German archaeology and National Socialism. Some historiographical remarks

Archaeological Dialogueshttp://journals.cambridge.org/ARD

Additional services for Archaeological Dialogues:

Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

German archaeology and National Socialism. Somehistoriographical remarks

Martijn Eickhoff

Archaeological Dialogues / Volume 12 / Issue 01 / June 2005, pp 73 - 90DOI: 10.1017/S1380203805001595, Published online: 30 August 2005

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1380203805001595

How to cite this article:Martijn Eickhoff (2005). German archaeology and National Socialism. Some historiographicalremarks. Archaeological Dialogues, 12, pp 73-90 doi:10.1017/S1380203805001595

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ARD, IP address: 131.174.75.30 on 27 Oct 2014

note

Archaeological Dialogues 12 (1) 73–90 C© 2005 Cambridge University Press

doi:10:1017/S1380203805001595 Printed in the United Kingdom

German archaeology and National Socialism. Somehistoriographical remarks Martijn Eickhoff

AbstractThis paper reconsiders German reflection on National Socialist pre- and protohistoricarchaeology from 1933 onwards. It tries to do so by means of a case study of theacademic contacts between the Dutch prehistorian A.E. van Giffen (1884–1973) andhis German colleague H. Reinerth (1900–90). The approach adopted here differsfrom traditional historiographical writing on National Socialist archaeology in tworespects. First, in its analysis of the academic exchange between the two scholars,the case study seeks to bridge the classical caesura between a pre- and post-warperiod. Second, contemporary and historical studies of National Socialist archaeologyand archival sources, as well as interviews, have been incorporated in the researchalongside the usual publications of the scholars involved. It is argued that with theapproach taken here we may arrive at a more nuanced understanding of the differentways archaeologists have reacted to National Socialism over the past seven decades.

KeywordsHistory of archaeology; National Socialism; SS-Ahnenerbe; Amt Rosenberg

IntroductionDuring the last three decades, the questions of why and in what waythe history of archaeology should be written have frequently been posed,especially by archaeologists. Some have stressed that writing on the disciplinein the past ought to be linked with practical and contemporary archaeologicalissues in research (Pinsky 1989, 51, 54). Others have emphasized that thiscould lead to a profitless distinction between ‘presentist’ and ‘historicist’histories of archaeology. They advocate an alternative, conciliatory approach.Histories of archaeology, they argue, should describe how archaeologistshave tried to make sense of the past; at the same time one should analysewhat archaeology was, and has been, about at different times and places andfor different audiences (Schlanger 2002, 128–29; Murray 2002, 238). Whenapplied to the pre- and protohistorical archaelogy of the Third Reich, thisapproach offers interesting new insights.

The question of what can be understood by National Socialist pre-and protohistoric archaeology has not yet been answered satisfactorily; instudies on this issue, the lack of consensus is most apparent. In 1974 theCanadian historian M.H. Kater, for example, concluded in a study about

74 note

the archaeologists working for the research department of the SS, the so-called Ahnenerbe (Ancestral Heritage), that the traditional quest for scientifictruth had not been replaced by creating this truth (Kater 1974, 360). On theother hand, the Italian archaeologist A. Augenti wrote in 1999 that these SSarchaeologists had been accomplices of a totalitarian regime, and he accusedthem of committing cardinal scientific sins.1 The main reason for this lack ofconsensus is that historical research often focuses on specific roots or essencesof Nazi archaeology. As a result, in these historical studies a general analysisof the role and position of archaeologists in Nazi Germany is frequentlyneglected. For a better understanding of pre- and protohistoric archaeologyduring the Third Reich it is, however, necessary to map out in an unprejudicedway how German academic archaeologists – on average – reacted to NationalSocialism and how they found (or tried to find) a place for themselves in theNew Order. Subsequently, we should ask how they accounted for their actionsbefore and after 1945. It is important also to include certain extra-academicpractices of pre- and protohistorical archaeology. People like G. von List,H. Wirth, W. Teudt and H. Wille, who operated in the periphery of theacademic world during the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich, havedetermined strong foreign ideas of Nazi archaeology from 1933 onwards.Therefore it is important to analyse their close relations with establishedacademic circles on the one hand, and with the new National Socialistleaders on the other. A new and heterogeneous image can then appear thatapproximates historical reality more than the still-dominant narrowly scopedimpressions of events.

It is often forgotten that prior to 1945 there already was a debate about thestate of archaeology in the Third Reich, both within and without Germany.The opinions ventilated by different parties diverged greatly. For example,in 1934 the Dutch classical archaeologist A. Roes mentioned the threatof ‘mental tyranny’ and pointed out that archaeology in Germany wasabout to be crushed between mysticism and propaganda (Roes 1934, 80–81). In reaction to remarks like this, the German prehistorian H. Gummelsignalled in 1938 that many foreigners expressed their doubts about thefreedom of science in National Socialist Germany. But, he stated, there wasno need to worry. The only restriction imposed on science and learning inthe Germany of his day was that research should be in the interest of theGerman people (Gummel 1938, 389–90). In line with Gummel’s statement,the British prehistorian G. Clark observed in 1939 that ‘the main body ofGerman prehistoric research is not more tainted by bias than it is elsewhere’(Clark 1939, 202).

By studying and comparing the diverse opinions of German archaeologyventilated before and after 1945 it can be illustrated that the samearguments could serve different aims in different periods. A salient exampleof this phenomenon is the involvement of German prehistorians with theAhnenerbe organization. The members of this SS research department,which was founded in 1935, publicly advocated the scientific basis of itsresearch programme on das Nordrassige Indogermanentum (the Nordic Indo-Germanic race) (Anonymous 1939). In practice, this meant that science wasused to sanction Himmler’s National Socialist world view. After 1945 some

German archaeology and National Socialism 75

former SS prehistorians argued that thanks to these research methods theyhad been able to preserve the objectivity of their archaeological enquiries.In an indirect way, they exonerated themselves from participation in thescientific foundation of the National Socialist or SS world view (Eickhoff2002, 563–64).

If the year 1945 is not regarded as a historical caesura, it becomes possibleto distinguish – in a schematic way – four different periods in the debate onNational Socialist pre- and protohistoric archaeology: 1934–40, 1945–50,1965–75 and 1998–2003. In this essay I will examine which continuities anddiscontinuities can be observed during the period as a whole. By confrontingthe main historical publications of these periods with information fromcontemporary sources and interviews, it becomes possible to debunk someestablished impressions of past events, as I will try to demonstrate by acase study of the academic contacts between the Dutch prehistorian A.E.van Giffen (1884–1973) and his German colleague H. Reinerth (1900–90).Their academic exchange started in the 1930s and continued until well afterthe Second World War. The international perspective of this case offers anopportunity to compare the ways in which archaelogists in Germany and theNetherlands coped with the National Socialist past of their discipline. After1945, for Dutch prehistorians like Van Giffen, it seemed easy to maintainthat Nazi archaeology had crossed the border in May 1940, together withthe Nazi troops. Van Giffen also related it to the propaganda activities ofDutch National Socialist amateur archaeologists, whose opinions were notto be taken seriously in scholarly matters. German prehistorians, however,had to admit the incidence of Nazi archaeology within their own ranks. Theirdebate on the origins of Nazi archaeology was therefore inextricably boundup with exoneration strategies.

A.E. van Giffen and H. ReinerthFor present-day Dutch archaeologists, A.E. van Giffen (Figure 1) countsas the most important Dutch prehistorian of the first half of the twentiethcentury (Van de Velde 2001, 919). In 1922 he was appointed head ofthe Biologisch-Archaeologisch Instituut (Biological Archaeological Institute),which was created especially for him at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (StateUniversity of Groningen) (Lanting 1973; Brongers 1989). He pioneered large-scale investigation of the pre- and protohistory of the northern Netherlands,which brought him much national and international acclaim. His researchconcentrated on megalithic tombs, barrows, urnfields and terps (Van Giffen1922; 1925; 1927; 1930a; 1930c). Van Giffen, who presented himself asan empirical prehistorian, carried out research on two different levels. Hisattention was primarily directed at the relation between the environmentand social phenomena in pre- and protohistory. Concurrently, he tried todetermine cultural provinces by looking at the distribution of specific kinds ofarchaeological remains; whenever possible, he linked these cultural provincesto tribes and races (Van Giffen 1930b; 1938a, 115). In this way, Van Giffenstudied the origin and propagation of the megalithic people, who were oftenregarded as the predecessors of the later Germanic tribes. In an analogousway he also had collected information on the prehistoric (Germanic) origin

76 note

Figure 1 Albert Egges van Giffen in 1922 (photo GIA/Groningen Institute of Archaeology; formerly knownas the Biologisch-Archaeologisch Instituut).

of the Saxons, then seen as direct precursors of the inhabitants of the northernparts of the Netherlands and Germany. Van Giffen’s conclusions on ethnicityfound wide reception amongst the general public, in the Netherlands andGermany alike. The origin and development of the Germanic people werethemes that played an important role in the ethnic identity of the inhabitantsof both countries (Eickhoff 2003, 123–77; 2004).

Van Giffen maintained many international contacts, especially withhis archaeological colleagues in Germany. He corresponded with them,exchanged publications and was regularly invited to give lectures.2 His webof relations included almost the entire German field of pre- and protohistoricarchaeology. Some contacts had been established during the 1920s. Oneof these early acquaintances had been K.H. Jacob-Friesen, director of thePrehistory Department in the Niedersachsische Landesmuseum (ProvincialMuseum of Lower Saxony) of Hanover (Van Giffen 1927, 329). Theexchange with the Romisch-Germanische Kommission (Roman-GermanicCommission) in Frankfurt am Main began later on, from 1931 onwards.3

In the second half of the 1930s Van Giffen also came in touch with German


scholars who were doing Westforschung: the interdisciplinary research onthe concepts of Raum (space), Kultur (culture) and Volk (people) in Germanyand its north-western neighbouring countries (Eickhoff 2004). Relations withprehistorians who belonged to the SS-Ahnenerbe were also maintained. Forexample, in 1937 Van Giffen visited H. Jankuhn’s excavations of the Vikingcity Haithabu in Schleswig-Holstein. Jankuhn (1905–90), an archaeologistfocusing on protohistory, was working in Kiel as private lecturer and hadworked his way up to the position of a respected SS-Ahnenerbe scholar (Kater1974, 81–82; Steuer 2001b).

Van Giffen had corresponded with H. Reinerth, leader of the Reichsbundfur deutsche Vorgeschichte (State Society for German Prehistory) since 1935,the year following Reinerth’s appointment as professor in Berlin.4 He hadknown Reinerth’s academic work even prior to that year. In 1930, whenVan Giffen was appointed lecturer, he had expressed a favourable opinion onReinerth’s excavations on the border of the Federsee. Van Giffen especiallyappreciated the latter’s research on the prehistoric environment by meansof pollen analysis (Van Giffen 1930b, 15; Keefer 1992, 41–48). In themeantime, in 1933, in his position as leader of the Reichsbund and by expressorder of A. Rosenberg, Reinerth had zealously started the Gleichschaltung –reorganization on the basis of National Socialist principles – of the Germanpre- and protohistoric archaeology. His main aim was to create a statearcheological organization in which all German archaeologists were united.Reinerth saw himself as the leader of this huge organization. But because of hisfanatic and uncompromising attitude, he was reviled by most of his Germanarchaeological colleagues (Bollmus 1970, 153–235). Van Giffen did notaccount for this; being a positivistic scholar, he could make a clear distinctionbetween politics and science. It is therefore not surprising that in 1936 heaccepted the invitation from the Reichsbund fur deutsche Vorgeschichte tolecture in Berlin. With his presentation entitled ‘Germanische Siedlungen inden Warfen Hollands’ (Germanic settlements in the Dutch terps), in which hediscussed his north Netherlands excavations, Van Giffen had great success.Following this lecture, his academic merits were expatiated upon in severalGerman newspapers. In the Berliner-Borsen-Zeitung he was even praised asEurope’s best excavator (Anonymous 1936).

More than a year afterwards, on 15 June 1937, Van Giffen again helda lecture in Berlin for the same Reichsbund. Now he acknowledged thatacademic cooperation across the borders could be most useful for German andDutch archaeology. In Rosenberg’s National Socialist propaganda magazinethe Volkischer Beobachter (People’s observer), this was summarized asVan Giffen calling for German–Dutch collaboration, which was greetedenthusiastically by his audience (Anonymous 1937). Was Van Giffen blind tothe political content that his reputation and work were given in the Germancontext? Most probably he was of the opinion that, notwithstanding theevident political use that was made of his research, he could hold on tothe distinction between science and politics by incidentally pointing out theboundaries. He categorically refused to support archaeological propagandafor National Socialism. In 1934 he did not answer the request from theVolkischer Beobachter to contribute an article to the series ‘Wer kennt

78 note

Germanien’ (Who knows Germania).5 Neither did he respond in 1937 toReinerth’s request to write an article for the Germanenerbe (Germanicheritage), a magazine of non-specialist and propagandistic nature.6 He evenrefused to participate in the Reichstagung fur deutsche Vorgeschichte (StateMeeting for German Prehistory) organized by Reinerth.7 He was indeedinvited to these yearly gatherings, but he was aware of the fact that scienceplayed a minor role there. These events had more the character of partymeetings (Figure 2).8 Reinerth accepted Van Giffen’s refusals, all the moresince these did not in the least affect their academic cooperation. For example,in 1938 two articles by Van Giffen were published in the journal Mannus, ofwhich Reinerth was the editor (Van Giffen 1938b; 1938c).

Contacts continued through 1939. As usual, Van Giffen cancelled hisattendance at the Reichstagung – that year taking place in Oldenburg –with a letter to Reinerth. He gave the growing international tensions as thereason for his absence. Nevertheless, later in that same year, he did nothesitate to visit Reinerth’s excavation on Lake Dummer near Osnabruck.This archaeological site could count on Van Giffen’s special attention: hereReinerth had found for the first time a village of the megalithic people, ofwhich thus far no example had been found within the Netherlands.9 Evenafter the German invasion of the Netherlands in May 1940, their relationsremained good. In December that same year, Reinerth was officially receivedat the Biologisch-Archaeologisch Instituut in Groningen.10 This visit resultedin Van Giffen accepting the offer to lead the excavations near the village ofLanion in Brittany, under the aegis of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg (Rosenberg’sSpecial Duty Corps), in 1941.11 Van Giffen’s promise was a relief forthe Amt Rosenberg (the Rosenberg Office); most of its staff had enteredmilitary service. Moreover, Van Giffen had a good reputation with the AmtRosenberg. In May 1941 a member of this organization had written a mostfavourable report about him. Van Giffen’s academic results were enlargedupon, as were his good contacts with Reinerth. It was explicitly mentionedthat the connection with Reinerth had originated after the National Socialisttakeover of 1933.12 Van Giffen finally cancelled the appointment with theEinsatzstab Rosenberg for the French project in October because, as he wroteto Reinerth, excavations in the Netherlands completely filled his agenda.13

Relations between Van Giffen and Reinerth did not suffer from this Brittanydebacle; their correspondence continued.14

One cannot exclude the possibility that, especially with regard to theexcavations planned in Brittany, Van Giffen played an intricate game withReinerth; he might have overstated his commitments in the Netherlands to getout of his promise without explicitly refusing. There is no doubt, however,about Van Giffen’s respect for Reinerth as a scholar. T.H. van Andel, whowas assistant to Van Giffen in 1941, remembered in 1996, ‘Reinerth washeld up to me as a great archaeologist, and I think he truly was.’ About thecancellation of the excavation in Brittany he recollected,

I was very disappointed . . . . You should know, about the level ofinformation in Holland at that time, the Amt Rosenberg was something ofwhich we had never heard, much later the rumours came out. My parents

Germ

anarchaeology

andN

ationalSocialism

79

Figure 2 Alfred Rosenberg during his speech at the yearly Reichstagung fur deutsche Vorgeschichte (State Meeting for German Prehistory) of 1938 in Hanover (after Germanen-Erbe.Monatschrift fur Deutsche Vorgeschichte 1938, 336–37).

80 note

were very uneasy that I would go, in wartime, it was almost certain therewas something wrong with that. I didn’t think so, I was just excited.15

But Van Andel did not have the same level of respect for all Germanprehistorians. Completely different was, in his memory, the Ahnenerbearchaeologist H. Schwabedissen, who at times visited the institute inGroningen wearing his black SS uniform. Van Andel and his fellow studentsoften retreated to the attic of the building to avoid meeting him.16

H. Reinerth, Nazi prehistorian par excellence?In the second half of the 1940s, only a few years after the premature end ofthe ‘thousand-year empire’, Van Giffen resumed academic contacts with hisGerman colleagues. For him, it was impossible to continue his archaeologicalresearch without exchange with the German scholarly hinterland. Moreover,his own academic standing had been based for a large part on the respecthe enjoyed from his German colleagues. And so, when for example in 1948Jacob-Friesen resumed the correspondence, Van Giffen promptly answeredhim, ‘I would be delighted . . . to revive the old contacts and relations.’17

Van Giffen did not renew his contact with Reinerth, however. After 1945Reinerth was considered the Nazi prehistorian par excellence, because of hisinvolvement with the Amt Rosenberg and the academic Gleichschaltung.His academic merits, which had been so highly praised by Van Giffen,were mentioned no more.18 This image emerges from the introductionwritten in 1950 by Jacob-Friesen to the first post-war issue of the journalDie Kunde (the Message), in which the Amt Rosenberg and its staff weretypified as unscientific Schwarmgeister (‘romantic minds’) (Jacob-Friesen1950). When in 1949 Van Giffen made his first lecture tour in Germany –visiting Regensburg, Hanover and Hamburg – he even got directly involvedin the campaign against Reinerth. While he was staying in Regensburg,the West- und Suddeutsche Verband fur Altertumskunde (West and SouthGerman Archaeological Association) was discussing the position of pre- andprotohistoric archaeology in the Third Reich. The session on this topic, whichVan Giffen attended, was concluded by drafting a resolution, in which allthose present distanced themselves from Reinerth.19

Already, by the end of 1945, Reinerth had been denounced to the Frenchoccupation authorities by some of his former colleagues. During the followingtrials British, as well as German, prehistorians were asked to testify. In 1948C.F.C. Hawkes, Professor of European Archaeology at Oxford, declared thatReinerth had been more responsible than any other for turning pre- andprotohistoric archaeology into an instrument of Nazi propaganda. About hisexcavations – so much praised by Van Giffen – he stated,

That such men were able to carry out magnificent excavations of lake-dwellings, to write and publish books with very useful components, is notsomething to stress . . . We are much more concerned with the interpretation,with the train of thought . . .20

V. Gordon Childe also expressed himself, but in a more critical way. Hepointed out that Reinerth’s 1934 appointment in Berlin had completely


Figure 3 Van Giffen (at the right) during his visit in 1937 to the Oesterholz-Kreuzkrug excavation ofReinerth (at the left) (photo GIA).

discredited German academe; Reinerth had only obtained this professorshipthrough his political contacts, not by virtue of his scholarly qualities.21 Childedid not even respect Reinerth’s excavation publications:

But while Reinerth’s predecessors . . . discussed archaeological issues withcompetent mastery and procured in honourable form all necessarydocuments even when these would be in manifest contradiction to thefamiliar theories, Reinerth’s books proved to be absolutely unreliable, for heeliminated all documentation or even overtly contorted those, which wereincompatible with the thesis of Nordic supremacy he had undertaken toprove.22

That during the Third Reich Van Giffen had chosen quite another stand,and was able to concentrate exclusively on the useful aspects of Reinerth’sscientific oeuvre, needs no further clarification (Figure 3). After 1945 hewould, however, refrain from speaking in favour of him; he kept his distancefrom Reinerth. He altered this attitude around 1955. Van Giffen’s daughter,C.C.G. van Giffen, remembered in 2000 that she and her father paid Reinertha visit at the open-air museum in Unteruhldingen, of which he had by thenbecome director.23 Reinerth had been found guilty of politicizing archaeologyand convicted for this in 1949, but the verdict was overturned in 1953. Inthis period, Reinerth had declared in his defence that it was unjust to holdone single scholar responsible for politicizing a whole academic field (Schobel2002, 358–59).

Between 1965 and 1975 the historiography of pre- and protohistoricarchaeology in the Third Reich was built to a great extent on the image

82 note

that had emerged in the second half of the 1940s. When discussing NationalSocialist archaeology, one as a rule referred to Reinerth, the Reichsbundfur deutsche Vorgeschichte and the Amt Rosenberg, thus following thedirection indicated in Jacob-Friesen’s 1950 article in Die Kunde. In 1966 thehistorian Heiber mentioned ‘the abysmal dilettantism of the Rosenbergians’(Heiber 1966, 250). In 1974 the historian Kater spoke of the amateurism ofthe Rosenbergianer (Rosenbergians) in his book about the SS-Ahnenerbe –without venturing to analyse in depth the oeuvre either of Reinerth or of theother prehistorians of the Amt Rosenberg (Kater 1974, 73, 115, 300). Thehistorian Bollmus, who in 1970 defended his thesis on the Amt Rosenberg,also put his oar in. In his view, Reinerth and his assistants had discredited themethodical accuracy of archaeology (Bollmus 1970, 235). Heiber, and Katerand Bollmus, pointed out that the SS-Ahnenerbe had offered prehistorians analternative to the Amt Rosenberg. Kater argued that archaeologists had beenable to create for themselves, by means of small concessions, considerableacademic latitude. He even recalled that the Ahnenerbe was considered bysome of the scholars involved as an academic Naturschutzpark (nationalpark) (Kater 1974, 74).

Testing the historiography of the period from 1965 to 1975 against thecase of scientific exchange between Van Giffen and Reinerth has two possibleconsequences. On the one hand, the good academic relations between thetwo prehistorians could imply that Van Giffen had been well disposedtowards National Socialism. However, he never publicly gave evidence ofsuch sympathy, even when he was repeatedly asked to do so from theNational Socialist side. Van Giffen was of the opinion that as a scholarhe was not entitled to discuss politics; only his most intimate friends knewthat he preferred the ideology of liberalism (Eickhoff 2003, 274). On theother hand, Van Giffen’s relations with Reinerth could be taken to meanthat this historiography has ignored some important nuances. That thelatter possibility is in fact correct is endorsed by the fact that the samehistoriography offers an image of the SS-Ahnenerbe that does not correspondwith the impression this organization made on the Dutch prehistoriansbetween 1935 and 1945. Archival research has revealed that the Ahnenerbein the Netherlands was not associated with scholarly freedom or latitude, butstood for National Socialist propaganda and cultural policy (Eickhoff 2002,564–70).

The role and position of prehistorians in the Third ReichAlthough it is impossible to characterize briefly the role and position ofprehistorians in Nazi Germany without missing essential nuances and details,some main features can be mentioned. It was a period in which the disciplineexperienced an unprecedented growth (Gummel 1938, 371–91). But whilethe number of chairs in prehistoric archaeology greatly increased, Jewishprehistorians were fired. At the same time, other prehistorians publiclyengaged themselves with National Socialism (Arnold 1990, 468, 470–73).Moreover, the field was subjected to competing National Socialist organi-zations: the NSDAP (Amt Rosenberg) and the SS. Rivalries between different


archaeological schools, already existing since the beginning of the 20thcentury, lodged in the battle between these Nazi organizations over thecontrol of German archaeology (Eickhoff 2002, 560). This was not donein secret; many conferences were coupled with explicit Nazi ostentation,and publications were often prefaced by important SS or NSDAP officials.Apart from that, there was the ascent of pseudoscientists like G. von List,W. Teudt, H. Wille and H. Wirth.24 German prehistorians regarded especiallythis latter phenomenon with growing concern. In 1936 the German runicspecialist H. Arntz mentioned in a speech at the University of Kiel that Germanprehistorians should engage in debate with the pseudoscientists. This group,he argued, had been able to attract much international attention during thefirst years of the Third Reich. Arntz continued,

Science, in her lofty reticence, is partly to blame that someone like Guidov. List, Wirth, Teudt – or whoever they are – out in the world were oftenconfused with responsible, objective and critical German research (Arntz1936, pp. viii–ix).25

By then, the German prehistorian K.H. Jacob-Friesen had directed his specialattention to the person of Wirth. In 1934 he had dubbed this Dutch–German‘primeval’ linguist, who in 1935 had founded the Ahnenerbe together withReichsfuhrer-SS H. Himmler and the Reichsbauernfuhrer R.W. Darre, aclairvoyant, only capable of building castles in the air. He substituted fantasyfor knowledge, and faith for logic. It is, however, important to note thatthis criticism did not mean that for Jacob-Friesen scientific knowledge ofprehistory was free from religious overtones. With regard to this, he stated,

the knowledge of the genesis of our own race simply belongs to the mostsacred things we have. But all those should be kept from this sanctuary, whodo not understand that . . . before all else unprejudiced work is necessary toperceive the Sacred in a pure way (Jacob-Friesen 1934, 387).26

During the second half of the 1930s, German prehistorians succeededin pushing pseudoscientists like von List, Teudt, Wille and Wirth intothe background (Eickhoff 2003, 232). Abroad, this change conveyed theimpression that the old and respectable German scholarly tradition had beenguaranteed. G. Clark’s observation of 1939, cited above, that the ‘main bodyof German prehistoric research is not more tainted by bias than it is elsewhere’,confirms this situation. The battle for power over archaeology between theSS-Ahnenerbe and the Amt Rosenberg, at that time still in full swing, was notmentioned by him; apparently he did not see it as a threat to the scholarlyquality of German archaeology.

Close investigation of the early debates on Nazi archaeology reveals thatin the period immediately following the end of the war a conspicuoustransformation occurred in the way the role and position of archaeologistsin the Third Reich were regarded. Reinerth and his academic disciples werethen ascribed the bad reputation that had originally belonged mainly to thepseudoscientists. Reinerth was portrayed as a fanatic dilettante and for thisreason as the Nazi prehistorian par excellence. No longer was it mentionedthat he had also been praised as an academic; that a scholar like Clark had

84 note

observed that science and National Socialism could sometimes coincide wassomething best forgotten. Former Ahnenerbe archaeologists especially wereinvolved in Reinerth’s defamation. They were also the ones to profit the mostfrom this (Schobel 2002, 359). In the first years after 1945 it was of vitalimportance to them to foist the involvement with Nazi archaeology ontotheir old adversary. This would exonerate them from the same engagement.The story that Himmler’s Ahnenerbe had protected them from Reinerth, andthat their academic liberty had not been curtailed, provided them with aperfect alibi.

When in the early 1960s Kater, then preparing his dissertation, startedto contact former Ahnenerbe prehistorians, this image still proved mostefficacious. Kater was indeed surprised to find that archaeologists workingfor the Ahnenerbe – the lion’s den – had found protection from theSS, but he did corroborate this theory. There are two main reasons forthis. First, Kater looked for Nazi influence in the content of Ahnenerbepublications, which was indeed almost nil. He failed therefore to noticethat the Ahnenerbe officials had been, conversely, much more interestedin the sociopolitical significance of these publications (Kater 1974, 72;Eickhoff 2002, 555, 564). A second reason is that the traditional imagefitted into the then current theory of totalitarianism, which was especiallydominant during the Cold War period and which explained the events inthe Third Reich primarily from a top-down perspective (Wippermann 1997,114). This approach fails to see that in 1933 all groups involved in pre-and protohistoric archaeology had to tackle the new political situation.Whether rival groups of academics, amateurs or pseudo-scientists, all triedto secure their positions, or to create a new and better one. We cannottherefore exclude the possibility that academic prehistorians chose to conductarchaeological research from the National Socialist Weltanschauung, withoutexternal pressure or compromises (Eickhoff 2003, 11–12; Kershaw 1998,527–91; 2000, 69–92).

Only in the 1990s did a change occurr in historiography as Germanprehistorians started to become self-reflective. This offered important newperspectives. It fitted well with the general attention being paid in the1990s to the entanglement of scholarship and National Socialism: thereorganization of former GDR universities had made the denazification ofthe universities into a highly topical subject (Van Galen Last 2000; Lorenz2001). Of crucial importance – comparable with the Historikertag (HistoryConference) of 1998 in Frankfurt – was the international conference entitled‘Prahistorie und Nationalsozialismus. Die mittel- und osteuropaische Ur- undFruhgeschichtsforschung in den Jahren 1933–1945’ organized by A. Leubeand held in 1998 in Berlin at the Humboldt University. The acts, publishedin 2002, contain a wealth of empirical information on German pre- andprotohistoric archaeology during the Third Reich, in all its aspects. The role ofarchaeologists in countries occupied by the Nazis is also reconsidered in depth.Moreover, various contributions successfully debunked the polarized imagesof the SS-Ahnenerbe and the Amt Rosenberg.27 Likewise, Eine hervorragendnationale Wissenschaft. Deutsche Prahistoriker zwischen 1900 und 1995,edited by H. Steuer, contributed to the insight. The coherence of the National


Socialist world view and the academic work of leading prehistorians, suchas SS-Ahnenerbe member Jankuhn, was also appraised.28 Still, some criticalremarks can be made: the search for empirical data may have offered manynew insights, but an analytical synthesis of the entanglement of German pre-and protohistoric archaeology and National Socialism is still lacking. Leube’sand Steuer’s academic courage should, however, not be underestimated.Leube had been working as a prehistorian in the ‘totalitarian’ GDR andSteuer had been schooled in archaeology by Jankuhn; both positions made iteasier to criticize the intentions of the two initiators.

Concluding remarksThe aim of this paper has been to describe the debates on National Socialistpre- and protohistoric archaeology from 1933 onwards. It is tempting topose alternative questions or even to provide alternative answers. The aim ofthis historiographic overview is, however, to analyse why certain questionswere posed, why certain answers were given and, more importantly, whycertain continuities or changes occurred in these discussions. The oppositionconstructed in the second half of the 1940s, between a scientific SS-Ahnenerbeand an amateurish Amt Rosenberg, has been proven to be most tenacious.Furthermore, it turned out that for a long time historiography had a stronglyapologetic character (instead of aiming to reconstruct past events). Thedominant debate, which centered on the origins of Nazi archaeology, was ofmoralistic character and inextricably bound up with strategies of exonerationof former SS prehistorians, whose archaeological careers did not stop after1945. By confronting the historiography with information out of archivalsources, this paper shows the subjectivity of their approach beyond dispute.Against this background – and with reference to recent theoretical discussionson how to write histories of archaeology – this paper has advocated analternative approach: exploring and comparing how (groups of) prehistoriansreacted to National Socialism and how they tried to find a place for themselvesin the New Order, without excluding the idea that Nazi archaeology couldcoincide with ‘normal’ science. Only then can an image be constructed thatis heterogeneous rather than moralistic and therefore nuanced.

AcknowledgementsThis article and the following, by U. Halle on Wille and Teudt, are the resultof a symposium entitled ‘De Duitse archeologie en het nationaal-socialisme’(German archaeology and National Socialism), held in September 2003 at theAmsterdams Archeologisch Centrum of the University of Amsterdam. Otherspeakers at the symposium were Prof. Dr J.D. van der Waals, Dr L. Lowand Dr G. Schobel. I am grateful to Ton Derks and Arnold Witte for theircomments on earlier drafts of this paper.

Notes1 For the remarks made by Augenti see Steuer 2001b, 426.2 See Correspondence Archive of the Biologisch-Archaeologisch Instituut (BAI), Groningen

Institute for Archaeology (GIA), State University of Groningen; Van Giffen-Archive,Lectures, University library, Groningen.

86 note

3 For the correspondence between Van Giffen and the Romisch-Germanische Kommission(RGK) see Archive RGK 19:578 Frankfurt am Main. For the Romisch-GermanischeKommission see Kramer 1977.

4 See Archive BAI 1935 M-R.5 Letter dated 5 January 1934, C. Kohn-Behrens to A.E. van Giffen, Archive BAI 1934

Hel-L.6 Van Giffen literally placed a question mark next to the head of the letter, in which the

character of the magazine was described as volkstumlich (folkloristic). See letter dated22 June 1937, Germanenerbe to A.E. van Giffen, Archive BAI 1937 Sc-t.

7 The Reichsbund fur deutsche Vorgeschichte organized every autumn a conference – in1934 in Halle, in 1935 in Bremen, in 1936 in Ulm, in 1937 in Elbing and in 1938 inHanover. See Bollmus 1970, 173.

8 Letter dated 1 November 1938, K.H. Jacob-Friesen to A.E. van Giffen, Archive BAI 1938C-F.

9 Letter dated 25 August 1939, A.E. van Giffen to H. Reinerth; letter dated 27 September1939, A.E. van Giffen to H. Reinerth; letter dated 7 December 1939, A.E. van Giffen toH. Reinerth, Archive BAI 1939 P-Sp. For the excavation site at the Dummersee seeReinerth 1939. For Van Giffen’s visit to Reinerth’s excavation of the tumulus atSchlangen in 1937 see Halle 1996, 84.

10 Letter dated 13 December 1940, H. Reinerth to A.E van Giffen, Archive BAI 1941 R-Sto.11 Letter dated 11 June 1941, A.E. van Giffen to H. Reinerth, Archive BAI 1941 R-Sto.

Already in 1939 Van Giffen had undertaken an excavation in Britanny; see Brunsting1947, 555.

12 Letter dated 23 May 1941, Schilde to A. Rosenberg, 79/2-20063-5 Dutch Institute forWar Documentation (NIOD), Amsterdam.

13 Letter dated 11 October 1941, A.E. van Giffen to H. Reinerth, Archief BAI 1941 R-Sto.14 Archive BAI 1943 O-Sch.15 Interview with T.H. van Andel, Cambridge, 2 July 1996.16 Ibid.17 Letter dated 8 March 1948, K.H. Jacob-Friesen to A.E. van Giffen. The answer was

dated 28 October 1948, A.E. van Giffen to K.H. Jacob-Friesen: ‘Ich wurde michfreuen . . . , die alten Verbindungen und Beziehungen wieder auf zu nehmen.’ ArchiveBAI 1948 H-J. This and all other translations from non-English sources are myown.

18 There is no correspondence in the BAI-archive from the second half of the 1940s withReinerth.

19 For the events in Regensburg, see Schobel 1996–97, 45; 2002, 321 and 358–60.20 ‘Dass solche Manner auch prachtige Ausgrabungen in Pfahlbauten durchfuhren konnen,

dass sie auch Bucher schreiben und herausgeben konnen, die durchaus brauchbareEinzelteile enthalten, braucht nicht besonderes hervorgehoben zu werden. . . . Unsgeht es vielmehr um die Interpretation, um die Gedankengange’. See the letterdated 27 December1948, C.F.C. Hawkes to W. Kimmig, Archiv PfahlbaumuseumUnteruhldingen. With thanks to G. Schobel.

21 For Reinerth’s appointment see Grunert 2002, 335–36; Leube 1999.22 ‘Wahrend aber Reinerths Vorganger . . . noch mit sachkundiger Meisterschaft

archaologische Probleme erorterten und in honoriger Form alle Unterlagen fur siebeibrachten, sogar dann noch, wenn diese in offenkundigem Gegensatz zu denausgesprochenen Theorien standen, erwiesen sich Reinerths Bucher als durchausunzuverlassig, da er all die Unterlagen unterdruckte oder gar offentlich verdrehte, diemit der These der nordischen Uberlegenheit, die zu beweisen er sich vorgenommenhatte, nicht vereinbar waren.’ 23 December 1948, V.G. Childe, ‘Hans Reinerth’, Archive


Pfahlbaumuseum Unteruhldingen. With thanks to G. Schobel. For Kossinna and Childesee Veit 1984.

23 Interview with C.C.G. van Giffen, Oosterhout, 31 August 2000.24 For Wirth see Wiwjorra 1996, 180–82; Eickhoff 2003, 218–26. For Teudt and Wille see

Halle 2002. For von List see Goodrick-Clarke 1992, 33–48.25 ‘Die Wissenschaft in ihrer vornehmen Zuruckhaltung ist mit Schuld daran, daß ein Guido

v. List, Wirth, Teudt – und wie sie alle heissen – draußen oft verwechselt wurden mit derverantwortungsbewußten, sachlich-kritischen deutschen Forschung.’ For a discussion ofArntz’s oeuvre and his position in the Third Reich see Hunger 1984, 43–70.

26 ‘ . . . das Wissen um den Ursprung unseres eigenen Volkstums gehort nun einmalzu dem Heiligsten, was wir besitzen. Von diesem Heiligtum mussen aber alle jeneLeute ferngehalten werden, die nicht verstehen konnen, daß . . . vor allen Dingenunvoreingenommene Arbeit, dazu gehort, um das Heilige rein zu erkennen.’

27 Leube and Hegewisch 2002.28 These acts are the result of a conference organized in 1999 at the Universitat Freiburg.

See Steuer 2001a.

ReferencesAnonymous, 25 January 1936: Nederlandsche terpen. Voordracht van dr. Van

Giffen in de Universiteit te Berlijn, Volk en Vaderland.Anonymous, 24 June 1937: Nordische Einzelgraber in Holland. Vortrag von

Dr. A.E. van Giffen im Reichsbund fur Deutsche Vorgeschichte, VolkischerBeobachter.

Anonymous, 1939: Die Forschungs- und Lehrgemeinschaft ‘Das Ahnenerbe’ zuneuen Arbeiten und Aufgaben bereit, Germanien 11, 91.

Arnold, B., 1990: The past as propaganda. Totalitarian archaeology in NaziGermany, Antiquity 64, 464–78.

Arntz, H., 1936: Vorwort, in H. Arntz (ed.), Germanen und Indogermanen.Volkstum, Sprache, Heimat, Kultur. Festschrift fur Herman Hirt, Heidelberg,pp. vii–x.

Bollmus, R., 1970: Das Amt Rosenberg und seine Gegner. Studien zumMachtkampf im nationalsozialistischen Herrschaftssystem, Stuttgart.

Brongers, J.A., 1989: Giffen, Albert Egges van, in J. Charite (ed.), BiografischWoordenboek van Nederland, Vol. 3, ’s-Gravenhage, 196–99.

Brunsting, H., 1947: Opgravingen verricht onder leiding van Prof. Dr A.E. vanGiffen, in H.E. van Gelder a.o. (eds), Een kwart eeuw OudheidkundigBodemonderzoek in Nederland, Gedenkboek A.E. van Giffen, Meppel,545–55.

Clark, G., 1939: Archaeology and society, London.Eickhoff, M., 2002: Die politisch-gesellschaftliche Bedeutung der Archaologie

wahrend der deutschen Besetzung der Niederlande. Reflexionen am Beispielvon F.C. Bursch und A.E. van Giffen, in A. Leube and M. Hegewisch (eds),Prahistorie und Nationalsozialismus. Die mittel- und osteuropaische Ur- undFruhgeschichtsforschung in den Jahren 1933–1945, Berlin, 555–73.

Eickhoff, M., 2003: De oorsprong van het ‘eigene’. Nederlands vroegsteverleden, archeologie en nationaal-socialisme, Amsterdam.

Eickhoff, M., 2004: Zusammenarbeit dies- und jenseits der deutsch-hollandischen Grenze. A.E. van Giffens archaologische Forschung in den

88 note

Niederlanden, Westforschung und die Praxis der deutschen Besetzung, in M.Middell and U. Sommer (eds), Historische West- und Ostforschung inZentraleuropa zwischen dem Ersten und dem Zweiten Weltkrieg –Verflechtung und Vergleich, Leipzig, 55–71.

Goodrick-Clarke, N., 1992: The occult roots of Nazism. Secret Aryan cults andtheir influence on Nazi ideology. The Ariosophist of Austria and Germany,1890–1935, New York.

Grunert, H., 2002: Gustaf Kossinna (1858–1931). Vom Germanisten zumPrahistoriker. Ein Wissenschaftler im Kaiserreich und in der WeimarerRepublik, Rahden.

Gummel, H., 1938: Forschungsgeschichte in Deutschland, Berlin.Halle, U., 1996: Die Ausgrabung des Grabhugels am ‘Hulstaler Tor’ bei

Oesterholz/Gem. Schlangen im Jahre (1937), Lippische Mitteilungen ausGeschichte und Landeskunde 65, 69–87.

Halle, U., 2002: ‘Die Externsteine sind bis auf weiteres germanisch!’Prahistorische Archaologie im Dritten Reich, Bielefeld.

Heiber, H., 1966: Walter Frank und sein Reichsinstitut fur Geschichte des neuenDeutschlands, Stuttgart.

Hunger, U., 1984: Die Runenkunde im Dritten Reich. Ein Beitrag zurWissenschafts- und Ideologiegeschichte des Nationalsozialismus, Frankfurt.

Jacob-Friesen, K.H., 1934: Hellseher in der Urgeschichtsforschung,Vergangenheit und Gegenwart 24(7/8), 374–87.

Jacob-Friesen, K.H., 1950: Wissenschaft und Weltanschauung in derUrgeschichtsforschung, Die Kunde 1–2, 1–5.

Kater, M.H., 1974: Das ‘Ahnenerbe’ der SS 1935–1945. Ein Beitrag zurKulturpolitik des Dritten Reiches, Stuttgart.

Keefer, E., 1992: Die Suche nach der Vergangenheit. 120 Jahre Archaologie amFedersee, Stuttgart.

Kershaw, I., 1998: Hitler. 1889–1936: Hubris, London.Kershaw, I., 2000: The Nazi dictatorship. Problems and perspectives of

interpretation, London.Kramer, W., 1977: Funfundsiebzig Jahre Romisch-Germanische Kommission,

Beiheft zum Bericht der RGK 58, 5–23.Lanting, J.N., 1973: A.E. van Giffen. Education and official career,

Palaeohistoria XV, 13–14.Leube, A., 1999: Zur Vor- und Fruhgeschichte an der Friedrich-

Wilhelms-Universitat in den Jahren 1933–1945, in E. Cziesla, T. Kersting andS. Pratsch (eds), Den Bogen Spannen . . . Festschrift fur Bernhard Gramschzum 65. Geburtstag, Weissbach, 561–69.

Leube, A. and M. Hegewisch (eds.), 2002: Prahistorie und Nationalsozialismus.Die mittel- und osteuropaische Ur- und Fruhgeschichtsforschung in denJahren 1933–1945, Heidelberg.

Lorenz, C., 2001: ‘Over onszelf praten we niet’. De discussie over de Duitsehistorici en het nationaal-socialisme, in P. Dassen en T. Nijhuis (eds),Gegijzeld door het verleden. Controverses in Duitsland van de‘Historikerstreit’ tot het Sloterdijk-debat, Amsterdam, 153–77.

Murray, T., 2002: Epilogue. Why history of archaeology matters, Antiquity 76,234–38.

Reinerth, H., 1939: Ein Dorf der Großsteingraberleute. Die Ausgrabungen desReichsamtes fur Vorgeschichte am Dummer, Germanenerbe 4–8, 226–42.


Pinsky, V., 1989: Introduction. Historical foundations, in V. Pinsky andA. Wylie (eds), Critical traditions in contemporary archaeology, Cambridge,51–54.

Roes, A., 1934: Het hakenkruis Arisch?, Haarlem.Schlanger, N., 2002: Ancestral archives. Explorations in the history of

archaeology, Antiquity 76, 127–31.Schobel, G., 1996–97: Die Pfahlbauten von Unteruhldingen, Plattform.

Zeitschrift des Vereins fur Pfahlbau und Heimatkunde e.V. 5–6, 32–49.Schobel, G., 2002: Hans Reinerth. Forscher – NS-Funktionar – Museumsleiter,

in A. Leube and M. Hegewisch (eds.), Prahistorie und Nationalsozialismus.Die mittel- und osteuropaische Ur- und Fruhgeschichtsforschung in denJahren 1933–1945, Heidelberg, 321–96.

Steuer, H. (ed.), 2001a: Eine hervorragend nationale Wissenschaft. DeutschePrahistoriker zwischen 1900 und 1995 RGA-E Band 29, Berlin.

Steuer, H., 2001b: Herbert Jankuhn und seine Darstellungen zur Germanen- undWikingerzeit, in H. Steuer (ed.) Eine hervorragend nationale Wissenschaft.Deutsche Prahistoriker zwischen 1900 und 1995 RGA-E Band 29, Berlin,417–73.

Van de Velde, P., 2001: Netherlands, in T. Murray (ed.), Encyclopedia ofarchaeology. History and discoveries, Vol. 3, N–Z, Santa Barbara, 919–34.

Van Galen Last, D., 2000: Rassenhygiene: de dodelijke omhelzing vanwetenschap en nationaal-socialisme. Literatuuroverzicht, in M. Eickhoff,B. Henkes and F. van Vree (eds), Volkseigen. Ras, cultuur en wetenschap inNederland 1900–1950, Zutphen, 213–47.

Van Giffen, A.E., 1922: Een kringgrepurnenveld bij Wessingtange, gem.Vlagtwedde, Verslag van den Toestand van het Museum van Oudheden voorProvincie en Stad Groningen, 59–67.

Van Giffen, A.E., 1925: De hunebedden in Nederland part 1, Utrecht.Van Giffen, A.E., 1927: De hunebedden in Nederland part 2, Utrecht.Van Giffen, A.E., 1930a: Die Bauart der Einzelgraber. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der

alteren individuellen Grabhugelstrukturen in den Niederlanden, Leipzig.Van Giffen, A.E., 1930b: Archaeologische verkenmerken. Openbare voordracht,

gehouden bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van lector aan deRijks-Universiteit te Groningen, den 18den October 1930, Groningen.

Van Giffen, A.E., 1930c: Die Ergebnisse der Warfengrabung, ArchaologischesInstitut des Deutschen Reiches, Bericht der Hundertjahrfeier, 21–25 April1929, Berlin, 322–38.

Van Giffen, A.E., 1938a: Vorgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen denNiederlanden und Westfalen, Westfalische Forschungen 1, 115–23.

Van Giffen, A.E., 1938b: Das Kreisgraben-Urnenveld bei Vledder, ProvinzDrente, Niederlande, Mannus 30, 331–84.

Van Giffen, A.E., 1938c: Der Kreisgrabenfriedhof bei Sleen, Provinz Drente,Niederlande, Mannus 30, 546–48.

Veit, U., 1984: Gustaf Kossinna und V. Gordon Childe. Ansatze zu einertheoretischen Grundlegung der Vorgeschichte, Seaculum 35, 326–64.

Waterbolk, H.T., 1975–76: Albert Egges van Giffen, Noordhorn 14 maart1884 – Zwolle 31 mei (1973), in Jaarboek van de Maatschappij derNederlandse Letterkunde te Leiden, 122–53.

Waterbolk, H.T., 1989: ‘Het was een mooie tijd, er viel wat te doen’. Dearcheoloog A.E. van Giffen (1884–1973), in G.A. van Gemert, J. Schuller tot

90 note

Peursum-Meijer and A.J. Vanderjagt (eds), ‘Om niet aan onwetendheid enbarbarij te bezwijken’. Groningse geleerden 1614–1989, Hilversum, 207–26.

Wippermann, W., 1997, Totalitarismustheorien. Die Entwicklung derDiskussion von den Anfangen bis heute, Darmstadt.

Wiwjorra, I., 1996: German archaeology and its relation to nationalism andracism, in M. Diaz-Andreu and T. Champion (eds), Nationalism andarchaeology in Europe, London, 164–88.

German archaeology and National Socialism. Some historiographical remarks

Documents

Transcript of German archaeology and National Socialism. Some historiographical remarks