuments such
past, and the present. Their material endurance
as Stonehenge and Avebury (e.g. Cleal et al.
is clearly fundamental to their power and sig-
1995; Bender 1998; Bradley 1998; Pollard and
nificance. There are two major aspects to this:
Reynolds 2002; Whittle 1997) or Maltese tem-
that which they signify, or can be interpreted
ples (Tilley 2004a) have shown they were con-
to signify, and the effects their very material
stantly being modified and altered and were
presence has in relation to persons, groups,
often left unfinished. They were not realized
nation states, etc. A key concept is memory,
and planned in the mind first and then con-
although mediated by current debates on its
structed on the ground. Their architecture pro-
alienated associations with modernity. There
vided both ‘affordances’ and constraints which
are, of course, many cultures in the past and the
were modified through time in a continual
present which have no need to publicly objec-
dialectic between persons, practices and mater-
tify their identities in this manner. These are
ial structures.
exclusively cultures without history in the
Monuments are often fundamental to the
modernist sense and documented archaeologi-
persistence and direction of social memory,
cally and ethnographically. To characterize
frames for the inscription and reproduction of
such cultures as somehow possessing authentic
social values. They can also be means of forget-
and non-alienated memory, and thus having no
ting and reworking social relations. Edmonds
need for monuments, is clearly inadequate. To
puts it this way:
further complicate matters, cultures ‘without
recruited by the living, they can change in form history’ also erect and use monuments. We still
and significance. They can bolster ideas or posi- have a poor comparative understanding of
tions far removed from those which held sway at why it becomes necessary to erect monuments
their first construction. They can even become a in different social and historical circumstances.
focus for competing visions of the order of things. To simply link their construction to crises of
At the same time, they retain a sense of the time- legitimation, whatever form these might take,
less and eternal. The assertion of new values often is an all too easy generalization. Perhaps part of
goes hand in hand with the evocation of continu- the problem may arise from our own rather
ity, of an unbroken line between present and past. restricted cultural definition of what monu-
(Edmonds 1999: 134)
ments are. Landscapes, or humanly unaltered
features of those landscapes, such as significant
His book is an outstanding exploration of these hills, large trees, deep valleys, etc., might them-
ideas in relation to the earlier British Neolithic selves be considered to be monuments: so why
monuments and causewayed enclosures in ‘improve’, alter or, quite literally, build on them?
37-Tilley-3290-Ch31.qxd 11/16/2005 5:54 PM Page 512

512 PRESENTATION AND POLITICS

A mimetic relationship between artefact and Barrett, J. (1988) ‘The living, the dead and the ances-
landscape may be part of the answer here in tors: Neolithic and early Bronze Age mortuary prac-
some circumstances: one draws attention to that tices’, in J. Barrett and I. Kinnes (eds), The
which is already there and emphasizes it. Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age:
Alternatively monuments may be significant by Recent Trends. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology
drawing attention towards themselves and and Prehistory, University of Sheffield.
away from the landscapes of which they are a Barrett, J. (1991) ‘Toward an archaeology of ritual’, in
part. They may thus gather together or differen- P. Garwood, D. Jennings, R. Skeates and J. Thoms
tiate place. They may also punctuate time by a (eds), Sacred and Profane. Oxford: Oxford Committee
stress on events, and the event of their own con- for Archaeology.
struction, or alternatively suggest the endless, Barrett, J. (1994) Fragments from Antiquity. Oxford:
the repetitive and the cyclical. The ways in Blackwell.
which pyramids, classical temple architecture Bender, B. (1998) Stonehenge: Making Space, Oxford:
and other monumental forms continue to be Berg.
reused as either replication or pastiche suggests Bender, B., Hamilton, S. and Tilley, C. (1997)
a potency for decontextualized forms regardless ‘Leskernick: stone worlds; alternative narratives;
of apparent meaning. Thinking about these rela- nested landscapes’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric
tionships and how they relate to the individual- Society, 63: 147–78.
ity (or otherwise) of the material form of Bender, B., Hamilton, S. and Tilley, C. (2005) Stone
monuments and memorials ought to be a sig- Worlds: Narrative and Reflexive Approaches to Landscape
nificant direction for research. Archaeology. London: UCL Press.
Another problem area, comparatively little Berg, S. (2002) ‘Knocknarea, the ultimate monument:
considered, concerns the relationship between megaliths and mountains in Neolithic Cúil Irra,
public and official discourses and the private north-west Ireland’, in C. Scarre (ed.), Monuments
and the personal. How do the former mediate and Landscape in Atlantic Europe. London:
the latter and vice versa? and how does the tan- Routledge.
gible heritage of monuments and memorials Berman, M. (1982) All that is Solid Melts into Air.
and performances using them intersect with the New York: Simon and Schuster.
‘intangible’ heritage of dance, and song, cloth- Bloch, M. (1971) Placing the Dead. London: Seminar
ing, body decoration, etc.? For example, exactly Press.
what are the social, moral and political implica- Bodnar, J. (1992) Re-making America: Public Memory,
tions of UNESCO designating certain monu- Commemoration and Patriotism in 20th Century.
ments and places as world heritage sites today Princeton: Princeton University Press.
and then discovering, in retrospect, that many Bodnar, J. (2000) Pierre Nora national memory and
nations or cultures apparently have none? democracy: a review’, Journal of American History,
The entanglement of monuments and memo- December: 951–63.
rials with shifting social identities is no more Boyer, M.C. (1994) The City of Collective Memory.
obvious than in post-socialist societies and the Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
postcolonial world with various attempts to Boym, S. (2001) The Future of Nostalgia. New York:
incorporate, appropriate, destroy or simply Basic Books.
abandon and neglect the monuments of the past. Bradley, R. (1989a) ‘Deaths and entrances: a concep-
We need further comparative ethnographic tual analysis of megalithic art’, Current Anthropo-
study of what happens, and how, in these very logy, 30: 68–75.
different contexts. To what extent does these Bradley, R. (1989b) ‘Darkness and light in the design
very different histories relate to similar or differ- of megalithic tombs’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology,
ent relationships to different types of monuments 8: 251–9.
from the past today: graveyards, buildings, Bradley, R. (1991) Bradley, R. (1998) The Significance of
public sculptures, parks and gardens? Monuments. London: Routledge.
Bradley, R. (2000) An Archaeology of Natural Places.
London: Routledge.
Bradley, R. (2002) The Past in Prehistoric Societies.
REFERENCE London: Routledge.
Brück, J. (2001) ‘Monuments, power and personhood
Aries, P. (1974) Western Attitudes towards Death. in the British Neolithic’, Journal of the Royal Anthro-
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. pological Institute, 7 (4): 649–68.
Barclay, A. and Harding, J., eds (1999) Pathways and Burl, A. (1987) The Stonehenge People. London: Dent.
Ceremonies: the Cursus Monuments of Britain and Calado, M. (2002) ‘Standing stones and natural
Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow Books. outcrops: the role of ritual monuments in the
37-Tilley-3290-Ch31.qxd 11/16/2005 5:54 PM Page 513

MONUMENTS AND MEMORIALS 513

Neolithic transition of the central Alentjo’, in Halbwachs, M. (1950/1992) On Collective Memory, ed.
C. Scarre (ed.), Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic L. Coser. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Europe. London: Routledge. Hall, S. (2000) ‘Whose heritage? Un-settling “The
Childe, V. (1957) The Dawn of European Civilization, 6th heritage”’, Third Text, 49: 1–12.
edn. London: Routledge. Hodder, I. (1984) ‘Burials, houses, women and
Cleal, R., Walker, K. and Montague, R. (1995) men in the European Neolithic’, in D. Miller and
Stonehenge in its Landscape. London: English C. Tilley (eds), Ideology, Power and Prehistory.
Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Connerton, P. (1989) How Societies Remember. Hodder. I. (1990) The Domestication of Europe. Oxford:
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blackwell.
Coombes, A. (2003) History after Apartheid: Visual Hoskins, J. (1998) Biographical Objects. London:
Culture and Public Memory in a Democratic South Routledge.
Africa. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Hutton, P.H. (1993) History as an Art of Memory.
Cooney, G. (2000) Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland. Middletown, CT: University Press of New England.
London: Routledge. Johnson, N. (1995) ‘Cast in stone: monuments, geog-
Crysler, G. and Kusno, A. (1997) ‘Angels in the raphy and nationalism’, Society and Space, 13 (1):
Temple: the aesthetic construction of citizenship in 51–65.
the United States Holocaust Museum’, Art Journal, Johnson, N. (2004) ‘Public memory’, in J. Duncan,
56 (1): 52–64. N. Johnson and R. Scheim, A Companion to Cultural
Cummings, V. (2002) ‘Experiencing texture and Geography. Oxford: Blackwell.
transformation in the British Neolithic’, Oxford Jones, A. (1998) ‘Where eagles dare: landscape, ani-
Journal of Archaeology, 21 (3): 249–61. mals and the Neolithic of Orkney’, Journal of
Cunliffe, B. and Renfrew, C. (eds) (1997) Science and Material Culture, 3 (3): 301–24.
Stonehenge. Oxford: British Academy. Jones, A. and MacGregor, G., eds (2002) Colouring the
Edholm, F. (1993) ‘A View from below: Paris in the Past: the Significance of Colour in Archaeological
1880s’, in B. Bender (eds) Landscape and Politics in Research. Oxford: Berg.
Perspective. Oxford: Berg. Kapferer, B. (2002) ‘The new Leviathan and the crisis
Edmonds, M. (1999) Ancestral Geographies of the of criticism in the social sciences’, Social Analysis,
Neolithic. London: Routledge. 46 (1): 148–52.
Edmonds, M. and Seabourne, T. (2002) Prehistory in Kaplan, F. (1994) Museums and the Making of
the Peak. Stroud: Tempus. Ourselves. London: Leicester University Press.
Exon, S., Gaffney, V., Woodward, A. and Yorston, R. Klein, K.L. (2000) ‘On the emergence of memory in
(2000) Stonehenge Landscapes. Oxford: Archaeopress. historical discourse’, Representations, 69: 127–50.
Feeley-Harnik, G. (1991) A Green Estate. Washington, Lacqueur, T.W. (1994) ‘Memory and naming in the
DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Great War’, in J.R. Gillis (ed.) Commemoration and
Feuchtwang, S. (2003) ‘The transmission of loss and the Politics of National Identity. Princeton, NJ:
the demand for recognition’, in S. Radstone and Princeton University Press.
K. Hodgkin Regimes of memory. London: Routledge. Layton, R., Stone, P. and Thomas, J. (2001) Destruction
Flood, F.B. (2002) ‘Between cult and culture: Bamiyan, and Conservation of Cultural Property. London:
Islamic iconoclasm and the museum’, Art Bulletin, Routledge.
84 (4): 641–59. Lowenthal, D. (1985) The Past is a Foreign Country.
Forest, B. and Johnson, J. (2002) ‘Unravelling the Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
threads of history: Soviet era monuments and post- Lowenthal, D. (1998) The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils
Soviet national identity’, Annals of the Association of of History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
American Geographers, 92 (3): 524–47. Makiya, K. (2004) The Monument: Art and Vulgarity in
Foster, R. (1991) ‘Making national cultures in the global Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. London: Tauris.
ecumene’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 20: 235–60. Maleuvre, D. (1999) Museum Memories. Stanford, CA:
Fowler, C. (2001) ‘Personhood and social relations in Stanford University Press.
the British Neolithic, with a study from the Isle of Megall, A. (1998) ‘History, memory and identity’,
Man’, Journal of Material Culture, 6 (2): 137–63. History and the Human Sciences, 11: 37–8.
Fowler, C. and Cummings, V. (2003) ‘Places of trans- Mitchell, G. (1992) ‘Notes on some non-local cobbles at
formation: building monuments from water and the entrances to the passage graves at Newgrange
stone in the Neolithic of the Irish Sea’, Journal of the and Knowth, County Meath’, Journal of the Royal
Royal Anthropological Institute, 9 (1): 1–20. Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, 122: 128–45.
Fraser, S. (1998) ‘The public forum and the space Mitchell, T. (1988) Colonising Egypt. Cambridge:
between: the materiality of social strategy in the Cambridge University Press.
Irish Neolithic’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, Mosse, G.L. (1975) The Nationalization of the Masses.
64: 203–24. New York: Fertig.
37-Tilley-3290-Ch31.qxd 11/16/2005 5:54 PM Page 514

514 PRESENTATION AND POLITICS

Mosse, G.L. (1990) Fallen Soldiers: Reshaping the Memory Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge:
of the World Wars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cambridge University Press.
Nora, Pierre (1989) ‘Between memory and history: les Sherman, D.J. (1994) ‘Art, commerce and the produc-
lieux de mémoires’, Representations 26 (spring): 1–10. tion of memory in France after World War I’, in J.R.
Nora, Pierre (1996) Realms of Memory: the Construction Gillis (ed.), Commemoration and the Politics of National
of the French Past I, Conflicts and Division, trans. Identity, NJ: Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Arthur Goldhammer. New York: Columbia Starn, R. (2002) ‘Authenticity and historic preserva-
University Press. tion: towards an authentic history’, History of Human
O’Kelly, M. (1982) New Grange: Archaeology, Art and Sciences, 15 (1): 1–16.
Legend, London: Thames & Hudson. Stewart, S. (1984) On Longing: Narratives of the
Parker-Pearson, M. and Ramilisonina (1998) Miniature, the Gigantic, the Souvenir, the Collection.
‘Stonehenge for the ancestors: the stones pass on Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
the message’, Antiquity, 72: 308–26. Strathern, M. (1988) The Gender of the Gift. Berkeley,
Pollard, J. and Reynolds, A. (2002) Avebury: the CA: University of California Press.
Biography of a Landscape. Stroud: Tempus Renfrew, C. Sturken, M. (1991) ‘The wall, the screen and the image:
(1973a) Before Civilization. London: Cape. Vietnam veterans’ memorial’, Representations, 35:
Renfrew, C. (1973) ‘Monuments, mobilization 118–42.
and social organization in Neolithic Wessex’, in Thomas, J. (1991) Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge:
C. Renfrew (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change. Cambridge University Press.
London: Duckworth. Thomas, J. (1993) ‘The hermeneutics of megalithic
Renfrew, C. (1976) ‘Megaliths, territories and popu- space’, in C. Tilley (ed.), Interpretative Archaeology.
lations’, in S. DeLaet (ed.), Acculturation and Oxford: Berg.
Continuity in Atlantic Europe. Bruges: De Tempel. Thomas, J. (1996) Time, Culture and Identity: An
Richards, C. (1988) ‘Altered images: a re-examination Interpretive Archaeology. London: Routledge.
of Neolithic mortuary practices’, in J. Barrett and Thomas, J. (1999a) Understanding the Neolithic. London:
I. Kinnes (eds), The Archaeology of Context in the Routledge.
Neolithic and Bronze Ages: Recent Trends. Sheffield: Thomas, J. (1999b) ‘An economy of substances in ear-
Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, lier Neolithic Britain’, in J. Robb (ed.), Material
University of Sheffield. Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory.
Richards, C. (1993) ‘Monumental choreography: Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
architecture and spatial representation in late Thomas, J. (2000) ‘Death, identity and the body in
Neolithic Orkney’, in C. Tilley (ed.), Interpretative Neolithic Britain’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Archaeology. Oxford: Berg. Institute, 6 (4): 653–68.
Richards, C. (1996) ‘Henges and water: towards an Thomas, J. and Tilley, C. (1993) ‘The torso and the axe:
elemental understanding of monuments and land- symbolic structures in the Neolithic of Brittany’, in
scape in late Neolithic Britain’, Journal of Material C. Tilley (ed.), Interpretative Archaeology. Oxford: Berg.
Culture, 1: 313–36. Till, K. (1999) ‘Staging the past: landscape designs,
Rowlands, M. (1998) ‘Remembering to forget: subli- cultural identity and Erinnerung politics at Berlin’s
mation as sacrifice in war memorials’, in A. Forty Neue Wache’, Ecumene, 6 (3): 251–83.
and S. Kuechler (eds), The Art of Forgetting. Oxford: Tilley, C. (1984) ‘Ideology and the legitimation of power
Berg. in the middle neolithic of southern Sweden’, in
Ruggles, C. (1997) ‘Astronomy and Stonehenge’, in D. Miller and C. Tilley (eds) Ideology, Power and
B. Cunliffe and C. Renfrew (eds), Science and Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stonehenge. Oxford: British Academy. Tilley, C. (1994) A Phenomenology of Landscape. Oxford:
Samuel, R. (1994) Theatres of Memory. London: Verso. Berg.
Saunders, N. (2004) Matters of Conflict: Material Culture, Tilley, C. (1995) ‘Rocks as resources: landscapes and
Memory and the First World War. London: Routledge. power’, Cornish Archaeology, 34: 5–57.
Scarre, C. (2002a) ‘Coast and cosmos: the Neolithic Tilley, C. (1996a) An Ethnography of the Neolithic.
monuments of northern Brittany’, in C. Scarre Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(ed.), Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe. Tilley, C. (1996b) ‘The power of rocks: topography
London: Routledge. and monument construction on Bodmin Moor’,
Scarre, C., ed. (2002b) Monuments and Landscape in World Archaeology, 28 (2): 161–76.
Atlantic Europe. London: Routledge. Tilley, C. (1999) Metaphor and Material Culture.
Schorske, C.E. (1980) Fin-de-siècle Vienna. London: Oxford: Blackwell.
Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Tilley, C. (2004a) The Materiality of Stone: Explorations
Shanks. M. and Tilley, C. (1982) ‘Ideology, symbolic in Landscape Phenomenology.
power and ritual communication: a reinterpretation Tilley, C. (2004b) ‘Round barrows and dykes as land-
of Neolithic mortuary practices’, in I. Hodder (ed.), scape metaphors’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal,
37-Tilley-3290-Ch31.qxd 11/16/2005 5:54 PM Page 515

MONUMENTS AND MEMORIALS 515

Tilley, C. and Bennett, W. (2001) ‘An archaeology of Whittle, A. (1997) ‘Remembered and imagined
supernatural places: the case of west Penwith’, belongings: Stonehenge in its traditions and struc-
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 7 (2): tures of meaning’, in B. Cunliffe and C. Renfrew
335–62. (eds), Science and Stonehenge. Oxford: British
Tilley, C., Hamilton, S., Harrison, S. and Andersen, E. Academy.
(2000) ‘Nature, culture, clutter: distinguishing Winter, J. (1995) Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning: the
between cultural and geomorphological land- Great War in European Cultural History. Cambridge:
scapes: the case of hilltop tors in south-west Cambridge University Press.
England’, Journal of Material Culture, 5 (2): 197–224. Woodward, A. (2000) British Barrows: a Matter of Life
Watson, A. and Keating, D. (1999) ‘Architecture and and Death, Stroud: Tempus.
sound: an acoustic analysis of megalithic monu- Wu Hung (1991) ‘Tianamen Square: a political
ments in prehistoric Britain’, Antiquity, 73: 325–36. history of monuments’, Representations, 35: 84–115.
Werbner, R. (1998) ‘Smoke from the barrel of a gun’, Young, J. (1993) The Texture of memory: Holocaust
in R. Werbner (ed.), Memory and the Postcolony. Memorials and Meaning. New Haven, CT: Yale
London: Zed Books. University Press.

Verwandte Interessen