New Draft on Analysing Monuments with Students

This is a new draft of a sug­ges­ti­on for ana­ly­sing monu­ments with stu­dents. Plea­se comment.
August 28^th: I added some aspects (in the PDF in green).

2019_​08_​Körber How to Read a Monu­ment as Nar­ra­ti­ve in Class_2-lit.pdf

==
Andre­as Kör­ber (Ham­burg)
How to Read a Monu­ment as a Nar­ra­ti­ve in Class – a Sug­ges­ti­on [unfi­nis­hed draft]

I.
The fol­lo­wing sug­ges­ti­ons for addres­sing monu­ments in histo­ry edu­ca­ti­on are based on a con­cep­ti­on of monu­ments as pro­to- or abbre­via­te nar­ra­ti­ves ¹ by a pre­sent actor about a cer­tain past and its rele­van­ce. Even though in many dis­cus­sions about the rem­oval of monu­ments, peo­p­le deplo­re the rem­oval of their “past”, ² what is at sta­ke, is not the past its­elf, but a spe­ci­fic and often pri­vi­le­ged com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on of a cer­tain inter­pre­ta­ti­on of some past con­text, per­so­na­ge or event.
As such, they also address someone (most­ly a spe­ci­fic group) – some­ti­mes expli­cit­ly, some­ti­mes impli­cit­ly only. The­se “addres­sees” need, howe­ver, not be iden­ti­cal with tho­se real­ly explo­ring the monu­ment. But the­se (the actu­al “audi­ence”) will also feel addres­sed, and sin­ce they might (will) be diver­se, in quite dif­fe­rent ways. This com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ve shift is far from being an excep­ti­on – it might even be the rule in times of chan­ge and of increased diver­si­ty of our socie­ties. Con­sider, e.g., a monu­ment hai­ling some hero of an impe­ri­al war addres­sing its audi­ence with a refe­rence to “our empire” visi­ted by an immi­grant Bri­tish citi­zen. This appli­es not only to monu­ments depic­ting a group’s (e.g. nation’s) “own pri­de and pain” but also to cri­ti­cal memo­ri­als addres­sing a group’s actions in the past which are con­side­red as pro­ble­ma­tic (to say the least) in retro­s­pect. Con­sider, e.g., Germany’s memo­ri­als at for­mer places of con­cen­tra­ti­on camps. In most cases, they are cal­led “Gedenk­stät­ten” – “sites of remem­brance”. As such, alre­a­dy, they (have to) express their nar­ra­ti­ve logic in diver­se from, given that the socie­ty they address is not only socio­lo­gi­cal­ly and cul­tu­ral­ly diver­se but also with respect to the past they refer to. For sur­vi­vors and depen­dants (of both sur­vi­vors and fatal vic­tims), they are (main­ly) a place of com­me­mo­ra­ti­on their own loss and also vic­tim­hood. In many cases the­se places tell a sto­ry of “we have this place for remem­be­ring what they (the Ger­mans) have done to us”. But even within this group, the­re are many who are and still con­sider them­sel­ves Ger­mans. For them, the nar­ra­ti­ve is quite dif­fe­rent. And of cour­se the­re is a dif­fe­rence bet­ween mour­ning a loss and remem­be­ring a sur­vi­val or even own resis­tance. An inscrip­ti­on on the 1965 monu­ment at Neu­en­gam­me Con­cen­tra­ti­on Camp Memo­ri­al in Ham­burg, e.g., rea­ding “Euer Lei­den, Euer Kampf und Euer Tod sol­len nicht ver­ge­bens sein” (“Your Suf­fe­ring, Your Fight and Your Death Shall Not be in Vain”) does pro­min­ent­ly address a group of pri­soners who actively resis­ted. But what is more, most of the­se places respec­tively monu­ments the­re are also known as “Mahn­ma­le”, i.e. “monu­ment” in the lite­ral sen­se of “admo­nis­hing” someone. Who can or should be admo­nis­hed the­re? Refer­ring to the Nazi Cri­mes, they can (and have to) do it in two dif­fe­rent ways: Towards sur­vi­ving vic­tims and their depen­dants they may be read as “Never let that be done unto you again” – but addres­sing the Ger­man socie­ty as such they refer to “Remem­ber” (publicly, that is) “what you have done” (both to “others” and to “some of your own”, that is) – “and make sure that this never hap­pens again”. Ger­mans among the vic­tims of NS-cri­mes (Jewish Ger­mans, Com­mu­nists, Social Demo­crats Jehova’s Wit­nesses, and many others), then, will spe­ci­fi­cal­ly have to sel­ect (not choo­se) how they are addressed.

Meta­pho­ri­cal­ly, monu­ments don’t cea­se to “speak” if addres­sing a dif­fe­rent audi­ence from what was inten­ded or sup­po­sed. Sin­ce all per­cep­ti­on and ana­ly­sis (“de-construction”1) of a nar­ra­ti­ve also requi­res and impli­es re-con­s­truc­ti­ve men­tal pro­ces­ses, the resul­ting nar­ra­ti­ves in diver­se publi­ca will dif­fer, par­ti­al­ly by beco­ming more com­plex. Con­sider the 1925 war monu­ment in front of Hamburg-Altona’s Johan­nis Church: It depicts three medieval war­ri­ors with bare chest and lea­ning on a long sword.2 The inscrip­ti­on reads: “Den Gefal­le­nen zum dank­ba­ren Gedächt­nis, den Leben­den zur Mah­nung, den kom­men­den Geschlech­tern zur Nach­ei­fe­rung” (“to the fal­len in gra­teful memo­ry, to the living as a remin­der, to the coming gene­ra­ti­ons for emu­la­ti­on”). Even though the­re sure­ly are some youths on the right-wing of the poli­ti­cal spec­trum to whom this may appeal, both most of them will have to enga­ge in two­fold inter­pre­ta­ti­on: “Eth­nic” will have to dif­fe­ren­tia­te bet­ween their own posi­ti­on and per­spec­ti­ve and that of the youth in the Wei­mar Repu­blic, in order to reco­gni­ze the mes­sa­ge and to make their own sen­se of it, Ger­mans with what is often ter­med as “migra­to­ry back­ground” will have even more aspects to combine.

All the­se con­side­ra­ti­ons also hold true for the “speaker’s posi­ti­on” in a memo­ri­al or monument’s nar­ra­ti­ve: Let’s take the exam­p­le of Ger­man Con­cen­tra­ti­on Camp memo­ri­als again: Who is it, admo­nis­hing the vic­tims not to be vic­ti­mi­zed again, and (more pro­min­ent­ly) the Ger­mans not to beco­me per­pe­tra­tors again? In fact, one can even detect ano­ther lay­er in such monu­ments. The fact that (bela­ted­ly enough) the Ger­man socie­ty today desi­gna­tes and sup­ports the­se “Gedenk­stät­ten” (or even hosts them insti­tu­tio­nal­ly) can also be con­side­red a mes­sa­ge to both the sur­vi­vors, their depen­dants and to the world at lar­ge: “See and that we address this past” – pos­si­bly also with a call for sup­port: “By wit­nessing this com­mit­ment of ours to remem­be­ring this past – help us to resist and even fight ten­den­ci­es to aban­don it and to return to a socio-cen­tric way or com­me­mo­ra­ti­on” again. ³ But is it “the Ger­man Socie­ty” spea­king here – or some spe­ci­fic group (e.g. the govern­ment, a poli­ti­cal fac­tion, …) spea­king “for” the Ger­man peo­p­le or in lieu of? Just like the tar­ge­ted audi­ence of a monu­ment sel­dom­ly is just the one real­ly visi­ting it (and try­ing to make sen­se of it), the posi­ti­on of “aut­hor­ship” needs to be differentiated.
Given all this, the con­ven­tio­nal ques­ti­ons of (1) who erec­ted a monu­ment (2) to (remem­be­ring) whom, (3) for what pur­po­se, (4) with who­se money, and to what effect (e.g. of app­rai­sal, cri­tique), are still neces­sa­ry, but need to be complemented.
As a result, a monument’s “mes­sa­ge” or “mea­ning” is neither fixed nor arbi­tra­ry, but rather a spec­trum of nar­ra­ti­ve rela­ti­ons bet­ween a ran­ge of perceived-“authors” or ”spea­k­ers” and a simi­lar ran­ge of tar­ge­ted and fac­tu­al addressees.
Fur­ther­mo­re, their inter­re­la­ti­on is of utmost inte­rest and may stron­gly dif­fer: Does (and if so: in what way) the monu­ments mes­sa­ge imply the aut­hor and the addressee(s) to belong to the same group? It it “intran­si­ti­ve” in that it at least see­mingly expres­ses the fact of “remem­be­ring” (“We both know that we have know­ledge about this past and we express that it is of importance to us”), while in fact it ser­ves eit­her as a tran­si­ti­ve remin­der (“I know that you know, but you must not for­get”) or even as a first-time intro­duc­tion of the addres­see into the sub­ject at hand (which will be the mode in most cases of visi­ting monu­ments with stu­dents). So whe­re “remem­be­ring” and even “com­me­mo­ra­ti­on” is sug­gested and meant, “tel­ling” is the fac­tu­al mode.
Fur­ther­mo­re, com­me­mo­ra­ti­ve modes are mani­fold. Monu­ments can not only call for neu­tral “remem­be­ring”, but also for reve­ring or con­dem­ning, for fee­lings (pri­de and pain) – and they can appeal for action, e.g. for fol­lo­wing an exam­p­le. In cul­tu­ral­ly diver­se socie­ties, the spe­ci­fic lin­gu­i­stic and artis­tic modes of expres­sing may not be clear to all stu­dents, pos­si­bly lea­ding to misun­derstan­dings, but pos­si­bly also to iden­ti­fy­ing alter­na­ti­ve rea­dings which are worth considering.

II.
Ano­ther aspect is cru­cial: In (post-)modern, diver­se and hete­ro­ge­neous socie­ties (at least), it will not suf­fice that each indi­vi­du­al is able to think about the past and its repre­sen­ta­ti­ons in the public sphe­re, to con­sider the mes­sa­ges and to rela­te to them indi­vi­du­al­ly. The com­mon task of orga­ni­zing a peaceful and demo­cra­tic life tog­e­ther within socie­ty as well as in respect to for­eign rela­ti­ons requi­res that the indi­vi­du­al mem­bers of socie­ty do not only sport their own his­to­ri­cal con­scious­ness – pos­si­bly dif­fe­rent from that of their neigh­bours, they will have to be able to rela­te to the­se other per­cep­ti­ons, con­cep­tua­li­sa­ti­ons, inter­pre­ta­ti­ons and eva­lua­tions of past and histo­ry and to the appeals they hold for them. In plu­ral socie­ties it is not enough to just know histo­ry yours­elf and to be able to think his­to­ri­cal­ly – its is para­mount to have at least some insight into the his­to­ri­cal thin­king of others and to be able to com­mu­ni­ca­te about it. This also refers to monu­ments. What is nee­ded is not only know­ledge and insight about some pos­si­ble dif­fe­rent inter­pre­ta­ti­ons (as e.g. exem­pli­fied by clas­si­cal or repre­sen­ta­ti­ve ones taken from lite­ra­tu­re), but also an insight into the actu­al (ongo­ing, pos­si­bly still unsu­re, blur­red, unfi­nis­hed) inter­pre­ta­ti­ons of others in one’s one rele­vant con­texts. Lear­ning about histo­ry in inclu­si­ve socie­ties, the­r­e­fo­re, be they diver­se with regard to cul­tu­ral, social or other dif­fe­ren­tia­ti­ons, requi­res a dimen­si­on of mutua­li­ty, of lear­ning not only about histo­ry and the past, but also about the other mem­bers of socie­ty and their rela­ti­ons to it, the mea­nings it holds for them, their ques­ti­ons, their hypo­the­ses, etc. ⁴

III.
On the back­drop of all the­se con­side­ra­ti­ons, the fol­lo­wing gui­de­line the­r­e­fo­re does not ven­ture to help stu­dents to per­cei­ve the “true” “mea­ning” of a monu­ment, but rather to fos­ter com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on about what is per­cei­ved as its “mes­sa­ge” and mea­ning by pos­si­bly dif­fe­rent peo­p­le. Some of the­se per­cep­ti­ons will be affirm­ed by being shared among seve­ral and pos­si­bly quite dif­fe­rent users, while others might be dif­fe­rent. This, howe­ver, does not neces­s­a­ri­ly ren­der them wrong or non­sen­si­cal (which, they might be, howe­ver). Com­pa­ring dif­fe­rent ans­wers might both shar­pen the individual’s per­cep­ti­on and broa­den it to per­cei­ve rele­van­ce and mea­nings of memo­ri­als to peo­p­le with dif­fe­rent back­ground, inte­rest, cul­tu­re, inte­rest, and so on. The­se forms of rele­van­ce might (often will) dif­fer from that inten­ded by tho­se who erec­ted the monu­ment. What does that mean? Is a monu­ment dys­func­tion­al if peo­p­le feel addres­sed by it in a way dif­fe­ring from that ori­gi­nal­ly inten­ded? Or does it keep rele­van­ce but chan­ge significance?
The­se ques­ti­ons do not replace but com­ple­ment other approa­ches to ana­ly­sing monu­ments. It might be sen­si­ble, though, to not app­ly them after more direct approa­ches, but to use them as a start, resul­ting in more spe­ci­fic (and pos­si­bly also more) of ques­ti­ons to explore.
The ques­ti­ons can be used in dif­fe­rent ways. It will be rather tedious to just ans­wer them one by one – espe­ci­al­ly inclu­ding all bul­let points. The lat­ter are rather meant as sug­ges­ti­ons for for­mu­la­ting an ans­wer to the main ques­ti­ons abo­ve them.
To work indi­vi­du­al­ly is pos­si­ble, but becau­se of the con­cept explai­ned abo­ve, it might be more fruitful to app­ly a “Think-Pair-Share” ‑sys­tem and first work inde­pendent­ly, then compa­re sug­ges­ti­ons in small groups in a way which does not only look for com­mon solu­ti­ons, but also explo­res and eva­lua­tes dif­fe­ren­ces, and then share both insights and remai­ning or new­ly ari­sen ques­ti­ons with the who­le group.

Task:
I. Respond to the ques­ti­ons 1 – 6, using the bul­let points below as direc­tions and sug­ges­ti­ons. Try e.g. to com­ple­te the given sen­ten­ces, but for­mu­la­te your own ans­wer to the main ques­ti­ons. If you are unsu­re or have addi­tio­nal ide­as, for­mu­la­te your ques­ti­ons (ins­tead)!
II. Compa­re your nots with your partner(s). Don’t stan­dar­di­ze them! Ins­tead: For­mu­la­te (a) a new ver­si­on of tho­se aspects which were simi­lar and (b) on your dif­fe­ren­ces! In what way did/​do you dif­fer? Make a sug­ges­ti­on why that might be! Keep your ori­gi­nal notes! They will be valuable in fur­ther discussions!
III. Report on your fin­dings from II to your class! Compa­re with insights and ques­ti­ons of other groups!

=======================

1. Com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ve Explicitness:
   In how far does the monu­ment (seem to) …
   • … pre­sent or sug­gest a spe­ci­fic per­son or group in a spea­k­er posi­ti­on? (e.g. “We, <…> erec­ted this monument”?)
   • … address a spe­ci­fic person/​group or sug­gests to be direc­ted towards a spe­ci­fic group? (“You, <…>…” /​ “to <…>”) ⁵
   • … address a third-par­ty as some kind of wit­ness as to the fact of remem­be­ring? ⁶
   • … refer to some third par­ty as invol­ved in the past which is nar­ra­ted? (e.g. “what they have done to us”)
2. Nar­ra­ti­ve Explicitness:
   In how far does the monu­ment (seem to) …
   • … pre­sup­po­se that the recipient/​addressee has suf­fi­ci­ent know­ledge about the con­text refer­red to?
   • … expli­cit­ly con­s­truct a spe­ci­fic con­text (expli­cit­ly tell a story),
   • … rely on a cer­tain amount of com­mon know­ledge of spea­k­er and addres­see? ⁷
   • …intro­du­ce actors, con­texts and events?
   • ?
3. Transitive/​Intransitive communication:
   In how far does the monu­ment (seem to) …
   • … embrace the recipient/​addressee as a mem­ber of the same group (“we”) as the (pur­por­ted) speaker?
   • … address the recipient/​addressee as a mem­ber of a dif­fe­rent group (“you”) as the (pur­por­ted) speaker?
4. . “Mono-” or “Hete­rogloss” communication:
   In how far does the monu­ment (seem to) …
   • … embrace the recipient/​addressee as undoub­ted­ly having the same perspective/​sharing the eva­lua­ti­on (“monogloss”)? e.g. by being impli­cit about it,
   • … address the recipient/​addressee as not neces­s­a­ri­ly sha­ring the same per­spec­ti­ve and eva­lua­ti­on (“hete­rogloss”)? e.g. by being expli­cit in state­ment, eva­lua­ti­on, etc.
5. Com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ve Intent:
   What is the rela­ti­on of authors’/addressee(s)/third-party’s role in the (proto-)narrated sto­ry?, e.g.
   • Gene­ric
     1. “<…> want(s) <…> to <know/​remember/​acknowledge/​accept/​judge> as <…>”
   • Spe­ci­fic:
     • “’We’ <…> want ‘you’ <…> (and others) to know what ‘we’ <…> have achie­ved!” (as e.g. in “Stran­ger, tell the Spartans …”)
     • “’We’ <…>want ‘us’ <…> to not for­get what ‘we’ <…> have achie­ved!” (as e.g. in Monu­ments to Unification)
     • “’We’ <…> want ‘us’ <…> to not for­get what ‘we’ <…> have cau­sed!” (as e.g. in Ger­man Con­cen­tra­ti­on Camp Memorials)
     • “’We’ <…> want ‘you’ <…> to know that ‘we’ <…> sub­mit our­sel­ves to not forgetting/​remembering!”
     • “’We’ <…> want ‘us’ <…> to not for­get what ‘they’ <…> have done to ‘us’ <…>!”
     • “’’We’ <…> want ‘you’ <…> to know that ‘we’ <…> ack­now­ledge what ‘you’ <…> have done to ‘us’ <…>!”
   • In how far does one (or seve­ral) of the fol­lo­wing forms descri­be the com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ve inten­ti­on of the monument? 
     • to inform, e.g. if it intro­du­ces and details the past inci­dents, con­texts etc.;
     • to con­firm, e.g. if it almost tacit­ly – wit­hout giving details – refers to a past con­text which both aut­hor and addres­see share know­ledge about; inten­ding to secu­re ack­now­led­ge­ment of factuality;
     • to com­me­mo­ra­te, e.g. if it almost tacit­ly – wit­hout giving details – refers to a past con­text which both aut­hor and addres­see share know­ledge about, inten­ding to express a cer­tain evaluation;
     • to mourn, e.g. if it refers to a past con­text which both aut­hor and addres­see share know­ledge about, inten­ding to express a fee­ling of loss of someone/​something valued);
     • to remind, e.g. if it refers to a past con­text which both aut­hor and addres­see should share know­ledge about, inten­ding to 
       • pre­vent forgetting;
       • secu­re a cer­tain eva­lua­ti­on which is sup­po­sed to have been shared before?
       • appeal, e.g. if it asks (invites?/requests?/summons?) the recipient/​addressee to feel/​identify/​act in a cer­tain way, e.g. by 
         • refer­ring to (a) person(s) as respon­si­ble for some­thing, admo­nis­hing the addres­see to eva­lua­te this/​these per­sons in a cer­tain way, but not to fol­low her/​his exam­p­le, either
         • heroi­zing: pre­sen­ting (a) person(s) as respon­si­ble for a spe­cial achie­ve­ment and the­r­e­fo­re to be revered;
         • giving thanks: pre­sen­ting (a) person(s) as respon­si­ble for a spe­cial achie­ve­ment and expres­sing gratitude;
         • con­dem­ning: pre­sen­ting (a) person(s) as respon­si­ble for a spe­cial achie­ve­ment and the­r­e­fo­re to be condemned;
         • to pre­sent examp­les /​ role models, e.g. if it by pres­ents (a) person(s) as respon­si­ble for some­thing and addres­ses the recipient/​addressee as pos­si­bly being in a simi­lar posi­ti­on and having simi­lar capa­ci­ties, urging her/​him either 
           • to fol­low the exam­p­le (e.g. of taking action, of resisting);
           • to not fol­low the exam­p­le (e.g. of going along …);
         • to express gra­ti­tu­de, e.g. if it pres­ents the addres­see and/​or his group as respon­si­ble for some­thing good, expres­sing gratitude;
         • to accu­se, e.g. if it pres­ents the addres­see and/​or his group as respon­si­ble for some­thing bad, expres­sing contempt;
   • other (spe­ci­fy) …
     ======
     Refe­ren­ces
     • “Gemüts­zu­stand eines total besieg­ten Vol­kes”. Höcke-Rede im Wort­laut. Nach dem Tran­skript von Kon­stan­tin Nowot­ny (2017). In Der Tages­spie­gel, 1/​19/​2017. Available online at https://​www​.tages​spie​gel​.de/​p​o​l​i​t​i​k​/​h​o​e​c​k​e​-​r​e​d​e​-​i​m​-​w​o​r​t​l​a​u​t​-​g​e​m​u​e​t​s​z​u​s​t​a​n​d​-​e​i​n​e​s​-​t​o​t​a​l​-​b​e​s​i​e​g​t​e​n​-​v​o​l​k​e​s​/​1​9​2​7​3​5​1​8​-​a​l​l​.​h​tml, che­cked on 3/​14/​2019.
     • Kör­ber, Andre­as (2014): His­to­ri­cal Thin­king and His­to­ri­cal Com­pe­ten­ci­es as Didac­tic Core Con­cepts. In Hel­le Bjerg, Andre­as Kör­ber, Clau­dia Lenz, Oli­ver von Wro­chem (Eds.): Tea­ching his­to­ri­cal memo­ries in an inter­cul­tu­ral per­spec­ti­ve. Con­cepts and methods : expe­ri­en­ces and results from the Teac­Mem pro­ject. 1^st ed. Ber­lin: Metro­pol Ver­lag (Rei­he Neu­en­gam­mer Kol­lo­qui­en, Bd. 4), pp. 69 – 96.
     • Kör­ber, Andre­as (2015): His­to­ri­cal con­scious­ness, his­to­ri­cal com­pe­ten­ci­es – and bey­ond? Some con­cep­tu­al deve­lo­p­ment within Ger­man histo­ry didac­tics. Available online at http://​www​.pedocs​.de/​v​o​l​l​t​e​x​t​e​/​2​0​1​5​/​1​0​8​1​1​/​p​d​f​/​K​o​e​r​b​e​r​_​2​0​1​5​_​D​e​v​e​l​o​p​m​e​n​t​_​G​e​r​m​a​n​_​H​i​s​t​o​r​y​_​D​i​d​a​c​t​i​c​s​.​pdf.
     • Kör­ber, Andre­as (2019; in print): Inklu­si­ve Geschichts­kul­tur — Bestim­mungs­fak­to­ren und Ansprü­che. In Sebas­ti­an Barsch, Bet­ti­na Degner, Chris­toph Küh­ber­ger, Mar­tin Lücke (Eds.): Hand­buch Diver­si­tät im Geschichts­un­ter­richt. Zugän­ge einer inklu­si­ven Geschichts­di­dak­tik. Frank­furt am Main: Wochen­schau Ver­lag, pp. 250 – 258.
     • Kör­ber, Andre­as (2019; unpubl.): Geschichts­ler­nen in der Migra­ti­ons­ge­sell­schaft. Sich in und durch Kon­tro­ver­sen zeit­lich ori­en­tie­ren ler­nen. deut­lich über­ar­bei­te­ter Vor­trag; unpu­bli­ziert. Geschich­ten in Bewe­gung“. Uni­ver­si­tät Pader­born. Pader­born, 6/​14/​2019.
     • Kör­ber, Andre­as; Schrei­ber, Wal­traud; Schö­ner, Alex­an­der (Eds.) (2007): Kom­pe­ten­zen his­to­ri­schen Den­kens. Ein Struk­tur­mo­dell als Bei­trag zur Kom­pe­tenz­ori­en­tie­rung in der Geschichts­di­dak­tik. Neu­ried: Ars Una Ver­lags-Gesell­schaft (Kom­pe­ten­zen, 2).
     • Léves­que, Sté­pha­ne (2018): Remo­ving the “Past”. Deba­tes Over Offi­ci­al Sites of Memo­ry. In Public Histo­ry Weekly 2018 (29). DOI: 10.1515/phw-2018 – 12570.
     • Rüsen, Jörn; Fröh­lich, Klaus; Horst­köt­ter, Hubert; Schmidt, Hans Gün­ther (1991): Unter­su­chun­gen zum Geschichts­be­wußt­sein von Abitu­ri­en­ten im Ruhr­ge­biet. Empi­ri­sche Befun­de einer quan­ti­ta­ti­ven Pilot­stu­die. In Bodo von Bor­ries (Ed.): Geschichts­be­wusst­sein empi­risch. Pfaf­fen­wei­ler: Cen­tau­rus (Geschichts­di­dak­tik : […], Stu­di­en, Mate­ria­li­en, [N.F.], Bd. 7), pp. 221 – 344.
     • Zio­gas, Ioan­nis (2014): Spar­se Spar­tan Ver­se. Fil­ling Gaps in the Ther­mo­py­lae Epi­gram. In Ramus 43 (2), pp. 115 – 133. DOI: 10.1017/rmu.2014.10.