The Life-Histories of Megaliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany)

Cornelius J. Holtorf

World Archaeology, Vol. 30, No. 1, The Past in the Past: The Reuse of Ancient Monuments. (Jun., 1998), pp. 23-38.

Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-8243%28199806%2930%3A1%3C23%3ATLOMIM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L

World Archaeology is currently published by Taylor & Francis, Ltd..

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/taylorfrancis.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.org Thu Oct 11 08:45:34 2007 The life-histories of megaliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany)

Cornelius J. Holtorf

Abstract

In many cases, prehistoric monuments had long 'life-histories' after their initial construction. In the form of a monument 'biography', this paper traces the lives of megaliths in Mecklenburg- Vorpommern, especially during later prehistory, protohistory, and early history (1200 BC-AD 1400) but with an outlook on the present day and perspectives for the future. Various types of evidence for attention given to ancient monuments by subsequent generations of people are presented and interpreted. The way we treat monuments today should be considered as a contribution to their future lives.

Keywords

Megaliths; biographies of things; history of monuments; cup-marks; secondary burials; Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany).

Biographies of things

Things, like humans, have life-histories. Things are made somewhere; they often do something, and some move from place to place; their meanings and functions can change in different contexts, and, as time goes on, they age; eventually most things die, and whatever is left of them is discarded in a final resting place where it gradually disinte- grates. Things can reach very different ages, from a few minutes to many millennia, but once dead only very few are brought back and given new meanings in a new life (cf. Thompson 1979; Eggers 1986: 258-70; Shanks n.d.). Accounts of things' life-histories are 'biographies' of things. As with people, biographies of things can have different emphases and adopt different perspectives (see, for example, the distinctive interpretive approaches of Rawson 1993, Cullen 1995, Thomas 1996: ch. 3, and Tilley 1996: ch. 6). Igor Kopytoff proposed some general guidelines on how to write the biography of a thing (1986: 66f.):

World Archaeology Vol. 30(1): 23-38 The Past in the Past O Routledge 1998 0043-8243 24 Cornelius 9. HoEtorf

In doing the biography of a thing. one would ask questions similar to those one asks about people: What, sociologically, are the biographical possibilities inherent in its 'status' and in the period and culture, and how are these possibilities realized? Where does the thing come from and who made it? mathad been its career so far, and what do people con- sider to be an ideal career for such things? matare the recognized 'ages' or periods in the thing's 'life', and what are the cultural markers for them? IIow does the thing's use change with its age, and what happens to it when it reaches the end of its usefulness?

Here I am concerned with the life-histories of prehistoric monuments, especially mega- liths. Until now, archaeologists have mainly focused on the birth and early childhood of megaliths, as well as on how to dissect and preserve their corpses. Richard Bradley has, however, pointed out that the continuous (re.-)interpretationsof prehistoric monuments are part of the very 'logic of monument building' (1993; cf. 1984,1987; Evans 1985; Olsen 1990: 197-202). It is unfortunate that Bradley chose the term 'afterlife' for denoting the history of megaliths during later periods, for it may be the afterlife of their builders but it is not that of the monuments themselves. In many cases, monuments built during the Neolithic had long and exciting lives for centuries and millennia to come (Daniel 1972: Holtorf 1996, 1997), and some are still very much alive even now (Holtorf 1995). Recent examples for long-term biographies of prehistoric monuments include Mats Burstrom's investigations of various prehistoric monuments in Sweden (1993), and Mark Palton's work on the megalith of La Hogue Bie on Jersey (1996). The monument of Stonehenge is exceptional also in that it has already had several biographers, anlong them Christopher Chippindale (1994). Tracing the life-histories of prehistoric monuments means asking how subsequent societies dealt with relics of the past. The particular behaviour of people towards ancient monuments, in a given social and historical context, is informed by their collective under-. standings of the past, or 'cultural memory' (Assmann 1992). This cultural memory reveals its character at special occasions, such as commemoration days, or specia.1 places, such as ancient monuments, and can involve rituals and ceremonies. The cultural memory reas-. sures the members of a society of their identity and supplies them with an awareness of unity and singularity in time and space, i,e. an historical consciousness. Cultural memory is hence not about giving testimony of past events, accurately and truthful, but about malting meaningful statements about the past in a given present. Ancient monuments re- present the past in the landscape and cultural memory gives them meaning and cultural significance, A closely related phenomenon is the 'history culture' of a society. History culture is the 'practically effective articulation of historical consciousness in the life of a society' (Riisen 1994: 5):encompassing all appearances of the past in everyday social life. Eater practices at ancient monuments such as secondary burials, story-telling, fertility magic, excavations, guided tours, etc. are all instances of respective history cultures. Ancient monuments in the landscape influenced cultural memories of subsecluene societies whose history cultures, in turn, transformed the monuments (Evans 1985: 94)). Biographies of ancient monuments can thus contribute to a better understanding of the meanings of the past in the past. At the same time, such biographies are one expression of history culture in our present society and add to our own cultural memory. This paper is a contribution to the biography of megaliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpornmern in north-eastern Germany (cf. Holtorf 11.d.). The state of research in this area is extraordi- narily good. While Ewald Schuldt (1972a) listed 1,1a5 megaliths (of which ninety-seven are Life-histories of megaliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 25 now in the state of Brandenburg and were not taken into account in my study), I could find evidence for 1,193 megaliths in the present state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern alone. Of these 1,193, 40 per cent (475) were documented well enough in the records to be studied for associated later receptions. An astonishingly large number of 144 has been excavated since 1945, mostly by Ewald Schuldt and his colleagues during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Virtually all the excavations were published rapidly and in great detail in the annual year-books Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg and, in addition, there is a summarizing monograph by Ewald Schuldt (1972a), providing an excellent basis for my work. I will focus mainly on the lives of megaliths during later prehistory, protohistory, and early history c. 1200 BC-AD 1400. But in order to contextualize my argument, I will also refer to the immediately preceding and subsequent periods, and conclude with a brief section about their lives until the present day and in the future. Methodologically, the focus is on archaeological evidence. This evidence falls into two broad groups: a) later material objects found in, at or near prehistoric monuments, and b) later architecture making references to ancient monuments. In my opinion, there is little difference, in principle, between interpreting what a farmer in later prehistory made of a megalith on his field and interpreting what my neighbour thinks about the past today. In both cases, we have got evidence, although of different types, and some expectations regarding plausibility. Understanding always involves trans- ferring notions from the mind of the interpreter on to what is being understood. The task of understanding is that of a conscious subject trying to make sense of equivocal evidence, not that of a complex object waiting to be fully comprehended (cf. Gadamer 1975). Uncer- tainties are thus opportunities for writers to let their arguments travel to exciting desti- nations and invitations for readers to join their particular trains of thought.

Birth, childhood and youth of megaliths

The almost 1,200 megaliths now known in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern are distributed over the whole country, with certain clusters as shown on the map (Fig. 1). They occur in several architectural types but are all originally associated with the people of the Neolithic Trichterbecher (TRB) culture, c. 4000-2800 cal. BC (calibrated date; Midgley 1992). They were built within a relatively short time period, early in the period of the TRB culture (Schuldt 1972a: 92-5). Regarding their original function, the durability and permanence of monuments can be taken as indicators for a concern of their builders with a prospec- tive future (Holtorf 1996). This makes it pertinent to ask how monuments were actually treated and interpreted long after they had been built. But whether the intentions of the monument builders were fulfilled in later ages or not, the continuing life-histories show clearly that many megaliths succeeded in their own terms. After their construction, the megaliths were for several centuries used for burials of the TRB culture. People associated with the partly contemporary Kugelamphoren (Globular Amphora) culture (c. 3100-2700 cal. BC) frequently removed previous skeletons and demolished older grave goods in order to create room for their own burials (Schuldt 1972a: 75-9; Nagel 1985: 21-4). These reuses of megaliths were executed with such a thor- oughness and to such an extent that in fact very few megalith burials have been found 26 Cornelius J. Holtorf

Figure 1 The distribution of megaliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpon~n~en(data from Schuldt 19'72a). which contained undisturbed TRB burials. During the period of thc late Neolithic Single Grave culture (c. 2800-2300 cal. I<(.),several megalithic tombs were again used for burying the dead. By now the chambers of most megaliths had been filled with earth and the new burials, which were always found near the top of the chamber, had to be deposited by 'breaking in' from either one side or the top. But, in some cases, it was not until the early Bronze Age that the ancient graves ceased to be used as burial places and were formally closed by filling the chambers with earth (Schuldt 19Tla: 79-89; 1972b; Jacobs 1991: 30). The formal closing of the megaliths ends in all cases a more or less continuous tradition of understanding these monuments as burial sites, and finalizes what could be desctibed as the childhood and youth of megaliths. They were now released into an adult life of open possibilities.

The adult lives of megaliths Obviously one condition for an interesting later lifc of megaliths was that they remained visible and that people actually knew about them. Although most megaliths werc probably originally covered by a mound, erosion must have exposed the massive capstones at an early stage. Nowadays few megaliths show more than a rudimentary mound and often the chamber lies completely in the opcn. But earthen mounds with no other cultural evidence visible have also been known as ancient sites in later ages (Schuldt 1973; Van de Noort 1993; Thiite 1996). In whatever shape and form megaliths appeared at any given time, the evidence discussed below indicates clearly that most if not all later generations of people had some knowledge of megaliths. Ancient monuments constituted 'timeanarks9 in the landscape (Chapman 1997), acquiring new meanings in subsequent history cultures and cultural memories. Many megaliths were preserved as they were or adapted to new uses, but not destroyed. Archaeologists have often complained about the thousands of monu- ments that have disappeared during the last two centuries, but they have never asked why so many ancient monuments seen] to have been preserved so well over the three, four or five millennia beforehand. Was that entirely because of a lack of heavy machinery for their destruction, or did people also feel a commitment not only to the past and their ancestors, or to future generations, but perhaps also to the stones themsclves? Other ancient objects too were appreciated in later ages: Neolithic and Bronze Age artefacts which might have been found while moving earth during building activities, were sometimes kept and later reused, e.g. as grave goods (Eampe 1975; Rennebach 1986: 73; Schoknecht 1986: 216-18; Jacobs 1991: 27). It is interesting that cup-marks and, occasionally, engraved wheel-shaped crosses were identified, sometimes in great numbers, on seventy-nine megaliths, while altogether twenty-eight have got cup-marked stones in their neighbourhood. From their location it appears that these cup-marks were drilled into the stone after the primary use of the megalith had ended. On as many as sixty-one megaliths (71 per cent of all with cup- marks), they are found on capstones. They have never been discovered on stones still covered by the primary mound. Sometimes cup-marks were apparently carved after the stones had fallen or been moved from their original position, thus indicating that a con- siderable time elapsed since the megaliths' primary use (Schuldt 1972a: 89-91). Cup- marks are expressions of history culture. Previously, they have often been interpreted as connected with 'cultic' and 'ritual' practices (Schuldt 1972a: 91; Schoknecht 1986: 213-15). Another explanation is that by leaving 'their9marks on a symbol of the shared identity of the whole community, certain individuals wanted to make a public statement about who they were themselves, and who their ancestors had been. Some individuals may have carried the stone dust produced constantly with them, reminding them of the heritage and origin of the community to which they belonged. The collective vision of a shared origin and identical forefathers and foremothers, linked to ancient monuments and graves, can be the most important thing which all members of a community share, and about which they are collectively proud. Ancient burial monuments can therefore be crucial for people's identities (cf. Evans 1985; Lowenthal 1985: 41-6). They seem to stand outside the flow of daily events and are symbols of stability in an ever changing world. Megaliths, as timemarks, do not only link the present with the dtstant past, but also with the distant future. Later finds have been found in quite a few megalithic mounds (Fig. 2). Among the 475 well-documented megaliths, almost 10 per cent (forty-six) produced mostly single or small amounts of pottery sherds; in one case an Arabic coin from the ninth century An was 28 Cornelius .L Holtorf

tarly German Period

1, GQ/n

i weii mega1,ths ore-RomanIron documented excavated megal~ths since 1945 (n=475) (n=144)

Fzgure 2 Later find? in megaliths 1200 BC-AD F~gure.? Later finds in megahtlis 1200 BC- ir) 1400, 1400 (b!, period)

found (Schuldt 1972~).Among the megaliths excavated since 1945 the proportion of those containing later finds reaches almost one-third of the total (forty-one). A similar overall percentage could certainly be expected if all megaliths were excavated. Among the later finds, all periods are represented, although the pre-Roman Iron Age and the Slavic Period can together account for more than half of all finds (Fig. 3). Interestingly, these later finds were discovered both within the mounds as well as within the chambers themselves. They cannot, in my opinion, exclusively be explained by accidental deposits during work carried out in modern times by antiquarians, treasure-hunters, or stone-robbers, especially since more than half of these finds were - in the eyes of the excavators - obviously or possibly connected with secondary burials (see below). What these finds, therefore, seem to in&.. cate is human presence and activity during later periods at a fairly large number of mega- liths, probably going together with some form of special meaning of these sites. Sometimes it may have been in a spirit of entertainment and adventure that people of later ages visited ancient monuments. Megaliths have probably at all rimes been fascinating curiosi- ties in the landscape, and many generations of people are likely to have been excited by the strange mounds containing huge stones and sometimes human bones. Such fascination could have motivated people, perhaps especially children, to spend afternoons at mega.- liths, dig holes or explore animal burrows. Whether from coincidental discoveries of human bones or artefacts, or from deliberate investigations. some people may have sus- pected that mounds contained ancient finds and were in fact old graves. Subsequent attempts to find out more about these sites and the objects associated with them can be considered as the earliest form of prehistoric archaeological research (Hingley 1996: 242). The occasional dropping of pottery during peoples' activities at the mounds could at least partly account for the later finds made. The knowledge gained from such activities may also have paved the way for subsequent secondary burials in ancient mounds. Secondary burials from the Late Bronze Age or later occurred in 6 per cent (thirty) of all well-documented and in 14 per cent (twenty-four) of all recently excavated megaliths: Life-histories of megaliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 29

Figuue 4 Secondary bu- rials in megaliths 1200 BC-AD 1400.

well ...on Rligen megaliths ... on Kugen documented (n-65) excavated (n-20) megal~ths slnce 1945 (~475) (n-144)

Slavic Period uncertain date Figure 5 Secondary burials in mega- 7% liths 1200 BC-AD 1400 (bv ~eriod).-

together containing evidence for up to eighty buried individuals (Fig. 4). All periods are represented, although there are clearly fewer from the Roman Iron Age and there is none from the Early German Period (Fig. 5). On the island of Rugen more than one-third of all megaliths excavated since 1945 produced secondary burials (seven out of twenty), which date exclusively to the pre-Roman Iron Age and the Slavic Period. In Dummerte- vitz on Rugen at least nine, and perhaps as many as twenty, Slavic urns were buried at a megalith, which at the time appears to have been completely covered by a mound. Never- theless, the urns were carefully placed in relation to key architectural features and right on top of the original grave chamber, indicating that the mourners,were aware of the overall layout and content of the Neolithic burial chamber (Schuldt 1973). Not all these secondary burials can coincidentally have been placed in older monuments. Although it is understandable that people were perhaps sometimes glad to find a mound already built in which they could bury their dead, it is likely that they were also aware of' the fact that these mounds constituted old burial sites. I suspect that it was significant for later gener- ations of people to bury some of their dead in ancient mounds. This does not necessarily 30 Cornelius S. Hollorf mean that we must assume a continuous tradition horn thc Neolithic (Scholtnecht 1986: 219). As timemarks in the landscape, megaliths invited people of later ages to rediscover,, reinterpret and reuse them. By drawing on tradition and 'the ancestors', a legitimation of political ideologies and other concrete interests could be achieved. In another context, Richard Bradley interpreted deliberate architectural references to past monuments as legitimation attempts by political elites concerned with inventing a 'fictitious genealogy and establishing an imagined long-term continuity of f heir power (Bradley 1984; 6987; 1993: ch. 6). Secondary burials in ancient barrows may have been a convenient method for inventing genealogies on which claims for political powel- could be based. But alterna tive interpretations. such as nostalgic feelings, social identity and prestige, or special cos- mological significance of a place, could equally well explain the choice of ancient turnuli for later burials (cf. Fhate 1996; Harke and Williams 1997). Often later finds have been found in the neighbourhood of iiaegaliths - which 1take to be an arbitrary distance of not more than 5OOm (Fig. 6). The clifference in freclue~~cy between welldocumented megaliths (2'78. or 59 per cent) and those recently excavateci (seventy-five, or 52 per cent) is minimal, as the excavations did no! normally include much work in the neighbourhood of the sites. Virtually ail discoveries near megaliths are the result of normal chance finds and rescue excavations. It can therefore be expected that the number of such finds around megaliths will increase as time goes on. Among the various periods the Slavic Period is by far the strongest, with almost four times as many finds as from the late Bronze Age and twice as many as from each of the other periods (Fig. 7).This may reflect the general expansion of land occupation and the increase ir: population size during the Slavic Period. But during all periods, people cannot siiiaply have ignored megaliths completely, especially when they lived close by. Often, people sense a particular aura when they come across ancient finds or monuments in the land- scape: they are authentic remains from a distant past which enable people to see. touch and feel prehistory. People who lived in the direct neighbourhood of megaliths may have

i~g~lr~6 Later finds rreap megaliths 1200uc-AD1400.

il no later firids FS iater finds

well megaiiths documented excavated megaliths since 1945 (n=475) (n=144) Life-histories o,fmegaliths in Mecklenbuvg-Vovpommevn 31

Early German Period Figure 7 Later finds near megaliths 18% 1200 uc-AD 1400 (by period). uncertain date

Late Bronze Age 10%

Slavic Period 3 5%

pre-Roman lrori Age 17%

Rolnan Iron Age and Migration Period 19% brought a great deal of respect to such ancient sites. Another possible meaning of a mega- lith is that of a 'Denk-mal' - something which makes people think. Recognizing that a megalith is older than anyone can remember may have inspired people to philosophize about eternity, the age of humanity, the speed of history, the transience of individuals and entire cultures, and what these monuments may see in the future (e.g. us!). When new graves or monuments were built during later ages, they did not fill empty and untouched spaces, but were fitted into a landscape of ancient sites which were still meaningful (cf. Chapman 1997). Later monuments often related to earlier monuments, taking them as reference points for messages about continuity or change of social iden- tity. Elements which were rhetorically referred to in such 'material culture narratives' (Hodder 1993) include earthen (burial) mounds and the stone enclosures around them. Circular or rectangular stone-settings surrounding burials are not only featmes of mega- lithic mounds (Schuldt 1972a: 63-9; 1972b), but occur also in the Bronze Age, the pre- Roman Iron Age as well in the Slavic Period. Perhaps the most striking examples are the so-called 'Stemtanze' (stone dances,) from the pre-Roman Iron Age, of which the most famous ones are in Boitin, Kreis Butzow (Leube 1979). These stone dances are in most cases also associated with burials. Whether this tradition was 'continuous' or 'invented' is less important than the likelihood that a reference to known ancient monuments was intended - or at least also observed at the time itself. It may have been important for people's social identities to display inspirations from the past and show commitment to traditional values in the architecture of their graves (cf. Hingley 1996: 240f.). Another interpretation stresses the association of megaliths with the ancestors, the realm of the dead, religious deities, and the stones as creations of nature. Megaliths might therefore have been of great co~mologicalsignificance. Stone-settings surrounding prehistoric burial mounds could signify the border between the world of the living and that of the dead. To build, in later periods, burial mounds with stone-settings similar to those known from much older monuments, may have been equivalent to making a religious, as well as a political, statement about a wider world-order and cosmology: the dead always had been, and always would be, buried in a certain way while the living would always live in a particular way. 32 Cornelius 9. .Hollorf

A rela.ted phenomenon is the frequent similarity beivcrccn isarrosvs from earlier arrai later periods, sometirnes clirectly next to eac:hoti~rr. which inav ~ridicatetha t ancient a rclii - tecture was consciously imitated in later ages. It is conceivable that iumuli erected in ilie Bronze Age, in the pre-Roman Iron Age and in il~eSlavic Period gained some of their cultural meaning from the obvious ~;imilariiyto earlier mounds. Willj kalnpe speculated that many known but undisturhd tumuli inay iiri fact not colrtai:~ Bronze Age but Slavic burials (Lampe 1975: 326)" Bccause of ll~csimilarity between megalithic rrnolrncls ancl Bronze Age barrows, both have often becn mixcd up in the ti:r-minology of the early anti qlrarians and even modern excavations have aliscovered ~siegalithswhen they expected Bronze Age burials (Schulalt 19'72b; Renneback 1986). 111 M'a,verz, a group of four barrows included one ordinary Bronze Age Isarrow, whii:l~ also contairied a Slavic secondar:i burial. A second mo~riiddid not contain aiiy finds, wlriic another turned out to be a Neolithic stone cist wiih a Bronze Age burial and liar-row oil lop, anti a third xxlound had been built as a grave during the pre-Rornan Iron iige (Sci~okrxa:ciii1_986). In several cascs megaliths were physically coritrerted into tumuli cluring t'i~c131.0rlzo Age (Sckuldt 19'721s). It is as if old monuments attracted newer ones, 2nd all were I.lierr (re..)designed to look alike. As in the case of secondary burials in ancient nlourxds, this too rnay reflcxt de1iber.- ate attempts to gain prestige ant! status by rnanipirlalirg gcl.lealogics or ialventing arcierst traditions (cf. Evans 19885:88f.; Hinglcy 6996:24.0f.).Affirxiing a particular view of the past can also be a powerful method to resisl. change. The Slavs may have shown con- siderable interest in prehistoric burial rmo~nds,r.a:ui;ing and imitating them, when they were threatened by an expanding German Empire that tried to force its rule and ihe Christian religion onto them (Van de Noort 1993; 'Yhai.e 1996: 114). Alternatively, people in later prehistory may simply have admir-ed the ~nonurnenl.alanciet~t remains in the land-- scape. Perhaps they felt so~nevr~hatnostalgic at tirrres and wailted to appropriate element:; of the local heritage by allowing inegalithic burial mounds to inspirc their own grave archi.. tecture (cf. Evans 1985: 89; P,owenthal 1985: 4 13).4n any case...\with the salccessful Chris- tianiaation of Mecklenburg-Vorpoinmerii~megalillxs ceased to have thc same appeal to people, aild were in some cases associaieal with pagan forcbeexi-s and indeed the Devil (Holtorf 1997). The lives of megaliths had cntered a nc:w !>has(+,

Eater phases in the lives sf megaliths

Since the Medieval period, the rnater~alpropert165 oC megal~lhswcre occasionally seen as so valuable that they were deslroycd and tl~cstones lcusea for purpo52s iuch as building houses, roads, and churches. Even d.uring the twentieth cca~turycapstones of megaliths were in several cases, as in Hamberge. removed from Ihc gravc aircl used for war-- and other memorials (Holtorf 1996: 14&2). It cannot of course 19e ruled out that ancient monuments were valued for their material propel-ties in earlier periods too, whether this led to partial demolition or to a rededication in sill4 (Hingley 19966).Pcrhaps some second-. ary burials constitute nothing more that1 ri:uses oi' existing earthen mounds in the land- scape. Perhaps some cup-marks are nothing more than tracer, [eft whcre bits of stone had been taken (for whatever reason). At the n~egalithor Nobbin, if could he shown that ;i large capstone had already in the prc-Roman Iron Age bee11 remcs~lctiircsl-n the grave.,anc? Life-histories of megaliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpommem 33 possibly been reused elsewhere (Schuldt 1972~).The desecration which forms part of such actions. and vandalism at ancient monuments in general, are the consequences of a wanted or accepted loss of meaning. It can occur in indifference or quite deliberately in opposition to other meanings and practices. Just as the past can be manipulated and tra- ditions invented by the construction of monuments. continuities can also be hidden and pasts denied by the destruction of monuments. In certain circumstances ancient tombs may thus intentionally have been demolished (Holtorf 1997: Harke and Williams 1997). In others they were used as rubbish tips, which provides another explanation for the later finds made at and in megaliths. Sometimes, monuments were removed because they were 'in the way' for new activities, e.g. ploughing the field. If this happened a long time ago, we will probably not know about these monuments now. Early modern finds have only very rarely been found in, at, or near megalil hs. But this does not prove that the land around megaliths had been abandoned, nor that megaliths had lost all meanings. People simply did not leave many traces there at that lime. It can, however, be assumed that megaliths were then, as some are still today, associated with various folktales. To judge from collections of the nineteenth century, tales about the Devil were particularly widespread, as well as stories about giants which are reflected in names of megaliths such as 'Teufelsbackofen' (Devil's oven) and 'Riesenbett' (giant's bed). The most common term used for megaliths in the older literature and in popular culture until the present day is 'Hiinengrab' (giant's grave). Attracted by such folklore and influenced by an emerging interest in history and a fasci- nation with ancient ruins, Romantic poets, painters and travellers visited megaliths increas- ingly during the late eighteenth and the early nineteenth centuries. Among the visi-tors of Rugen at that time were the painter Caspar David Friedrich, the poet Ludwig Theobul Kosegarten, and the traveller Johann Jakob Grumbke. Their works reflect still today the enormous appeal megaliths had to them as dignified remnants from a distant past. In a similar spirit, the architects of contemporaneous landscape parks, e.g. in Basedsw and Burg Schlitz, deliberately incorporated or imitated megalithic monuments in their creations. Antiquarians and archaeologists have reopened and investigated megaliths in large numbers since the nineteenth century. Among the earliest archaeologists, on whose accounts much of our contemporary knowledge is still based, were Friedrich Lisch and Robert Beltz. They were also the first who lobbied for, and implemented, the protection of local archaeological monuments by law against their destruction by treasure-hunters and stone-robbers. From the 1930s onwards, Ernst Sprockhoff undertook a systematic survey of megaliths in northern central Europe, as part of which two volumes about Mecklenburg-Vorpommern appeared (1967), containing full descriptions, plans, maps and photographs of all megaliths known to him. But the most comprehensive study of megaliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpommem was the result of a major research project under- taken from 1964 until 1972 by the Musez~nzfilr Vor- und Frilhgeschichle in Scl-iwerin,and directed by Ewald Schuldt (Schuldt 1972a). Today, many ancient monuments have become local attractions (cf. Holtorf 1995). Especially in the tourist regions of Rugen and along the Baltic Sea, megaliths and other archaeological sites are frequently visited during the summer months. Amateurs develop their own theories about the megaliths' true meanings. Artists use them for inspiration (Mende 1997). In the light of so much attention, heritage managers are nowadays 34 Cornelius J: Nolto~f primarily concerned with the preservation and presentation of ancient monuments (cf. Lowenthal 1985: 384-406). Sometimes it seems as if megaliths havc died. After the corn.- pleted autopsy, their bodies have been mummified and arc displayed to the public, while the dates of their lives are published in obituaries. At the end of this account of the life-histories of inegaliths, 1do not claim to have been able to explain in every case why people left particular liinds of traces at or around ancient monuments, and why they cared or did not care about the past in their history cultures. The individual archaeological circumstances differ considerably from period to period, and sometimes even from site to site. There are no simple answers to be expected which could explain all the evidence. A single mound may aC all times have meant different things to different people. In my view, the different interpretations suggested are all valid attempts to understand the lives of ancient monuments, and most can be applied to all the evidence presented.

Conclusion: the future life of ancient nlsnumenits

Megaliths and other archaeological monunlents have 'life-histories'. During their- lives they featured prominently in various subsequent cultural ~nexnoriesand played important roles in the history cultures of different societies (Table 1). More often than not, prehis- toric monuments acted as visible timemarks in the landscape. referring people back to the distant past and prompting them to treat these monuments in a particular way (cf. Lowen- thal 1985: 238-41; Evans 1985). Megaliths are thus not merely of the Neolithic, but of many different periods since the Neolithic. The life-histories of archaeological monu- ments can be told in monument 'biographies'. Although megaliths are sometimes treated like the dead in our society: it is a mistake to see them as such. Whatever we do with megaliths in Ihe present - e,g. excavate them, restore them, erect an information board and a bench next to them - is a contribution of contemporary history culture to the monuments' present and future lives. Archaeologi. cal excavation and heritage management are our ways of dealing with ancient monuments in our own life-world. Archaeologists are the managers of the distant past in present society. There is no sense in assuming that we could somehow redesign ancient rnonu-. ments as they were in the Neolithic or prevent ntonuments from acquiring new, or losing old, meanings in the future: we can neither undo pasC millennia, nor prevent R'uta~reyears from happening. The lives of prehistoric monuments keep moving on. Whatever we choose to do with megaliths simply happens lo them during a phase in their lives. This is how monuments have experienced many subsequent generations of people. Monuments may have lives and behave in many ways like a virus (Cullen 1995) or like people (Shanks n.d.), but like a virus and unlike human beings, they neither deserve sym pathy, nor do they have rights. 7% avoid misunderstandings, 1 am not saying that alaythirng goes as far as monuments are concerned. Quite the opposite: wc carry Cull responsibility for all our actions. Whether we are archaeologists or not, we have to justify our actions to society, respect its norms and political will, and face its laws. Some monuments will necessarily 'die' over the years and give way to new uses of their stones and their locations. But others will flourish. As Xgor Kopytoff has argued about the life-histories of things, it Life-histories of megaliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 35

Table 1 A schematic overview of the lives of megaliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpomrnern. Birth, Childhood c. 4000-2700 TRB culture, Globular megaliths built and used as burial Amphora culture sites Youth c. 2800-1600 Single Grave culture, reused as burial sites Early Bronze Age closing of megaliths

Earlier Adult Life 1200-600 Late Bronze Age throughout: secondary burials, 600-1 cal. BC pre-Roman Iron Age finds in and near megaliths, AD 1-600 Roman Iron Age (and tradition of enclosed burial Migration period) mounds, imitation of mounds Slavic Period 'paganization' of megaliths?

Later Adult Life 1200-1400 Early German Period finds in and near megaliths, stones reused 1400-1750 Later Medieval and Early Modern Period 'historization' of megaliths

Old Age 1750-1830 Romantic Period appreciated by poets, painters, travellers 1830-1990 Modernity work by antiquarians and archaeologists, protection present Post-Modernity preservation, presentation all depends on how the biographical possibilities of monuments are realized in different periods, what people in each situation consider to be an ideal career for monuments, and what is thought to be the adequate reaction should they reach the (temporary?) end of their usefulness. There is no reason to become sentimental about this: after all, we also give 'birth' to new monuments, not only in heritage parks, but also through the more ambitious architecture of our times.

Acknowledgements

I would especially like to thank Richard Bradley for inviting me to write this paper. Many people in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern have been helpful during my research and I am very grateful for their support. I can only name a few: Volker Haupler, Peter Herfert, Jorn Jacobs, Horst Keiling, Willi Lampe, Erika Nagel, Ulrich Schoknecht, and AXmut Schiilke. The responsibility for the content of this paper lies however, as is to be expected, with me alone. My analysis is partly based on material held in the archives of the Landesant fur Bodendenkmalpjlege Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Liibstorf.

Department oftlrchaeology University of Wales, Lampeter 36 Cornelius J. Holtorf

References

Assmann, J. 1992. Das kulturelle Cediichtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung zirzd politische Identitiit in fruhen Hochkulturen. Miinchen: Beck. Bradley, R. 1984. Studying monuments. In Neolithic Studies:A Review of Some Current Research (eds R. Bradley and J. Gardiner). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 133, pp. 61-6. Bradley, R. 1987. Time regained: the creation of continuity. Journal of the British Archaeological Association, 140: 1-17. Bradley, R. 1993.Altering the Earth. The Origins of Monuments in Britain and Continental Europe. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

Burstrom, M. 1993. Mirngtydiga Fornliimningar. En studie av innebarder som tillslcrivits fasta foriz - liinlningar i Osterrekar~zehiirad, Sodermanland. Stockholm Archaeological Reports 27. Stockholm: Stockholms Universitet, Institutionen for Arkeologi. Chapman, J. 1997. Places as timemarks - the social construction of prehistoric landscapes in eastern Hungary. In Semiotics of Landscape: Archaeology of Mind (ed. G. Nash). British Archaeological Reports, International Series 661. Oxford: Archaeopress. pp. 31-45. Chippindale, C. 1994. Stonelzenge Complete, rev. edn. London: Thames & Hudson Cullen, B. 1995. Living artefact, personal ecosystem, biocultural schizophrenia: a novel synthesis of processual and post-processual thinking. Proceedings oftlze Prehistoric Society, 61: 371-91. Daniel, G. 1972. Megaliths in History. London: Thames Sc Hudson. Eggers, H. J. 1986 [1959]. Einfuhrung in die Vorgesclzichte. Miinchen: Piper. Evans, C. 1985. Tradition and the cultural landscape: an archaeology of place. Arclzaeological Review from Cambridge, 4(1): 80-94. Gadamer, H.-G. 1975. Truth and Method. London: Sheed Ps Ward. Harke, H. and Williams, H. 1997. Angelsachsische Bestattungsplatze und altere Denkmaler: Bemerkungen zur zeitlichen Entwicklung und Deutung des Phanomens. Archiiologische Informa- tionen, 20(1): 25-7. Hingley, R. 1996. Ancestors and identity in the later prehistory of Atlantic Scotland: the reuse and reinvention of Neolithic monuments and material culture. World Archaeology, 28: 231-43. Hodder, I. 1993. The narrative and rhetoric of material culture sequences. m7orld Archaeology. 25: 268-82. Holtorf, C. 1995. Vergangenheit, die nicht vergeht: das vorgeschichtliche Hiinengrab von Waabs (-Karlsminde), Kreis Rendsburg-Eckernforde und seine heutigen Bedeutungen, Archiiologisclze Naclzrichten aus Sclzleswig-Holstein, 6: 135-49. Holtorf, C. 1996. Towards a chronology of megaliths: understanding monuniental time and cultural memory. Jour~zalof European Archaeology, 4: 119-52. Holtorf, C. 1997. Christian landscapes of pagan monuments. a radical constructivist perspective. In Semiotics oflandscape:Archaeology ofMind (ed. G.Nash). British Archaeological Reports, Inter- national Series 661. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 80--8. Holtorf, C. n.d. Monumental past. Interpreting the meanings of ancient monuments in Later Prehis- toric Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany). Doctoral dissertation in preparation. Department of Archaeology, University of Wales, Lampeter. Jacobs, J. 1991. Die Einzelgrabkultur in Mecklenburg-l/orpommern. Beitrage zur Ur- und Friihgeschichte Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns 24. Schwerin: Archaologisches Landesmuseum Meck lenburg-Vorpommern. Life-histories of megnliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 37

Kopytoff, I. 1986. The cultural biography 01 things: commoditization as process. In 'The Social Life of Things. Con?n?odities in Cultural Perspective (ed. A. Appadurai). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64-91. Lampe, W. 1975. Slawische Hugelgraber im Forst Friedrichsthal, Kreis Wolgast. Boden- denkrnalpflege in Mecklenburg, Jahrbuch 1974, pp. 307-27. Leube,A. 1979. Eisenzeitliche Steinsetzungen im nordlichen Mitteleuropa. Zeitschriftfiir Archaolo- gie, 13: 1-22. Lowenthal, D. 1985. The Past is a Forei

Thompson, M. 19'79. Rubbish Theory. The Creation and Dest~uctionof Value. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tilley, C. 1996.An Ethrzog~aphyof the Neolithic. Early Prehistoric Societies itz Southern Scandinavia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van de Noort, R. 1993. The context of Early Medieval barrows in western Europe. Antiquity. 67: 66-73,