The Lives of Monuments and Monumentalising Life Julian Thomas School of Arts, Languages and Cultures University of Manchester, UK Introduction The contributions in this volume have, in diverse ways, addressed the theme of monumentality in the Neolithic of Europe and southwest Asia, as well as in some more far-flung contexts. It is certainly the case that when we think of the Old World Neolithic it is often monumental constructions that come first to mind: the Carnac stone alignments, the Goseck circle, the Falköping megalithic tombs, the Maltese temples, Göbekli Tepe, or Stonehenge. But how far is it the case that the construction and use of monuments was something intrinsic to the Neolithic? Not all societies build monuments, but do those that do have anything specific in common? Conversely, did Neolithic societies in particular have a distinctive relationship with their monuments, or characteristic reasons for creating these prodigious works? One problem that we immediately face is that although ‘monument’ and ‘monumentality’ are ostensibly straightforward and readily comprehensible terms, they are actually quite slippery and complex. This is because the concept of monument embodies a series of different elements. The most significant of these are massiveness and memorial, but we will see that there are a number of others, and that not all need be combined in any particular context or structure. So, what we are talking about when we discuss monumentality can subtly shift and change from time to time and place to place. The most obvious attribute of a monument is the sheer scale and giganticness of its construction (Thomas 2013: 315). The colossal size of such creations sometimes seems to be excessive, and to transcend any practical function that they might have had. Indeed, it is this excessiveness that often sets monuments apart from other kinds of architecture, a kind of elaboration that underscores the distinctiveness of particular structures. Related to this theme of massiveness is that of visibility and conspicuousness (Fig. 1). Monuments may be ornately or distinctively formed, highly coloured, or make use of unusual materials, in order to render them visually arresting, and they may have prominent topographic locations that help them to stand out from a great distance (Sanches and Vale this volume). However, in some cases the ostentatious character of monuments may be deceptive. For instance, some of the very large Neolithic horned cairns of the Orkney Isles were built in an expedient fashion that made them look more imposing from a distance than they actually were (Richards 2013). Like Potemkin Villages, they were all show and little substance. Furthermore, the ponderous materiality of these structures may sometimes be in tension with their other key attribute, that of memorability. We should remember that the Latin root of the word monument comes from ‘to remind’, and that their mnemonic capacities are just as important as their substantiality. In the Classical world, monuments were first and foremost constructions that were intended to commemorate a particular person or event, such as the summi viri of the forum of Augustus, Trajan’s Column, or the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus. As Josephine Shaya points out (2013: 83), these features were