Phantom heritage Thingstätten Third Reich Arch. Hereditas 10 2017

Monographs of the Insitute of Archaeology of the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw Volume published in cooperaion with the Insitute of Art History of the University of Warsaw 10 ARCHAEOLOGICA HEREDITAS Prevenive conservaion of the human environment Architecture as an element of the landscape 6. edited by Weronika Kobylińska-Bunsch, Zbigniew Kobyliński and Louis Daniel Nebelsick Warsaw 2017 Archaeologica Hereditas Works of the Insitute of Archaeology of the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński in Warsaw Editorial Board: Editor-in-chief: Zbigniew Kobyliński Members of the Board: Tadeusz Gołgowski, Jacek Lech, Przemysław Urbańczyk Secretary of the Board: Magdalena Żurek Editorial Board’s address: 1/2 Wóycickiego St., Building 23, PL 01-938 Warsaw, Poland tel. +48 22 569 68 17, e-mail: archeologia@uksw.edu.pl www.archeologia.uksw.edu.pl Technical ediing and proofreading: Zbigniew Kobyliński Layout: Bartłomiej Gruszka Cover design: Katja Niklas and Ula Zalejska-Smoleń Linguisic consultaion: Louis Daniel Nebelsick and Wojciech Brzeziński Cover picture: part of the imperial garden Summer Palace in Beijing, China; photo by Weronika Kobylińska-Bunsch Publicaion recommended for print by Professors Marin Gojda and Andrzej Pieńkos © Copyright by Fundacja Res Publica Muliethnica, Warszawa 2017 and Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego, Warszawa 2017 ISBN 978-83-946496-4-7 ISBN 978-83-948352-2-4 ISSN 2451-0521 Publisher: Res Publica Muliethnica Foundaion 44 Cypryjska St. PL 02-761 Warsaw, Poland htp://res-publica-muliethnica.pl/ CONTENTS 5 Preface Weronika Kobylińska-Bunsch, Zbigniew Kobyliński and Louis Daniel Nebelsick * 7 Environmental prevenive conservaion Andrzej Tomaszewski 11 The idea of prevenive conservaion of human environment Zbigniew Kobyliński and Weronika Kobylińska-Bunsch * 15 Prevenive conservaion of the human environment: architecture as an element of the landscape Lazare Eloundou Assomo 17 The role of the architecture in the creaion, enhancement and preservaion of cultural landscapes Stefano De Caro 21 World Heritage SITES for DIALOGUE: heritage for intercultural dialogue, through travel, “Life Beyond Tourism” Paolo Del Bianco * 23 Role of cultural sustainability of a tribe in developing a imeless cultural landscape: a case study of the Apatani tribe Barsha Amarendra, Bishnu Tamuli and Amarendra Kumar Das ArchAeologicA HEREDITAS 10 37 The corporate and cultural: honoring the monumental in Kansas City, Missouri Cynthia M. Ammerman 47 Damaged landscape of ancient Palmyra and its recovery Marek Barański 57 The art of (architectural) reconstrucion at archaeological sites in situ within the context of cultural landscapes Ewa M. Charowska 73 Lessons from landscape, landscape archetypes Urszula Forczek-Brataniec, Ana Luengo and Tony Williams 83 The city for people – the image of post-industrial sites in modern city Joanna Gruszczyńska 95 Sustainability by management: a comparaive policy study of the World Heritage ciies of Amsterdam, Edinburgh and Querétaro Eva Gutscoven, Ana Pereira Roders and Koen Van Balen 105 Polychromy in architecture as a manifestaion of the link between man and environment Teiana Kazantseva 119 Capturing architecture – the poeic vision of cultural heritage in the inter-war Polish pictorial photography Weronika Kobylińska-Bunsch 127 Landscape with ruins: preservaion and presentaion of archaeological relics of architecture Zbigniew Kobyliński 153 Educaing architects: the problem with agricultural buildings Diederik de Koning 163 Historic gardens and climate change. Conclusions and perspecives Heiner Krellig 177 The monasic landscape – carrier of memory and potenial catalyst in conservaion and adapive reuse processes of material and immaterial heritage Karen Lens and Nikolaas Vande Keere 187 The missing landscape of Yuanmingyuan: preservaion and revitalisaion of a Chinese imperial garden Mingqian Liu 283 The meanings of ruins for the history of the cultural landscape on the example of the remains of the castle complex at Wyszyna Kamil Rabiega 303 Dissolving materiality: ruins and plant relicts in the landscape parks by Denis McClair in Volhynia Petro Rychkov and Nataliya Lushnikova 323 Memory of the landscape: revela- ion through architecture and built environment at the Çamali Saltern Işılay Tiarnagh Sheridan 333 Pre-Hispanic walkscapes in Medellín, Colombia Juan Alejandro Saldarriaga Sierra 345 The invisible and endangered landscape: the case of the margins of the Cascavel Stream in Goiânia, Brazil Carinna Soares de Sousa and Almir Francisco Reis 195 Seeking the traces of a former mon- 361 Diamond mines shaping -asic landscape in the vicinity of Samos Abbey (Galicia, Spain) Estefanía López Salas 213 Landscape and naional idenity in Portugal Fernando Magalhães 225 The city that penetrates the sky Romano Marini and Crisiano Luchei the South African landscapes Aleksandra Stępniewska 369 (Un)wanted heritage in the cityscape – arguments for destrucion or reuse. The case of the city of Kaunas Ingrida Veliutė 379 The Nordic Pavilion projects Wellington’s prison landscape at the 2016 Venice Biennale. Scandinavian approach to architectural landscape Chrisine McCarthy Anna Wiśnicka 231 Siing penal heritage: a history of 243 Phantom heritage: Thingstäten and “sacred” landscapes of the Third Reich Louis Daniel Nebelsick 265 21st Century Garden with exhibiion pavilion in Royal Łazienki Museum in Warsaw Ewa Paszkiewicz 389 Architecture in the cultural land-scape of the Prądnik Valley Dominik Ziarkowski * 403 Notes on authors Phantom heritage: Thingstätten and “sacred” landscapes of the Third Reich Louis Daniel Nebelsick An aspect of invisible and unwanted heritage, that I would like to address in this paper, is “phantom heritage”, that is the long-term impact of landscapes altered by manipulaion and lies. As an example, I would like to discuss Thingstäten, huge open-air theatres built in Naional Socialist (henceforth Nazi) Germany between 1933 and 1937, which hosted quasi-religious rituals and highly stylized theatre producions, called Thingspiele, literally with casts of thousands, including marching and singing actors, armatures and involved spectators. Moreover, these vast venues purported to emulate occupy and/or revive Germanic sacred sites. While clearly we are dealing with a permutaion of the phenomenon of invented tradiions1, they cannot easily be dismissed as spurious. The Nazis´s highly efecive use of cuing edge technological means to achieve irraional ends have let all but indelible traces of Thingstäten in the landscapes in which they massively impacted the fabric of German society in the mid-1930s and in some cases, coninue to do so today. Before staring with my descripive interpretaion of these remarkable structures I would like to explain words that will be let in German throughout this paper. One term Völkisch – literally “of the people” – while sounding innocuous in translaion, denotes an inluenial ideology which emerged in late 19th century Central Europe and reached a fever pitch in the confused post First World War years. Its heterogenous components include, among others, neo paganism, naivism, chauvinism, xenophobia, ani-urbanism and fanaical anisemiism.2 While it has long been fashionable to belitle the Völkisch movement as a lunatic fringe phenomenon preying on the fears of a skiish peit bourgeoisie, modern research shows that its popular resonance was enormous and stresses its crucial contribuion to Nazism. The terms Thinglatz (pl. Thingplätze), the larger Thingstäte (pl. Thingstätten) and Thingspiele will also be let untranslated.3 They are derived from the Germanic root þing = assembly, used in paricular to characterize legislaive and judicial gatherings in Early Medieval Germany, Scandinavia and England.4 The term was revived by 19th century German romanics looking for the endemic roots of their rusic democraic ideals. At that ime, tradiional Thingplätze (village assembly places) were enclosed and marked with stones illustraing their imagined aniquity. Ater the turn of the 20th century, and paricularly ater the First World War, gatherings bearing the name were implemented by a variety of naionalist movements, including youth groups whose Things mainly amounted to scouts’ jamborees held under the open sky. Among Völkisch ideologues the term Thing gradually became a catchphrase for ritualized meeings, many of them mass events, with poliical, religious and increasingly performaive overtones. The term Thingspiel itself emerged in let wing Roman Catholic youth groups describing semireligious theatrical producions aimed at inluencing large audiences. As these mass events could obviously not take place in the cramped conines of village Thingplätze, they were convened in sport arenas, parade grounds and meadows. At that ime paricularly, let-wing quasi-theatrical mass events drew the atenion of theatre director’s eager to break out of the stufy bourgeois corner and appeal to mass audiences, leading to major innovaions, like Erwin Piscator´s and Berthold Brecht’s “epic theatre”5, but also to semi-theatrical embellishments of political events. These involved choric performances, stylized dialogues and declamaions, mannerized choreographies, starkly schemaic backdrop architecture, if any at all, and solicited audience paricipaion. All of these elements were plagiarized by the Nazis for their Thingspiele, many of which were especially commissioned for the opening ceremonies of their venues.6 The Third Reich’s foremost dramaturge Rainer Schlösser, described the Thingspiele as “a drama that intensiies historical events in order to create a mythical, universal, unambiguous reality beyond (exising) reality”. The speciic “mythical reality”, that was intended, was interwoven with the culic veneraion of the heroic (war) dead which features to a greater and 1 4 2 3 Hobsbawm 1993. Puschner 2002; v. Schnurbein 2001. Both terms were oten used synonymously; Rossol 2010: 108–138. ArchAeologicA HEREDITAS 10 243–264 5 6 Wenskus 1984. McAlpine 1990; Schweiger 2004. Gadberry 1980; Fischer-Lichte 2006, 2007; Niven 2000. Louis Daniel Nebelsick lesser degree in most of the Thingspiele7. The most explicit example is Richard Euringer´s Deutsche Passion (German passion) which opened the Heidelberg´s Thingstäte in 1935. More an expressionist passion-play than a classical theatre producion, it describes the anabasis of a resurrected First World War soldier. This Christlike saviour with a barbed wire crown, experiences the squalor of post-war Germany, he shoulders the peoples sufering and inspires them to renounce both their individuality and the sophisicated and nefarious procliviies of urban life and instead embrace unity, simplicity and purity.8 Iniially the Nazis envisaged covering Germany with a dense carpet of 400 to 600 Thingstäten, whose construcion was funded in the framework of the job creaion programs sponsored by the central government.9 Between 1934 and 1936 some 40 Thingstätten were 7 8 9 Eichberg and Jones 1977. For an English summary see Fischer-Lichte 2007: 122–128; for the Nazi hero cult see Behrenbeck 1996 and Guardini 1946. Stommer 1985. 244 inished, “consecrated” and used with varying intensity as ceremonial sites for May Day celebraions, summer solstice ceremonies, Heroes Commemoration Day”10, etc, and of course Thingspiele (Fig. 1). In the words of Ludwig Mooshammer, the architect of the irst example to be completed in Halle (no. 18) the Thingstäte must allow for the “best possible integraion into its natural surroundings” and an “inimate seamless connecion between the audience and stage areas”, as well as cuingedge lighing and sound technology.11 Moreover, in order to do jusice to their archaicizing Germanic name, they were best located on “natural” sites away from the din of modern towns and traic, on sites with sacred Germanic pedigrees. Only two completed Thingstäten were built to augment monumental townscapes, such as the Gauforen (regional capital complexes) at Koblenz (no. 26) and Dresden (no. 12), and a few others were erected in builtup areas as adjuncts to Hitler youth hostels Bous (no. 10 11 Kaiser 2006. Moshammer 1935. ARcHAEologIcA HEREDITAS • 10 Thingstäten and “sacred” landscapes of the third Reich 10), Stuttgart-Rohr (no. 42) or Nazi elite schools, such as the Ordensburg Vogelsang (no. 38), in the conines of cloisters castles and forts such as Giebelstadt (no. 16), Jülich (no. 24), Lamspringe (no. 28), Tecklenburg (no. 43) or in city parks, such as those in Berlin-Rehberge (no. 7), Bochum (no. 8), Mühlheim an der Ruhr (no. 30) and Tilsit (now Sovetsk in Russia) (no. 41). In rare cases Thigstäten fulilled a role of mass meeing venue embedded in larger Nazi ceremonial complexes, such as the Stedingsehre (no. 15), which memorialized the batle of Altenesch in which an uprising of yeomen farmers was crushed in 1234 by crusading knights12 or the Sachsenhain – a completely preserved SS ceremonial site near Verden an der Aller (no. 44), which includes, among other things, a vast parade ground and arrangements of 4500 boul- ders memorializing that number of pagan Saxons who Charlemagne was thought to have had executed there.13 The Dietrich-Eckart-Freilichtbühne (now Waldbühne) in Berlin (no. 6; Fig. 13), named ater a vicious anisemiic ideolog, which was built as the culic focus of the monumental Reichssporfeld realized for the Olympic Summer Games in 1936, also belongs in this context.14 In order to shield this metropolitain Thingstäte from its built-up environs, it was tucked into a wooded ravine (Fig. 2e), one of the few locaions in Berlin where you cannot see a house. Other venues in built-up surroundings were hidden in disused quarries, such as Bad Segeberg (no. 2, Fig. 2c), Braunschweig (no. 11), St. Annaberg (now Góra Świętej Anny in Poland) (no. 17), or Mühlheim an der 13 12 Finsterhölzl 1999. 14 Ulbricht 2011. Kaule 2014. Fig. 1. Distribution of the completed and consecrated Thingstätten in the 1930s against the political borders of Germany in 1939. An aerial photo of the Heiligenberg Thingstätte is in the upper left-hand corner (created by L.D. Nebelsick); 1. Bad Schmiedeberg, Saxony (Thingstätte Dübener Heide); abandoned, forest; 2. Bad Segeberg, Schleswig-Holstein (Thingstätte der Nordmark); in use, open air theatre (Kalkbergstadion-Karl May Festpiele); 3. Bad Windsheim, Bavaria (Thingstätte am Weinturmhügel); in use, rock concerts (Weinturm Open Air); 4. Berchtesgaden-Strub, Bavaria (replaced 1936 by the Adolf Hitler Jugendherberge); now youth hostel Berchtesgaden; 5. Bergen auf Rügen, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Thingstätte Rugard); in use; 6. Berlin-Charlottenburg (Dietrich-Eckart-Freilichtbühne); in use, rock concerts (Waldbühne); 7. Berlin-Wedding (Thingstätte Rehberge); in use, outdoor cinema (Freiluftkino Rehberge); 8. Bochum, North Rhine-Westphalia; in use (Freilichtbühne im Stadtpark Wattenscheid); 9. Borna, Saxony (Stätte der Volksgemeinschaft); in use, oudoor cinema (Volksplatz Borna); 10. Bous (Saar), Saarland (Thingplatz and HJ Hostel); destroyed, now monastery (Kloster Heiligenborn); 11. Braunschweig/Brunswick, Lower Saxony (Thingstätte am Nußberg); abandoned, park/forest; 12. Dresden, Saxony (Thingplatz am Gauforum); in use - open air cinema; 13. Eichstätt, Bavaria (Thingstätte am Heiligen Berg); sporadically used as a theatre up to the 1980s now abandoned, meadow; 14. Freyburg (Unstrut), Thuringia (Thingplatz auf dem Haineberg/Neuenburg); abandoned, meadow; 15. Ganderkesee, Lower Saxony (Thingstätte Bookholzberg/Stedingsehre); abandoned, now being restored; 16. Giebelstadt, Bavaria (Thingplatz Florian Geyer Schloss); in use, theatre; 17. Góra Świętej Anny, Upper Silesia (Thingstätte Annaberg); in use, rock concerts (Amiteatr na Górze Świętej Anny); 18. Halle, Saxony-Anhalt (Thingstätte Brandberge); abandoned, trashed; 19. Hameln, Lower Saxony (Reichsthingplatz) auf dem Bückeberg/Reichserntedankfest); abandoned, ield, recently protected; 20. Heidelberg, Baden Württemberg (Thingstätte Heiligenberg); abandoned, Walpurgisnacht celebrations; 21. Herchen, North Rhine-Westphalia (Thingplatz); abandoned, forest; 22. Heringsdorf, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Waldstadion Heringsdorf.); abandoned, forest; 23. Holzminden, Lower Saxony (Thingplatz im Stadtpark/ am Sylbecker Berg); abandoned ruins, children´s playground; 24. Jülich, North Rhine-Westphalia (Thingstätte im Brückenkopf); abandoned ruins visible; 25. Kamenz, Saxony (Thingplatz auf dem Hutberg); in use, rock concerts; 26. Koblenz, Rheinland Pfalz (Thingstätte Gauforum/Kürfürstenschloß); buried under rubble of the bombedout palace; 27. Krylowo, rajon Prawdinsk (Thingstätte Nordenburg); abandoned, forest; 28. Lamspringe, Lower Saxony (Thingstätte im Klostergarten); abandoned, park; 29. Leutkirch /Allgäu, Baden Württemberg (Thingplatz unterhalb der Wilhelmshöhe); abandoned, forest; 30. Mülheim an der Ruhr, North Rhine-Westphalia; in use, theatre/concerts (Freilichtbühne); 31. Nordheim, Lower Saxony (Weihestätte Nordheim/Freilichtbühne Niedersachen) in use, outdoor theatre (Waldbühne Northeim); 32. Ośno Lubuskie, Lebus Land (Thingplatz Drossen „Stadt der Jugend“); sporadically used (Amiteatr nad jeziorem Reczynek); 33. Passau, Bavaria (Feierstätte Veste Oberhaus); abandoned, meadow; 34. Rathen, Saxony (Felsenbühne Rathen); in use, outdoor theatre; 35. Rostock, Mecklemburg-Vorpommern (Thingstätte Barnstorfer Wald); partially demolished, playground (Platz der Jugend); 36. Sankt Goarshausen, Rhineland-Palatinate (Loreley-Thingstätte); in use, mainly rock concerts; 37. Schildau bei Torgau, Saxony (Thingplatz Schildberg); abandoned, forest; 38. Schleiden (Eifel), North Rhine-Westphalia (Thingplatz Ordensburg Vogelsang); partially buried, restored; 39. Schwarzenberg, Saxony (Thingstätte am Röckelmann, Grenzlandfeierstätte); in use (Naturbühne Schwarzenberg); 40. Sovetsk, Oblast Kaliningrad. (Thingplatz Tilsit - Park Jakobsruh); until recently in use, dilapidated; 41. Stolzenau, Lower Saxony; preserved, meadow/sports stadium; 42. Stuttgart-Rohr, Baden-Württemberg (ThingplatzHitler Youth hostel); destroyed, school yard; 43. Tecklenburg, North Rhine-Westphalia (Thingstätte-Burg Tecklenburg); in use (Musikteater); 44. Verden (Aller), Lower Saxony (Sachsenhain, SS ceremonial site); preserved: Protestant youth centre, pasture; 45. Werder (Havel), Brandenburg (Thingstätte am Stadtpark); abandoned, park/meadow. PREvENtIvE CONsERvAtION Of tHE HumAN ENvIRONmENt 6 • Architecture as an element of the landscape 245 Louis Daniel Nebelsick Fig. 2. Thingstätte: a) Herchen, Thingplatz (no. 21) built on a narrow spur with a war memorial at its tip; b) Ośno Lubuskie, “Thingplatz Drossen”(no. 32) built on the northern end of Lake Reczynek; c) Schwarzenberg, Thingstätte (no 39) built on the pinnacle of the Röckelmann mountain; d) Bad Segenberg, Kalkbegstatium (no. 2), built in a gypsum quarry; e) Berlin, “DietrichEckart-Freilichtbühne”. (no. 6) built in a steep ravine; the empty box in the center was reserved for the “Führer”; f) Sankt Goarshausen, Thingstätte (no. 39) on the edge of on the Loreley massif during building (source: vintage postcards) Ruhr (no. 30). The vast majority were built in more or less natural seings, most on the slopes of hills or mountains with the glaring excepion of the lakeside Thingstäte in Drossen (now Ośno Lubuskie in Poland) (no. 32, Fig. 2b). Truly spectacular locaions include the Thingstäten built on, and disiguring, the world famous Loreley clif (no. 39, Fig. 2f) on the Rhine, perched on the rim of the Elbe canyon near Rathen (no. 34) but also a small Thingstäte built on a narrow spur overlooking the canyon of the Sieg River in Herchen (no. 39, Fig. 2a). The inauguraions of these sites, which almost always fell on the summer solsice, were grand events with mandated crowd atendance. Typically, the events had a closely choreographed military character with symmetrically spaced formaions 246 of actors, singers, musicians and extras placed on the various rungs of the stage´s graded backdrop (Fig. 3) and part of the paricipants merging with the audience. Despite the iniial enthusiasic surge that greeted this new style of holisic drama, Thingspiele and Thingstäten were not the success Goebbels hoped they would be. The turgid, costly and frankly anachronisic producions did not have the predicted audience pull. You saw one you saw them all, and the logisics of geing the required masses to what were in many cases remote “natural” locations was daunting. By 1935 Goebbels began distancing himself from the project15 and in 1937 he cut of 15 Fröhlich 2005. ARcHAEologIcA HEREDITAS • 10 Thingstäten and “sacred” landscapes of the third Reich Fig. 3. Thingspiele - opening ceremonies in Thingstätten: a) Bad Segeberg, Thingstätte (no. 2) opening ceremony; b) Koblenz (no. 26) ceremonial procession in the Thingstätte in the centre of the electoral palace; c-d) Opening ceremony and Thingspiel in the Heidelberg/Heiligenberg Thingstätte (no. 20) (source: vintage postcards and Lurz 1975) all funding and even acively discouraged the use of the name. This led to an abrupt end not only to the performance of Thingspiele but it also stalled or stopped compleion of uninished venues. Goebbels was, of course, reacing to the increasing eicacy of other forms of mass indoctrinaion, such as the omnipresent Volksemphänger (People’s [Radio] Receiver) aka Goebbelsschnautze (Goebbels’ Snout)16, and – above all – newsreels and cinema17 which insured that precisely encoded messages were reaching mass audiences. But his rejecion of the Thingspiele was also a result of acceleraing tensions between a growing fracion of the Nazi leadership that was trying to consolidate mainstream support for the Third Reich and the increasingly radical agendas of the divisive neopagan Völkisch fringe who saw their ime as come.18 Goebbels could rely on Hitler supporing this course, as the Führer despised homespun Germanomania, esoteric neopaganism, and saw Völkisch ideologs frustrating his aspiraions to convenional trappings of imperial glory. These involved, among other things, embracing the very Roman Imperial symbols and architecture that the Völkisch believers so hated.19 In the 1940s crackdowns against the Völkisch occult fringe even saw leaders of the movement serving sentences in prisons or concentraion camps.20 16 19 17 18 Mühlenfeld 2006. Rentschler 1996. Puschner and Vollnhals 2012; Bollmus 2006. The “Witches´Dance Floor” The major forerunners of the Thingstäten are the late Wilheminian Völkisch “plain air” or “nature theatres” above all the pioneering Bergtheater (mountain theatre) that the successful Völkisch theatre producer anisemiic agitator and neo-pagan prophet Ernst Wachler (1871–1945) had perched on a the edge of a rugged plateau on the southern edge of the Harz Mountains in 1903 (Fig. 4). Known as the Hexenanzplatz (The witches’ dance loor), this plateau rises above the steep and scenic Bode River´s gorge and was then and is now a successful tourist trap21. At the turn of the century the rusic looking restaurants and hotels atracted middle class city dwellers, in paricular Berliners escaping the crowded polluted capital, with the promise of accessi- 20 21 Speer 2005: 108; Trommler 2009: 123; Scobie 1990. Treitel 2004: 213–230. Puschner 1996. PREvENtIvE CONsERvAtION Of tHE HumAN ENvIRONmENt 6 • Architecture as an element of the landscape 247 Louis Daniel Nebelsick Fig. 4. Hexentanzplatz near Thale; façade of the Walpurgis Halle before the First World War (a) and a view of the “Green (or Mountain) Theatre” in the 1950s (b) (source: vintage postcards) ble, afordable, comfortable yet romanically authenic mountain wilderness. Moreover, these atracions were upgraded by the presence of ancient ruins (ramparts of an Iron Age hillfort)22 and – mainly invented – tradiions involving Germanic gods and witches’ sabbaths, saing the tourists’ romanic naionalist passions. Hermann Hendrich – a Silesian painter cum showman, and Bernhard Sehring – a Saxon theatre architect, concocted a Walpurgishalle – a massive wooden cabin incrusted inside and out with crudely carved pseudo-Germanic moifs in 1901 to cash in on the tourist boom, a function it fulfills to this day. Besides a bogus altar stone purloined from the nearby Iron Age rampart, it contains a gallery of dreadful painings showing agitated witches and demons in rocky terrain. Two years later Wachler built his outdoor theatre on the clif edge just across the street from this Völkisch sanctum obviously seeing them as a complementary pair which he ulimately wanted to establish as a sanctuary focused on a neo-pagan “ire temple”23. Although there are obvious parallels between Wachler´s open air theatre and the later Thingstäten, there are important diferences. Besides being rooless, incrusted with Völkisch kitsch and ofering a splendid view of “German wilderness” across the Bode´s chasm, Wachler´s theatre was in other ways surprisingly convenional. It only seated 1300 spectators, it had sturdy boulder-built walls indented by Medieval-looking towers, and depending on what was being shown, its stage could be clutered with various props. Moreover, besides the occasional Völkisch highlight, such as the opening night with Wachler’s own semi-operaic Walpurgis based on the tradiional Walpurgis / or Witches´ Night (30th of April), its repertoire was mainly conservaive to stufy. Moreover, the players were professional actors on loan from the nearby Weimar theater company. While this Green Theatre, as it was also called, maintained strong Völkisch ailiaions, in 1914 it even hosted an Althing (universal assembly) of Germanic Communi- 22 23 Grimm 1958: 275. 248 Banghad 2016: 207–208. ARcHAEologIcA HEREDITAS • 10 Thingstäten and “sacred” landscapes of the third Reich ies which included Wachler’s own pagan „Wotan Congregaion”, this venue neither had the capaciies, nor did its operators have the intenion, to host the type of interacive mass events which would characterize the later Thingstäten. Bückeberg (no. 19), the site of the Reichserntedankfest It was the Nazi´s most talented architect, Albert Speer, who managed to carry mass outdoor semi-theatrical events into a natural setting, craftily using high-tech soluions to simulate a return to bucolic simplicity. Expressed in his own words, he saw that “the primary material with which the mass event must be organized will always have to be the crowd itself” and his goal was to assure “that each individual among the hundred thousand strong assembled community is imprinted by the feeling of an uncondiional togetherness”.24 Under the fussy tutelage of the Reich´s propaganda minister Josef Goebbels he was able to put his theory into pracice by designing the venue and direcing the choreography of the Reichserntedankfest (Reichs-Thanksgiving Day) on the gentle spur of the Bückeberg – a wooded hill on the edge of the Weser River near Hameln (Fig. 5).25 Originally planned at another venue, this new site of the Thanksgiving ceremony was chosen hastily in August 19 by funcionaries worried about infrastructure but ciing the quintessenial German quality of the Weser River and its surrounding landscape as jusiicaion. This gave Speer less than three months to realize the event planned for the irst Sunday in October. In a radical departure from the all but mandated use of brutalized gargantuan neoclassical architecture to express Nazi ideology26, he suggested a simple and remarkably efecive soluion: with the help of thousands of conscripted workers a 600 meter long and 300 meter wide site was leveled and a long lightly raised corridor, the Führer Weg, was constructed to connect two wooden podia – an upper stepped pyramid on which heaps of fruit and vegetables wreaths and bushels of harvested grain were heaped, surmounted by a grandstand for 3,000 VIPs, and a simple pyramidal stage at the base of the hill which served as the speakers pulpit. An eicient electrical grid provided microphones, loudspeakers and spotlights with electricity. The outer boundaries of the site were at the same ime ephemeral and effective. A low horseshoe-shaped bank was surmounted by a loosely spaced stockade made of 20,000 10–12 m long ir tree lag posts surmounted by oversize 24 25 26 Speer 1933, ater Urban 2007: 423. For mid-20th century ideologically moivated mass psychological exploitaion see Moscovici 1985. Brechtken 2017; Gelderbom 1998; Haßmann 2010; Livings 2013: 145–177, 242, pl. 208–231. Scobie 1990; Taylor 1974. Nazi lags forming a vibrant bright red band enclosing the freneic masses as evening turned to night spotlights illuminated the lutering lags turning them into a shimmering crimson cascade. This use of light efects to delimit and deine quasisacred space was taken to its congenial extreme in Albert Speer´s Lichtdom (cathedral of light) (Fig. 6) irst realized at the annual Nürnberg party rally on September 11th, 1936 in order to upgrade a roll call of minor funcionaries, many to old and fat to be reliable performers in the mass choreography which was the hallmark of the rally´s day ime ceremonies.27 152 searchlights shot 8-kilometre-high columns of light into the sky. Inside this glowing stockade the 20,000 party members could look up to see the dazzling white pillars difuse into a sfumato vault and the horizon crenelated by illuminated thickets of sharply illuminated red Nazi lags between the searchlights and the spectacle of spotlights raking across a roaring ocean of 20,000 brown shirts. The upliting nature of this immaterial architecture and the ecstaic enthusiasm it insilled in the adulaing masses can be illustrated by the fact that ater the Nürnberg Party rally of 1936 some 900 BDM (girls’ division of the Hitler Youth) scouts were reported pregnant and many of them found it impossible to pinpoint the father to be.28 The Brückeberg venue began fulfilling its intended purpose with the arrival of Hitler’s motorcade. He and his entourage spent 45 minutes parading through the 500,000 strong ecstaic crowd whose repetend Nazi salutes had their arms swaying like a wind tossed ield of grain and were more connected than separated from the surrounding ields and woods by the levitated band of Nazi flags. This anonymized mass at one with their leader, was fused with the surrounding “quintessenially German” rolling countryside, their blood coursing in its soil. Hitler addressed his masses from the upper plaform where he lorded over them and then ater a second perambulaion at the botom where was the sole focus of the seething masses, spotlighted in the growing dusk. A roaring rendition of Deutschland über alles and the Horst Wessel Song sung by all and an impressive light and ireworks show ended the ceremony. The Bückeberg venue was not the only sanctuary the Nazis were planning near Hameln. Immediately after coming to power in 1933 the local Nazi leadership began planning a colossal monument to the Nazi´s pinnacle “martyr” Horst Wessel whose family originally came from the area, on the Süntel, a prominent ridge 12.8 kilometers to the north and in full view of the Bückeberg29. This crag had long been seen as a Germanic pagan hub by Völkisch enthusiasts, and was the alleged site of “heroic” pagan Saxon resistance to the conquering Chrisian Carolingians. The original plan proposed by a local 27 28 29 Livings 2013: 238–292. Kater 2004: 108. Siemens 2010: 183–187. PREvENtIvE CONsERvAtION Of tHE HumAN ENvIRONmENt 6 • Architecture as an element of the landscape 249 Louis Daniel Nebelsick Fig. 5. Bückeberg „Reich´s Thanksgiving Site” (no. 19): a) Albert Speers only partially realized model of the projected assembly site 1934; b) View of the adulating masses from the upper tribune 1933; c) March of standard bearers hailed by exultant farmers 1933; d) Hitler and his inner circle strolling down the “Führer Corridor” 1937 (source: vintage postcards) Stormtrooper architect was to have a vast amphitheater blasted out of the ridge´s 440 m high pinnacle on which he planned to build a huge swasika-shaped sky scraping tower. Speer obviously worried that, if realized, this monstrosity would overshadow his own. He demanded a new design which would harmonize with, and thus be conceptually integrated into the Bückeberg complex. A commitee was established and, as so oten, squabbling among the various facions hamstrung the project’s realizaion. Local party authoriies inally approved a radically downsized version and the Horst Wessel Memorial which was unveiled in 1939 consisted of a 12-meter-high rectangular sandstone column crowned by a 5 meter high swasika forged of stainless steel (Fig. 7). It could be clearly seen from the Bückeberg lashing the relected evening sun. Yet this was all to no avail. The Thanksgiving ceremony at the Bückeberg facility which was referred as a Thingstäte ater 1934, had reached its zenith with 1.3 million paricipants in 1937. This was also to be the inal celebraion on the site. Preparaions for war and the war itself made transporing such masses impossible, moreover mass ceremonies were losing their novelty value and purely military events increasingly replaced Völkisch pageantry. The Thanksgiving party was over. In the spring of 1945 American troops made short shrift of Horst Wessels ofensive memorial and dynamited the column whose broken chunks sill liter the ridge´s summit. Thus the imagined bonds binding the landscape between the freneic Bückeberg masses and the Süntel´s 250 gleaming martyrion were phantoms from the very start. Yet despite its faulted realizaion the concept of pairing Thingstäten with Nazi “martyr´s memorials” was to set a patern for ideological landscape appropriaion. Examples include the Thingstätte in Passau (no. 23) whose spectators faced a monumental cross-shaped monument to the “martyred” right wing hitman Schlageter on the summit of the Hammerberg hill on the opposite side of the broad Danube valley.30 The Heiligenberg in Heidelberg31 The double-peaked Heiligenberg hill that dominates the northern horizon of Heidelberg has been known as an archaeological site since the 16th century and has produced setlement remains of almost all Prehistoric and early historic epochs. In the more recent past it was the site of a Celic hillfort, a Roman sanctuary and two Medieval monasteries. It was this ancient heritage that moivated the new Nazi authoriies in Germany’s most famous university town to choose the Heiligenberg as 30 31 Rammer 1996: 122–124. Albert Leo Schlageter (1893–1923) who was originally a Catholic theology student before going to War and emerging a right wing paramilitary enforcer played an important role in the Nazi atempt to broaden its narrow base among West and South Germany´s Roman Catholic youth (Baird 1992). For the Thingstäte: Lurz 1975; Stommer 1985: 231, no. B3/30; Moers-Messmer 1987; Ohr 1989; Ludwig and Marzolf 1999: 108–100. ARcHAEologIcA HEREDITAS • 10 Thingstäten and “sacred” landscapes of the third Reich Fig. 6 Nürnberg Lichtdom (Cathedral of Light) (source: vintage postcards) the site of Germany´s most impressive surviving Thingstätte. In particular, they were motivated by a widely believed misconcepion that this “Holy Mountain” had once been a Germanic sanctuary to Wotan, thus fulilling the ideal Thingstäte criterion of Germanic cult heritage. Moreover, it was also a clear atempt to downgrade the importance of Heidelberg´s world-famous castle ruin, whose courtyard had been a local venue for open-air theatre producions since 1926. Its rich humanist and inclusive early romanic heritage was anathema to the Nazis. Building the huge amphitheater, which involved the destrucion of a third of the archaeological site, it was purported to celebrate, began in 1934. The horse- shoe-shaped theatre built in an ariicially deepened hollow between the hill´s two peaks included roughly hewn sandstone slab benches for 20,000 spectators and was set of from the surrounding plateau by loosely placed flag poles (Fig. 8). It faced an unobtrusive multitiered oval stage made of the same rusicated stone, crowned by two tall lagpoles rigged with Nazi banners. In contrast to this rugged archaicizing construcion, a pioneering integrated light and sound system was installed, involving 14 kilometers of electric wiring. On the opening night, the summer solicits of 1925, the Thingstäte was illed to the brim with jubilant masses A spectacular show was opened by no one less than Josef Goebbels himself, who PREvENtIvE CONsERvAtION Of tHE HumAN ENvIRONmENt 6 • Architecture as an element of the landscape 251 Louis Daniel Nebelsick Fig. 7. Horst Wessel Column completed 1938 on the summit of the Süntel near Hameln (a), and the Süntel Massif seen from the direction of the Bückeberg (b) (source: vintage postcards) Fig. 8. Heidelberg-Heiligenberg (no. 20). Plan of the Heiligenberg hillfort, its monasteries and Thingstätte after Marzolf 1999, and vintage postcards prospects of the site. The right-hand spur visible in the center photo bears the memorial cemetery on the Ameisenbuckel 252 ARcHAEologIcA HEREDITAS • 10 Thingstäten and “sacred” landscapes of the third Reich in an emoional diary entry called it “a miraculous creaion, Naional Socialism in stone”.32 One jarring, but thoroughly intended aspect of Heidelberg´s Thingplatz, is that the deep Necker River valley, that contains historic Heidelberg and its famous castle, remained invisible to the viewers. Instead, the spectators in the higher rungs looked, over the squat stone backdrop and an adjacent hilltop grove, at the wooded summits of the Odenwald Massif on the far side of the town and valley, and the fields, meadows and gallery forests of the broad Rhine River valley. This is a clear relecion of the bucolic yearnings and atendant fierce antipathy to urbanity, that lie at the heart of the Thingplatz (open-air theater) movement but also leitmoiv of most aspects of Nazi art and literature. The Nazis went to great lengths to transplant the consumers of their “sanctuaries” into their highly contradictory vision of an ideal countryside made up of a mosaic of untouched natural features embedded in a primordial German agrarian landscape which had been heroically wrested from merciless nature by generaions of sturdy yeoman farmers.33 But there was more for the spectators to see than verdant retrograde landscapes. From the upper summit of the Heiligenberg, which they crossed when approaching the Thingstäte, they had a clear view of vast memorial war cemetery which had been carved out of the dense forest on the Ameisenbuckel – a steep spur overlooking the Rhine valley 3 km to the south (Fig. 9). The Nazis saw both complexed as an ideological unit and on the summer solsice in 1935 huge ires were lit on both sites simultaneously, which could be seen many kilometers away along the broad Rhine valley. Like the Heiligenberg, esoteric circles had granted a pseudo-pagan heritage to the Ameisenbuckel, where they imagined the locaion a primeval mother-goddess´ temple.34 As in a Thingstäte, the architecture engaged the visitors in a para-theatrical choreography. Exactly drawn lines of uniform crosses of re-interred fallen German troops from the First World War flanked a broad avenue accompanied by massive stone blocks inscribed with the names of Heidelberg´s over two thousand fallen soldiers. During memorial events precisely ordered rows of marchers fused with this sepulchral army, as they faced a huge ive and a half meter long burly dark red sandstone “altar” on the promontory clif´s point capped by a roughhewn overhanging monolith and emblazoned with a monumental swasika. While the stone-lined avenue clearly imitates Stone Age megalithic alignments, the “altar” is a coarse emulaion of Late Roman Imperial porphyry sarcophagi, an apt relecion the hybrid nature of Nazi ceremonial architecture.35 Remarkably, the site of this remarkable Nazi Danse Macabre and its bizarre “altar” (now with chiseled-of Swasika) is sill operaive, and hosts annual American/German war memorial ceremonies. As in the case of the Bückeberg, the Heidelberg Thingstäte, and its satellite, are atempts to establish bogus coninuiies to a pagan past, and bond them to posthumously heroized cannon fodder of Flanders’s trenches and the rural landscapes in which their graves had been secondarily imbedded. They thus sought to imprint the western outskirts of Heidelberg with a monumentalized icional heritage espousing the Nazi´s bogus blood and soil ideology by creaing a phantom landscape which is sill comprehensible today. 32 36 33 34 35 Göbbels diary, 24. June 1935; Fröhlich 2005: 252. Williams 1996; Fischer 2003. Dutzi 2000; Binder and Meier 2016. For interwar and Nazi cemetery architecture see Mosse 1980. Vasiliev 1948. 1938 Thingstätte Sankt Annaberg (no. 17) on the Góra Świętej Anny in Upper Silesia in Poland36 In 1934 the Naional Socialists decided to manifest the legiimacy of German rule in contested Upper Silesia in general, and speciically their own rise to poliical power, by building a Thingsstäte on the Sankt Annaberg (Góra Świętej Anny) – a dominaing hilltop in the Upper Silesian basin which had been occupied by an important cloister and pilgrimage center since the Middle Ages. Moreover, it had been the site of a pitched battle between German Freikorps irregulars and Polish insurgents during the Third Silesian Uprising in 1921, which right wing Germans saw as the irst German victory since the end of the First World War. Finally, the Nazis hoped to at least weaken the church’s dominaion of this crucial symbolic religious and poliical focus of the region and overshadow the pious processions which coninued to atract the faithful of both linguisic communiies to the cloister´s basilica and its miraculous statue of St. Anne. The amphitheater, which was projected to hold 7,000 spectators, was built in the conines of a steep quarry, which housed the amphitheater itself, a terraced stage rising against the gaunt clif face and an impressive circular podium ited with a huge lagpole (Fig. 10). A primary reason for the Thingstäte´s locaion in the quarry´s cavity was that, for its audience, the picturesque relief of the cloister´s towers was completely invisible. Instead, the dark cloven limestone clif provided a somber backdrop which was heightened by the presence of a spectacular Totenburg (literally fortress for the dead, i.e., castle-shaped mausoleum) commissioned in 1935 to be perched on the its pinnacle. This structure was built to commemorate the dead of the Freikorps miliias who terStommer 1985: 205, no. B1/1; Haubold-Stolle 2005, 2006; Dobesz 2005: 191–193, 195; Lurz 2010. For the divisive interpretaions of the signiicance of the Góra Świętej Anny see: Bjork and Gerwarth 2007. For the wider context of Polish policy towards German heritage in the immediate post-war period see: Mazur 2000. PREvENtIvE CONsERvAtION Of tHE HumAN ENvIRONmENt 6 • Architecture as an element of the landscape 253 Louis Daniel Nebelsick Fig. 9. Heidelberg Memorial Cemetery (Ehrenfriedhof) on the Ameisenbuckel. Views of the ceremonial way and assembly square and its terminating altar. The image on the lower right shows the cemetery (right) and the Heidelberg Thingstätte (left) as seen from the Rhine valley with Heidelberg in the deep Neckar valley in the middle (source: vintage postcards) Fig. 10. Góra Świętej Anny (Thingstätte Stankt Annaberg) (no. 17): a) Aerial photo of the freshly built Thingstätte; b) View of the Thingstätte and the mausoleum at the quarry´s edge; c) View from the Thingstätte’s stage on the quarry loor; d) Remains of the Silesian German “heroes” being escorted into the mausoleum; e) Megalithic entrance and ire bowl; f) partially realized design of the interior (source: vintage postcards and Böck 2017) 254 ARcHAEologIcA HEREDITAS • 10 Thingstäten and “sacred” landscapes of the third Reich Fig. 11. War memorials cemeteries and Bismark-monuments designed by Wilhelm Kreis: a) 1906 sketch of a Bismark or ire tower Dresden Räcknitz; b) 1930, proposal for a cenotaph near Bad Berka; c) 1912, sketch of a proposed Bismark National Monument on a clif overlooking the Rhine near Bingen; d) 1940 project sketch for a cemetery and temple/castle-like mausoleum in Drontheim (source: vintage postcards) rorized non-German inhabitants on the eastern German boarders in the post-World War I period. More speciically, it was to contain the bodily remains of 17 “martyrs” who had fallen during the bloody skirmish to dislodge Polish ighters from St. Anne´s monastery in May of 1921. Robert Tischler´s design of what was to be Germany´s most ambiious naional funerary monument constructed during the late 1930s, combines heterogeneous elements borrowed from Wilhelm Kreis’ funerary architecture, paricularly the Tannenberg monument, Fredrick the Second’s 13th century Apulian defensive masterpiece Castel del Monte and Theodoric the Great’s 6th century mausoleum in Ravenna37 (Fig. 11). While this is an impressive monument when seen from the Thingstäte itself, paricularly when the two classicizing ire bowls at its entrance were ablaze, like most theatrical props seen from the back, i.e. the plateau, it was disappoiningly small and squat. While the leitmoifs of this architectural collage send an aggressive military imperial message underscoring the Nazi´s vision of the Annaberg as a bulwark against the Slavic east, it also incorporated “Germanic”/esoteric elements in its design more in keeping with its original Thingstäten seing. These included the building’s wildly incongruous megalithic porch and bizarre details, such as the fact that mortar used in its construcion was mixed with cloted creme, goat hair and animal blood. This programmatic integration of Thingstätte and Nazi martyrion did not stand alone. Another examples of Thingstätten sites with integrated martyrs memorials include for instance the Rugard Thingstätte (no. 5, Fig. 12) which lies between a First World War memorial and a monumental “megalithic” style mausoleum of Hans Mellon, the Island of Rügen´s Hitler Youth “martyr”.38 A third was never completed, Braunschweig´s Nußberg Thingstätte (no. 11), which was projected to face an 80-meter high tower ited with 16 niches harboring iridescent “light columns” which would rake the sky, commemoraing Nazi acivists “martyred” in the farcical Beer Hall Putsch of 1933.39 The most impressive example is the Thingstäte atached to Berlin´s Olympic complex on the Reichssporfeld (no. 6, Fig. 13). It was built next to the 38 37 Brands 1995. 39 Wickert 2007. Bein 1997. PREvENtIvE CONsERvAtION Of tHE HumAN ENvIRONmENt 6 • Architecture as an element of the landscape 255 Louis Daniel Nebelsick Fig. 12. Bergen auf Rügen / Rugard (no. 5): 1 - The memorial to the fallen soldiers of the First World War built in 192; 2 - The Thingstätte “consecrated” in 1934; 3 - The Hans Mellon mausoleum built to imitate a Neolithic megalithic tomb, dedicated with the reburial of he “martyr” in 1937; 4 - The northern rampart of the Medieval Slavic stronghold ”Rugrad” then also thought to be the capital of Germanic Rügen (after Wichert 2010) Langemarckhalle, memorializing and containing physical remains of, as well as lags and soil “soaked with blood” from the tens of thousands of teenage recruits “martyred” in the Battle of Ypres in 1915.40 This sepulchral hall which also functioned as Hitler´s Olympic podium was crowned by a 77-m high “Führer Tower” whose bell rang as an “eternal admonisher of the sacriicial death of our heroes”.41 Yet no other Thingstäte came so close to successfully visualizing the mysical union between the martyred heroes and the resurrected Volk as the St. Annaberg Thingstätte. In one’s mind’s eye one can imagine the Thingstäte by twilight illed to the brim with adulaing masses whipped to passionate ecstasy by the chaning players on the stark stage. With their eyes focused on the fortress of the martyrs looming above them on its loty crag highlighted by lashing lames signalizing their apotheosis by belching clots of smoke into the evening sky. Their union with the martyred dead was thus mysically consumed. Obviously and onerously this Thingstäte was nothing less than a monumentalized paraphrase of a Chrisian Church, with the congregaion facing and ritu- 40 41 Weinrich 2009. Dümling 2012: 70; interestingly both the hall and tower were blown up by Briish sappers in 1946 only to be faithfully reconstructed by the same Nazi architect that designed the originals Werner March in 1960. 256 ally interacing with an altar containing holy relics.42 Yet despite all this carefully crated pathos the Sankt Annaberg Thingstäte was in fact a remarkable failure from the start. It took too long to build and opened with a lack luster show in 1938 ater the Thing Movement had run its course. Moreover, the pious Upper Silesians largely remained true to their cloister and, paricularly when the war started, the frightened faithful atended pilgrimages with ever increasing intensity and ferver ignoring the Thingstäte altogether. Moreover, although there are reports of the ampliied roar of Nazi ceremonies intenionally disturbing the cloister´s services, in fact only sporadic events, mainly minor Hitler Youth rallies, are known to have taken place in the Thingstätte before the end of the war.43 The Thingstätten´s phantom heritage today Thingstäten are of course simply just another relex of the Nazi´s cult of the dead which Saul Friedländer so accurately dissected as cheap if persuasive kitsch.44 They it the bill perfectly using all its sleight of hand symbolism, such as the sot ammonized spectator masses pit42 43 44 For Nazi „religion“ see: Vondung 1971; Marchal 1993; Bärsch 2002. Böck 2017. Friedländer 1984; see also Brunote 2008. ARcHAEologIcA HEREDITAS • 10 Thingstäten and “sacred” landscapes of the third Reich Fig. 13. Berlin Reichssportfeld (no. 6): a) “Pharus” plan of the Olympic complex in 1936. The Langemarkhalle lies under the bell tower/ “Glockenturm” and the Tribune at the western terminus of a triumphal avenue stretching over the Olympic stadium to the Brandenburg Gate; b) Aerial view of the Thingstätte, Dietrich-Eckart-Freilichtbühne, the Langemarkhalle and bell tower; c) Closeups of the Thingstätte and mortuary hall; d) Consecration of the Langemarkhalle with remains of “martyred” young soldiers (source: vintage postcards) ted against the hard martyrs towers, the luid interface between Volk, Nature and Soil rejuvenated by martyr´s blood, etc. Thus, one would have expected that after Goebbels renunciaion of the Thingplatz concept these ephemeral phantoms would simply disappear. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. Save for a handful that were purposely destroyed or buried in the postwar period, almost all the ca 40 completed Thingstäten have survived in various degrees of preservaion45 and of these 22 are sill in use today and many eerily fulilled sub-culic funcions long ater 1945. Obviously, in the post-war period Thingstäten, which were located in the Soviet Occupied Zone of Germany and later German Democraic Republic, were predisposed to a seamless coninuity of mass performances, as Stalinism also employed mass events as powerful tools for ideological reinforcement. These included the Grenzlandfeier- stäte Schwarzenberg (no. 39) which was renamed Wilhelm Piek Feierstäte in honour of East Germany´s irst Communist president and was the site of Communist ceremonies46, as was the Stäte der Volksgemeinschat (Sanctuary of the Volk community) in Borna (no. 9) which was rebranded as Voksplatz Borna, and like the Rostock Thingstäte (35), termed Platz der Jugend, served as a focus for mass events of the Communist Free German Youth. In the case of the Hutberg Thingstäte near Kamenz in Upper Lusaia (no. 25) this type of coninuity is compounded by a cultic component. Five 15-meter-high granite plinths, unusually located back of the spectators on the highest rung of the Thingstäte once towered over the amphitheater (Fig. 14). They were built in 1934 and fitted out with appropriate paraphernalia, fire bowls, bronze wreaths, etc., to memorialize the town´s fallen World War heroes. These plinths were demolished on 45 46 Stommer 1985. Schmeizer and Weil 2014: 37–40. PREvENtIvE CONsERvAtION Of tHE HumAN ENvIRONmENt 6 • Architecture as an element of the landscape 257 Louis Daniel Nebelsick Fig. 14. Kamenz Hutberg (no. 25): a-b) Drawing and photo of the Hutberg Thingstätte with ive towers commemorating fallen World War One “heroes”; c) View from the war memorial terrace over the Thingstätte and upper Lusatian landscape; d) Memorial obelisks erected after the demolition of the towers to commemorate Soviet “heroes” at the current entrance to the amphitheater (source: vintage postcards; Archive of the Museum in Kamenz) order of the Soviet authoriies in 1948 who were using the amphitheater together with the Polish army for military ceremonies and mass propaganda events. At the same ime a porphyry monument crowned by an obelisk marking the mass grave of at least 18 Red Army soldiers was built at the beginning of the road leading to the amphitheater, thus clearly rededicaing the Thingstäte, to the “eternal fame of the heroes who died fighting for the honor and independence of their Soviet homeland”.47 Remarkably, a site in Poland, the Thingstäte on the Góra Świętej Anny mentioned above, represents the most cogent case of cult coninuity. The Nazi Totenburg was razed soon after the war, either dramatically dynamited by Polish troops as oicial records suggest or simply quarried away by locals, and the incorporated “martyrs`” bones dispersed. Its foundaions now bear a totally new monolithic four cornered monumental granite slab structure, planned and executed by Poland´s foremost sculpture and Auschwitz survivor Xawery Dunikowski, which like its predecessor, owes much to Wilhelm Kreis’ Totenburgen (Fig. 15). Due to inancial strictures and ideological conlicts about the itle and message of the memorial it was not until 1955 that 47 a drastically downsized version of the “monument of the (Polish) insurgency” commemoraing a wide range of Polish-German conlicts in Silesia but also the victory of Socialism could be dedicated. In a remarkable state of mirror image coninuity, the Thingstäte itself, now known and the Amphitheater on Saint Anna’s Mount, continued to be used for ideologically charged mass events. These also involved commemorations of the Polish fallen during the long history of conlict in Upper Silesia struggle, paricularly during the Stalinist period. The amphitheater was largely deserted thereater but has recently reemerged as a venue for rock concerts. Interesingly, rock concerts and fesivals have been a lifeline for most of the intact Thingstäten and it is worth noing that they in many ways fulill the funcions that the Thingspiele were intended to do. These include the ragged interface and intensive interaction between performers and the audience, the use and exchange of highly stylized movements and ritualized acions, the mass responses and emoions expressed by the spectators, the general lack of props and heavy dependency on light and sound efects as well as almost messianic adulaion accorded to stars. These mass psychological overlaps of what are, however, ideologically completely Herrmann 2014. 258 ARcHAEologIcA HEREDITAS • 10 Thingstäten and “sacred” landscapes of the third Reich Fig. 15. Góra Świętej Anny (no. 17): a) Aerial photo of the Saint Anne´s Mountain Amphitheatre as it is today; b) Closeup of the Xawery Dunikowski’s Monument to the Uprising with frieze commemorating events from 950 AD up to the then current victory of socialism in 1955; c) View of the monument from the amphitheater: d) The monument seen from its eastern approach (source: Internet) something, which brings this narrative back full circle to the Thingstäte´s origins on the Witches Dance Floor near Thale. unrelated phenomena are a tribute to the eicacy of the Thingstäte design.48 In a less emotional case of continuity, the Thingstäte which was destrucively inserted into the ruins of Giebelstadt castle in Franconia (no. 16) to host a play featuring the knight Florian Geyer, who once owned the castle and was a tragic leader of a failed 16th century peasant’s rebellion. It was shown between 1933 and 1939. Nikolaus Fey, who had penned the play in 1925, went so far as to claim that Geyer had been reborn as Adolf Hitler. A tamed-down version of his play was revived in 1980 and entertains summer tourists who lock to the Thingstäte to this day. Finally, an eerie coincidence must be mentioned. These are the annual Walpurgis Nacht (Witches Night) fesiviies on the Heidelberg Thingstäte every April 30th which have emerged anarchically in the last decades as a mass torchlit student party featuring iery spectacles, Ater decades during which Thingstäten, like so many buildings of the Nazi Period in Germany, were forgoten or willfully ignored, they have gradually become an issue for those involved in monument protecion.49 This is all the more so, as the deterioraion of their architectural substance, but also dangers posed by the threats of development of these once remote sites, raise the quesion whether their protecion or even restoraion is considered appropriate or desirable.50 Obviously the most efecive form disenchaning these sites involves razing 48 49 For the emoional pull of mass events sill, see Elias 1960; the strong sense of connectedness insilled during rock fesivals, see: Tjora 2015. Postscript, the phantoms awake 50 Koschar 2000; Niven 2003. Puppe and Teufer 2014. PREvENtIvE CONsERvAtION Of tHE HumAN ENvIRONmENt 6 • Architecture as an element of the landscape 259 Louis Daniel Nebelsick them completely51, but while this process already began in the Nazi Period with the Thingplatz in BerchtesgadenStrub (no. 4), being replaced by a youth hostel, and the Thingstäte in downtown Koblenz (no. 26), bombed and buried under rubble, this clearly cannot now be considered a responsible opion. Nor can the ignoble fate of the moldering foundaions of the Halle Brandberg Thingstäte (no. 18) which lie in a rubbish illed vacant lot in the midst of a dreary council housing scheme be seen as a desirable alternaive. A subtler form of disenchantment involves recasing them in the public mind through their post-war histories. In the case of the Bad Segeberg “Thingstäte der Nordmark”, which, Goebbels opened in streaming rain in 1937, enormously popular performances of Karl May´s wild west dramas have indelibly associated the site with the noble Apache Winnetou and his friend the trapper Old Shaterhand who have been scrambling up and down the Thingstäte’s quarry face backdrop, hollering and shooing since 195252; or Berlin’s Waldbühne (no. 6) which popular memory sill links to its almost total dismantlement during rioting by fans enraged by a lack luster performance by the Rolling Stones in 1965, which took 12 years to repair. But obviously this kind of thing cannot be mandated. The question of what to do was recently raised in the case of the seminal Bückeberg Thingstäte (no. 19) whose ephemeral remains were slated to be engulfed by a housing development. It has now, ater much soul searching, been put under monument protection and a didactic center is projected to explain and decry its role in the Nazi Period.53 Yet there is a ine line between preserving and re-awakening these monuments in imes when there is a palpable resurgence of neo-Nazi interest in reclaiming these ceremonial sites as their own. This renewed interest has been fueled by their increasing visibility and accessibility through websites dedicated to systemaically “discover” and catalogue physical re- mains of the Third Reich.54 The results are as worrying as they are predictable. Heidelberg´s impressive and easily accessible Heiligenberg Thingstäte (no. 20) which was placed under monument protection and didactically contextualized in Nazi history in the 1980s55, has repeatedly atracted neo-Nazi torch lit processions in the last years.56 Atempts to explain and expunge a Thingstäte’s Nazi message by using didacic plaques and signs which have been implemented in the vast Nazi Sachsenhain ceremonial complex near Verden (no. 44) has gone hand in glove with the advent of Nazi pilgrimages to the once forgoten site.57 This has, not surprisingly, also impacted the perfectly preserved SS elite school Ordensburg Vogelsang in the Eifel (no. 30) which was long hidden in an allied military training ground and includes a monumental, if crude, sculptural program. It has only recently been decommissioned and become accessible to civilians including monument protecion oicers. This unique ensemble has obviously been placed under monument protecion, and restoraion measures have included archaeological excavaions revealing the atendant Thingplatz which was intenionally buried by resident Belgian troops.58 The publicity generated by these measures has made it a magnet for Neo-Fascist youth groups.59 Militant rightwing ambiions to reclaim their bogus sanctuaries have even pinnacled in violence. Ater a successful producion of the obeat camp musical Rocky Horror Show in Wachler´s amphiteatre on the Hexentanzplatz in 2007, for instance, neo-Nazis enraged by the desecraion of their sanctum, atacked and seriously beat up the actors.60 There are clearly no easy answers to this dilemma making it highly likely, that these phantom landscapes will continue to haunt those charged with conserving Europe’s recent past. 54 55 56 51 52 53 In fact this was mandated for all buildings and objects which were thought to keep German militarisic tradiions alive or venerate Nazism by the Allied occupaion forces from 1945 to 1947; Hammer 1995: 282–293. Schmid 1999; Sparr 2000. Winghart 2010. 260 57 58 59 60 Internet: www.thirdreichruins.com/thingplatz.htm, or: htps:// de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thingplatz. Moers-Messmer 1987. Internet: htp://www.autonomes-zentrum.org/ai/texte/nazichronik.html. Kröger (ed.) 2005 Heinen 2010. Internet: https://www.rundschau-online.de/region/kreis-euskirchen/schleiden/-faehnlein--vogelsang-bereitet-sich-auf-einegruppe-mit-rechter-gesinnung-vor-26738096. Banghard 2016: 207. ARcHAEologIcA HEREDITAS • 10 Thingstäten and “sacred” landscapes of the third Reich References: Baird, J.W. 1992. The martyrdom of Albert Leo Schlageter, [in:] J.W. Baird, To die for Germany: heroes in the Nazi Pantheon, 13–40. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Banghard, K. 2016. Wie sexuelle und poliische Vorzeitprojekionen voneinander abhängen. Archäologische Informaionen 39: 205–214. Bärsch, C.-E. 2002. Die poliische Religion des Naionalsozialismus. Die religiösen Dimensionen der NS-Ideologie in den Schriten von Dietrich Eckart, Joseph Goebbels, Alfred Rosenberg und Adolf Hitler. München: Fink. Behrenbeck, S. 1996. Der Kult um die toten Helden: Naionalsozialisische Mythen, Riten und Symbole 1923–1945. Köln: Böhlau-Verlag. Bein, R. 1997. Zeitzeugen aus Stein. Band 1. Braunschweig 1930– 1945. Braunschweig: Döring. Binder, C. and T. Meier 2016. Der Heidelberger „Ehrenfriedhof“. Siedlungsforschung. Archäologie – Geschichte – Geographie 33: 319–354. Bjork, J. and R. Gerwarth 2007. The Annaberg as a German–Polish Lieu de Mémoire. German History 25: 372–400. Böck, K. 2017. „Bollwerk des Deutschtums im Osten“: Das Freikorpsehrenmal auf dem Annaberg/Oberschlesien. RIHA. Journal of the International Association of Research Institutes in the History of Art 0160. Internet: http://www.riha-journal.org/articles/2017/ images-2017/riha-journal-0160-bock. Bollmus, R. 2006. Das Amt Rosenberg und seine Gegner. Studien zum Machtkampf im naionalsozialisischen Herrschatssystem. Berlin: Oldenbourg. Brands, G. 1995. From World War I cemeteries to the Nazi “Fortresses of the dead” – Architecture, heroic landscape, and the quest for naional idenity in Germany, [in:] J. Wolschke-Bulmahn (ed.), Places of commemoraion. Search for idenity and landscape design, 215–256. Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium on the History of Landscape Architecture19. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Brechtken, M. 2017. Albert Speer – Eine Deutsche Karriere. München: Siedler Verlag. Kröger, C. (ed.) 2005. Sie marschieren wieder. Bremen: Bremer Tageszeitungen AG. Brunote, U. 2008. Martyrium, Vaterland und der Kult der toten Krieger. Männlichkeit und Soteriologie im Krieg, [in:] A. Kraß (ed.), Tinte und Blut. Poliik, Eroik und Poeik des Martyriums, 95–118. Frankfurt: Fischer. Canei, E. 1960. Crowds and power. New York: Viking. Dobesz, J.L. 2005. Der Umgang mit den Bauten aus der NS-Zeit in Polen, [in:] D. Bingen and H.-M. Hinz (eds), Die Schleifung: Zerstörung und Wiederaubau historischer Bauten in Deutschland und Polen, 188–198. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Dümling, A. 2012. Werner Egk, Carl Orf und Richard Strauss. Ihr Beitrag zu Carl Diems Festspiel „Olympische Jugend“, [in:] M Krüger (ed.), Erinnerungskultur im Sport. Vom kriischen Umgang mit Carl Diem, Sepp Herberger und anderen Größen des deutschen Sports, 57–75. Münster: LIT Verlag. Dutzi, C. 2000. Aufmarsch der Toten. Der Ehrenfriedhof auf dem Heidelberger Ameisenbuckel. Denkmalpflege in Baden-Würtemberg 29 (2): 132 Eichberg, H. and R.A. Jones 1977. The Nazi Thingspiel: theater for the masses in fascism and proletarian culture. New German Critique 11: 133–150. Finsterhölzl, C. 1999. Die Einweihung der Niederdeutschen Gedenkstätte Stedingsehre. Oldenburger Jahrbuch 99: 177–205. Fischer, L. 2003. Die Urlandschaft und ihr Schutz, [in:] J. Radkau and F. Uekötter (eds), Naturschutz und Nationalsozialismus, 183–206. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag. Fischer-Lichte, E. 2006. Tod und Wiedergeburt – Zur Verklärung der Volksgemeinschat in Thingspielen und naionalsozialisischen Feiern, [in:] P. Diehl (ed.), Körper im Naionalsozialismus – Bilder und Praxen, 191–210. München: Fink. 2007. Producing the Volk community – The Thingspiel movement 1933–1936, [in:] E. Fischer-Lichte (ed.), Theatre, sacriice, ritual: exploring forms of poliical theatre, 173–216. Abingdon: Routledge. Friedländer, S. 1984. Kitsch und Tod. Der Widerschein des Nazismus. München: Hanser. Fröhlich, E.T. 2005. Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels Band 3/I: April 1934 – Februar 1936. München: Saur. Gadberry, G.W. 1980. The Thingspiel and Das Frankenburger Würfelspiel. Drama Review 24: 103–114. Gelderblom, B. 1998. Die Reichserntedankfeste auf dem Bückeberg 1933– 1937. Hameln: Verlag Niemeyer. English translation: http://www.gelderblom-hameln.de/bueckebergha- PREvENtIvE CONsERvAtION Of tHE HumAN ENvIRONmENt 6 • Architecture as an element of the landscape 261 Louis Daniel Nebelsick meln/bueckeberghamelnbroschuere.php?name=bueckeberg. Grimm, P. 1958. Die vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Burgwälle der Bezirke Halle und Magdeburg. Handbuch vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Wall- und Wehranlagen 1. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaten Berlin, Schriten der Sekion Vor- und Frühgeschichte 6. Berlin. Guardini, R. 1946. Der Heilbringer in Mythos, Ofenbarung und Poliik. Eine theologisch-poliische Besinnung. Stutgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. Hammer, F. 1995. Die geschichtliche Entwicklung des Denkmalschutzes in Deutschland. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Haßmann, H. 2010. Das Gelände der Reichserntedankfeste auf dem Bückeberg als Kulturdenkmal und seine Umgebung als gestaltete Kulturlandschat, [in:] S. Winghart (ed.), Die Reichserntedankfeste auf dem Bückeberg bei Hameln, 31–41. Niedersächsisches Landesamt für Denkmalplege Arbeitshet 36. Hameln: Niemeyer. Haubold-Stolle, J. 2005. Góra Świętej Anny w niemieckiej i polskiej tradycji politycznej, [in:] J. Haubold-Stolle and B. Linek (eds), Górny Śląsk wyobrażony: wokół mitów, symboli i bohaterów dyskursów narodowych, 208–231. Opole: Instytut Śląski. 2006. Der Gipfel der Symbolik. Der Sankt Annaberg als Verkörperung Oberschlesiens, [in:] P.O. Loew, C. Pletzing and T. Serrier (eds), Wiedergewonnene Geschichte. Zur Aneignung von Vergangenheit in den Zwischenräumen Miteleuropas, 347–362. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Heinen, F.A. 2010. Monumentale Architektur, Tribune an der Thingstäte freigelegt. Kölner Stadt Anzeiger 07.06.2010. Hermann, K. (ed.) 2014. Führerschule, Thingplatz, „Judenhaus“: Orte und Gebäude der naionalsozialisischen Diktatur in Sachsen. Dresden: Sandstein Verlag. Hobsbawm, E. 1983. Introduction: inventing tradition, [in:] E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger (eds). The invenion of tradiion, 1–14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Iversen, F. 2013. Concilium and Pagus – Revisiing the Early Germanic Thing System of Northern Europe. Journal of the North Atlanic 5: 5–17. Kaiser, A. 2006. „Sie wollen gar nicht, dass wir mit lauten Worten sie ‚Helden‘ nennen“. Der Volkstrauertag und der Mythos vom Sinn des Sterbens im Krieg, [in:] H. Hein-Kircher and H.H. Hahn (eds), Poliische Mythen im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert in Mittel- und Osteuropa, 63–81. Marburg: Herder Verlag. 262 Kaule, M. 2014. Olympiastadion Berlin und Olympisches Dorf Elstal. Berlin: Ch. Links Verlag. Koshar, R.J. 2000. Germany’s transient pasts: preservaion and naional memory in the twenieth century. Charlote: University of North Carolina Press. Livings, F. 2013. Ephemere Kulträume. Raum und Material nationalsozialistischer Masseninszenierungen 1933–1939. Dissertaion zur Erlangung der Würde des Doktors der Philosophie der Universität Hamburg. Hamburg, März 2003. Internet: htp://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2016/7914/pdf/Dissertaion Bückeberg. Ludwig, R. and P. Marzolf 1999. Der Heiligenberg bei Heidelberg. Führer zu archäologischen Denkmälern in Baden-Würtemberg 20. Stutgart: Konrad Theiss. Lurz, M. 1975. Die Heidelberger Thingstätte. Die Thingstättenbewegung im Driten Reich: Kunst als Mitel poliischer Propaganda. Heidelberg: Kunsthistorisches Insitut der Universität Heidelberg. 2010. Zeichen völkischer Erneuerung im Geiste Adolf Hitlers“. Thingstäte und Freikorpsehrenmal auf dem Annaberg/ OS. Jahrbuch für schlesische Kultur und Geschichte 51/52 [2010/2011]: 153–184. Marchal, G.P. 1993. “Mythos im 20. Jahrhundert. Der Wille zum Mythos oder die Versuchung des “neuen Mythos” in einer säkularisierten Welt, [in:] F. Graf (ed.), Mythos in mythenloser Gesellschat: das Paradigma Roms, 204–229. Stutgart: Teubner. Mazur, Z. 2000. Obchody świąt i rocznic historycznych na ziemiach zachodnich i północnych 1945–1948, [in:] Z. Mazur (ed.), Wspólne dziedzictwo? Ze studiów nad stosunkiem do spuścizny kulturowej na Ziemiach Zachodnich i Północnych, 114–164. Poznań: Instytut Zachodni. McAlpine, S. 1990. Visual aids in the producions of the irst Piscator-Bühne, 1927–1928. New York: Peter Lang. Europäische Hochschulschriten; Theater-, Film- und Fernsehwissenschaten 40. Moers-Messmer, W. v. 1987. Der Heiligenberg bei Heidelberg. Ein Führer durch seine Geschichte und seine Ruinen. Heidelberg: Schutzgemeinschat Heiligenberg. Moscovici, S. 1985. The age of the crowd: a historical treaise on mass psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Moshammer, L. 1935. Die Thingstäte und ihre Bedeutung für das kommende deutsche Theater. Bauwelt 26: 1–8. ARcHAEologIcA HEREDITAS • 10 Thingstäten and “sacred” landscapes of the third Reich Mosse, G.L. 1980. Soldatenfriedhöfe und naionale Wiedergeburt. Der Gefallenenkult in Deutschland, [in:] K. Vondung (ed.), Kriegserlebnis. Der Erste Weltkrieg in der literarischen Gestaltung und symbolischen Deutung der Naionen, 241–261. Göingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Mühlenfeld, D. 2006. Joseph Goebbels und die Grundlagen der NS-Rundfunkpoliik. Zeitschrit für Geschichtswissenschat 54: 442–467. Müller, C. 1996. „Für Euch, für Reich, für Adolf Hitler starb einst Florian Geyer“. Die Florian-Geyer-Festspiele in Giebelstadt von 1933 bis 1945. Mainfränkisches Jahrbuch für Geschichte und Kunst 48: 276–306. Niven, W. 2000. The birth of Nazi drama?: Thing plays, [in:] J. London, (ed.), Theatre under the Nazis, 54–95. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 2003. Facing the Nazi past: United Germany and the legacy of the Third Reich. London: Routlege Ohr, K. 1989. Die Thingstäte auf dem Heiligenberg bei Heidelberg. Deutsche Kunst und Denkmalplege, 47–52. Pollok, E.S. 2000. Góra Św. Anny. Śląska świętość. Przedbórz: Wydawnictwo Żyrowa. Puppe, J. and C. Teufer 2014. Unter der Grasnarbe. Freiraumgestaltungen in Niedersachsen während der NS-Diktatur als denkmalplegerisches Thema. Ein Tagungsrückblick. Berichte zur Denkmalplege in Niedersachsen 2: 85–89. Puschner, U. 1996. Deutsche Reformbühne und völkische Kultstäte. Ernst Wachler und das Harzer Bergtheater, [in:] U. Puschner, W. Schmitz and J.H. Ulbricht (eds), Handbuch zur „Völkischen Bewegung“ 1871–1918, 762–796. München: K.G. Saur. 2002. One People, One Reich, One God.’ The Völkische Weltanschauung and Movement. Bullein of the German Historical Insitute in London 24 (1): 5–28. Puschner, U. and C. Vollnhals (eds) 2012. Die völkisch-religiöse Bewegung im Naionalsozialismus: Eine Beziehungs- und Konliktgeschichte. Göingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Rammer, S. 1996. Naionalsozialismus in Passau. Die Inszenierung des Alltags, [in:] S. Rammer (ed.), Mahnmal für die Opfer des Naionalsozialismus. Dokumentaion und Aspekte zur Geschichte des „Driten Reiches” in Passau, 107–136. Passau: Stadt Passau. Rentschler, E. 1996. Ministry of illusion: Nazi cinema and its aterlife. Cambridge (Mass): Harvard University Press. Rossol, N. 2010. Performing the nation in interwar Germany. sport, spectacle and poliical symbolism, 1926–36. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Schiller, G. 2010. Das heutige Ehrenmal auf dem St.-Annaberg – eine Gedenkstätte für die polnischen Aufständischen in Oberschlesien? Jahrbuch für schlesische Kultur und Geschichte 51/52 [2010/2011]: 185–193. Schmeitzner, M. and F. Weil 2014. Sachsen 1933–1945: der historische Reiseführer. Berlin: Ch. Links Verlag. Schmid, L. 1999. Karl May am Kalkberg: Geschichte und Geschichten der Karl-May-Spiele Bad Segeberg seit 1952. Band 1. Bad Segeberg: Karl-May-Verlag. Schnurbein, S. von 2001. Völkische Religion und Krisen der Moderne: Entwürfe „arteigener“ Glaubenssysteme seit der Jahrhundertwende. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann. Schwaiger, M. (ed.) 2004. Bertolt Brecht und Erwin Piscator. Experimentelles Theater im Berlin der Zwanzigerjahre. Wien: Chrisian Brandstäter. Scobie, A. 1990. Hitler’s state architecture: the impact of classical Aniquity. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Siemens, D. 2013. The making of a Nazi hero: the murder and myth of Horst Wessel. London – New York: I.(B.Tauris. Sparr, H.-P. 2000. Der Kalkberg. Naturdenkmal und Wahrzeichen der Stadt Bad Segeberg. Hamburg: Chrisians. Speer, A. 1933. Die bauliche Ausgestaltung von Großkundgebungen. Unser Wille und Weg. Monatsbläter der Reichspropagandaleitung der NSDAP 11: 299–302. 2005. Erinnerungen. Berlin: Ullstein Taschenbuchverlag. Stommer, R. 1985. Die inszenierte Volksgemeinschat. Die „Thingbewegung“ im Driten Reich. Marburg: Jonas. Taylor, R. 1974. Word in stone: the role of architecture in the Naional Socialist ideology. Berkeley: University of California Press. Tjora, A. 2015. The social rhythm of the rock music fesival. Popular Music 35 (1): 64–83. Treitel, C. 2004. A science for the soul. Occulism and the genesis of the German modern. Balimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Trommler, F. 2009. A command performance, the many faces of literature under Nazism, [in:] J. Huener and F.R. Nicosia (eds), The arts in Nazi Germany: coninuity, conformity, change, 111–135. New York: Berghan Books. Ulbricht, J.H. 2011. Verden-Dauelsen: Inszenierte Vorgeschichte – die naionalsozialisische »Thingstäte« Sachsenhain, [in:] U. PREvENtIvE CONsERvAtION Of tHE HumAN ENvIRONmENt 6 • Architecture as an element of the landscape 263 Louis Daniel Nebelsick Halle and C. von Carnap-Bornheim (ed.), Bremen und umzu, 187–190. Auslüge zu Archäologie, Geschichte und Kultur in Deutschland 53. Stutgart: Theiss. Urban, M. 2007. Die Konsensfabrik: Funkion Und Wahrnehmung Der NS-Reichsparteitage, 1933–1941. Göingen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Vasiliev, A. 1948. Imperial porphyry sarcophagi in Constaninople. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 4. Harvard: Dumbarton Oaks. Vondung, K. 1971. Magie und Manipulaion. Ideologischer Kult und poliische Religion des Naionalsozialismus. Göingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Weinrich, A. 2009. Kult der Jugend — Kult des Opfers. Der Langemarck-Mythos in der Zwischenkriegszeit. Historical Social Research 34 (4): 319–330. Wenskus, R. 1984. Ding, [in:] H. Beck et al. (eds), Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, Zweite, völlig neu bearbeitete und stark erweiterte Aulage vol. 5, 443–446. Berlin: de Gruyter Wichert, S. 2007. Die Denkmallandschat von Bergen, [in:] E. Tietz, S. Wichert and F. Petrick (eds), Eine Insel mit Geschichte: 200 Jahre Landkreis Rügen, 280–333. Groß Schoritz: Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Ges. Williams, J.A. 1996. “The chords of the German soul are tuned to nature”: the movement to preserve the natural Heimat from the Kaiserreich to the Third Reich. Central European History 29 (3): 339–384. Winghart, S. (ed.) 2010. Die Reichserntedankfeste auf dem Bückeberg bei Hameln. Niedersächsisches Landesamt für Denkmalplege Arbeitshet 36. Hameln: Niemeyer. Acknowledgements: It is a pleasure for me to thank Zbigniew Kobyliński for his help, encouragement and as ever ediing skills, and Kathrin Legler for her proofreading. 264 ARcHAEologIcA HEREDITAS • 10 Notes on authors Barsha Amarendra – BA, architect; Visvesvaraya Naional Insitute of Technology, Nagpur, India. Cynthia Ammerman – historian and preservaion strategist; director of the Polis: Cultural Planning, LLC in Kansas City, Missouri, and of the Cass County Historical Society in Harrisonville, Missouri, USA. Lazare Eloundou Assomo – Deputy Director of UNESCO’s World Heritage Center, Paris, France. Marek Barański – Dr eng., architect, conservator of historic monuments; Kielce University of Technology, Faculty of Building Engineering and Architecture, Kielce, Poland. Ewa M. Charowska – Dr eng., architect, historian and historic preservaionist; independent scholar working in Toronto, Canada. Paolo Del Bianco – President of the Romualdo Del Bianco Foundaion, Florence, Italy. Stefano De Caro – Dr, archaeologist; Director-General of ICCROM, former Director-General of Aniquiies with the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Aciviies, Rome, Italy. Urszula Forczek-Brataniec – Dr; lecturer at Cracow University of Technology, Cracow, Poland. Secretary General of the European Region of the Internaional Federaion of Landscape Architects. Joanna Gruszczyńska – MSc. Eng. Arch., architect; doctoral student at the Warsaw University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture, Warsaw, Poland. Weronika Kobylińska-Bunsch – MA, art historian; doctoral student at the Insitute of Art History, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland. Zbigniew Kobyliński – Professor Dr habil., archaeologist and manager of cultural heritage; director of the Insitute of Archaeology of the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Poland. Diederik de Koning – MA, architect and environmental and infractructural planner; PhD candidate at the Delt University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Borders and Territories Research Group, Delt, the Netherlands. Heiner Krellig – Dr, art historian, independent scholar, working in Berlin, Germany and Venice, Italy. Amarendra Kumar Das – Professor; Department of Design, Indian Insitute of Technology Guwahai, India. Karen Lens – MA, architect; doctoral student at Hasselt University, Belgium. Mingqian Liu – MA, historian of art and architecture; PhD student at the Department of Architecture, Texas A&M University, USA. Estefanía López Salas – Dr, architect and restorator; Professor at the School of Architecture, University of A Coruña, Spain. Crisiano Luchei – Assistant Professor; American University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. Eva Gutscoven – MSc; architect and conservator working in Belgium. Ana Luengo – MA, MSc, PhD, landscape architect; former President of the European Region of the Internaional Federaion of Landscape Architects –IFLA EUROPE. Teiana Kazantseva – Dr, Associate Professor; Department of Design and Architecture Basics, Institute of Architecture, Lviv Polytechnic Naional University, Lviv, Ukraine. Nataliya Lushnikova – Dr Eng., Associate Professor; Naional University of Water and Environmental Engineering, Insitute of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Department of Architecture and Environmental Design, Rivne, Ukraine. ArchAeologicA HEREDITAS 10 403–404 Notes on authors Fernando Magalhães – PhD, anthropologist; Interdisciplinary Venter of Social Sciences (CICS.NOVA), Polytechnic Institute of Leiria’s School of Education and Social Sciences, Leiria, Portugal. Romano Marini – PhD, theoreician of law and poliics; Adjunct Professor at Niccolo Cusano University, Rome, Italy. Chrisine McCarthy – PhD, architect and art historian; senior lecturer at the Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand. Louis Daniel Nebelsick – Dr habil., archaeologist; Professor at the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Poland. Carinna Soares de Sousa – BA, architect and urban designer; MA student in urban planning at the Federal University of Santa Catarina in Florianópolis, Brazil. Aleksandra Stępniewska – MA student of architecture at the University of Social Sciences in Warsaw, Poland. Bishnu Tamuli – Doctoral student at the Department of Design, Indian Insitute of Technology Guwahai, India. Işılay Tiarnagh Sheridan – BA, MSc, architect; research assistant at the İzmir Insitute of Technology in Faculty of Architecture, Izmir, Turkey. Ewa Paszkiewicz – MA; main scenographer at The Royal Łazienki Museum in Warsaw. Andrzej Tomaszewski (1934-2010) – Professor dr habil., historian of art and culture, architect, urban planner, invesigator of Medieval architecture and art; director of ICCROM (1988-1992), General Conservator of Poland (1995-1999). Ana Pereira Roders – Dr, architect and urban planner; Associate Professor in Heritage and Sustainability at the Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands. Koen Van Balen – Professor at the Catholic University of Leuven and director of the Raymond Lemaire Internaional Centre for Conservaion, Belgium. Kamil Rabiega – MA, archaeologist; PhD student in the Insitute of Archaeology, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Poland. Nikolaas Vande Keere – MA, civil engineer architect; Professor in charge of the design studio of the Internaional Master of Interior Architecture on Adapive Reuse at the Hasselt University, Belgium. Almir Francisco Reis – Dr, urban planner; Professor at the Federal University of Santa Catarina in Florianópolis, Brazil. Petro Rychkov – Dr, architect; Professor at the Lublin University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Department of Conservaion of Built Heritage, Lublin, Poland. Juan Alejandro Saldarriaga Sierra – Dr, cultural geographer; teacher at the Faculty of Architecture of the Naional University of Colombia in Medellin, Colombia. Ingrida Veliutė – Dr; lecturer at the Vytautas Magnus University Faculty of Arts and member of ICOMOS Lithuania. Tony Williams – former President of the Irish Landscape Insitute and President of The European Region of the Internaional Federaion of Landscape Architects. Anna Wiśnicka – Dr, design historian; teacher at the Insitute of Art History of the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Poland. Dominik Ziarkowski – Dr, art historian; Cracow University of Economics. Chair of Tourism, Cracow, Poland. 404 ARcHAEologIcA HEREDITAS • 10