Reception History

8/8/2019 Reception History

1/5

The reception history of monuments

Archaeologists have frequently applied approaches from literary theory to the interpretation of prehistoricfinds and monuments. Likewise, literary 'reception theory' can be applied to archaeology (for a longerargument see Holtorf 1995; forthcoming).

Reception theory in archaeology

Reception theory is not a unified body of theory but represents a rather large field of discussion in literarytheory which developed from the late 1960s onwards, with a peak around the year 1980. I cannot go intodetails of the various and complex discussions among reception theorists here (see Warning 1975; Grimm1975; 1977; Link 1980; Suleiman 1980; Tompkins 1980; Holub 1984; Wnsch 1984). But there are a fewgeneral convictions shared by most academics working within reception theory that can be spelled out.

Most importantly, the emphasis is on the reader rather than on the author. According to reception theory,the readers' receptions of a text are completely independent from the author's original intentions or theliterary critics' interpretations of the text. The meaning of a text is defined by its readers' receptions:

readers, not authors, make meaning (Crosman 1980). According to reception theory, there is thus not asingle pre-determined 'adequate' reception of a given text on which literary theory needs to focus. Instead,all actual receptions in the past and the present are valid as such, and their particular characteristics

become the objects of study for a 'reception history' (Rezeptionsgeschichte). Hence, there is also noprimacy of an academically gained 'interpretation' as opposed to mere cultural 'receptions'; in fact thesecategories cannot be distinguished from each other, since every interpretation implies a reception whileevery reception includes an interpretation.

Different types of readers can be distinguished:

the imagined reader: the author's assumption of the actual reader,1.

the intended reader: the author's conception of the implicit reader,2.the explicit reader: the fictitious reader who is addressed in the actual text,3.the implicit reader: the reader as determined by the character of the text,4.the ideal reader: the most competent reader for a given text,5.the actual reader (like you when you read this!),6.the archereader: an archetypical abstraction from a number of actual readers.7.

These types divide into three groups: the author's perception of the reader (1+2), the reader contained inthe text (3-5), and the actual reader (6+7). Reception theory has mainly focussed on the two last groupsunder the headings of 'reception aesthetics' (Rezeptionssthetik, after Wolfgang Iser) and 'receptionhistory' (Rezeptionsgeschichte, after Hans Robert Jau). Reception aesthetics deals primarily withlanguage and is concerned with the question of how meaning is created by the reader through the reading

process of a text. Reception history studies readers and their reception of texts in biographical,sociological and historical contexts.

Reception theory can be used, in principle, as an approach for all the humanities, if their objects of studyare seen as texts, and it has already been applied in art history (Meyer 1988; Kemp 1992), musicology(Rsing 1983), history (Thompson 1993), egyptology (Assmann 1997) as well as literary history.Reception theory can also be applied to archaeology in general, and to ancient monuments in particular.Instead of 'readers', however, it is better to talk of 'recipients' in an archaeological context.

What do the different types of readers (recipients), which reception theory supplies, mean in the contextof archaeological monuments?

the imagined recipient: the builders' assumption of the actual recipient,1.the intended recipient: the builders' conception of the implicit recipient,2.

eption history https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/citd/holtorf/2.4.html

5 04/12/2010 19:19


2/5

the explicit recipient: the recipient who is addressed in the actual monument,3.the implicit recipient: the recipient as determined by the character of the monument,4.the ideal recipient: the most competent recipient for a given monument,5.the actual recipient (for example us, when we visit monuments),6.the archerecipient: an archetypical abstraction from a number of actual recipients.7.

What has been investigated by traditional archaeological research concerns mainly the intentions of thebuilders and the original 'functioning' of the monuments themselves. It is curious that the builders'

perceptions of the monuments' future recipients (1+2) have been largely ignored, even though monumentsare likely to have been built withprospective memories, for and about future recipients, in mind. Thedifference between imagined and intended recipients may be hard to infer from the finished monument,

but it should nevertheless be kept in mind when interpreting the intentions of the monument's builders.

A reception aesthetics of monuments would attempt to understand the relations between the monument'sformal characteristics and the meanings associated with it in later receptions (3-5). An explicit recipientmay not be found in a scriptless context but the implicit recipient is clearly of some importance. Themonumental nature of megaliths and their obvious association (as timemarks) with ancestors/age/theancient, determine, to some extent, their meanings in later receptions. Ancient monuments such as

megaliths are, by their very form, material, and context, objects that draw attention and stimulate the mindto think, even if only about how to deal with them. At the same time, monuments are bold statementsabout the land, the past, and about transcendentalityin whatever concrete shape this may manifestitself. Ideal recipients clearly can appreciate this.

The actual recipients of monuments (6+7) have interpreted them in many different ways depending on thespecific context. Since these actual receptions had actual consequences, some of which resulted inarchaeological evidence, there is no reason why archaeologists cannot concern themselves with the 'life-histories' of monuments. John Barrett (1993: 238) reminded us, although with reference to Romaninscriptions, that

"all uses of an inscription, from its carving, erection, the references and modifications madeto it, and its removal and reincorporation into some other place, can be regarded as readingsin the broadest sense because all such actions must have involved an interpretation of thematerial."

This can also be applied to monuments: all their later receptions reflect particular interpretations.

To my knowledge, so far no attempts have been made to determine archerecipients or other regularitiesamong the recipients of monuments.

Towards a reception history of monuments

Hans Robert Jau, one of the main proponents of reception theory, proposed in 1967 to treat literaryhistory as reception history (Rezeptionsgeschichte). Literary history, Jau argued, ought not to be basedon 'literary facts' of the production process or on formal properties of written works. Instead, emphasisshould be put on the changing receptions of a text by different readers at different times, including thereceptions by the authors themselves and literary critics (Jau 1970: 171, see also 217f.). TransferringJau' argument to archaeology we should look more closely at the reception history of archaeological'texts' rather than at the history of their production or at their formal characteristics alone: once the idea to

build a monument was born, what did it mean to the recipients of contemporary and later generations? Ithas recently been argued that reception histories of archaeological monuments are indeed a majordesideratum in current archaeological research (Seidenspinner 1993).

Monuments represent a variety of constantly changing meanings, determined by the light in which theyare seen. People receive these monuments in the landscape by constructing an 'imaginary world' aroundthem, just like readers of a text construct an 'imaginary universe' during the process of reading (Todorov


5 04/12/2010 19:19


3/5

1980). These imaginary worlds are determined by the implicit aesthetic characteristics of the given textsas much as by the contexts of the actual receptions. People in different ages 'constructed' monuments intheir receptions in a way that made sense then, as part of distinctive 'imaginary worlds'much asarchaeologists and others do today. In the perspective of such an archaeological reception history,monuments such as megaliths are thus not merely of the Neolithic, when they were first built, but in factof most periods ever since they were built, including the present (see my database of megalith receptionsin Mecklenburg-Vorpommern!).

This corresponds to, and supplements, recent studies in archaeology which emphasise the importance ofdifferent 'readers' and multiple interpretations of (pre-)historic monuments rather than single 'authors' andtheir original intentions (e.g. Hodder 1988; Olsen 1990; Tilley 1991; Burstrm et al. 1996; see also Beard1991; Goldhill and Osborne 1994). We are all but readers and recipients. It is thus unhelpful to classifydifferent receptions of ancient monuments according to how much they agree or disagree with whatacademic archaeologists nowadays happen to find important about them. However, this position was notshared by the archaeologist Ewald Schuldt who dismissed out of hand approaches different from his own,and tried to prevent alternative interpretations of the past and ancient monuments. In a letter to anamateur archaeologist who had suggested to him a different way of interpreting a megalith, Schuldt wroteon 2.6.1986 (cited afterOrtsakteNobbin):

"Fr mich und alle anderen Forscher, die sich ernsthaft mit diesen groartigen Denkmalenbefat haben, ist sicher, da sie im 3.Jt.v.Z. von der ltesten Bauernbevlkerung unseresLandes als letzte Ruhesttte fr ihre Toten errichtet wurden. Das ist tausendfach bewiesen.Allen anderen sonst noch in diesen Monumenten gesehenen Funktionen betrachte ich alsreine Spekulationen, ber die zu reden fr mich vertane Zeit ist."

"For me and all other scholars who have seriously investigated these great monuments, it iscertain that they were built during the 3rd millennium BC by the earliest farming populationof our country as a final resting place for their dead. This has been proven a thousand timesover. I consider all other functions proposed for these monuments as pure speculations, and

talking about them is a waste of time to me." (my translation)

My intention in this workis to contribute to a tentative reception history of monuments. This may alsoshed some light on their reception aesthetics. But the most important implication of my argument is that,whether we like it or not, the reception history of archaeological monuments will always continue, andkeep some if not all monuments socially and personally relevant in many ways, within ever new historycultures. As archaeologists we cannot change this, and nor should we want to. Rather we should bestudying such receptions, in order to reconnect Archaeology with its 'mnemohistory' (cf. Assmann 1997:22).

Literature

Assmann, Jan (1997) Moses the Egyptian. The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism. Cambridge,Mass. and London: Harvard University Press.

Barrett, John (1993) Chronologies of remembrance: the interpretations of some Roman inscriptions.World Archaeology 25(2), 236-247.

Beard, Mary (1991) Adopting an approach II. In: T.Rasmussen and N.Spivey (eds)Looking at GreekVases, pp. 12-35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burstrm, Mats, Bjrn Winberg and Torun Zachrisson (1996)Fornlmningar och folkminnen. Stockholm:Riksantikvariembetet.

Crosman, Robert (1980) Do Readers Make Meaning? In: S.R.Suleiman and I.Crosman (eds) The Readerin the Text, pp. 149-164. Princeton: Princeton University Press.


5 04/12/2010 19:19


4/5

Goldhill, Simon and Robin Osborne (eds) (1994)Art and Text in Ancient Greek Culture. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Grimm, Gunter (1975) Einfhrung in die Rezeptionsforschung. In: G.Grimm,Literatur und Leser.Theorien und Modelle zur Rezeption literarischer Werke, pp. 11-84. Stuttgart: Reclam.

Grimm, Gunter (1977)Rezeptionsgeschichte. Grundlegung einer Theorie. Mnchen: Wilhelm Fink.

Hodder, Ian (1988) Material Culture Texts and Social Change: A Theoretical Discussion and someArchaeological Examples.Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54, 67-75.

Holtorf, Cornelius J. (1995) 'Object-orientated' and 'problem-orientated' approaches of archaeologicalresearchreconsidered.Hephaistos 13, 7-18.

Holtorf, Cornelius J. (forthcoming) Constructed Meanings: The Receptions of Megaliths after theNeolithic. In: P.-O. Nielsen (ed.) Megalithic Tombstheir Context and Construction. Kbenhavn.

Holub, Robert C. (1984)Reception Theory. A critical introduction. London and New York: Methuen.

Jau, Hans R. (1970)Literaturgeschichte als Provokation. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.

Kemp, Wolfgang (ed.) (1992)Der Betrachter ist im Bild. Kunstwissenschaft und Rezeptionssthetik.Berlin: Reimer.

Link, Hannelore (1980)Rezeptionsforschung. Eine Einfhrung in Methoden und Probleme. Secondedition. Stuttgart etc.: Kohlhammer.

Meyer, Klaus-Heinrich (1988) Das Bild ist im Betrachter. Zur Struktur- und Bedeutungskonstruktiondurch den Rezipienten.Hephaistos 9, 7-41.

Olsen, Bjrnar (1990) Roland Barthes: From Sign to Text. In: C.Tilley (ed.)Reading Material Culture, pp.163-205. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Rsing, Helmut (ed.) (1983)Rezeptionsforschung in der Musikwissenschaft. Wege der Forschung LXVII.Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Seidenspinner, Wolfgang (1993) Archologie, Volksberlieferung, Denkmalideologie. Anmerkungen zumDenkmalverstndnis der ffentlichkeit in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart.Fundberichte aus BadenWrttemberg18, 1-15. Stuttgart: E.Schweizerbart.

Suleiman, Susan R. (1980) Introduction: Varieties of Audience-Oriented Criticism. In: S.R.Suleiman and

I.Crosman (eds) The Reader in the Text, pp. 3-45. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Thompson, Martyn P. (1993) Reception Theory and the Interpretation of Historical Meaning.History andTheory 32, 248-272.

Tilley, Christopher Y. (1991) Material Culture and Text. The Art of Ambiguity. London: Routledge.

Todorov, Tzvetan (1980) Reading as Construction. In: S.R.Suleiman and I.Crosman (eds) The Reader inthe Text, pp. 67-82. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Tompkins, Jane P. (ed.) (1980)Reader-Response Criticism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Warning, Rainer (ed.) (1975)Rezeptionssthetik. Mnchen: W.Fink.

Wnsch, Marianne (1984) Wirkung und Rezeption. In: K.Kanzog and A.Masser (eds)Reallexikon derdeutschen Literaturgeschichte. Second edition, vol. 4, pp. 894-919. Berlin: de Gruyter.


5 04/12/2010 19:19


5/5

Cornelius Holtorf


Reception History

Documents

Transcript of Reception History