Arnold 1990 PDF
Arnold 1990 PDF
BETTINA ARNOLD*
After almost six decades, there is n o term Vorgeschichte (prehistory) was rejected as
comprehensive account by a German-speaking a survival of anthropological thinking; Urge-
prehistorian of the effects o n prehistoric scho- schichte (early history) w a s preferred as better
larship of the National Socialist regime, or the emphasizing the continuity of prehistory with
Isle played by archaeology in legitimating it. documentary history (Sklenar 1983: 132). The
This paper addresses t h e following questions: writings of t h e 19th-century French racial
What were the foundations of German prehis- philosopher Gobineau provided a doctrine of
toric research under t h e National Socialists the inequality of different races (Daniel & Ken-
(NS)? What role did prehistory play in the frew 1988: 104-6). Journals and publications
process of political legitimation from 1933 to dealing with the subject of race and genetic
1945? What did t h e NS system offer to prehis- engineering increasingly appeared in Germany
torians i n exchange for their part in this legiti- in the early 20th century, among them Volk und
mation process? What was t h e official Party Hasse, which was founded in 1926, and
policy regarding prehistoric archaeology? What Fortschritte der Erbpathologie u n d H C ~ S S ~ J I -
was the response of the discipline to this hygiene, founded in 1929. Neither publication
Faustian bargain? What were the effects of state survived the Second World War.
control on excavation a n d research? How is The groundwork for a n ethnocentric German
German prehistoric archaeology affected by this prehistory was laid by Gustaf Kossinna (1858-
legacy today? 1932), a linguist w h o was a late convert to
prehistory (FIGIJRE 1).Kossinna proposed cultu-
The foundations of t h e pre-eminently national ral diffusion as a process whereby influences,
discipline ideas a n d models were passed on by more
To understand events in German prehistoric advanced peoples to the less advanced with
archaeology under the National Socialists, it is which they came into contact. This concept,
necessary to look at the discipline well before wedded to Kossinnas Kulturkreis theory, the
Hitlers rise to power in 1933 a n d the beginning identification of geographical regions with
of the Umbruch period of radical change. specific ethnic groups on the basis of material
Archaeology in Central Europe at the eve of the culture, lent theoretical support to the expan-
First World War was marked by a return of the sionist policies of Nazi Germany. Distribution
ethnohistoric approach to theory; in German- maps of archaeological types became a convinc-
speaking regions there was a new name for the ing argument for expansionist aims: wherever a
disc:ipline to go with its n e w orientation. The single find of a type designated as Germanic was
and his organization, primarily bec:ause i t con-
centrated on the excavation a n d stridy of p r o v
incia1 Komari (;f:rmany ( Bollmus 1970; Ilggc:rs
1986: 234).
Th e co 11n c(:t i o n tie t w een p re h i s t or 5 ii n d
politics was of long standing, not a nciv product
of the National Socialist regime. The fledgling
d i s(: i p I i n e e v o 1ved fro in t h c pan -E u r o p (:a i i geo -
graphic divisions and rise of nationalisni that
followed the First World War (Sklenar 1983:
1 3 1 ) . Politicians began to tako an intercst i n
prehistoric archaeology, which seemed well
sit i t e d to nation a 1is t visions . fl i 11den bu rg s
interest in Kossinnas work is well tloc;umented
(Mann us-Uiblio the k 1 928 : Fro t i t is p ic
Wilhelm I1 was a frequent visitor to Schuch-
hardts excavations at the Kiimerschanze near
Potsdam; after one visit, h e sent Schuchhardt a
t e I egra m : Continue excavations a n d ascertain
whether IKiimerschanze] still Volksburg or
already Fiirstensitz (Eggers 1986: 2 2 4 ) .
Between 1905 a n d 1914 the Kaiser also helped
finance a number of archaeological excavations
undertaken by the Duchess of Mecklenburg, in
what is now the Yugoslav Kepublir: of Slovenia.
and at Hallstatt in Austria. T h e skull of a
well-preservcd skeleton from Hallstatt was sent
to the Kaiser by the Duchess as a gift (Wells
1981: 1, 16).
F I G ~ ~1.
R P ,G u s t a v Kossinna (Mannus 1931: 3 3 7 ) Prehistory as political legitimation
Prehistory played a n important role in rehabili-
tating German self-respect after the humiliation
found, the land was declared ancient German of defeat in 1918, the perceived insult of Ver-
territory. . . (Sklenar 1983: 151) (FIGIJRE 2). sailles, a n d the imposed Weirnar regime. The
Alfred Rosenberg, the Partys ideologist, dedication of the 1921 edition of Gustav Kossin-
codified this ethnocentric a n d xenophobic per- nas seminal German prehistory: a preeminen-
spective: An individual to w h o m t h e tradition tly national discipline reads: To the German
of his people (Volkstum) a n d t h e honor of his people, as a building block in t h e reconstruction
people (Volksehre) is not a supreme value, has of the externally as well as internally disinte-
forfeited the right to be protected by that people grated fatherland (1921: Dedication).
(Germanenerbe 1938: 105). Applied to prehis- Kossinna acquired great influence after the
toric archaeology, this perspective resulted in death of Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902). \vho was
the neglect or distortion of data which did not the most prominent German prehistorian of the
directly apply to Germanic peoples; during the late 19th century. Virchow was one of the first
1930s scholars w h o s e main interests were prov- proponents of t h e ethnohistoric approach to
incial Roman archaeology were labeled Rom- prehistory, although h e is perhaps remembered
linge by the extremists a n d considered more for his misinterpretation of the first Nean-
anti-German (Jacob-Friesen 1950: 4). The derthal skeletal remains in 1856 (Eggers 1986:
Romisch Germanische Kommission i n Mainz, 202-5). In 1909 Kossinna founded the German
founded i n 1907 by Schuchhardt a n d his circle Society for Prehistory in Berlin, later more aptly
(Eggers 1986: 220), was t h e object of defamatory named the Society for German Prehistory (Ge-
attacks, first by Kossinna a n d later by Kosenberg sellschafi fur Ileutsche Vorgeschichte). This
2. A
FIGURE
distribution mclp of
'Germanic' territory
during the Bronze
Age (Reinerth 1945:
figure 2 ) .
was much more than a semantic alteration; as mans originated in antiquity - and that was o n
Alfred Giitze wrote (1933:68): occasion all of Europe.
The party-liners
The party-liners either achieved academic legit-
imacy under the Nazis, or were already estab-
lished scholars promoted within the Party, who
furthered their careers by conducting 'politi-
cally correct' research. The lunatic fringe of this
category were derisively called Germanornunen
(Jacob-Friesen 1934: 131) or Germanomaniacs
by the mainstream. Herman Wirth, co-founder
of the Ahnenerbe organization, attempted to
prove that northern Europe was the cradle of
Western civilization and was taken in by the
'Ura-Linda-Chronicle', an obvious forgery
(Jacob-Friesen 1934: 130-5). Herman Willc,
another of these extremists, interpreted thc
megaliths of Scandinavia as Germanic temples.
identified as the inspiration for Greek and
Roman temples as well as early medieval
churches (Jacob-Friesen 1950: 2-3). Wilhelm
Teudt's interpretation of the Externsteine near
Detmold as a Germanic temple (FKXJKE 4) was
supported by a large number of amateur prehis-
torians, and his encyclopaedic Germanische
Heiligtiimer (1934) identified, among other
things, a complex system of solar observatories
throughout areas of Germanic settlement.
The interpretation of the Externsteirle gener-
FIGURE 4. Etching of
Externsteine near Horn, Kreis
Lippe from 1748 ( T e u d t 1934:
figure 1 7 ) .
ated heated and often vindictive debate,
demonstrating the extent to which fringe
research was rejected by the mainstream (Focke t
thing from the Carolingians to the 13th century as 1933, although he was careful to explain that
the German Middle Ages (Petersen 1935: 147). it was exaggerated claims of Germanic achieve-
A site continuously occupied from prehistoric ments he deplored, not the principle of Ger-
times through to the present was to be excavated manic superiority itself (1933: 70).
by Rosenbergs organization until Roman Field schools for young archaeologists
remains were uncovered, at which point the combined political indoctrination with the
Romisch Germanische Kommission would deal Party emphasis on the outdoors and on healthy
with this non-German material. The prehis- communion with ones peers. The director of a
toric strata underneath would again be exca- field school held in 1935 for 65 participants, one
\rated by the Amt Rosenberg (Bollmus 1970: fifth of whom were women, stated: Naturally
166). This patently ridiculous and impractical the intellectual and material culture of the
arrangement, engineered by Reinerth and Germanic world was the focus of the relevant
Rosenberg, was never adopted. It was one presentations (Geschwendt 1935: 74).
reason many previously committed archaeo-
logists, disenchanted with the Amt Rosenberg Aftermath and legacy
and its plenipotentiary, began to turn more and The paralysis felt by many scholars from 1933 to
more, after 1937, to Himmlers Ahnenerbe for 1945 continued to affect research in the decades
official support. after the war. The anomie and intellectual
Several well-known sites began as Ahnenerbe dislocation of this period are described by
projects at this time: the Viking trading post of Wilhelm Unverzagt in his essay (1959: 1 6 3 ) :
Haithabu in Schleswig-Holstein, excavated by
Herbert Jankuhn under SS supervision begin- After Germanys collapse i t initially seemed virtually
ning in 1938 (Jankuhn 1935; 1938; 1939; 1940), impossible to begin rebuilding the discipline with
any hope of success. The new wielders of pnlitic:al
the Neolithic settlement of Koln-Lindenthal
power viewed prehistory with deep mistrust, a n
excavated by Werner Buttler (Buttler & Haberey attitude which seemed understandable in view of the
1936),and the Hohmichele tumulus at the Early abuse of the results of prehistoric: research on the part
Iron Age Heuneburg, excavated by Adolf Rieth of National Socialist leaders with regard to questions
(1936). of education and politics.
Many smaller excavations, conducted with
SS funding (Doppelfeld 1939), served a very Veit (1989) interprets the predominantly prag-
specific purpose apart from their dubious scho- matic orientation of prehistoric research in
larly value. They were intended to unite Ger- West Germany today as a direct result of intel-
mans - interested amateurs, locals, soldiers in lectual shellshock, a reaction against the
the SS and the SA - in the retrieval, preser- inflated claims of Nazi studies in prehistory,
vation and interpretation of prehistoric especially the ethnic interpretation of the Koss-
remains. Langsdorff & Schleif state specifically inna school (1989: 48). As Veit also points out,
in a 1937 article that the primary beneficiary of the reasons for the misuse of his [Kossinnas]
such research was to be Germanys young ideas, which were, after all, based on the nature
people, not scholarship as such (1937: 82). of archaeological knowledge, remained largely
Much of this rhetoric was reserved for official unexplained (1989: 39).
statements. Since it was necessary to use the The surviving older generation were faced
proper code words to ensure continued sup- with a terribly reduced student population after
port. their use does not prove that the writer 1945. The journals between 1939 and 1945
accepted the general principles implied. Lan- contain hundreds of obituaries, written mainly
gsdorff & Schleif, in fact, appear as unsung by senior scholars, occasionally in the front
heroes in Bollmus account of their part in lines themselves, who watched a whole gener-
maintaining standards of archaeological ation of young archaeologists die. It has taken
research within the Ahnenerbe organization. several decades to replace the losses of war,
Borderline research like the Externsteine exca- emigration and extermination. Most of the scho-
vations was discouraged by the Ahnenerbe after lars who were graduate students during this
1936, largely due to the influence of these two 12-year period had to grapple with a double
individuals (1970: 180-1). Gotze warned burden: a humiliating defeat and the disorien-
against pseudo-archaeology of this sort as early ting experience of being methodologically
deprogrammed. There was neither time nor dies. The historian Karl Ferdinand Werner s a y s
desire to examine the reasons for the German of this phenomenon of denial among historians
prostitution of archaeology (Piggott 1983: ( 1967:103):
Foreword).
The essence o f propaganda, as Hirnrnlcr and One didnt want to hear about ones past, of which
Rosenberg were aware, is the ability to manipu- one was now ashamed (how could one have tlelieved
late language and symbols. A race, nation or in this Hitler person!), and expressed this basically
individual can be defamed by terms with praiseworthy attitude by simply denying this past.
Since the great majority of Germans IVBS interested i n
negative implications - barbarian, under-
such suppression, very little opposition (muid arise.
developed, primitive.Rosenberg was adept at After the fact they all became, if not resistance fighters
twisting archaeological and anthropological at least sympathetic: to the resistance; indeed. they are
data to impugn Jews, the Catholic church and perhaps resisting even now, when it is no longer
Communists alike. Terms like hebraic para- dangerous to d o so, to make u p for the missed
sites, ruling priest class and red subhu- opportunity.
manity are liberally sprinkled throughout his
magnum opus with invocations of the classics, It is easy to condemn the men and women who
the natural sciences, Goethe and any other were part of the events which transformed the
authority which could be pressed into service German archaeological community between
(Rosenberg 1930). 1933 and 1945, more difficult really to under-
Archaeology lends itself particularly well to stand the choices they made or avoided in the
intentional misinterpretation. Almost-truths context of the time. Many researchers who
and half-facts have been used in archaeological began as advocates of Reinerths policies in the
contexts other than Nazi Germany to support Awt Rosenberg and Himmlers Ahnenerbe
racist doctrines and colonial military expan- organization later became disenchanted.
sion, or to establish political legitimacy for Others, who saw the system as a way to develop
shaky regimes (Clark 1939: 197ff.; Silberman and support prehistory as a discipline, were
1982; 1988; Garlake 1984; Silverberg 1986; willing to accept the costs of the Faustian
McConnell 1989; etc.). One particularly danger- bargain it offered.
ous aspect of archaeological writing is its ten- The benefits were real. Many of them still
dency toward professional jargon which tends exist today - in government programmes,
to obscure rather than reveal meaning. The museums and institutes, amateur organization.
multidisciplinary nature of prehistoric and a widespread popular support of and inter-
research, in and of itself an admirable thing, est in prehistory. Academic scholarship outside
lends itself too easily to abuse under the guise of Germany also benefited; not all of Kossinnas
science or other falsely appropriated authority. theories or those of his advocates can be dis-
Prehistory is particularly vulnerable to manipu- missed out of hand (Eggers 1986: 200). and quite
lation because it so often depends on a a lot ofthe work done from 1933 until the end of
minimum of data and a maximum of interpreta- the war was ground-breaking research. Scholars
tion (Klejn 1971: 8). like V. Gordon Childe adapted Kossinnas theo-
It is difficult to read Rosenbergs Myth of the ries to their own work. Ideas such as the
20th century today and remember that his identification of ethnic groups in the archaeo-
theories - however preposterous and absurd logical record and the concept of independent
they now sound - constituted part of the plat- invention on the part of indigenous European
form for the Nazi doctrine of racial purity that cultures unaffected by Eastern influence are
culminated in the extermination of over six some examples (Klejn 1974: 8). Settlement
million human beings. Germanys archaeologi- archaeology benefited from excavations like
cal community played a part in legitimating those at Koln-Lindenthal and Haithabu (C.
notions of Germanic racial and cultural Evans 1989).
superiority; yet prehistoric archaeology is the More recently a number of studies dealing
only social science discipline in Germany with certain aspects of the use and abuse of
which has still to publish a self-critical study of archaeology under the National Socialists in
its r61e in the events ofthe 1930s. Historians and Germany have been published by non-German
Germanists have published several such stu- researchers (Schnapp 1977; Baker 1988;
McCann 1988: 1989: C. Evans 1989). The only This trend can be seen in the context of a
German prehistorian \\rho has approached the lengthy term in power for the current conser-
topic to date has done so indirectly through the vative government and is a subtext of the
study of Kossinnas theories and their political Historikerstrcit which has made revisionist his-
and cultural significance (Veit 1984; 1989). Yet tory the topic of much recent debate (R.J. Evans
organizations like the ones recently formed by 1989). I mention it here because it emphasizes
graduate students in prehistory at the Universi- the importance of an in-depth critical study of
ties of Berlin (West) and Kiel (Offener Brief prehistoric archaeology under the National
1989) seem to indicate that a new wind is Socialists.
blowing in the corridors of German academe. As C. Evans says: It is precisely because so
The theme of a syniposium held recently in much archaeological evidence is ambiguous,
Berlin b-j the organizations AUTONOME and therefore open t o re-interpretation, that
SEILII,\~AR (Berlin) and Arbeitsgemeinschaft there is a need to understand the role and
Archdologie und Faschismus (Kiel) was Ur- historic constitution of archaeologys disci-
und Friihgeschichtsforschung und National- plinary consensus over time (1989: 447). His-
soziafismus. The topics under discussion indi- tory (and by association, pr2history) informs
cate a critical awareness not just of the forces communal self-image. An awareness of origins
that transformed prehistoric research from 1933 is necessary to construct and maintain self-
to 1945, but of the enduring legacy ofthat period esteem and self-understanding. History legiti-
in the academic community today. mizes individuals and their actions within
Unfortunately, conservative elements in society. In this context thc distortion of prehis-
German prehistoric archaeology which turn a toric research for political purposes has grave
blind eye to the abuses of the 1930s labour implications for the integrity of the structural
under the influence of a continuing uncon- framework of a society as a whole. This is the
scious ethnocentric fixation (Veit 1989: 50). most important legacy of the German example.
Dieter Korell (1989: 1 7 8 ) , for example, attempts We cannot afford to ignore the responsibility
to resuscitate Kossinnas concept of prehistory the relationship between archaeology and
as a preeminently national discipline: politics places upon interpreters of the past.
Gustaf Kossinna spoke programmaticaily of a pre- Ar:knowlr:dgrri~r~~ts. A prclilninary \(:rsicJti ofthis iiap(:r i w s
eminently national discipline. . . T h e term national prcsc:nted at the Joint Arc:liacologic:;il (;i~iigrc:ssin Bsltiinorc:
has nothing whatsoever to do with the current (MD) in January 1989. 1 would liko to thank lohn Mulvancy
discussion and labeling of nationalism . . . German for First onc:ouraging mt! to p u r s u o thc! topic: of~.(:lii.stor)~iitict
politics. I also w-ould likr: to thank Sti:phr:n I,. Dyson. Nctil A .
prehistory is a national discipline. The life and
Sil\~mnariand Brian Mc(:oniic:II for tiicir useful si1gg:c:stioiis.
suffering of a living people are represented by the Spc:c:ial thanks go to Hcrbcrt A. Ariicilci a n d Mattlit:\\! I..
discipline, a n d in the final analysis can only be Murray for thcir commcnts o n c:arlit:r drafts of this papc:r.
understood in its entire significance by Germans and Thanks also PO to Thomas 1. Hruby for Iiearingwith nie. a n d
their close ethnic kin. to Gloria P. Grcis for acting as gc:itc:ral f(ic:totuni. A n y
cimissions or i~iai:c:urac:ic:sarc: r:ntirc:ly my ow11.
Barhorst bei Nauen, Priihistorische Zeitschrift 1974. Kossinna im Abstand v o ~ ivierzig Jahren.
28-29 (1937-38): 284-9. la h ressch rift fur m i t t e I d F:u t srh e Vo rgcsc h ic h t e
EKERS, H.J. 1986. Einfuhrung in die Vorgeschichte. 58: 7-55.
3rd edition. Munich: Serie Piper. K o r w , R.L. 1983. The Black Co
EVANS, C. 1989. Bersus Woodbury 1938 & 1939, power struggles of the Nazi
Antiquity 63:436-50. sity of Wisconsin Press.
EVANS,R.J. 1989. In Hitlers shadow: West German KOHINANN, M. 1942. Koss
historians and the attempt to escape from the Mannus Zeitschrift fiir De
Nazi past. New York: Pantheon Books. 34(1-2): 99-108.
FOCKE, F. 1943. Beitrage zur Geschichte der Extern- KORELI., I). 1989. Zum Wesen der Vor- und Fruh-
steine. StuttgartiBerlin: W. Kohlhammer. geschichte, Mannus Ueutsche Zeitschrift fur Vor-
GARLAKE. P. 1984. Ken Mufuka and Great Zimbabwe, und Fruhgeschichte 55(3):169-84.
Antiquity 58: 121-3. KOSSINNA,G. 1919. Die deutsche Ostmark: eiri Hei-
GER.C~ANENERBE. 1936. Monatsheft fur Deutsche Vorge- matboden der Germanen. Berlin.
schichte. 1921. Die deutsche Vorgeschichte: eine hervorragend
1938. Monatsheft fur Deutsche Vorgeschichte. nationale Wissenschaft, hlannus-Bibliothek 9.
GESCHWENIIT,F. 1935. Schulungslager fur Vorge- KRAMER,W. 1965. Gerhard Bersu zum Gediichtnis,
schichte, Nachrichtenblatt fiir Deutsche Vorzeit Deutsches Archiiologisches Institut Rbmisch-
l l ( 4 ) : 73-4. Germanische Kommission Berichte 45: 1-2.
GOESSLIIR, P. 1950. Geschichte in der Vorgeschichte, DIEKUNDI.:. 1936. Title page.
Priihistorische Zeitschrift 34: 5-17. KUNKEL, D. 1935. Ausgrabungen Wollin 1935,
GOTXI,A. 1933. Ziele und Wege: Eroffnungsrede zur Nachrichtenblatt f u r Deutsche Iorgeschichte
12. Tagung der Gesellschaft fur Deutsche Vorge- l l ( 1 2 ) :257-63.
schichte 1.10.32, Mannus Zeitschrift f u r Vorge- LANGSDORFF, F. & H. SCHI.EIF. 1937. Ausgrabungen auf
scliichte 25(1):66-72. dem Schlossberg von Alt-Christburg, Kr. Moh-
HACWES,1. 1968. The proper study of mankind, rungen, Nachrichtenblatt fiir Deutsche Iorge-
Antiquity 42: 258ff. schichte 13(4):80-2.
HOHENSCHWI:KI, F. 1985. Archaologische Forschung MANNUS-BIEII.I~IHEK. 1928:Fr
und Bodendenkmalpflege im ehemaligen Land MANNUS ZEITSCHRIFI FUR D1
Lippe, Fuhrer z u archaiologischen Denkmalern 1938.
in Ileutschland, Der Kreis Lippe, 10: 34-46. 1940.
Stuttgart: Konrad Theis. 1942.
IPEK 1943-1948. 1956. 7: 104-5. MCCANN,W.J. 1988. The National Socialist perver-
JA(:OB-FRIESEN, K.H. 1934. Herman Wirths Ura-Linda- sion of archaeology, World Archaeology Bulletin
Chronik und die deutschen Vorgeschichtsfor- 2: 51-4.
scher, Nachrichtenblatt f u r Deutsche Vorzeit 1989. Volk and Germanentum:the presentation of
lO(6):130-5. the past in Nazi Germany, in P. Gathercole and D.
1950. Wissenschaft und Weltanschauung in der Lowenthal (ed.), The politics of the past: 74-88.
Urgeschichtsforschung, Die Kunde N.F. 1 & 2: 1-5. London: Unwin Hyman. One World Archaeology
J A N K U H N , H. 1935. Die Ergebnisse der Grabung in 12.
Haithabu 1935, Nachrichtenblatt fiir Deutsche MCCONNELL, B. 1989. Mediterranean archaeology and
Vorgeschichte 11(11):242-4. modern nationalism. Unpublished paper pre-
1938. Haithabu, der erste Ostseehafen des Deut- sented at the First Joint Archaeological Congress
schen Keiches, Germanien: 309-19. in Baltimore, January 1989.
1939. Die Ergebnisse der Grabungen in Haithabu MENGHIN, 0.1934. Geist und Blut. Vienna.
1938, Nachrichtenblatt fiir Deutsche Vorge- NACHRICHTENRLATT FUR DEUTSCHE \OR%EII. 1938.
schichte 15(1):27-30. 1939.
1940. Die SS-Grabung von Haithabu 1939, OFFENER BRIEF AN ALLE UR- E N D FKLHGES(:HI(:HTS-
Nachrichtenblatt f u r Deutsche Vorzeit 16(4&5): STUDENTINNEN I N IIER BUNDESREPIHI.Ih. 1989.
103-4. Kurzbericht uber ein Seminarwochenende i n
KATER,M. 1974. Das Ahnenerbe der SS 1935-1945: Berlin, Thema: Ur- und Fruhgeschichtsforschung
ein Beitrag zur Kulturpolitik des Dritten Reiches. und Nationalsozialismus.
Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt. Studien zur PETERSEN, E. 1934. Die Deutsche Vorgeschichte auf
Zeitgeschichte, Institut fur Zeitgeschichte. der Ausstellung Deutsches Volk - Deutsche
KLEJN,LEOS. 1971. Marxism, the systemic approach, Arbeit, Nachrichtenblatt f u r Deutsche Iorge-
and archaeology, in C. Renfrew (ed.),The expla- schichte 10: 56ff.
nation of culture change: models in prehistory: 1935. Vorschlage zur Einfuhrung neuer Zeitstufen-
691-710. London: Duckworth. benennungen in der deutschen Fruhgeschichte.
Sacli rich t 6: 11 fi I u t t fti r 1)e u tsch e Vorgesc:h ic h t e first 500 years. New York: St. Martin's Press.
i i ( n ) : 115-8. SPEEK, A. 1970. Inside the Third Reich. N e w York
PF.\HI,ILIYIX~. 1984. Archiiologische Ausgrabungeri (NY): Macmillan.
i n Reute-Schorrenried Bad IJuchau-Federsee - VON STOKAR, W. 1939. Das Insitut fur Vor- und
Sd tisch wabisc he Nac hr i c h t e n Sond er dr u c k . Fruhgeschichte a n der Universitat Kolri,
Pi('hi:K. H. 1976. Hitier's Tischgesprache ini Fuhrer Nachrichtenblatt fur Deutsche Vorzeit 15(9/10):
Hauptguartier. Stuttgart: Seewald Verlag. 269ff.
PIC;C;(YIT. S.1983. Foreword. in Sklenar (1983). TEIJIIT, W. 1934. Germanische Heiligtumer: Beitriige
R s i s i : ~ ? ~H.~ ,1936a. Das Federseernoor als Siedlung- z u r Aufdeckung der Vorgeschichte, ausgeherid
s I o r i d des \'(I rze i t ni en s c h en. Lei p zig. von den Extemsteinen, den Lippequelleri u n t l
l936b. Das politische Bild Alteuropas: Aus der der Teutoburg. Lippe.
Arbeit der nationalsozialistischen Vorge- UNVEKZAGI', W. 1959. Die Vor- u n d Friih-
schichtsforschung. Germanenerbe 1936: 66-75. geschichtsforschung am 10. Jahrestag der Deut-
1940. Festschrift fur Alfred Giitze, Mannus Zeitsch- schen Demokratischen Repuhlik, Ausgrcibungen
rift f u r Deutsche Vorgeschichte 32: Dedication. und Funde 4(4): 163-5.
hichte der deutschen Stanime: Ger- VEI'I', U. 1984. Gustaf Kossinna und V.G. Childe:
manische Tat und K u l t u r auf deutschem Boden. Ansatze zu einer theoretischen Grundlegung der
Berlin. Vorgeschichte, Saeculurn 35 (3-4): 326-64.
1986. Pfahlbauten a m Bodensee. Uberlingen. 1989. Ethnic concepts in German prehistory: a case
R I W H . A. 1936. Fiirstengraber und Burgen der Hall- study on the relationship between cultural
stattzeit in Schwaben, Germanerierbe 1936: identity and archaeological objectivity, in S.
185ff. Shennan (ed.), Archaeologicul npproac:hes to
ROSENHERG.A. 1930. Der Mythus des 2 0 . Jahrhun- cultural identity: 35-56. Unwin Hyrnaii: London.
derts. Munich. One World Archaeology 10.
1934. Aufbau der deutschen Vorgeschichte, WAHI.E, E. 1941. Zur ethnischen Ueuting fruh-
Sochrichtertblatt fur Deutsche Vorgeschichte geschicht Kulturprovinzen, Grenzeri drr fruh-
l O ( 3 ) :4ff. geschichtlichen Erkenntnis I. Heidelberg.
DER S(:HI.ERN. 1958. Festgabe fur Oswald Menghin 32: WELLS,P.S. 1981. The emergence of a n Iron Age
73-80. economy: the Mecklenburg gruve groups from
S(:HSAPP.A. 1977. Archeologie et nazisme, Quaderni Ha I Isto t t a n d St icna , Mecklen b u rg Col lec t ion,
di Storio 3(5): 1-26. Part 111. Cambridge: Peabody Museum Press.
~ l l , ~ E R u ~N.A. K , 1982. Digging for God a n d country. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulle-
New York: Knopf. tin 33.
1988. Between the past a n d the present: archaeo- WERNEK,K.F. 1967. Das NS-Geschichtsbild und die
logj', ideologj., a n d nationalism in the modern deutsche GeschichtsMiissensc:haft. Stuttgart:
Xear East. N e w York: Holt, Kinehart & Winston. Kohlhammer.
SIL\XRRER(;. K. 1986. The moundbuilders. Athens Z ~ r zL.
, 1933. Die Deutsche Vorgeschichte im Film,
(OH):Ohio University Press. Nachrichtenblatt f u r Deutsche Vorgeschichte
S K i . b N h K , K. 1983. Archaeology in central Europe: the 9(4): 50-2.