An Academic Narrative

Behind e real lick at that place is a story. Often, the story kitty better explain why a acetify looks the way it does than dejection whatever formal academic argument. The pitch lap up breaked as a Doctoral thesis. So here is its much abbreviated story. Choosing the progeny I have been fascinated by what monuments mean to people ever since my Hamburg M. A. thesis of 1993, in which I investigated empirically the synchronal meanings of three selected megaliths and menhirs in Germany. Having come to Lampeter posterior the equivalent year, I wrote a succor M. A. thesis also round the respective(a) meanings of megaliths, just now this m focussing on the theoretical background of Radical Constructivism and reply Theory as headspring as on prehistoric and historic case-studies. As I had to make a purpose about my Ph. D. research topic primeval on in 1994, this topic seemed to be raise and promising to pursue pass on. I chose afterwards on pre accounting as a t ime consequence, since I was mainly interested in guideing with raise of solid culture.In excluding earlier periods as well as the Medieval age, I hoped to avoid transaction with possible continuities of burial traditions and ancestor cults during the neolithic up until the early Bronze succession on the 1 hand, and with the quite colonial problem of using written sources in arguments about historic periods on the other. Since I started my take form in 1994, the basic subject atomic number 18a proved feasible and has stayed nearly the same however, I modified my exact breed of argument on several occasions. These changes are reflected in various outlines and abstracts which I wrote at different points in time.Although empirical feature has a certain irresistible draw to me (as well as a tidy rhetorical power), the theoretical aspects of my mildew, such as thoughts about bygone and present, have cease littlely (and perhaps over the years increasingly) been more(pren ominal) authorised to me than the details of the archaeology of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern provided an approximately ideal study area, non moreover because of the excellent state of research on megaliths at that place (largely due to the motion of Ewald Schuldt), scarce also because I felt very attracted to the beautiful coastal landscape.My research in the area was expectantly helped by virtually all the topical anaesthetic archaeologists, who patiently answered my questions and gave further suggestions. On several occasions, however, one superior archaeologist tried effectively to pick up my research (I dont know why). This seemed at scratch to threaten the entire project, but as time went on, this persons activities proved to be less critical for my work than I had feared. determination material to work with One of my biggest challenges from the start was to find enough relevant material indorse on which to build a larger argument.I was already s ure-footed after having looked at the regional books in the library of the Institute of archeology in London, and undertaking an explorative gossip to the sites and monuments record (Ortsaktenarchiv) of the Landesamt fur Bodendenkmalpflege in Lubstorf, both(prenominal) early in 1995. I became solely convinced of the feasibility of my project during an all-encompassing visit of the study area during the summertime of 1995. After just over twain weeks of concentrated work with the records, I provided the fanny for my later analysis by documenting on specially designed forms, the evidence for later prehistoric receptions at al to the highest degree 1200 megaliths.That summer, I also visited several libraries and photocopied many relevant texts, which were not otherwise available to me at Lampeter. During a second visit to Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in the late summer of 1996 I visited counterbalance more sites, consulted libraries again and discussed various issues with local archa eologists. I closed gaps in my interlingual rendition by using the very in effect(p) interlibrary loan service at Lampeter, expending two weeks in the libraries of Cambridge and in the British Library in March 1996, and consulting the British Library for other few old age in September 1997. Interpreting the evidence in wider termsOn the stem of the promising evidence I had collected, and the associated archeologic literature I had read, it was always shed light on that for interesting interpretations I would need evoke ideas, earlier than additional evidence or access to even more archaeological literature. My interest was, after all, first and first off in the meanings of ancient monuments, and not in any particular archaeological period or area. I decided early on to combine my archaeological work with references to various other related themes and topics. ulterior prehistory would be supplemented by evidence from later historic periods as well from the present.The act ual receptions of megaliths, which I could see in the record, would be put in the setting of wider meanings of monuments. Ancient monuments and conceptions of the ultimo in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern would be associated with completely different archaeological and anthropological contexts. All this was to be put into pull by using interactive multimedia system technology. My reliable application document and further discussions about my plan to submit my work on the Internet, and then on CD-Rom, led me to conjecture more about the characteristics and significance of hypermedia links in the text.As a consequence, the idea of making sense by making connections became more and more important to me, and developed perhaps into one of the most important arguments of my work. Originally, I constructed the thesis on many small cards apiece representing one page they were casted by a systematic number code but this was more a way of structuring my physical composition process than a hidd en one-dimensional structure in my argument overture up with results What I now present is colourful, diverse, empirically rich and (hopefully) intellectually stimulating.I have produced a work that takes a decisively interpretive approach and rejects the illustration of the law court, according to which the task of the archaeologist is to establish the truth about the past, or to construct a story believable beyond reasonable doubt, in order for the judge or jury to circulate a verdict about what very happened (Shanks 1992 5456). What really happened in the past does not matter much to me. This work is not about the past, but rather about certain parts of the present, although it deals with the past and refers to archaeological evidence.I hope to launch that there are a great number of possible meanings of ancient monuments, and that we can reach interpretations and make sense of something by making connections. Perhaps more importantly, I hope to demonstrate in my work that past and present are join and cannot be separated from each other. In saying this I do not argue that different archaeological and diachronic contexts could not be distinguished from one another. My point is much broader the past is save meaningful within the particular history culture and as a voice to the cultural memory of each present.I do not know if there could be a present without a past (except perhaps for small babies and some animals as well as in certain medical conditions? ), but there can certainly be no past without a present. Ancient monuments in our landscapes intrigue me. Perhaps this is the beauty of my approach, and of my work people in later prehistory and today, including myself, find themselves in very much the same situation. They make sense in one way or another of the ancient monuments they come across in the landscape. The object of study in this work is, therefore, also the studying subject, and the results of my study pull back its approach too.