Archaeology in Nazi Germany: the legacy of the Faustian bargain

Arnold, Bettina; Haßmann, Henning; Kohl, Philip L.; Fawcett, Clare

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511558214.005

Cited by 59 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…13 This racial interpretation referenced German scholar Gustaf Kossinna (1858-1931), who had argued patriotically for the Germanic origins and dispersion of creative Indo-European peoples based on the archaeological, linguistic and ethnic identification of prehistoric European cultures. 14 The archaeology of the Soviet Union between the 1930s and 1950s incorporated a reactionary mirror image of Nazi archaeology. Soviet archaeologists were encouraged to identify the Slavic influence of the Great Russian people at the forefront of developments in European prehistory, at the expense of the role of Germanic peoples.…”

Section: Politics Conflict and The Foundations Of Archaeological Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the Truth Down There?: Cultural Heritage Conflict and the Politics of Archaeological Authority

Barber

2006

Public History Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The selective pressures and processes of cultural heritage management effectively disinherit some interest groups. Where this occurs in the context of postcolonial or nationalist conflict, the material archaeological record may be referenced to support or reject particular views. The disciplinary assumptions behind the archaeological evidence so produced are not usually contested in judicial contexts. A review of archaeology’s theoretical foundations suggests that this naivety itself may be problematic. A descriptive culture history approach dominated archaeology over the first half of the twentieth century with a strong political appeal to nationalist politics. Subsequently archaeology became concerned with processual explanation and the scientific identification of universal laws of culture, consistent with postwar technological optimism and conformity. A postprocessual archaeology movement from the 1970s has promoted relativism and challenged the singular authority of scientific explanation. Archaeologists caught within this debate disagree over the use of the archaeological record in situations of political conflict. Furthermore, the use of archaeology in the sectarian debate over the Ayodhya birthplace of Rama suggests that the material record of the past can become highly politicized and seemingly irresolvable. Archaeological research is also subject to other blatant and subtle political pressures throughout the world, affecting the nature and interpretation of the record. A system that privileges archaeological information values may be irrelevant also to communities who value and manage their ancestral heritage for customary purposes. Collectively this review of theory and applied knowledge suggests that it is unrealistic to expect that archaeology can authoritatively resolve strident claims and debates about the past. Instead, an important contemporary contribution of archaeology may be its potential to document cultural and historical contradictions and inclusions for the consideration of contemporary groups in conflict.

show abstract

Section: Politics Conflict and The Foundations Of Archaeological Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the Truth Down There?: Cultural Heritage Conflict and the Politics of Archaeological Authority

Barber

2006

Public History Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fringe archaeology has also at times become mainstream nationalistic archaeology, used to promote one race or culture over others (e.g. Arnold 1990Arnold , 1992Arnold and Hassmann 1995;Fawcett 1995;Schmidt 1999;Trigger 1989Trigger , 1995. But perhaps the most important reason to care is that pseudoscientific archaeology is speculative and unsubstantiated -it has no method for verification.…”

Section: Chapter 2 Why Should We Do Public Outreach?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Public outreach and the "hows" of archaeology : archaeology as a model for education

Daehnke¹

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is growing awareness of the importance of public outreach in archaeology. Many professional archaeologists argue that in order to ensure continued funding we must communicate the relevance of our discipline to the public in a more effective manner. Furthermore, it is often argued that public outreach and education provides perhaps the only reliable defense against looting and rampant psuedoarchaeology.Current outreach activities, however, tend to focus on what archaeologists have discovered about the past. While this type of outreach is important, a more effective model for public outreach would focus on the methods of archaeology, rather than the results. Archaeology, with its focus on multiple lines of evidence, intertwining of the sciences and humanities, and multi-cultural perspective provides a unique model for addressing and answering questions, a model which could serve as a base for education. Promoting the methods of archaeology as an educational model, or at the very least, remembering the methods in our outreach activities, may be, in the long run, the most effective method for establishing the relevance of our discipline.

show abstract

“…12 This same logic applied to the relatively young field of prehistoric archaeology, leading Bettina Arnold and Henning Haßmann to describe the 'Faustian bargain' by which archaeologists advanced their discipline and their own careers through collaboration with the regime. 13 Uta Halle, meanwhile, has portrayed the competition among Nazi organizations to recruit scholarly talent as a 'double chance' for archaeologists to pursue their personal interests. 14 Finally, Hermann Beck has added a wrinkle by situating professional scholars within the broader milieu of the educated Bildungsbürgertum.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Nazi archaeology abroad: German prehistorians and the international dynamics of collaboration

Hare¹

2014

Patterns of Prejudice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Archaeology in Nazi Germany: the legacy of the Faustian bargain

Cited by 59 publications

References 0 publications

Is the Truth Down There?: Cultural Heritage Conflict and the Politics of Archaeological Authority

Is the Truth Down There?: Cultural Heritage Conflict and the Politics of Archaeological Authority

Public outreach and the "hows" of archaeology : archaeology as a model for education

Nazi archaeology abroad: German prehistorians and the international dynamics of collaboration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About