Academic Graduate Paper: Archaeology in Nazi Germany

Archaeology in Nazi Germany: Nationalism, Racism, and Pseudoarchaeology

Archaeologists strive to make objective inferences about the material culture of the past to understand past human lifeways. To be objective, they must ignore and put aside any personal beliefs (religious, political, moral, etc.), but is it possible to be one hundred percent objective? Particularly for archaeologists who work for government and political agencies, political ideology can slip into the archaeological methods and inferences made from researchers. An example found in many countries’ histories around the world is how nationalism has been embedded in the method and theory of archaeology. Nationalism is defined as an “ideology and a social practice [that renders] a nation the subject of politics and [gives] national interests priority over all others” (Shnirel’man 2013:13).  

Archaeology, as a study, relies on material remains to understand the past, and interpretation, while hoping to remain objective, can also be manipulated and distorted. One can argue that without the existence of nationalism, archaeology and the study of the past might never have advanced into an academic study and remained a mere interest in the past (Diaz-Andreu 1996), yet this does not mean that nationalism is rooted into the study and every aspect of archaeology. A nationalistic perspective can be valuable in the ability to produce material evidence of cultural unification and connect people with their ancestors (Shnirel’man 2013). Nationalism’s benefit to identify cultural entities of the past and introduce ethnic group ancestry that creates archaeological interest within the country (Khol 1998) is positive and can lead to further analysis of an overall investigation into this culture. This ability can be used as a positive connection with the past; however, there are many cases in history where nationalism is manipulated into archaeology for political and cultural means, and with the case of Nazi Germany, this ideology of a united cultural group can be greatly damaging to cultural groups of people, particularly groups not included in the unification process.

Initial examinations often viewed nationalism as “a consequence of industrialization, social and cultural standardization, and especially the territorial consolidation of modern states” that started to occur around the remainder of the eighteenth century (Hagen 2009:691). Since then, some argue this explanation fails to explain the emotional strength of nationalism and is too systematic. Nationalism is a complex body of theory and ideology brought into light for many reasons. For archaeology, nationalism find’s its place and role when looking at the concept of the nation. The nation is created as a form of a unit of a human group and often is connected to a political entity (Diaz-Andreu 1996), which encourages the people within the nation to have a sense of patriotic and political duty. This duty is to serve the unified nation and those who are part of it, and the nation must also serve the people by educating them of their past and their potential future, thus encouraging a better understanding of the past and interest in the development of archaeology.

So why does archaeology encourage nationalism? First, archaeological evidence is very adaptable, and as mentioned before, this evidence requires an objective perspective because the objects cannot speak for themselves without interpretation, and without objectivity, there are endless possible interpretations (Diaz-Andreu 1996). As nationalism began to rise around the end of the 18th century, archaeology was still being developed with concepts of chronology and dating, but there was still a deprived knowledge about the past which encouraged further developments in archaeological theory and method. Secondly, archaeological evidence can be considered old, and particularly in territories that were considered occupied and now lost, archaeology was the only method to provide proof of existence (Diaz-Andreu 1996). The rise in chronological methods encouraged this notion to understand the age of sites, especially those possibly related to that of the nation’s ancestors. Next, archaeological evidence is physical, which means it can be exploited in numerous methods to prove the authenticity of existence (Diaz-Andreu 1996), but most importantly power and advancement of a culture. Nations in charge of educating their people had museums to explain archaeological findings that fitted their agenda, and museums were becoming a popular method of being culturally educated and engaged with one’s past. Nations attempt to keep their power, and thus any ideology is spread to have the support of the state ultimately. For archaeology, this involved research and employment with academia, museums, and other research institutes that can be used to understand the past but also fit once again into the agenda of nationalists (Khol 1998).

            Nationalism has been involved with archaeology in numerous countries, including Spain, the Soviet Union, Portugal, Japan, and more. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the effects of nationalism on Nazi Germany by specifically looking at archaeological method and theory implemented by nationalists in charge. Nationalism in Nazi Germany thrived off racism and pseudoarcheology, ultimately distorting the interpretation of the archaeological record through purposeful manipulation that still has many effects today. This research is useful to understand how nationalism became negatively entwined with archaeology and how archaeologists today and in the future can learn to avoid nationalistic tendencies and attempt to achieve objectivity within one’s research.

To understand the beginnings of nationalism in Nazi Germany, one must look before the Nazi Regime came into power. This goes with any topic related to Nazi Germany, as the end of World War I is a prominent factor in the development of the Regime. The defeat at the end of the war in 1918, along with the treatment at the Treaty of Versailles, Germany struggled to overcome humiliation and looked for ways to find their self-respect once more as a powerful nation. Prehistoric archaeology, racism, and nationalist ideology became prevalent to build this self-respect in the German nation and people. There are two reasons for these prevalent ideas: the overthrow of religious and theological beliefs overthrown by the establishment of scientific thinking, and the industrialization of Germany brought fears concerning modernity (Wiwjorra 1996). Fear of the unknown future haunts every nation, but for Nazi Germany, fear of the past and the present humiliation drew Nazi Germany to resort to the distortion of archaeological method and theory.

Prehistory, and particularly prehistoric archaeology, became a vital tool for Nazi Germany, as these theories were emphasized from romanticist and patriotic ideas that would rehabilitate Germany (Arnold and Hassman 1998). This isn’t to state that other archaeologies were not involved, such as classical Archaeology. Classical archaeology’s focus on boundaries as “symptoms of categorical otherness” was flexible to elements of Nazi ideology (Roche and Demetriou 2018:303), however prehistoric archaeology held stronger influence with the developed interest in race and advancement of chronological methods. Two roots gave rise to German archaeology: one being the national and romantic Vaterländische Altertumskunde (patriotic antiquarianism) and prehistoric anthropology that was influenced by race ideology (Wiwjorra 1996). Little research has been done on the effects of patriotic antiquarianism, as race ideology was of greater influence to the Nazi Regime. With the introduction of a stronger chronology and relative dating, prehistoric archaeology was useful when supplementing racist ideas that favored a supreme race and allowed Germany to find power through their “ancestor’s” history.

Two figures that invoked racist ideas were Joseph Arthur de Gobineau and Gustaf Kossina. Gobineau believed that their racial composition defined the end of civilizations and that the more prosperous civilization’s racial character was “diluted” (Trigger 2006). Gobineau focused his theory on the superiority of the Aryan race, which he believed was under great threat from other inferior groups. He emphasized, particularly towards Nazi Germany, that they should avoid “miscegenation with Jews, Slavs,” and other “inferior peoples” to regain power and superiority (Trigger 2006:168). While this theory influenced Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Regime, Kossina’s influence and writings became the groundwork for Nazi Germany to develop an ethnocentric and racist regime and methodology. Kossina’s proposal of cultural diffusion discussed how “influences, ideas, and models” originated from superior nations that were then passed onto lesser superior groups when contacted, which thus supplemented his Kulturkreis theory (Arnold 1989). This theory used material remains to understand ethnic existence in a region and geographical boundaries by looking at archaeological sites, which in turn, the Germans used to state that wherever “Germanic” material culture was present that the territory belonged to ancient German ancestors and declared their territory. This theory encouraged many archaeologists in the Regime, such as Jacob-Friesen who saw this as establishing chronological succession and understanding individual distribution areas (Veit 1989). Another theory attached to Kultukreis was Siedlungsarchäologie, otherwise known as the ethnic analysis of artifact distributions (Härke 2014). These theories also led to the analysis of long or short skulls based on archaeological cultures for anthropologists to solve the “race questions” of prehistory (Wiwjorra 1996) in a way that reveals the naive belief of anthropology and archaeology at this time. In 1909, Kossina founded Gesellschaft für Vorgeschichte (German Society for Prehistory) which expanded interest in archaeology as a political means to enforce these theories and created the path that German National Socialism (NS) followed to use archaeological data to “support” theories (Arnold 1989). One theory that was ingrained in the NS was an ‘Arierddmmerung,' which perceived the threat from assimilating Jews and other racial groups as real and potentially disastrous to the German nation (Arnold 2006). Archaeologists favored the National Socialists for two reasons: notoriety and funding. Particularly prehistoric archaeologists felt they considered themselves “second-class citizens in the academic arena” compared to those who align with Classical or Near-Eastern studies but also saw potential with more state funding and public recognition (Arnold 1989:125). Prehistorians and prehistoric archaeologists saw the potential with the NS party and potential Nazi Regime to receive funding, ultimately under the realization of what these racist ideologies can cause. Kossinna himself never saw the support from the Third Reich as he died in 1931 and the height of his importance in Germany was after 1933 (Härke 2014), but his legacy remains in how researchers and archaeologists see the effects of his ethnocentric writings and its harmful potential.  

From then forward in Germany, the elements of nation, race, and language were entwined with the interpretations of the archaeological remains of Germanic origin and subsequently applied to justify the supremacy of Germany as a nation (Diaz-Andreu 1996). Wiwjorra (1996) gives three early written sources as evidence that this insight in German prehistory helped evolve German archaeology into its nationalistic form: The Edda, the Nibelungenlief, and Tactitus’ Germania. Gobineau also relied on Tacitus for his theories, stating that the decline of the Roman Empire allowed the “pure” German people to revitalize Europe (Barrowclough 2016). These three documents served as mythological proverbs and bases for implementing prehistoric archaeology into sites around the world, as some of these sources originated outside of Germany. Such sites included Classical sites such as Olympia in Greece, which permitted German institutes to be established in the Mediterranean region (Khol 1998) to explore possible Germanic origins further. Arnold (2006) points out that Germany participated in archaeology largely beyond German borders, which resulted in extreme lack of attention to Germany prehistory where it has been, but also stirred up border issues since the Germans believed wherever German ancestry was is where Germans should be. An example of a border issue involves the German and Polish border, where especially after World War I, the land near the Upper Silesian and Western Prussia had to be claimed historically and with archaeology (Wiwjorra 1996), and Germany had no hesitation in attempting this land claim. Countries and regions overtaken during the Nazi regime did sometimes result in great violence, as many Slavic landowners in Poland and Czechoslovakia were evicted or killed because the Germans wanted to prove that German ancestors once ruled this land before being removed (Young 2002).

            Another distortion of archaeological method and theory brought into Nazi Germany was pseudoarchaeology. Pseudoarchaeology is defined as “the adoption of a closed conceptual stance toward the evidence and an unconcern for context” (Fagan 2006:28)   The only research on this topic related to Nazi Germany is done by Bettina Arnold, but pseudoarchaeology is still prevalent in society today where many archaeologists and researchers continue to fight the embellishment and fantasies of pseudoarchaeologists. For Nazi Germany, their motivation as a nation-state was to “stitch together a collective identity” in which archaeology can be utilized “as long as it conforms to their agendas” (Arnold 2006:156), but when archaeology began to fail to support Kossinna and other theories, pseudoarchaeology and was fostered to fill the breach. Pseudoarchaeology is extremely dangerous when mixed with nationalist theories, as these researchers are not interested in the actual history of the past, but how archaeology and cultural remains can be manipulated to a fabricated view of the past (Arnold 2006). This is extremely damaging to the study of archaeology itself, as the practice focuses on using data to interpret the past, not the other way around.  A prime example of an archaeological site that was under the influence of pseudoarchaeology is the interpretation of the Externsteine site, which was considered the center of the spiritual Germanic universe until the solar sanctuary at the site was destroyed (Arnold 2006). There is no evidence from any historical or archaeological documentation that this information is accurate at all; however, it seems with recent examinations of the site, the inconclusive evidence of its purpose shows that Nazi researchers were grasping at straws to portray Germanic spirituality and superiority. Pseuoarchaeology also supported the use of supposedly ancient Germanic symbols such as the swastika and the SS runes as political symbols despite their actual meaning (Wijorra 1996). One Germanic rune in particular (two lightning bolts) was implemented into Himmler’s SS organization (Arnold 2006), which is discussed later in the paper. Although there can be more research about implicit pseudoarchaeology in Nazi Germany, with the present research, it is clear to see that it was prevalent in the way Germans distorted and manipulated archaeological sites and evidence to support their racist and nationalist ideology.

The theories regarding the beginning of nationalistic ideologies in Nazi Germany discussed earlier reveal the presence of racist theories and pseudoarchaeology in archaeology under the Third Reich, but how were they implemented into the Regime? Nazi Germany stated their goal in using archaeology as “[preserving] the treasures of German prehistory [to] lift them out of the shaft of the past [and] make that past relevant for [their] life” (Arnold 2006:12). This goal reiterates the need for Germany to be superior once more through the use of looking at German history. Primarily, Nazis made use of archaeology to reinforce the myths of German behavior to their agendas and political policies (Trigger 2006), such as their superiority over Jews to justify the Nuremberg Laws of 1935. While the goal for archaeology was clear, attempting to reach it revealed the distortion of theory but also the general confusion of the organization of archaeology in Nazi Germany.

Two different organizations in Nazi Germany arose that often combatted each other were Amt Rosenberg’s organization and Himmler’s Ahnenerbe organization. Internal confusion about how to reach this goal is clear in the power-struggle between both these organizations (Arnold 1989). In fact, the National Socialists in Nazi Germany also struggled to unify central party policy with prehistoric research and archaeology, and the only benefit to this strife was that the Confederation for German prehistory, controlled by Rosenberg’s operative Hans Reinerth was sabotaged from taking complete control and dictation of German archaeology (Arnold 1989).

The majority of archaeologists who aligned with the Nazi Regime undertook refuge under the Deutsches Ahnenerbe (German Ancestral Heritage) directed under Heinrich Himmler, the Reichsführe (one of the highest rankings in the Nazi regime) under the Schutzstaffel (SS) (Härke 2014).  To achieve the main goal of achieving archaeological evidence of German superiority, the Ahnenerbe and most SS activities encouraged another goal with racism and ethnocentrism. For Germany to be superior once more, there had to be a “securing, purging and healing [of] German ‘blood’” which encouraged the notions of “racial hygiene” and removal of Jewish and other ethnic groups that were considered subhuman, and this encouraged the Ahnenerbe to manipulate archaeology to justify the Holocaust (Arnold 2006:162). Himmler’s office, under the anti-Semitic influence, focused on the destruction of Christian values.  Religion, particularly Christianity, was viewed as ‘“Semitic” religious tradition’ (Arnold 2006) and therefore could no longer be a part of Germany’s ideology. Himmler struggled to replace this ideology, as he understood that Germany could only regain power if they believed in their strength and superiority- but what belief was strong enough to replace Christian faith? Himmler attempted to revert Germany to the time of pre-Christian and pagan traditions, and one example of using pseudoarchaeology to support this transition was looking at cultural relics. The excavation and restoration of “Germanic cultural relics” became a primary focus for Himmler’s organization to rationalize the expansionist policies of Germany, which in turn was offered to German society through the use of publications, field schools, and the teaching of SS soldiers (Young 2002). Himmler also implemented the past Germanic paganism beliefs into the calendric system with Germanic names for days of the weeks, months and holidays, but also implemented a so-called “Thing Movement” (Arnold 2006). This movement emphasized neo-pagan traditions with the worship of the Sun and encouraged the use of open-air theatres (such that reflected Greek and Roman patterns). Archaeological evidence to support Himmler’s new religion was necessary to be translated into society, and while several open-air theatres were constructed to continue propaganda, most of the movement never made it past the written phase or was supported by other Nazis, including Adolf Hitler.  

The other operation mentioned was under Amt Rosenberg, created by Alfred Rosenberg. Rosenberg first designed the planned Reichsinstitut für deutsche Vorgeschichte (Reich’s Institute for German Prehistory), but it failed under Himmler’s influence (Wiwjorra 1996). This organization, although combatant with Himmler’s Ahnenerbe, is extremely parallel in the use of ethnocentric viewpoints and manipulation of data through the use of pseudoarchaeology.  Not only did Himmler focus on “inferior” ethnic groups, but he also ousted those who did not support “the tradition of his people,” and therefore they “forfeited the right to be protected” (Arnold 1989:122). An example of this is his labeling of Roman archaeologists who were labeled “Römlinge” and considered anti-German extremists. It is not often mentioned what happened to others who did not support prehistoric archaeology, but Rosenberg was often vocal on colleagues not being “sufficiently völkisch (an attitude located somewhere between nationalism and ethnic consciousness),” and in one instance a university professor was sacked (Härke 2014) to Rosenberg’s constant spite against them. It is clear that if one did not conform to the methods and theories of either organization, they were no longer apart of the German nation. Underneath Rosenberg was Hans Reinerth who was Rosenberg’s Reichsbeauftragter fur deutsche Vorgeschichte (plenipotentiary position) from 1934 to the end of the war (Arnold 1989). He wrote The Prehistory of German Tribes which emphasized his racist tones towards inferior races and reinforced the justification of taking foreign lands that were possibly once occupied by Germans.  Reinerth also led witch-hunts throughout Amt Rosenberg but also anyone within archaeological research that affiliated with non-German viewpoints or were Jewish (Arnold 1989). Rosenberg wrote a 700-age book called “Myth of the Twentieth Century” which involved pseudoarchaeology and manipulation of data immensely and even involved claiming that Jesus was Aryan and that Atlantis was the ancestral homeland for the Aryan race. Whether or not Rosenberg actually believed what he was writing based on little to no archaeological evidence, the main leader of Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler, openly criticized his book but also Himmler’s obsession with “villages of mud huts” (Arnold 1989).

It appears that while the search for German origins and prehistory through the use of archaeology was encouraged, even high-ranking officials and Adolf Hitler knew when pseudoarchaeology and manipulation of data were being implemented. Hitler also attempted to focus more on the Greeks and Romans, as he believed the Greeks were descended from Germans who migrated to their provinces and evolved as a highly developed culture (Barrowclough 2016). This encouraged archaeology in Greece, despite Himmler and Rosenberg’s archaeological pushes elsewhere. Himmler, wanting to please Hitler, attempted to find the migration path to Greece, which he claimed existed in the caves of Southern Peloponnesus that were known as the Gates of Hades (Barrowclough 2016). Outside of Germany, the archaeology of many sites and historical places were used to justify Aryan superiority and the Nazi Regime, such as Friesland. Herman Wirth, although Dutch, supported the Ahnenerbe organization and looked at Frisian farmhouses, and concluded that the decoration of these buildings with shapes (crowns, hearts, and more) was considered the ancient Aryan system of writing (Barrowclough 2016). Friesland is a Dutch province, and since Wirth is also seen as a historian, he must have understood the history of the Dutch culture and use of symbols yet understood his role in Nazi Germany to attempt to find this Aryan superiority despite any prior knowledge. Archaeology also brought the Nazi’s to Asia, as there were claims for Nordic overlords that were descendants of the Aryan race through time, and Himmler did not hesitate to send teams throughout the continent (Pringle 2006). Through the use of prehistoric archaeology, researchers attempted to understand the migrations of the Aryan race, which encouraged Rosenberg’s theory of Atlantis as the Aryan homeland. Tibet was also considered important in the search for the Aryan race, as many believed that the Aryan race had migrated out of Atlantis in search of a new home. Ernst Schäfer worked under the Ahnenerbe in Tibet to look for archaeological evidence of Aryans but also the superiority of the Aryan race (Pringle 2006). South America was also thought to have Germanic origin simply because the pyramids and step-temples had designed that were believed to have originated from Atlantis, and even argued that the Tiwanaku civilization that most archeologists at the time knew indigenous Andeans had constructed, was also built by “immigrants of the West” that were considered Aryan (Barrowclough 2016). The archaeologist there, Posansky, attempted to justify the knowledge of the indigenous people by stating that the Aryan immigrants helped the Andean people, and was able to manipulate this finding into the truth to rationalize their migration theories. In reality, both Himmler and Rosenberg had no real respect for the past or cultural remains and only cared about their political agenda. While both organizations are now seen with distaste and reprimand for ignoring the true role of archaeology, it stated that while Reinerth only distorted the facts, the SS destroyed archaeological sites such as Biskupin in Poland (Arnold 1989). Luckily, the attempted flood and destruction of the site preserved artifacts and the structures, but this example ultimately reveals the destructive and volatile nature of archaeology under Nazi Germany, if we can call it “real” archaeology.

The operations under Himmler and Rosenberg are the main organizations for German archaeology in the Third Reich, and archaeology seemed to thrive off nationalism based on racist ideologies during this time. In both organizations, the overall Nazi Party involved in archaeology was divided into three categories: party-liners, passive majority, and critical opposition (Arnold 1989). Those who are considered party-liners, such as Hans Reinerth, achieved academic legitimacy under the Nazis because they were either already established before the Regime or they desired to further their careers by conforming to the ideology of the Regime (Arnold 1989). Researchers and archaeologists in this category were strongly aware of the theories behind the regime not only in archaeology but also what their archaeological “discoveries” and their interpretations were contributing to the justification of racist ideologies, despite knowing most of their evidence had no archaeological element at all (Arnold 1989). The second category is known as the passive majority or the mitläufer, and this consisted of the majority of archaeologists who partook in research during the Third Reich. These archaeologists were considered mitläufer, which is an untranslatable German word best described as “passive fellow travelers” because they are considered passive to the degree that they accepted their role either as teacher or researcher and accepted the funding they received without hesitation (Arnold 1989). Although they are the majority, it is difficult to assess their contribution to the Regime as they merely molded into the discipline of the party and were passive enough to scathe by. Lastly, there are only a few who opposed the Nazi Regime under archaeology, and this category also includes those victimized by the Regime. Those persecuted were typically victims based on race, political views, or both (Arnold 1989). Gerhard Bersu was one that spoke out against research that was tailored to the National Socialist ideology, particularly that related to Kossinna’s nationalist and racist doctrine. Reinerth, under Amt Rosenberg, also manipulated his ability to witch-hunt those related to Germans, and ultimately accused Bersu of having Jewish heritage. This, unfortunately, led to his dismissal as a prehistorian until the end of the war (Arnold 1989).  Many others were forced to leave their academic or research roles, such as Hans Khün, Peter Gossler, Paul Jacobsthal, and Gero van Merhart who were considered Jewish prehistorians. Jewish archaeologists were also written out of histories of research, such as “Abraham Lissauer who was left out of Gummel’s overview of the history of German archaeology” (Härke 2014:6).

Gero van Merhart wrote to one of his colleagues about his treatment and made these following statements: “All I can say is that I am being treated in an unbearable manner. My way of life has been destroyed. I have been defamed in a way, which can never be made good, since my resilience has been dealt a fatal blow…No one will ever be able to convince me that I have not been carelessly and irresponsibly accused, condemned without trial, and finished as an honest and dutiful citizen of the state” (Arnold 2989:136). There was one opposing figure, Jacob-Friesen, who in 1934 wrote an article cautioning against the extremes of nationalistic and racist falsification of archaeological data because he believed by doing so defamed German scholarship and the reputation of these scholars (Arnold 1989).  Jacob-Friesen was fortunate to have kept his position despite such an open opposition, and while little is known about his ethnicity, it can be suggested that he was not of Jewish heritage. The amount of Jewish archaeologists at the time of the Third Reich was relatively small and completely nonexistent after the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 which barred Jewish people from multiple aspects of employment. Although there are no exact numbers for those who contributed to the study of archaeology under Nazi Germany, we know the majority went along with how the Nazi Regime used archaeology for its political means, and only a few opposed. Härke (2014) points out that this is worth noting for two reasons: the Soviet Union under Stalin’s purges killed significant more archaeologists than Nazi Germany, and that unless one was Jewish, there wasn’t a high price to pay for those who opposed. For some, like Jacob-Friesen, the integrity of the subject of archaeology was extremely important in keeping alive despite the Regime pressures, where those who opposed were of Jewish heritage and felt betrayed by their loyalty to the academic subject.

Many unnamed archaeologists under these operations thrived off funding and a general interest in archaeological practices. This interest was also placed outside the professional realm of archaeology and into books, films, public displays, but more importantly, museums (Härke 2014). Museums and these other modes of communication became a commonplace activity to educate the public about Nazi ideologies and encourage the nation of their superiority. Museums took place in Germany and foreign lands, and unfortunately, this coincided with the looting of artifacts from these overtaken museums. Looting took place in subjugated countries and specialized units, such as the Sonderkommando (Special Task Force) under Himmler, were instructed to record and accumulate items for archaeologists to advise upon (Härke 2014). In Eastern Europe, the damage was immense concerning museum robbery. After the blitzkrieg in Poland, many were sent to study museums and steal any artifacts deemed valuable, such as archaeologist Peter Paulsen being sent to Warsaw to perceive value in Germanic artifacts (Pringle 2006). Polish museums were used for Nazi lectures and exhibits, and artifacts not considered important ethnically aligned with Germany (such as African, South American, and Slavic artifacts) were either sold or destroyed because it did not fit the narrative of the Regime (Young 2002 30-31).  Archaeology under the Third Reich also gave rise to historic preservation. From the end of World War I, Germans could see the diminishing condition of historic buildings and correlated them with the deterioration of the German nation (Hagen 2009). Rudolf Esterer wanted to use the historic preservation of Germanic buildings as “tools for national cultural rejuvenation” and this complemented with Nazi German ideology and archaeology concerning the need for cultural revival and emphasis on racial purity (Hagen 2009:699-700).

From examining the internal organizations and people involved with archaeology under Nazi Germany, it is clear that most (if not all) were aware of the implications their research and contributions made and had to be aware of the manipulation of data that archaeologists were using to support this Regime. Härke (2014) suggests the strongest reason why archaeologists participated, which was out of interest for the subject and opportunities for finding and archaeological work. It is also known and seen by this paper that archaeologists also used this platform purposefully to gain reputation and research through the Regime and well understood the disastrous implications that were made to support this platform.

To say that the end of the war in 1945 ended the Nazi Regime and archaeology underneath it would be entirely false. While the Regime itself was broken apart, archaeology still had its influences and effects continuing until the present day. While the European powers and the United States were greatly involved in reestablishing order after the Regime, they did not focus on archaeology or most archaeologists involved in the process of building the racial and ethnocentric data for the NS or Third Reich.

            A positive effect after 1945 was that most biologically based theories regarding race and human behavior ceased when the war ended (Trigger 2006). Now under the occupation of these foreign powers, Germany must have always realized the harm of these interpretations and ideologies under the Regime and subsequently understood that it was time to return to the true purpose of archaeology and closer to its goal of objectivity. Interpretations from an ethnic perspective were replaced with a variant of culture-historical archaeology that looked to political and economic structures, religious beliefs, and exchange patterns of European history (Härke 2000). Diaz-Andreu (1996) argues that while this goal was closer than before with the removal of nationalistic and racist ideology, the publications supporting this goal of objectivity appear merely descriptive and the problem of this manipulative time in archaeology was never fully rooted out. Many after the war struggled with this change and adapting to new political programs under the foreign powers in Germany led to increased skepticism of theories and generalizations and greater interest in empirical approaches with archaeologists (Trigger 2006).

            Many effects continue today despite the fallout of the Nazi Regime, which are highlighted by Arnold and Hassman (1998). The first being the “Kossinna Syndrome” which is negative for several reasons. Kossinna’s racist ideology was a strong starting point for the Nazi Regime to build off of regarding archaeological and political racism, yet directly after the war, the blame was entirely placed on Kossinna. This is extremely problematic because this removes the blame from archaeologists, politicians, and high-ranking Nazis who were aware of the implications of this ideology and used it purposefully for their gain. Another effect which was briefly mentioned before, is the averse response to theoretical advancements in archaeology after the war, particularly with processual archaeology because of the exploitation of theory and interpretation under the Regime. Archaeologists understood the need to move away from the ideologies of the war but were unsure of how to trust the theoretical aspects of archaeology. Lastly, while it is clear that archaeologists were aware of the effects the ideology had during the Third Reich, there remains even today an unwillingness for some archaeologists to assess and analyze their role in the discipline.  Bettina Arnold argues that “prehistoric archaeology is the only social science discipline in Germany that has still to publish a self-critical study” (Arnold 1989:141). Particularly for prehistorians and prehistoric archaeologists, they tend to rationalize their responsibility with multiple justifications. For those part of prehistory studies after the Reich, many feel it would be foolish to judge the acts of those who participated in archaeology or prehistory in the Third Reich without the context of being a part of this era (Arnold and Hassman 1998). If that were the case, we as human beings and researchers would never be able to take responsibility for past theories, colonization, slavery and many other topics because we did not exist at that time and can’t know the full context. Another rationalization prehistorians and prehistoric archaeologists made was that after the war, they wanted to break free and “make a clean breast of it” but felt that in their defeated and occupied country, they were not free to engage in open debate regarding their role in 1933-1945 (Arnold and Hassman 1998). They feared to have their subject be compromised from debating their role in Nazi Germany, but this excuse cannot be used today because their departments aren’t in the same threat of dissolution. Departments involved should analyze their roles without fear of the stigma of the past and should understand why their role in a negative aspect for archaeology can acknowledge how archaeology then was very different from their roles now. Other archaeology departments, such as classical archaeology, were not as greatly affected by the regime as a whole but have been critical in any role played. This department has fully analyzed any potential role and come to the conclusion that these archaeologists tended to avoid the regime’s influence, did not produce anything novel for the regime, and ultimately avoided supporting any Nazi ideology (Roche and Demetriou 2018). Perhaps classical archaeology has done this full review of their department knowing their lack of involvement in the Nazi Regime, which is why Prehistoric archaeology fails to acknowledge their strong influence.

            Another outcome that affected future German archaeology was not anything to do with theory or the practice of archaeology, but rather the war itself. It is argued that numerous gifted and prospective archaeologists were killed on the front lines, which eradicated a generation of researchers that now leaves a vacuum of “innovative archaeological scholarship” (Arnold and Hassman 1998). The job pool in Germany was greatly affected after 1945 due to denazification processes, but also because of the death and migration of German people. Because of this, some who were deemed not important in the denazification process was simply reinstated into their old roles (Arnold and Hassman 1998). Scholars who were part of the SS-Ahnenerbe had greater success after the war than those associated with Amt Rosenberg. This was due to Hans Reinerth’s sudden and overt defamation, whereas before the war, many who disagreed were silent, but with the war and Nazi Regime at an end, many felt free to speak out against his manipulation of data (Arnold and Hassman 1998).

            The overall denazification proceedings for scholars and archaeologists is deemed problematic and still has effects today with how archaeology developed in Germany. The foreign powers that partook in the denazification processes had a deadline for when all proceedings were to end, which was May 9. 1948. All outstanding proceedings were to be terminated, and Arnold and Hassman (1998) argue that if they were allowed to continue, many high-ranking Nazi archaeologists would not have been reinstated into their prior war-time roles. This also contributed to a general feeling from archaeologists to not point the finger at each other regarding their roles in the Regime, as the finger could easily be pointed back at themselves. The only known archaeologist that was removed and barred from holding a publicly-funded post after 1945 is Hans Reinerth (Härke 2000). Therefore, many scathed by and remained silent about their role but also others involved in the Regime. Today, this is seen as extremely challenging since the problem was never addressed or rooted out. German academics are “locked into an extremely hierarchal system of mentorship and mutual obligation” (Bettina and Hassman 1998:79) which subsequently creates an environment where criticizing one’s professor is practically impossible. Archaeologists who were implemented around or after 1945 are now of retirement age or still involved in German academia and have yet to call out their mentors for their role in the Nazi Regime. It’s also frightening to think that what was passed onto that generation is now possibly seeded into current archaeologists and academics- however, this is difficult to assess since many German scholars and archaeologists don’t talk about this subject.

            Even the propaganda from Nazi Germany appears to exist still. More research needs to be done on the effects on museums and public educational spaces regarding nationalistic and racist ideology that may still be ingrained in these areas. The only current evidence found as of yet for Nazi propaganda is that the Externsteine, what was seen as the Germanic spiritual center, still states on their website it is a “powerful spiritual center of our ancestors,” yet it has been proven that there is no confirmable archaeological evidence for Germanic activity (Arnold 2006:170). There are probably many areas where Nazi German ideology and archaeological theory seeps, and without recognizing the damage that scholarship had at that time from within Germany, it may continue to scathe by into future generations.

            In conclusion, the role of archaeologists within the Nazi Regime greatly supported the racist and ethnocentric ideology, and this does have implications for current archaeologists and Germany. The denial of German prehistorians and archaeologists means that it might take “[making] sense of archives and personal libraries of deceased professors,” along with taking a deeper look at the evidence created during the Nazi Regime for these scholars to find a way out of their self-delusion (Arnold and Hassman 1998:81). Many mentored by those scholars need to come forth to discuss anything they know of their influence or role in Nazi Germany so they can now establish and analyze their role with archaeology today. Ultimately, archaeologists and scholars need to address this so that this manipulation of data and ideology does not find its way back into academia.

            We can ask ourselves whether or not we would have done the same in that period. We may not have the full context of what these archaeologists experienced and thought, but can we honestly say that we would reject the opportunities and funding that the Nazi Regime offered? Härke (2014) believes that many of us would have our conscious affected, but that funding and ability to do research and field-work often replaces our conscious. We won’t know what we would do until it happens again, and if we educate the public and academics about the dangers of manipulation of data and dangerous ideology, then we can remain left in wonder of what we might have done. This begs the question if archaeologists should remain loyal to the scientific paradigm or disregard it in for the interests of nationalism and minority rights (Shnirel’man 2013). However, by now, archaeologists and scholars should understand the importance of data and how their interpretations can be used for political purposes (Khol 1998). Kossinna never really saw the power his theories gave to Nazi Germany, and so the theories that archaeologists and researchers leave after their death are still relevant to future generations. In conclusion, all people, researchers, and archaeologists need to be vigilant against pseudoscience and racism in their research to avoid future devastation such as Nazi Germany.

            There are several areas where more can be learned from archaeology under Nazi Germany. Diaz-Andreu (1996) argues that the public image of archaeology in Germany through museum displays, popular literature, and other media have yet to be analyzed for possible nationalistic influence, and without this critical maintenance, these old abuses can seep back in. If possible, there can be more research on archaeologists considered mitläufer and analyze any possible research produced by them. This might be difficult given that Nazi Germany did attempt to hide documentation of their general role in the Regime, but also research in general regarding this group of archaeologists can be severely limited. Lastly, no women were mentioned in this study and more can be done to understand their role as researchers or archaeologists, if prevalent in Nazi German society. All that could be gathered about women was that they were not encouraged into academia (Roche and Demetriou 2018); however, there might be some more insight into their role in archaeology and race theory.

            Archaeology is an incredible tool to understand the past, but the way that it is structured and manipulated makes it difficult to find an objective and value-free version of archaeology. While objectivity still strives to be the present goal, there needs to be continual and constant self-reflection of the discipline in all areas of the subject. While one hopes that prehistoric archaeologists in Germany begin this process of reflection, each researcher and archaeologists have the opportunity to do this within their own role so that this does not reoccur again in the future. With the present tension in politics, ethnicity, and superiority, archaeologists need to avoid opportunities for their data and theories to be manipulated into one of these areas as best as they can. By striving for pure objectivity in theories and interpretations, archaeologists might be able to prevent a situation like this in the future, and we should also never forget the ability Nazi Germany had to achieve their ambitions.

 

References Cited

Arnold, Bettina

   1989     The Past as Propaganda: Totalitarian Archaeology in Nazi Germany. In Histories of Archaeology, edited by Tim Murray and Christopher Evans, pp.120-144. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Arnold, Bettina

  1997-1998    The Power of the Past: Nationalism and Archaeology in the 20th Century Germany. Archaeologia Polona 35-36:237-253.

Arnold, Bettina, and Henning Hassman

   1998    Archaeology in Nazi Germany: the Legacy of the Faustian Bargain. In Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology, edited by Phillip L. Khol and Clare Fawcett, pp.70-81. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Arnold, Bettina

   2006    ‘Arierdämmerung’: Race and Archaeology in Nazi Germany. World Archaeology 38(1):8-31.

Arnold, Bettina

   2006    Pseudoarcheology and Nationalism: Essentializing Difference. In Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarcheology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public, edited by Garrett G. Fagan, pp.154-179. Routledge, Oxon.

Barrowclough, David

   2016    Digging for Hitler: The Nazi Archaeologists Search for the Aryan Past. Fonthill Media, Cambridge.

Diaz-Andreu, Margarita, and Timothy Champion (editors)

   1996     Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe. UCL Press, London.   

Fagan, Garrett G.

   2006    Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public. Routledge, Oxon.

Hagen, Joshua

   2009    Historic Preservation in Nazi Germany: Place, Memory, and Nationalism. Journal of Historical Geography 35:690-715.

Hare, J. Laurence

   2004    Nazi Archaeology Abroad: German Prehistorians and the International Dynamics of Collaboration. Patterns of Prejudice 48(1):1-24.

Härke, Heinrich

   2000    Archaeology, Ideology and Society: The German Experience. European Journal of Archaeology 5(2):254-257. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Härke, Heinrich

   2014    Archaeology and Nazis: A Warning from Prehistory. Materials of the Humboldt-Conference 20-23:33-40. Simferopol, Yalta.

Khol, Philip L.

   1998    Nationalism and Archaeology: On the Constructions of Nations and the Reconstructions of the Remote Past. Annual Review Anthropology 27:223-246.

Pringle, Heather

   2006    The Master Plan: Himmler’s Scholars and the Holocaust. Hyperion, New York.

Roche, Helen and Kyriakos Demetriou (editors)

  2018    Brill’s Companion to the Classics, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany. Koninklijke Brill, Leiden, the Netherlands.

Trigger, Bruce G.

   2006    A History of Archaeological Thought. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Shnirel’man, Victor A.

   2013    Nationalism and Archeology. Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia 52(2):13-32.

Veit, Ulrich

   1989    Ethnic concepts in German prehistory: a case study on the relationship between cultural identity and archaeological objectivity. In Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, edited by Stephen Shannan. Allen & Unwin, London. 

Wiwjorra, Ingo

   1996    German archaeology and its relation to nationalism and racism. In Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe, edited by Margarita Diaz-Andreu and Timothy Champion, pp.164-188. UCL Press, London.

Young, Megan

   2002    The Nazis’ Archeology. Nebraska Anthropologist 17:29-35.