ARCHITECTURE IN THE MUSEUM: DISPLACEMENT, RECONSTRUCTION AND REPRODUCTION OF THE MONUMENTS OF ANTIQUITY IN BERLIN’S PERGAMON MUSEUM, Volume 1 (Phd Thesis)

ARCHITECTURE IN THE MUSEUM: DISPLACEMENT, RECONSTRUCTION AND REPRODUCTION OF THE MONUMENTS OF ANTIQUITY IN BERLIN’S PERGAMON MUSEUM Volume I

S. M. Can Bilsel

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

RECOMMENDED FOR ACCEPTANCE BY THE SCHOOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

NOVEMBER 15, 2003

UMI Number: 3107866

Copyright 2003 by Bilsel, S. M. Can All rights reserved.

________________________________________________________ UMI Microform 3107866

Copyright 2004 ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ____________________________________________________________ ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road PO Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

© Copyright by S. M. Can Bilsel, 2003. All rights reserved.

Abstract

This dissertation is a study in the formation of modern knowledge about the architecture of antiquity. Its main concern is to address an epistemic problem by exploring the relationship between archaeology—the scholarly practice of excavating the past—and the reconstruction and display of “monuments” of antiquity in the museum—the process through which the history of art and culture becomes intelligible to modern viewers. Exploring the framing of archaeological fragments by modern visions, I examine the Pergamon Museum, a highly contested and, yet, immensely popular “museum of ancient architecture” in Berlin, and three of its chief exhibits, the Great Altar of Pergamon, the Market Gate of Miletus and the Ishtar Gate of Babylon.

The first part of the dissertation, “Architecture in the Museum,” investigates the architectural exhibits of the Pergamon Museum through the 20th century theories of museology and historic preservation. Part 2, “The Architecture of an Imperial Museum in Berlin,” studies how German imperialist discourse on art and “Kultur” was translated into the actual ordering of works of art and cultural contexts in Alfred Messel’s project of the Royal Prussian Museum of 1907 (today’s Pergamon Museum). In Part 3, “The Altar and its Frames,” I study the history of the museum displays and reconstructions of the Great Altar of Pergamon, from Carl Humann’s excavations of the castle of Bergama

iii

in 1878 to 1930 when the Pergamon Museum was opened to the public. The final part of the dissertation focuses on Walter Andrae’s curious reproduction of “Babylonian architecture” in the museum’s South Wing, reframing the products of an archaic industry as unique works of art.

Focusing on the history of the construction of the Pergamon Museum, I expose the ideological underpinnings of the process that transformed fragmentary archaeological finds into complete museum-objects. I argue that, even though initially hypothetical, the reconstituted “monuments” gained autonomy from the discursive field in which they had found their form and, through the assumption of aesthetic distance and modern spectatorship, have come to replace the lost antique originals instead of merely representing them.

iv

Table of Contents

Volume I Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………... iii List of Illustrations ……………………………………………………………….… vii Acknowledgements ..……………………………………………………………….. xvi

Part 1. Architecture in the Museum: Definitions and Problems 1. 1. Architectonic Restitution: Historical Monument versus Historical Décor ……. 2 1. 2. Architecture in the Museum: Viewing the Fragment and the Whole ……… 17 1. 3. Monuments in “Exile”: On the Location and Dislocation of Architecture …24 1. 4. On the Historical Method ...…………………………………………………31

Part 2. The Architecture of an Imperial Museum in Berlin: Art and Kultur 2. 1. Alfred Messel’s Project for the Royal Prussian Museum, c. 1907 ……...… 39 2. 2. On the Vocation of the Museum: Bildung versus Kultur …………….….… 60 2.3. Art versus Ethnology: Imperial Archaeology and Taxonomies of Culture ... 85 2. 4. The “Style-Room”: Between the Original Setting and the Bourgeois Intérieur 97

v

Part 3. The Altar and Its Frames: Reconstructing Pergamon 3. 1. Space and Relief in the Pergamon Room ……………………..……….… 106 3. 2. Antique Fragments and Modern Visions ………………………………… 118 3. 3. The Problem of Museum Reconstruction ………………………………… 135 3. 4. On the Museum’s Object: a Model, a Décor and a Restored Monument … 141 3. 5. The Museum of Ancient Architecture: Monuments for Mass-Spectacle … 151

Part 4. Architectural Reproduction: Reconstructing Babylon 4. 1. The Lion of Babylon in the Age of the Work of Art ………………………169 4. 2. Transgressing Bilderverbot: the Babel-Bible Controversy ………….…… 180 4. 3. Romantic Reconstruction: in Search of “Organic” Essence …….……….. 188 4. 4. Symbol, Ornament, Art: Figures of the Counter-Enlightenment ………… 199

Conclusion. On the Modern Cult of Authenticity ………………………….……… 209

Selected Bibliography …………………………………………………………….. 220

Volume II Illustrations Illustrations for Part 1 …………………………………………………………. 259 Illustrations for Part 2 …………………………………………………………. 266 Illustrations for Part 3 …………………………………………………………. 295 Illustrations for Part 4 …………………………………………………………. 357

vi

List of Illustrations

Illustrations for Part 1 Fig. 1.1

The reconstruction of the West Façade of Great Altar of Pergamon, completed in 1929, the Pergamon Museum, Berlin.

Fig. 1.2

Walter Andrae, the reconstruction of the Ishtar Gate of Babylon (6th to 5th century B.C.), completed in 1930, Vorderasiatisches (Near Eastern) Museum (in the Pergamon Museum), Berlin.

Fig. 1.3

Theodor Wiegand, the reconstruction of the Market Gate of Miletus (c. 160 A.D.), c. 1926-1929, the Pergamon Museum, Berlin.

Fig. 1.4

Reconstruction of the Market Gate of Miletus (c. 160 A.D.), c. 19261929, Berlin.

Fig. 1.5

Detail From the Photograph of the Reconstruction of the Market Gate of Miletus, c. 1926.

Fig. 1.6

“Zeus in Exile” from the cover of Sefa Tas- kIn’s book Sürgündeki Zeus: Bergamadan Berlin’e, Berlin’den Bergama’ya).

vii

Illustrations for Part 2 Fig. 2.1

Perspective drawing, showing Berlin’s Museum from the Southeast.

Fig. 2.2

Karl Friedrich Schinkel, Altes Museums, completed in 1830, Berlin, showing the main façade from the Lustgarten.

Fig. 2.3

Karl Friedrich Schinkel, Site Plan of the (Altes) Museum showing the Royal Palace (below) and the Custom Houses (Packhof) along the Kupfergraben (above), 1823.

Fig. 2.4

August Stüler, “Forum” with the Neues Museum, site plan, 1853.

Fig. 2.5

August Stüler, “Forum” with the Neues Museum, elevations and perspective.

Fig. 2.6

August Orth, master plan of the Museum Island, 1875.

Fig. 2.7

August Orth, plan of the Museum Island, second design, 1875.

Fig. 2.8

August Orth, master plan of the Museum Island. View from the Kupfergraben canal.

viii

Fig. 2.9.

Alfred Messel, entry in the architectural competition for the Museum Island, 1884, site plan.

Fig. 2.10

Alfred Messel, entry in the architectural competition for the Museum Island, 1884, elevation from the Kupfergraben.

Fig. 2.11

Alfred Messel, entry in the architectural competition for the Museum Island, 1884, section.

Fig. 2.12

Alfred Messel, Project for the Extension of the Royal Prussian Museum and Development of the Museum Island, 22 August 1907.

Fig. 2.13

Alfred Messel, Project for the Extension of the Royal Prussian Museum.

Fig. 2.14

Alfred Messel, Project for the Extension of the Royal Prussian Museum in Berlin, 30 October 1907. The first exhibition (ground) floor.

Fig. 2.15

Alfred Messel, Extension of the Royal Prussian Museum in Berlin, 30 October 1907. Section through the court and the Pergamon Altar-Room.

Fig. 2.16

Alfred Messel, “Gothic Room.”

Fig. 2.17

Alfred Messel, “Baroque Room.”

ix

Fig. 2.18

The view of August Stüler’s Neues Museum from the Kupfergraben, c. 1930.

Fig. 2.19

August Stüler, Neues Museum, plan of the 1st and 2nd floors.

Fig. 2.20

August Stüler, cross-section of the Egyptian Court with a view to the Northwest.

Fig. 2.21

August Stüler, cross-section of the main stairwell with a view to the South.

Fig. 2.22

August Stüler, cross-section in the Greek Court with a view to the North.

Fig. 2.23

August Stüler, Egyptian Court in the Neues Museum.

Fig. 2.24

View of the Egyptian Department in the Neues Museum.

Fig. 2.25

Entrance of the Kaiser Friedrich Museum.

Fig. 2.26

Kaiser Friedrich Museum. Schematized floor plans after Ernst von Inhe.

x

Fig. 2.27

Wilhelm von Bode’s arrangement of the Simon Room (dedicated to James Simon) in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum.

Fig. 2.28

Wilhelm von Bode, arrangement of the Rembrandt Room in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum.

Illustrations for Part 3 Fig. 3.1

The reconstruction of the West Façade of the Great Altar of Pergamon, completed in 1929, the Pergamon Museum, Berlin.

Fig. 3.2

The Pergamonsaal in the Pergamon Museum, Berlin.

Fig. 3.3

Okeanos and other figures from the Gigantomachy (Western Frieze), as displayed on the reconstruction of the West Façade of the altar, Pergamon Museum.

Fig. 3.4

The reconstruction of the West Façade of the Great Altar of Pergamon in relief against the background of the museum wall.

Fig. 3.5

The Telephos Room at the time of the reopening of the Pergamon Museum in 1959.

xi

Fig. 3.6

Detail from Pergamonsaal showing a point where the reconstruction of the altar meets the wall of the gallery.

Fig. 3.7

Slabs of the Gigantomachy Frieze (North Frieze) against the wall of the museum.

Fig. 3.8

Detail from the Topographical Plan of Roman Pergamon by A. Attila and U. Wulf.

Fig. 3.9

Volker Kästner, reconstruction drawing of the Great Altar of Pergamon, ground plan.

Fig. 3.10

Wolffram Hoepfner, reconstruction drawing of the Great Altar of Pergamon, ground plan.

Fig. 3.11

Wolffram Hoepfner, reconstruction drawing of the Great Altar of Pergamon, section.

Fig. 3.12

Wolffram Hoepfner, reconstruction drawing of the Great Altar of Pergamon, East Façade.

Fig. 3.13

Comparison of the reconstructed plan of the Great Altar with a schematic plan of the Pergamonsaaal.

xii

Fig. 3.14

Bergama, Western Turkey, view from the citadel (the former Acropolis of the Hellenistic Pergamon).

Fig. 3.15

Christian Wilberg, Excavations at the Byzantine Wall Where the First Reliefs Were Found, 1879.

Fig. 3.16

Wilberg, Excavation Site of the Pergamon Altar, 1879.

Fig. 3.17

Zeus Group of the Gigantomachy (East Frieze) as displayed in the Pergamon Museum, Berlin.

Fig. 3.18

The “Temple of Pergamon” in the Exhibition of the Royal Academy of Arts, 1886, Berlin.

Fig. 3.19

Reconstructed view of the upper town (acropolis) of Pergamon during the early Roman period as seen from the West.

Fig. 3.20

Emmanuel Pontremoli, plan of the actual condition of the ruins of the Acropolis of Pergamon (c. 1890’s).

Fig. 3.21

Emmanuel Pontremoli, monuments of the Agora and Acropolis of Pergamon, restored plan.

xiii

Fig. 3.22

Two details from Emmanuel Pontremoli’s reconstruction of the Acropolis of Pergamon, elevation.

Fig. 3.23

Emmanuel Pontremoli, reconstruction of the Great Altar, elevation.

Fig. 3.24

Ludwig Hoffmann, prize-winning project in the Schinkel-Competition, 1882, “Dispositions-plan.”

Fig. 3.25

Ludwig Hoffmann, entry in the architectural competition for the Museum Island, 1884, site plan.

Fig. 3.26

Ludwig Hoffmann, competition entry, 1884, section of the Pergamon Museum.

Fig. 3.27

Alfred Hauschild, prize-winning competition entry for the Museum Island, site plan.

Fig. 3.28

Alfred Hauschild, prize-winning competition entry for the Museum Island, 1884, section through the sculpture museum.

Fig. 3.29

Fritz Wolff, prize-winning competition entry for the Museum Island, 1884, site plan.

xiv

Fig. 3.30

Fritz Wolff, prize-winning competition entry for the Museum Island, 1884, section through the Pergamon Museum.

Fig. 3.31

Fritz Wolff, prize-winning competition entry for the Museum Island, 1884.

Fig. 3.32

Fritz Wolff, plans of the first Pergamon Museum (built in 1898, demolished in 1908).

Fig. 3.33

Fritz Wolff, the Pergamon Museum (1898-1908), vestibule and entrance.

Fig. 3.34

Fritz Wolff, the reconstruction of the West Façade of the Great Altar of Pergamon in the (first) Pergamon Museum (1898-1908).

Fig. 3.35

Fritz Wolff, the interior of the Pergamon Museum showing the South Frieze of the Gigantomachy.

Fig. 3.36

Detail from the North Frieze of the Gigantomachy in Fritz Wolff’s Pergamon Museum.

Fig. 3.37

Fritz Wolff, Architecture Room in the Pergamon Museum (1902-1908).

Fig. 3.38

Fritz Wolff, Architecture Room in the Pergamon Museum (1902-1908).

xv

Fig. 3.39

Parts of column, capital and entablature from the Temple of Artemis in Magnesia (Western Anatolia), as displayed in Fritz Wolff’s Architecture Room in the Pergamon Museum (1902-1908).

Fig. 3.40

Ludwig Hoffmann, master plan for the Museum Island and University, 1912.

Fig. 3.41

Ludwig Hoffmann, revision of the project for the Royal Prussian Museum (originally designed by Alfred Messel in 1907), September 1913.

Fig. 3.42

Ludwig Hoffmann, revision of the project for the Royal Prussian Museum, June 1914.

Fig. 3.43

Ludwig Hoffmann, revision of the project for the Berlin State Museum (today’s Pergamon Museum), January 1920.

Fig. 3.44

A partial wooden model of the façade of the Pergamon Museum showing Alfred Messel’s original design of 1907.

Fig. 3.45

A partial wooden model of the façade of the Pergamon Museum in 1:1 scale, showing Ludwig Hoffmann’s revision.

xvi

Fig. 3.46

A partial wooden model of the façade of the Pergamon Museum in 1914.

Fig. 3.47

Wilhelm Wille, revision and alternative project for the Berlin State Museum (today’s Pergamon Museum), 5 January 1921, upper exhibition floor.

Fig. 3.48

Wilhelm Wille, revision and alternative project for the Berlin State Museum, 5 January 1921, lower exhibition floor.

Fig. 3.49

Wilhelm Wille, revision and alternative project for the Berlin State Museum, 5 January 1921, sections of the Pergamonsaal.

Fig. 3.50

Wilhelm Wille, revision and alternative project for the Berlin State Museum, 5 January 1921, interior perspective of the Pergamonsaal.

Fig. 3.51

Theodor Wiegand, the Market Gate of Miletus during its reconstruction, 12 August 1925.

Fig. 3.52

Theodor Wiegand, the Market Gate of Miletus during its reconstruction.

Fig. 3.53

Theodor Wiegand, the Market Gate of Miletus in the final stages of its reconstruction.

xvii

Fig. 3.54

Theodor Wiegand, arrangement of Roman architecture from Western Anatolia and Syria photographed against a black background.

Fig. 3.55

Theodor Wiegand, reconstruction of two columns and entablature of the Temple of Artemis in Magnesia and other architectural elements from the Hellenistic era (Western Anatolia).

Fig. 3.56

Theodor Wiegand, arrangement of Roman architecture from Western Anatolia.

Fig. 3.57

The presentation of the Pergamonsaal to the participants of the congress on the centennial of the German Archeology Institute (DAI), 21-25 April 1929.

Fig. 3.58

Celebration of Olympia in the Pergamonsaal during the Berlin Olympics, 1936.

Fig. 3.59

Wilhelm Kreiss, design for Soldier’s Hall in the Supreme Command of Armed Forces.

Fig. 3.60

Albert Speer, Zeppelinfeld Stadium designed for the National Socialist Party day (Reichsparteitag-Gelande), Nuremberg, 1937.

xviii

Fig. 3.61

Albert Speer, Zeppelinfeld Stadium, elevations, sections and plan.

Illustrations for Part 4 Fig. 4.1

Walter Andrae, the reconstruction of the Ishtar Gate of Babylon (6th to 5th century BC), completed in 1930, Vorderasiatisches Museum (in the Pergamon Museum), Berlin.

Fig. 4.2

Detail of the museum partition between the reconstruction of the Market Gate of Miletus and that of the Ishtar Gate of Babylon.

Fig. 4.3

Walter Andrae, the reconstruction of the Ishtar Gate of Babylon, detail.

Fig. 4.4

Walter Andrae, the reconstruction of the Processional Street of Babylon (6th to 5th century BC) completed in 1930, Vorderasiatisches Museum (in the Pergamon Museum), Berlin.

Fig. 4.5

View of the model of the Processional Street and the Ishtar Gate, detail with the gate, the forecourt and the bastions.

Fig. 4.6

Walter Andrae, reconstruction of the Lion of Babylon from the Processional Street.

xix

Fig. 4.7

Wilhelm Wille, revision of the Berlin State Museum (today’s Pergamon Museum), 5 January 1921, two sections through the South Wing.

Fig. 4.8

Wilhelm Wille, revision of the Berlin State Museum, 5 January 1921, interior perspective of the reconstruction of the Processional Street of Babylon.

Fig. 4.9

Walter Andrae, working drawing for the reconstruction of the Processional Street of Babylon in the Vorderasiatisches Museum, 1927, Berlin.

Fig. 4.10

Walter Andrae, working drawing for the reconstruction of the Processional Street of Babylon in the Vorderasiatisches Museum, 1927, Berlin. View toward the Ishtar Gate.

Fig. 4.11

Walter Andrae, working drawing for the reconstruction of the Throneroom of Babylon in the Vorderasiatisches Museum, 1927, Berlin.

Fig. 4.12

Walter Andrae, working drawing for the reconstruction of the Ishtar Gate of Babylon in the Vorderasiatisches Museum, 1927, Berlin.

Fig. 4.13

Assembly of the Babylonian brick fragments into figures and ornaments of Babylon in Berlin, 1928.

xx

Fig. 4.14

Walter Andrae, First reconstruction on paper of the Lion of the Processional Street at Babylon, 1899, Babylon (Iraq).

Fig. 4.15

Félix Thomas, plan of the general layout and the fortifications of the Assyrian city of Dur Sharrukin (Khorsabad), which the 19th century French archaeologists erroneously identified as Nineveh.

Fig. 4.16

Félix Thomas, “Ornamented Gate” (a gate to the ancient Assyrian city of Dur Sharrukin), elevation and plan of the actual ruins, 1852-54.

Fig. 4.17

Félix Thomas, the “Ornamented Gate,” restored section.

Fig. 4.18

Félix Thomas, plan of the ruins of the Palace of Sargon II, 1852-54.

Fig. 4.19

Félix Thomas, two elevations of the palace of Sargon II in Dur Sharrukin (Khorsabad), represented as an “ensemble,” 1852-54.

Fig. 4.20

Félix Thomas, a gate to the Palace of Sargon II, restored elevation, detail, 1852-54.

Fig. 4.21

Félix Thomas, “Harem” in Nineveh (in reality: Assyrian temple in Dur Sharrukin), 1852-54.

xxi

Fig. 4.22

Félix Thomas, “Gate Z of the Harem,” restored elevation.

Fig. 4.23

Félix Thomas, Assyrian murals in a chamber of the “Harem,” actual condition, 1852-54.

Fig. 4.24

Félix Thomas, Lion figure from the Assyrian murals in a chamber of the “Harem,” restored on paper, 1852-54.

Fig. 4.25

A plan of the inner city of Babylon after the excavations of the GermanOrient Society 1899-1917.

Fig. 4.26

Dragon (Sirrush) Relief from the Ishtar Gate of Babylon (6th to 5th century BC).

Fig. 4.27

Walter Andrae, reconstruction of the Dragon (Sirrush) Relief.

Fig. 4.28

Illustration from Robert Koldewey, Das wieder Erstehende Babylon, 1913, comparing the claw of the Babylonian dragon with that of a bird from Mesopotamia.

Fig. 4.29

Excavations at the Ishtar Gate of Babylon, 1902.

xxii

Fig. 4.30

Foundations of the Ishtar Gate of Babylon with colorless bull and dragon reliefs after the excavations of the DOG.

Fig. 4.31

Reconstructed section drawing of the Ishtar Gate of Babylon showing different ground levels of the Processional Street throughout the centuries.

Fig. 4.32

Reconstructed section drawing of the Ishtar Gate of Babylon.

Fig. 4.33

Walter Andrae, drawing showing the marking-system for placement of the bricks of the Throne-room façade.

Fig. 4.34

Walter Andrae, a second drawing showing the marking-system for placement of the bricks of the Throne-room façade.

Fig. 4.35

Walter Andrae, the reconstruction of the Throne-room Façade, completed in 1930, Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin.

Fig. 4.36

Walter Andrae, sketch for stage-set I of the historical opera “Sardanapalus,” 1907.

Fig. 4.37

Walter Andrae, sketch for stage-set II of the historical opera “Sardanapalus,” 1907.

xxiii

Fig. 4.38

Walter Andrae, a reconstruction of the Processional Street of Babylon by night.

Fig. 4.39

Walter Andrae, conceptual sketch about the “origin” of ornament.

Fig. 4.40

Walter Andrae, “Die Symbole von Babylon” (sketch, ink on paper).

xxiv

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Professor Alan Colquhoun for countless hours of intellectual discussion. The precision and clarity of his criticism and the intellectual challenge he brought to my work at every stage of its preparation turned this dissertation into a fascinating learning experience. I am indebted to Professor M. Christine Boyer not only for her criticism of my dissertation and intellectual inspiration but also for her generosity of spirit. By offering her support in every form and occasion, Professor Boyer helped me survive the odds of nearly five years of independent research. My sincerest thanks are also to Professors Esther da Costa Meyer, Mark Jarzombek and Michael Jennings for agreeing to be the examiners of this dissertation. I was fortunate to have inspiring teachers at the Middle East Technical University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Princeton University who influenced the argument and methodology of this dissertation. My engagement in the history of modern archaeology goes back to a paper I wrote for Professor Emel Aközer in Ankara. My Masters thesis under Stanford Anderson provided me with theoretical and methodological foundations upon which I build my later work.

Most of this dissertation was written during two years of residency as a pre-doctoral fellow at the Getty Research Institute in Los Angeles. I am grateful to the GRI’s director, Thomas Crow, and to the staff of the Research and Education Department. The

xxv

comments and feedback of the Getty scholars, fellows and staff played a part in the working out of the ideas presented here. I wish to thank especially Malcolm Baker, Sarah Morris, John Papadopoulos, Kajri Jain, Jacqueline Lichtenstein, Partha Mitter, Deanna Petherbridge, Henry Millon, Marian Hobson, Mieke Bal, Sherrie Levine, Benjamin Buchloh, Mario Carpo and Alexa Sekyra.

The staff of the Zentralarchiv der Staatlichen Museen, the Berlin Staatsbibliothek, the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, the Bauhaus Archiv offered me their kind assistance during my research in the archives and manuscript collections in Berlin. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Linda Nolan at the Getty Research Institute and Mary Burdett at the University of San Diego for their help in compiling the bibliography, scanning the illustrations and copy editing at various stages of my research.

I have received generous grants and fellowships from the Getty Research Institute, the Mrs. Giles Whiting Foundation, the Scientific and Technical Research Association of Turkey (TUBITAK), and the University of San Diego, in addition to support from Princeton University including scholarships from the Graduate School, the School of Architecture, Council for Regional Studies, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs—Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies.

The presentation of the chapters of this dissertation as work in progress in seminars, conferences and public lectures, including presentations at the Getty Center, Yale University, the annual international meeting of the Association of Collegiate Schools of xxvi

Architecture in Istanbul, the Cotsen Institute at UCLA, Sanart Conference in Ankara and in a conference organized by the doctoral students at MIT and Harvard University helped me to reformulate my arguments. An earlier and significantly different version of Part 3 was published in the Sanart conference proceedings edited by Ipek Türeli (“Space and Relief in the Pergamon-Room,” in Retrospective: Aesthetics and Art in the 20th Century, Ankara: Sanart, 2002). I am grateful to Malcolm Baker, Maria Georgepoulou, Jale Erzen and John Papadopoulos for their invitations and encouragement.

This project would not have been completed without the support of my colleagues, friends and family. I wish to thank especially Ufuk Ersoy, Heiko Henkel and Tina Lupton for our long and inspiring conversations at the first stages of my research. My colleagues in the Department of Art at the University of San Diego Sally Yard and David B. Smith offered their support during the completion of this dissertation. I would like the express my deepest gratitude to Professor Yard for reading the entire dissertation and for her perceptive comments.

I am grateful to my sister Cânâ Bilsel for reading the dissertation, for offering her criticism and above all for being a role model as an architect, scholar and teacher. My parents, architects, city planners and educators, have prepared the conditions that induced critical inquiry at home, and gave us a passion for the mythologies and ruins of ancient Anatolia, the traces of which I found many years later in the archives of Berlin’s Pergamon Museum.

xxvii

My most profound thanks go to Juliana Maxim who read and most perceptively commented on every stage of my manuscript. Her research in history and theory of architecture inspired me in ways that I could not have imagined. Finally, I would like to thank my son, Alin Emre, who was not born when this project started and yet whose presence motivated me to end my containment in German archaeology, complete the dissertation and, finally, let it go.

xxviii

Part 1 _______________________________________________________________________ Architecture in the Museum: Definitions and Problems

1

1.1. Architectonic Restitution: Historical Monument versus Historical Decor

We have now had a glimpse of all the rooms of the new museum. In all of them it has proved possible to reconstruct the architectural masterpieces of ancient times in their full original height, thus showing the real proportions and conveying to the visitor an adequate sense of space. In this museum, the greatest museum of architecture the world over, it is intended that visitors should rivet their attention first and foremost on the immense ensemble and then be enabled to follow the evolution of style from the sixth century B.C. down to the threshold of the Christian era… Theodor Wiegand, The Pergamon Museum, c. 19301 The State Museum of Berlin, popularly known as the Pergamon Museum, is among the most complex buildings of the German capital. Conceived as the extension of the Royal Prussian Museum by Alfred Messel in 1907, the building was completed twenty-four years later during the artistically productive and politically uncertain days of the Weimar Republic. As the regimes that patronized the museum changed, so did the original program and architecture of Messel within the space of three decades: the museum that opened to the public in 1930 took its final shape in the hands of Berlin’s cultural bureaucracy, whose factions had waged a “museum war” to gain more influence in its plans. The museum met with immediate success in the 1930’s when it was presented to the public as the largest “museum of architecture” in the world. World War II spared the Pergamon Museum but left it in a desolate condition. Its treasures were shipped to

1

Theodor Wiegand, The Pergamon Museum (Berlin: Reichsbahnzentrale für den Deutschen Reiseverkehr, n.d.), 20. Distributed in several languages by the German Railways and tourism bureaus in the 1930’s. 2

Moscow as part of what the Red Army called war reparations, only to return to a divided Berlin in mid 1950’s as a gift of the Soviet Union to the people of the Democratic Republic. To this day, the museum is renowned for its gigantic interiors, which offer an awe-inspiring vision of antique architecture. Walking through the galleries, the visitors encounter the Ishtar Gate and the Processional Street of Babylon, the Market Gate of Milet, the Great Altar of Pergamon among others. The presentation of Babylonian, Hellenistic and Roman “monuments” in a historic sequence has made the Pergamon Museum one of the most visited sites of Berlin, just as the photographic and filmic reproduction made the “masterpieces” of antique architecture available to a large public.

At first sight there is nothing unusual about the idea of a museum that contains antique monuments from the ancient Mediterranean and Mesopotamia, given that the national galleries of Europe have long assumed the task of exhibiting the arts of all humanity: a privilege that has become a contentious issue over the last decades. Just as the Parthenon frieze—the so-called Elgin marbles—is not in Athens but in the British Museum, so it appears that the Great Altar of Pergamon and the Ishtar Gate of Babylon are currently located in Berlin. Yet the more we reflect on the architectural exhibits of the Pergamon Museum, the more problematic they become.

On the one hand, the exhibits of the Pergamon Museum are perceived as architectural “monuments,” each of which testifies to a distant past. Most visitors would agree that there in the museum we stand in the presence of the opera nobile of antiquity: “monuments” that were “brought” to Berlin after nearly four decades of German

3

excavations in the Middle East prior to World War I. Thousands of miles away from their original locations, the “monuments” are presented in the gallery as art objects, as well as historical documents. On the other hand, the interiors of the museum could as well be read as modern installations, which reconstruct an image of antiquity somehow analogous to a theater décor. Each “monument” is installed as a stage set that reenacts the experience of a “work” that would not typically be contained within the interior of the museum: an architectural ensemble, an antique city, or the totality of an ancient civilization.

This semantic difficulty, the collapse of the boundary between a historical monument and a historical décor, has not troubled those who have described the museum before as in, for instance, the museum guides, those unproblematized presentations of the museum’s objects as “archaeological reconstructions.”2 There is nevertheless, an unbridgeable gap between the two types of object: a historical monument endures from the moment of its construction and subsequent restorations until the present; a historical décor, in contrast, reenacts a lived moment of history in every “now” of experience within the controlled space of the stage. If the first survives the passage of time only by

2

In a concise history of the museum Olaff Matthes writes: “The Pergamon Museum is one of the most impressive museums of architecture in the world. It owes its existence mainly to extremely successful excavations conducted by the museums of Berlin in Asia Minor, above all in Pergamum (Pergamon), Magnesia, Priene, and Milet. In further archaeological expeditions, the German Oriental Society (Deutsche Orient-Geselschaft DOG) co-operated with the museums of Babylon, Assur, Uruk, and various other Mesopotamian cities. However, it is the combination of reconstruction of architectural monuments from Oriental, Greek, Roman, and Islamic antiquity that even today confirms the Museum’s worldwide uniqueness.” The Pergamon Museum, translated by Nina Hausmann (Berlin: Berliner Ansichten, 1998), 9. 4

gradually falling into ruins, the later is ephemeral: it is bound to the time of the spectacle.

The question then comes to mind: how can we characterize the architectural exhibits of the Pergamon Museum—originals, restorations or reconstructions? If, on the other hand, the exhibits of the museum are a theatrical décor, how do they relate to the historic originals: do they represent, reproduce or replace the monuments of antiquity?

The “monuments” that are exhibited in the museum today have preserved neither their material integrity nor their complete form throughout their histories. They were destroyed, buried or transformed into other buildings prior to their archaeological recovery. In the case of the Altar of Pergamon, the Hellenistic masterpiece of the museum, the archaeologists extracted most of the sculptural fragments of the Great Frieze from a Byzantine wall where they had been reused. While the archaeologists shipped sculptural and architectural fragments from their excavations in Turkey, Syria and Iraq, the arrangements of these fragments into “monuments” in the Pergamon Museum is the result of modern imagination. Unlike the archaeological fragments from which they are reassembled, the duration of these “monuments” is not a continuous testimony to the history they have endured. Their display in the museum poses an uneasy tension between two distinct temporal moments: the imaginary moment of their original construction, and the moment in which they were reassembled in the museum as a jigsaw puzzle. The architectural exhibits of the Pergamon Museum, in other words, are not “originals,” if we understand “original” to mean a historical monument, which

5

carries the traces of its material duration from the moment of its initial construction to the present, and which is a unique presence in the site where it was built.3

Nor can we describe the exhibits of the museum as “restoration,” in the 19th century meaning of the word. The French architect and theorist, Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-leDuc (1814-1879) defines “restoration” in his Dictionnaire raisonné (1866-1869, 10 volumes) as follows: RESTORATION, s.f. Both the word and the thing are modern. To restore an edifice means neither to maintain it, nor to repair it, nor to rebuild it; it means to reestablish it in a finished state, which may in fact never have actually existed at any given time. The idea that constructions of another age can actually be restored is an idea that dates only from the second quarter of our own [19th] century, and it is not clear that this kind of architectonic restoration has ever been clearly defined.4 Highly idiosyncratic in nature, Viollet-le-Duc’s philosophy of “restoration” contradicts the idea of reconstruction as it was conceived by the 19th century historical school—particularly Leopold von Ranke’s (1795-1896) concept of “wirkliche Geschichte” (actual/real history). It suffices to reflect on the techniques of historical

3

Cf. Walter Benjamin who writes, “The authenticity of a thing is the essence of all that is transmissible from its beginning, ranging from its material duration to its historical testimony to the duration which it experienced. Since the historical testimony rests on authenticity, the former, too, is jeopardized by reproduction when material duration ceases to exist.” Revised from Harry Zohn’s translation, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” [the translation of the German title may also be revised as “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technical Reproducibility”] in Hannah Arrendt, ed., Illuminations (New York: Schocken Books, 1968). I am grateful to Michael Jennings and Thomas Levine for a graduate seminar that focused on the article at Princeton University. 4

Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc, The Foundations of Architecture: Selections from the Dictionnaire raisonné, introduction by Barry Bergdoll, translated by Kenneth D. Whitehead (New York : G. Braziller, 1990). 6

representation as evidenced in the historical paintings or panoramas in the 19th century to pinpoint this difference. The 19th century panorama offered the spectators the scenery of a world-historical event depicted on the vast periphery of a circular interior. In the Sedan panorama in Berlin, for instance, once admitted in the interior, the spectators could “relive,” as it were, the moment when the outcome of the Franco-Prussian war of 1871 was decided. The concept of history as a linear trajectory is made manifest in the 19th century panorama—the heterotopia of a time machine, which transposes the spectators to the heart of a moment of historical destiny. The panorama turned history into a spectacle for the masses.

Viollet-le-Duc in contrast, coined “restoration” as a practice that upholds the stylistic and structural integrity of architecture above and beyond the historicity of a given building. Having studied the system that underlies the constructional logic of a monument, the 19th century restorer often redesigned the building in an ideal form, which it had never had in history. “Correcting” the stylistic or structural “mistakes” of the original builders was an important task of restoration. The restorer also erased systematically the traces of later historic additions—for instance, depriving the medieval cathedrals of their Baroque additions, hence, forcing the building into a structural and stylistic purity. It is therefore not so much the value of a monument as a historical document as much as the architectonic principles it embodies that were of interest to the 19th century restorer.

7

The architectural exhibits of the Pergamon Museum differ from what Viollet-le-Duc called “restoration” on two counts. First, the museum seeks to establish its credibility for its viewers as a historical make-believe. The museum installation mimics the form of a monument in a given historical period. In doing so it seems to transport the viewers into a historical moment—even though this moment is vaguely defined by comparison with a theater décor or the 19th century panorama. The museum cultivates a sense of history that is more akin to Ranke’s truism, “to reconstruct as it actually was,” than to Viollet-leDuc’s restoration.

Secondly, the museum exhibit of the Pergamene Altar is limited to a three-dimensional facade put in an illusionary perspective that is suggestive of the whole monument. By reducing the original building to a mainly visual presentation, the Pergamon Museum hinders the structural integrity and constructional logic of architecture, which were dear to Viollet-le-Duc. It is not as if the Hellenistic building is rebuilt in the museum as a freestanding structure, but the museum reconstructs an image of the monument as a tableau vivant, which not only can be seen but also partially occupied by the visitors.

We have to be equally cautious about concluding that the exhibits of the museum are a historical décor that reconstructs the originals as “they actually were” in antiquity. For, the installations of the museum, unlike a theater décor, display the effects of age on their material: conveying a carefully calculated sense of authenticity to the visitors, as if the “monuments” have endured weather throughout millennia.

8

It is precisely the effect of a monument’s ‘oldness’ that marked a major split in the modern approach to historical monuments. The 19th century idea of “architectural restoration”—in contradistinction to historical reconstruction—presented a fatal contradiction, one that seemed all the more problematic at the turn of the 20th century. For “restoration” sought to both honor and effectively annul the idea of historical time when it “recovered” historical architecture in a perfect state in the present: as Alan Colquhoun puts it, “the old takes on a surreal contemporaneity” in the restorations of Viollet-le-Duc.5 Yet, for the 20th century audience that expected to see the traces of natural decay on an historical “original,” the appearance of a flawless historic monument in a “finished state” appeared incredulous. It is precisely this problem that the Viennese art historian Alois Riegl (1858-1905) puts into question in his Moderne Denkmalkultus sein Wesen, seine Entstehung [The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Essence and Genesis] of 1903.6 He writes:

5

Alan Colquhoun, “Thoughts on Riegl,” Oppositions 25 (1982); reprinted as “Newness and Age Value in Alois Riegl,” in Modernity and Classical Tradition: Essays in Architectural Criticism 1980-1987 (Cambridge Ma.: The MIT Press, 1989). 6

Alois Riegl, “Der moderne Denkmalkultus, sein Wesen, seine Entstehung” (1903), in Gesammelte Aufsätze (Vienna: Dr. Benno Filser Verlag, 1929). The text was translated into English by Kurt W. Forster and Diane Ghirardo as “The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Its Origin,” Oppositions 25 (Fall 1982). An editorial by Kurt W. Forster and separate commentaries by Ignasi de Solà-Morales and Alan Colquhoun appeared in the same issue. A second and—unfortunately—severely abbreviated version by Karin Bruckner and Karen Williams translated the title as “The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Essence and Development.” Nicholas Stanley Price et al. eds., Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1995). Here I suggest translating the sub-title of Riegl’s essay as “Its Essence and Genesis.” There is little question that the German “Wesen” should be translated as “essence,” and not as “character.” As for Riegl’s use of the word “Entstehung”: I take as a model the distinction Walter Benjamin makes between “Ursprung” and “Entstehung” in his “Epistemo-Critical Prologue” to Ursprung des deutschen Trauerspiels, translated by John Osborne as “origin” and 9

The fundamental aesthetic principle of our time concerning the age-value may be formulated as follows: we expect from the hand of man the production of complete works as symbols [Sinnbilder] of necessary and lawful becoming [Werden]; from nature that works over time, on the other hand, we expect the dissolution of completeness as symbol of equally necessary and lawful decay [Vergehen]. Just as the appearance of decay (premature dilapidation) in recent works disturbs us, so do the signs of new intervention (conspicuous restoration) in old works. It is rather the clear perception of the cycle of natural becoming and decay—pure and lawful—that modern man at the beginning of the 20th century enjoys most.7 Thus, every work of man is conceived like a natural organism in whose development one should not intervene; the organism should live [ausleben] freely and man, at most, may protect it against premature destruction. Hence the modern man sees part of his own life in a monument, and any intervention on it disturbs him as if it is an intervention upon his own organism.8 Appointed director of the Commission for Preservation of Monuments, Riegl wrote Moderne Denkmalkultus as an addendum to new legislation of historic preservation in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. His conclusions were meant to have immediate effects in practice. In fact, it effectively brought to an end the ongoing “cleansing” of Gothic cathedrals of their later baroque additions, a practice inspired by Viollet-le-Duc’s principle of “restoration.”9 Although pragmatic in scope, Riegl’s Denkmalkultus outlines

“genesis” respectively, The Origin of the German Tragic Drama (New York, Verso 1985), 45. 7

The excess of adjectives Riegl uses to underline the unobstructed clarity, purity and necessity of the natural law of becoming and decay makes it almost impossible to translate this sentence. The original reads: “Es ist vielmehr der reine, gesetzliche, Kreislauf des naturgesetzlichen Werdens und Vergehens, dessen ungetrübte Wahrnehmung den modernen Menschen vom Amfange des 20. Jahrhunderts erfreut. “Denkmalkultus,” 162. 8

Ibid.,162, translation mine.

9

In The City of Collective Memory: Its Historical Imagery and Architectural Entertainments (Cambridge Ma.: The MIT Press, 1994) M. Christine Boyer writes: “Riegl thought the controversy surrounding the restoration work on the giant western 10

a vitalist phiolosophy, which is influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche’s “philosophy of life.”10 Riegl shared Nietzsche’s distaste for 19th century historicism, and his fascination with cyclical, “natural” time. Riegl’s concept of the monument rejects the idea of a golden age—and all reconstruction that aims at returning the monument to its “original” state. Instead Riegl seeks to minimize the modern intervention in the natural process of a monument’s “aging.” Far from freezing historical monuments in time, Riegl’s idea of

portal of St. Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna—a controversy that brought an end to the work in the 1880’s and again in 1902—reflected the different ways a monument might be valued in modern times. He believed there would be less trouble enveloping every restoration attempt when the history and significance of these values were carefully told”; see also Margaret Rose Olin, Forms of Representation in Alois Riegl’s Theory of Art (University Park Pa.: Pennsylvania State University, 1992). On the influence of Riegl’s thought on the practices of historic preservation see Wim Denslagen, Architectural Restoration in Western Europe: Controversy and Continuity, translated from Dutch by Jane Zuyl-Moores (Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura Press, 1994). 10

Recent research has shown that Riegl’s art history was engaged in a complex dialogue with 19th century German philosophy and most specifically with the writings of Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche. In fact, Riegl not only read Nietzsche’s key works The Birth of Tragedy and Untimely Meditations, but also discussed them with a group of friends at the University of Vienna. Between 1875 and 1878, Riegl was an active member of “The Reading Society of German Students in Vienna” (Der Leseverein der deutschen Studenten Wiens). Admirers of Schopenhauer’s philosophy of will, the members of the society—including Gustav Mahler and Sigmund Freud—became receptive to the work of Nietzsche and the music of Richard Wagner as early as the mid 1870’s (see William McGrath, Dionysian Art and Populist Politics in Austria (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974). See also Diana Graham Reynolds, “Alois Riegl and the Politics of Art History: Intellectual Traditions and Austrian Identity in Fin-desiècle Vienna,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego (1997), 26-28. Hence it is plausible to argue that, although Riegl was trained in the Institute for Austrian Historical Research—a school that resisted German idealism—and exposed to the methods of empiricism and positivism, Riegl was well informed about the alternative positions that emerged from Germany. In fact, Nietzsche’s critique of 19th century historicism, and his celebration of the inner force of life processes is clearly present in Riegl’s “mature work” after Stilfragen [The Problems of Style] of 1893. Refusing the Hegelian philosophy of history, Riegl maintained that art, more than being determined by the Spirit external to it, has been driven by an internal urge throughout history.10 His famous dictum “Kunstwollen,” could perhaps better be translated as art’s will, or will-to-art, than the common English version, “artistic volition.” 11

preservation consists of leaving monuments to fall gracefully into ruins and, thus, complete their natural cycle of “life.” Repairs are allowed only when the structure has been adopted for modern use, or when it was destroyed due to an unexpected human catastrophe.

It is clear that reconstruction of archaeological monuments in the Pergamon Museum contradicts Riegl’s principle of “preservation” to the extent that it intervenes in the natural circle of the monument’s “becoming” and “decay.” Yet, it is rather Riegl’s utterly psychological theory that the “modern subject” and the modern “masses” engage monuments through a vaguely defined feeling of “age value” that makes his text central to an understanding of archaeological reconstructions—in situ, as well as museal. Writing in a prophetic tone in 1903, Riegl argues that the value of a monument as a historic document will soon be secondary to the immediacy of the “atmospheric effect” [“Stimmungswirkung”] it exercises on the masses. The monument will be transformed in the 20th century into an object that evokes emphatic reactions in the “organism” of the beholders: an effect through which “modern man” could relate to the natural law of “becoming” and “decay” to which his own body is subjected.11

11

Riegl writes: “… das Denkmal bleibt nur mehr ein unvermeidliches sinnfäliges Substrat, um in seinem Beschauer jene Stimmungswirkung hervorzubringen, die in modernen Menschen die Vorstellung des gesetzlichen Kreislaufes vom Werden und Vergehen, des Auftauchens des Einzelnen aus dem Allgemeinem und seines naturnotwendigen allmählichen Wiederaufgehens im Allgemeinen erzeugt.” “Denkmalkultus,” 150. 12

Meeting the public’s growing expectation of “age value,” 20th century archaeology refrained from the problematic task of “faking” the effects of age in their historical reconstructions. “Anastylosis,” a technique of archaeological reconstruction that became widely accepted around the 1920’s, seems to accommodate both the archaeologists’ quest for historicity and the popular feeling for material authenticity. Nicolas Balanos, who is credited as one of the founders of the technique during the reconstruction of the Athenian Acropolis, reassembled the monuments from the original fragments that are either available on the site or that are found during the excavations. Modern materials were used only when necessary, and mostly to reinforce the antique structures. In fact, anastylosis is a practice that perfectly suits the modern concept of historic monuments. Showing the difference between “original” historic fragments and modern materials used in recent interventions has come to be seen as the ethical principle of historic reconstruction.

At first sight, the distinction between authentic fragments and modern interventions seem to be respected in the architectural exhibits of the Pergamon Museum. Yet, the truth is certainly more complex. For instance, the “reconstruction” of the Market Gate of Miletus by Theodor Wiegand (1864-1936), the renowned archaeologist and the director of the Antiquity Collection in Berlin c. 1930, has little in common with the 20th century practice of “anasytlosis.” A number of photographs taken during the construction of the Market Gate in the Pergamon Museum, and other objects of the “comparative architecture rooms” reveal that only a small percentage of the exhibits is made of antique

13

fragments.12 Wiegand achieved the “Roman” gate by using modern materials available in Berlin at the time of the construction: iron, brick, cement and stucco. More troubling, however, is the fact that Wiegand gave the gate the finish of aged marble, imitating, as it were, the appearance of a Roman original, had it survived the effects of time up until our own day. In fact—as Wiegand’s critics did not fail to take notice in the 1920’s—such historical monuments did not survive in our day, and whether such a “monument” existed at all in the Roman province of Asia, in Miletus, is a hypothesis that needs to be proven.13

Noting the radical departure of the Pergamon Museum from traditional museology, an article published by Office International des Musées [The International Museum Office] in 1935—the only text that calls into question the philosophical underpinnings of such a presentation—defines the museum’s exhibits as “architectonic restitutions” (“les reconstitution architectoniques dans les musées”). The author notes that, instead of displaying the constitutive elements or parts of architecture, such as one expects to find in the galleries of a Beaux Arts academy, the Pergamon Museum conveys to its visitors a vision of the architectural “ensemble.” The idea of the ensemble, in other words, has replaced the architectural specimen. Praising the Pergamon Museum for such a bold vision, the article fails to identify the contradiction intrinsic in “architectonic restitution.”

12

Eight photographs of the Market Gate of Miletus and of other architectural exhibits illustrate the process of reconstruction. Berlin-Dahlem, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (DAI) Wiegand-Archiv, Kasten 21 “Pergamonmuseum, Milettor,_Gall Prozess.” See my discussion of the reconstruction of the Miletus Gate in Part 3. 13

Karl Scheffler, “Das Berliner Museumschaos,” Kunst and Künster XXIV (April 1926): 261-272. 14

The author concludes that such restitution is justifiable only if the primary goal of the museum is the “preservation of historical originals.”14 However, the practice of molding isolated fragments into a seamless architectural whole, as Wiegand did in his recreation of Hellenistic and late Roman architecture, is one that does not preserve but effectively destroys the historical fragments. The “architectonic restitution” of the Pergamon Museum sacrifices the specificity of the fragment for the generality of the whole.

In achieving an imaginative and imaginary “ensemble,” Wiegand seems consistent with his own theory of theatrical and emphatic presentation of ancient history. In a museum guide he wrote on the occasion of the opening of the museum in 1930, he appears to make a subtle and ambiguous distinction by describing the exhibits as reconstructions that convey the visitors an idea about the originals. He writes that the museum “reconstructs the architectural masterpieces of ancient times in their full original height, thus showing the real proportions and conveying to the visitor an adequate sense of space.”15 Can we then interpret the architectural exhibits of the museum as full-size, partial models that convey a faithful impression of architectural space, rather than architectural originals themselves? The experience of the museum simulates an effect similar to the perception of the original monuments, had they existed in antiquity, and had they remained intact in our modernity.

14

“Les reconstitution architectoniques dans les musées,” Mouseion 29-30 (1935): 59-71.

15

Wiegand, “The Pergamon Museum,” 20. 15

Although Wiegand never openly acknowledges that the architectural “restitutions” of the museum are not historical originals, his description raises an array of questions. Does the museum recover an historical experience by mimicking the typical perception of the ancient man who created these “masterpieces”: a visual experience about which we know nearly nothing? Does the museum give modern Germans access to the “original” experience of the Babylonians and the Hellenistic Greeks? Or does it merely promote a picturesque—and therefore unmistakably modern—idea of antiquity by imitating the appearance of ruins in their “natural” landscapes?16 Yet isn’t the enterprise of reproducing the monuments of antiquity as ruins problematic—in fact more problematic than Viollet-le-Duc’s restoration, which fabricated flawless monuments in a complete form—given that none of these “ruins” were freestanding in their original locations when the German archaeologists began their work?

16

The French architectural historian Auguste Choisy argued in 1899 that the principles of the Greek site planning depend on a picturesque idea, and that the experience of the Parthenon in the Athenian Acropolis was originally intended as a “succession of pictures” each seen from a privileged and definable viewpoint. See Histoire de l'Architecture, I & II (1899) (Genève and Paris: Slatkine Reprints, 1987). This theory has exercised influence on modern architects, most notably on Le Corbusier, who visited Athens during his Voyage d’Orient. More recently the American art historian Vincent Scully revisited Choisy’s idea of the picturesque. He argued that the meaning of the sacred Greek landscape can be grasped by looking at the ruins of ancient Greece in the present as they stand in their original landscape. See The Earth, the Temple and the Gods: Greek Sacred Architecture (revised edition, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979). Scully’s poetic—and ahistorical—description of the original Greek experience as it is embedded in the present-day ruins does not take into consideration that most of the ruins available in situ are the products of modern archaeological reconstruction. It is therefore impossible to have an “original” vision of the Greeks unmediated by modern science. 16

1. 2. Architecture in the Museum: Viewing the Fragment and the Whole

Let us then address an ontological difficulty which is at the heart of Berlin’s selfacclaimed “museum of ancient architecture.” The idea of the museum of architecture seems to rest on the assumption that architecture’s relation to its object is similar to the relation of art to the work of art. Architecture, in other words, is an activity that creates “works,” which need to be classified, preserved and displayed based on their historic and artistic value. Yet, displaying a work of architecture—such as a monument—literally in the museum poses an insurmountable problem: where does the frame of a museum end and where does its exhibit, the work of architecture, begin?

From the conception of the first public museums of architecture in 18th century France to the recent Deutsches Architekturmuseum in Frankfurt by Oswald Mathias Ungers, one thing has been clear: a museum of architecture, unlike a museum of art, does not contain its object within the physical space of the gallery. Hence we expect to find in the “museum of architecture” drawings, models, plaster casts, as well as building parts and architectural fragments, but not an actual work of architecture. How can a building—assuming that a building is a “work” of architecture—be displayed inside of another and maintain its objecthood as distinct from that of its container?17

17

One aspect of this problematic has been previously addressed. Eve Blau and Edward Kaufman write in their introduction to an exhibition catalogue of the works from the Canadian Centre for Architecture (CCA): “The Museum of Architecture occupies a special place in the museum world. While Museums of painting, sculpture or decorative arts collect, display and make available for study the objects themselves, architectural 17

Given the impossibility of containing architecture in the gallery, there have been two significantly different ideas of a museum of architecture in current scholarship: according to the first, the museum consists of either a representation or reproduction of architecture (a museum of models, architectural drawings, photogrametric surveys or photographs); according to the second, the museum contains not the work itself but the fragments of the work: an ionic column-capital and a segment of architrave, for instance, may stand for the whole Greek temple, as well as being an exemplar of the architectural order.

In his essay, “Architecture au musée?” [Architecture in the Museum?] Hubert Damisch, argues that museums of architecture emerged historically at the very moment when new techniques of reproduction (in contradistinction to representation) became widely available in the 18th century: the cork model and the plaster cast.18 Scale models had been commonly used in the West at least since the Renaissance in order to conceive a building before it was constructed. Yet the very idea of producing replicas of famous

museums collect and display not their subject-matter, but works that are representations of it—drawings, prints, photographs, models, and books.” Blau and Kaufmann eds. Architecture and Its Image: Four Centuries of Architectural Representation (Montreal: Centre Canadien d’Architecture, 1989), 13; in Deutsches Architekturmuseum (the German Architecture Museum) by Oswald Mathias Ungers we can clearly see the metaphor of “a house inside the house”: the architect designed the service shaft of the museum in the form of a roofed “baldachin” that reads like a separate “house” placed inside the shell of the museum. See “Deutsches Architekturmuseum,” in Vittorio Magnano Lampugnani ed., Museum Architecture in Frankfurt 1980-1990, 139-151. 18

Hubert Damisch “L’Architecture au musée?” Cahiers du Musée national d’art moderne 42 (Winter 1992), 63-78. 18

monuments and disseminating them in greater numbers seems to belong to a fairly recent modernity. An Italian craftsman Antonio Chichi (1743-1816), for instance, is known to have standardized thirty-six cork models of the antique monuments of Rome and sold them to a large clientele in France and Germany.19 As these scale models attained a place in the European salons as exhibition pieces, architecture gained a new audience: that which was the secretive craft of the masters became a collectible item for the amateurs. Yet, it is important to note that even though the process of replication granted architecture aesthetic autonomy, the status of these models has always been different from that of “works of art”: sculpture or painting. As Werner Szambien shows in his Musée d’Architecture [Museum of Architecture], these objects were meant to remedy a perceived shortcoming of picturesque or fantastic paintings of ancient monuments in the 18th century: their imprecision in representing architecture. Faithfulness to the surveyed “original” was the primary quality of a scale model. Hence, the quest for precision made the models strictly referential objects. Not surprisingly these three-dimensional reproductions, rather than paintings, were to become the first objects exhibited in the 18th century “museum of architecture.” Interpreting the origins of the institution in France, Damisch goes on to argue that the task of this type of museum has little to do with the preservation of a work of art. The museum of architecture relates to the “work” indirectly through the mediation of an “imaginary component.”20 The museum of architecture is precisely where the “work” is imagined, yet, where it is absent.

19

Werner Szambien, Le Musée d’Architecture (Paris: Picard, 1988), 16.

20

Damisch has provided the most exhaustive analysis of this problematic: “Ma thèse… sera que le musée d’architecture ne devrait accueillir que des objets qui aient valeur d’example, ou de modèle, mais dans l’acception strictement théorique, épitémologique, 19

Damisch—like Szambien before him—interprets the museum of architecture primarily as a museum of architectural models. Arguing that the museum of architecture is structurally linked to the techniques and idea of reproduction, he underplays the importance of another institution that emerged only a few decades later: Alexandre Lenoir’s Musée des Monuments Français [Museum of French Monuments]. Originally a temporary shelter that saved the fragments of royal and religious monuments from destruction in the hands of the vandals during the Revolution, Lenoir’s “depot” was to become an ambitious museum of Gothic architecture—the first of its kind—which intended a historical and didactic presentation of the architecture of the nation. There is little doubt that Lenoir’s museum has stirred more controversy, both during and after the years of Terror, than the 18th century museums of architectural models. It suffices to recall Quatremere de Quincy’s relentless campaign against the Museum of French Monuments, which ultimately succeeded in establishing that a museum of fragments, which displaced “originals” from their context, was an unacceptable transgression of the Neoclassical canon.

***

projective, et mieux encore projectile du terme (“projectile” s’entendant, si l’on croit Littré, de ce qui lance, qui produit en quelque sorte la projection). Ce que le public, le grand public aussi bien que le public specialisé, cherchera au musée, en matière d’architecture, ce seront desormais moins des modèles qui devrait prêter à l’imitation, ou des images plaisantes, des representations faites pour le séduir, que des informations portant sur ce qu’il en est, ou peut en être, du travail du projet: ce qui ne saurait aller sans rétombées critiques au regard de la pratique actuelle de l’architecture, et de sa gestion institutionelle, idéologique, voire même politique.” “L’Architecture au musée?” 72-73. 20

A contemporaneous and well-documented schism emerged in Germany from the dispute between Karl Friedrich Schinkel and Alois Hirt in the 1820’s during the construction of the Royal Prussian museum in Berlin (today’s Altes Museum). While Hirt insisted that the new institution be a place for “study,” a depository of specimens within the academy, Schinkel famously defended the idea of the museum as an independent “Gestalt”—a form and design. Frustrated by his exclusion from the commission of the Royal Museum, Hirt objected to Schinkel that “the art objects are not there for the museum; rather the museum is there for the objects.”21

Thinking through this dichotomy we may conclude that it underscores a divergence of opinion within the Romantic (and therefore organicist) idea of history. Hirts seems to advocate history as an independent organism, whose documents should enjoy certain autonomy from the designs of the present, while Schinkel collapses the difference between past and the present, making the fragments of history subordinate to a present décor. Throughout the 20th century this split of opinion seems to have recurred several times: a distinctly modernist “cult of the fragment” which sought to maintain a disjunction between the fragments of the past and the frame of the present has been

21

Cited in Douglas Crimp, “The End of Art and the Origin of the Museum,” Art Journal 46 (Winter 1987), 263; cf. “Hirt’s Bericht an den König vom 15. Mai 1824,” in Alfred von Wolzogen ed., Aus Schinkels Nachlass: Reisetagebücher, Briefe und Aphorismen (Berlin, 1863), III: 244-49; see also Hans Kauffmann, “Zweckbau und Monument: Zu Friedrich Schinkels Museum am Berliner Lustgarten,” in Gerhard Hess, ed., Eine Freundesgabe der Wissenschaft für Ernst Hellmut Vits (Frankfurt / Main, 1963), 135-66. For a recent history of the planning and conception for the Altes Museum see C. M. Vogtherr, “Berlin Königliche Museum,” Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 39 (1997): 7302. 21

contradicted by new contextualist approaches seeking to integrate the old and the new into a seamless whole. We see the contradictory ideas of the historical object as a distinct fragment or as part of a décor, in a variety of fields including museology, historical preservation and urban design. The modernist city plans of the 20th century, which preserved historical monuments while destroying systematically the urban fabric around them, are parallel in that sense to modernist museology, which refused all restoration and which sought to exhibit historical fragments as distinct sculptural objects.22

It is indeed remarkable that the Pergamon Museum, which was completed exactly one hundred years after Schinkel’s Altes Museum, seems to be caught between these two positions that are handed down to us from German Romanticism: history as an autonomous organism versus history as a present “Gestalt.” The important difference, however, is that in the Pergamon Museum the décor does not necessarily recover “lived history.”23 Instead a constellation of antique fragments and modern decor creates the

22

In his reading of Riegl’s “Denkmalkultus,” Alan Colquhoun argues that Riegl established a “complementarity” between the notions of “newness” and “age-value.” He writes, “… although the two ideas are antithetical and must be kept rigidly separate, they are also complementary, and dependent on each other. This idea corresponds closely to the ideas of the Modern Movement, in which the preservation of historic monuments sometimes went hand in hand with the destruction and rebuilding of the city (See Le Corbusier’s 1936 Plan Voisin for the Center of Paris). Historical works have here lost their meaning as part of the fabric of time and space, and are preserved as emblems of a generalized and superseded past.” “Thoughts on Riegl,” Oppositions 25 (1982), 79; reprinted as “Newness and Age Value in Alois Riegl,” in Modernity and Classical Tradition, 214. 23

Cf. Stephen Bann’s analysis of two museums in early 19th century Paris, the Museum of French Monuments, founded by Lenoir, and Musée de Cluny by Alexandre du Sommerard in The Clothing of Clio: A Study of the Representation of History in 22

illusion of the presence of the architectural “monument” in the museum. In the Pergamon Museum, the architectural object is self-referential, as if it is seen in a hall of mirrors: it is more an end in itself than a means to represent history.

Therefore, I need to nuance the questions I have raised at the beginning: what were the specific conditions in early 20th century Berlin that eventually naturalized an oxymoron that emerged in the 18th century: architecture in the museum?

Nineteenth-Century Britain and France (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1984), especially 87-89. 23

1. 3. Monuments in ‘Exile’: On the Location and Dislocation of Architecture

Even though these questions may sound purely theoretical, they gained new political and architectural implications after the reunification of Germany. Extending its control over the museums of former East Berlin, the Prussian Heritage Foundation (Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz) has taken firm action to unify the antiquity collections in the historic Museum Island, collections that were divided between the East and the West in 1945.24 Following this new political initiative, Berlin’s Museum Island has become the focus of a series of restricted architectural competitions.25 The prize-winning Masterplan of the Museum Island by the British architect David Chipperfield proposes to connect

24

Wolf-Dieter Dube, “Große Pläne für Berlins schönste Schätze,” in Berliner Illustrierte, (13-14 March 1993). 25

The first competition for the restoration of August Stüler’s Neues Museum (constructed between 1843-1855 and severely damaged during World War II) was initially won in 1994 by the Italian architect Giorgio Grassi, whose project maintained the solitary nature of the historic museums—particularly Schinkel’s Altes Museum—and linked the Pergamon and the Neues Museums with a subtle and open colonnade. A subsequent decision in 1998, however, reversed the results of the previous competition and gave the commission for the renovation of the Neues Museum to the British architect David Chipperfield whose prize-winning competition entry of 1994, in contrast to that of Grassi, makes direct “connection links” between the museums. Both Grassi and Chipperfield’s competition entries for the renovation of the Neues Museum were published in Bundesbaudirektion ed., Museumsinsel Berlin: Wettbewerb zum Neuen Museum (Stuttgart, Avedition, 1994); see also “Museumsinsel,” l’Architecture d’aujourd’hui 297 (February 1995): 80-83; about the later decision to give the commision for the renovation of the Neues Museum to Chipperfield see Bernhard Schulz, “Museumsinsel Berlin: Entscheidung für Chipperfield,” Baumeister 95, no.1 (January 1995): 13. 24

the individual museums into a single destination for “bus tourism,” as well as “more sophisticated” individual visitors, with the motto “archaeological promenade.”26

The most significant part of this “archaeological promenade” consists of the Pergamon Museum, which will be reorganized and expanded according to a design by the German architect Oswald Mathias Ungers. Arguably returning to the “original intentions” of Alfred Messel, Ungers proposes to add a Western Wing to the museum in order to display the Egyptian monuments brought to West Berlin after World War II. When completed, the Pergamon Museum will present its visitors with an experience of two thousand years of world history from Ancient Egypt to the Islamic Middle Ages.27 A new central entrance and visitors’ center by Chipperfield that connects the Neues and Pergamon Museums will make Berlin’s Museum Island no less glorious a center of mass-tourism than I.M. Pei’s “pyramid of the Louvre” in Paris.

On the other hand, by granting a central role to the Pergamon Museum in Berlin’s new “archaeological promenade,” the Berlin State Museums and the Prussian Heritage Foundation have brushed aside the recurrent demands for “repatriation” that have sought

26

The consortium for the Master Plan of the Museum Island consists of David Chipperfield Architects, Heinz Tesar, Hilmer & Sattler and Oswald Mathias Ungers. See Heinz Tesar, Wege zum Masterplan: Museumsinsel Berlin 1998-2000 (Berlin: G & H, 2000). 27

Bernhard Schulz “Plötzlich ist das Glasdach nicht mehr nötig: die Architektenwettbewerb für den Umbau des Pergamonmuseums ist entschieden,” Der Tagespiegel, 26 May 2000; “Umbau und Erweiterung des Pergamonmuseums, Berlin,” Bauwelt 91, no. 22 (9 June 2000): 10; Nikolaus Bernau, “Zurück zur Grundfrage!: Das Pergamonmuseum wird von O. M. Ungers saniert und umgebaut,” Deutsche Bauzeitung 134, no.7 (July 2000): 22. 25

to restitute these “monuments” to the countries of “origin.” In one case the campaign initiated in the early 1990’s by the city of Bergama in Western Turkey for the restitution of the Pergamene Altar has caused a remarkable controversy.

In a short book Sefa Tas- kIn, the Social Democrat mayor of Bergama in the 1990’s voices the claims of the town’s inhabitants against the museum of a distant European city.28 As the title of the book, Zeus in Exile, suggests, the people of Bergama feel that they were robbed of their cultural heritage, or more specifically, the major cultural monument of their town is in “exile” in Berlin. Having argued that “their culture is the accumulation of all previous cultures, which flourished in Bergama in the past,” the modern inhabitants of the town demand the return of the “Zeus Altar,”29 which had been displaced from Bergama during the German archaeological excavations of 1878-79.

On the cover of Tas- kIn’s book a Zeus figure dressed in ancient Greek attire is depicted as he breaks his chains and as he steps towards his long lost “home.” This image, which represents the ancient Greek God as the “prisoner” of a German museum, is perhaps the

28

Sefa Taskın, Sürgündeki Zeus: Bergama’dan Berlin’e, Berlin’den Bergama’ya [Zeus in Exile: From Bergama to Berlin, from Berlin to Bergama] Bergama Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları no. 4 (Izmir: Altindag Matbaacılık, 1991). I have written elsewhere on the significance of the “repatriation” campaign, “Zeus in Exile: Archaeological Reconstitution as Politics of Memory,” Working Paper Series no.14 (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, 2000). 29

The 19th century interpreters maintained that the Great Altar was dedicated to Zeus. Though Zeus was probably among the honorees of the Hellenistic monument, we cannot establish this claim today with certainty. The Turkish public knows the monument with the name given to it by the 19th century German archaeologists, although the monument is exhibited as the “Great Altar of Pergamon” in the Berlin State Museum. 26

most powerful allegory of a repatriation case. A century after the German archaeologists started excavations in their town, the people of Bergama selectively identified a historical heritage for themselves. Curiously the heritage of the city of Bergama does not depend on the presence, but on the conspicuous absence of an ancient monument, which had once been in Bergama, yet which is exhibited in Berlin today.

The 1991 campaign for the repatriation of the “Zeus Altar” quickly gained popular support on a national scale: according to one account sixteen million signatures were collected to ask for the return of the monument from Germany. In 1991 alone, more than one hundred articles appeared in the Turkish daily press—ranging in tone from mourning for the stolen altar to accusations that Mayor Tas- kIn was “crazy” in thinking that “the Germans” might give the altar back at all.30 Tas- kIn, however, seems less pragmatic than many of his critics in Turkey. In Zeus in Exile, he is interested in raising the ethical dimensions of the case. He underlines—correctly—that those who displaced Bergama’s heritage for the sake of “preserving” it were indeed in search of cultural roots for their emerging 19th century empire. He adds, “Today, they try to conceal the inhuman dimensions of the [19th century project of] sharing the world.”31 Another claim of repatriation had come from the Directorate of the Antiquities of Iraq, shortly before the National Museum in Baghdad was pillaged in 2003—as the international community and the invading forces stood by. Having argued that the Ishtar Gate of Babylon and the accompanying tower had been improperly “displaced” from the

30

The Turkish daily Milliyet reported that the petition for the “repatriation” of the altar was endorsed by three million people, “Zeus Için Üç Millyon Imza,” 13 May 1992; see “Zeus Imza Rekoru Kırıyor,” Tercüman, 13 May 1992. A local newspaper from Izmir reported ten months later that the number of petitioners reached sixteen million, “Zeus Sunaginin Geri Alınması Için Onaltı Milyon Imza Toplandı,” Yeni Asır, 25 March 1993; see also Hacer Özmakas and Yavuz Özmakas, Bergama Kaynakçası (Bergama Bibliography) (Bergama Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları No.12, Izmir: Özgen Ofset, 1993). 31

Tas- kIn, Sürgündeki Zeus, 51. 27

extinct city by the German archaeologists, the Iraqi directorate demanded the monument’s restitution.32

The citizens of Bergama, just like the directorate of Iraqi antiquities before the occupation, grasp that a major violence was done to their heritage by the Berlin State Museum, without however being able to identify in what way this violence was done, making a somehow vague claim that architecture had been stolen just like a piece of sculpture or painting.

Faced with the demands of repatriation, the Berlin Museum, on the other hand, has assumed a defensive attitude, which invests in maintaining the myth of the “monument’s” absolute authenticity. A number of books published by the Museum in the 1990’s celebrate the archaeologists of the Wilhelmine age as the pioneers of modern science. “Looking behind the historical scenes” these publications often assert in between the lines that all the original elements of the altar which are on display today have a secure legal status.33 Immersed in the political and legal aspects of these disputes,

32

Ewen MacAskill, “Iraq appeals to Berlin for Return of Babylon Gate,” The Guardian, May 4 2002. As I will show in Part 3 on the German reconstruction of Babylon, MacAskill’s interpretation that “an Entire tower, the Ishtar Gate, was lifted and taken to a museum in Berlin, where it remains today” is not accurate. 33

The guide to the Pergamon Museum by Olaf Matthes illustrates this kind of uncritical literature. Explaining to the visitors why all the monuments of the Pergamon Museum were taken from the territories of the Ottoman Empire, but not from Greece, another country rich in antiquities, Matthes writes that “neither the Turkish authorities nor its people had a historical consciousness of their Greek and Roman past” in the 1870’s: “...Turkish authorities and the tourists above all may regret that only the grid foundations are left at Pergamon itself. What, however, would have been the fate of the great altar and the friezes if the excavators had not rescued them from the hands of the lime 28

the critics and defendants of the Pergamon Museum do not seem to have reflected on a basic question: what are these “monuments” that the local administrations seek to “repatriate”; what are these objects that the museum refuses to “give back”?

Tas- kIn, in his repatriation campaign, seeks to remedy the symbolic violence the Berlin Museum inflicted on Bergama by returning the original work of architecture to its authentic “place.” I intend to show, on the other hand, that both the aura of the “original” and the authenticity of the lost “place”—a variant of the museum notion of context—are the fabrications of the museum in the first place. True, there were a number of fragments of a Hellenistic relief built into a Byzantine wall in Bergama’s citadel in 1878. The fascinating success of the Berlin Museum is not in restoring an original architectural monument “as it really was,” but in creating an audience that is disposed to appreciate the original, while yearning for the lost context. The archaeologist who laments the displacement of the “monuments” into the museum, which “spared” the masterpiece from a “certain destruction” and imprisoned it in the gallery—no match to “the Mediterranean skies”—is not only disingenuous, but also, knowingly or unknowingly, justifies the German cultural hegemony as a painful and yet necessary exercise. The politician of Bergama who feels victimized by German cultural imperialism, nevertheless remains faithful to the German cult of authenticity. A history of the Pergamene reconstruction in Berlin shows, however, that the “monument” has no

burners? It may indeed be doubted that the Gigantomachia would still exist as it does today if Humann, in his time, had not so energetically opposed the current practice of destroying antique marbles in Turkey.” The Pergamon Museum (Berlin: Berlin Edition, 1998),15-16. 29

“home” to go back to, and not because, as the museum argues, it was legally “acquired.” Even though the condition of architecture-in-the-museum is one of permanent ‘exile’, there is no ‘home’ to which the “monument” could return.

30

1.4. On the Historical Method

A number of histories have departed from the characteristically obsequious chronicles of German archaeology to put into question the political and ideological aspects of archaeology and museum displays during the Kaiserreich. To cite only a few examples: Silke Wenk’s short biography of Theodor Wiegand presents the archaeologist less as an infallible pioneer of the new discipline than an impresario of reactionary official culture and a master of political intrigue, focusing on the ease with which Wiegand served the authoritarian regimes.34 Published immediately before the German reunification, Thomas Gaehtgen’s history of Berlin’s Museum Island underscores the connections between the history of the collections and the Kunst- and Kulturpolitik of the Wilhelmine Empire.35 An article by Nikolaus and Nadine Riedl explores the relation between the Pergamon Museum and the official architecture of Germany, and concludes—interestingly, though perhaps hastily—that the presentation of ancient architecture in the museum helped re-classicize the German official architecture: the authors find the echoes of Messel’s museum in the work of two generations of “conservative-modern” architects from Peter Behrens to Albert Speer.36

34

Silke Wenk, Auf den spuren der Antike: Theodor Wiegand, ein deutscher Archäologe (Bendorf: Stadtverwaltung Bendorf / Rhein, 1985). 35

Thomas W. Gaehtgens, Die Berliner Museumsinsel im Deutschen Kaiserreich: Zur Kulturpolitk der Museen in der wilhelminischen Epoche (Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1987). See also Gaehtgens, "The Museum Island in Berlin," in Gwendolyn Wright ed., The Formation of National Collections of Art and Archaeology (Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1996), 53-77. 36

Nikolaus Bernau and Nadine Riedl, "Für Kaiser und Reich: Die Antikenabteilung im Pergamonmuseum," in Alexis Joahimides et al. eds., Museumsinszenierungen: Zur 31

Suzanne L. Marchand’s monumental history, Down From Olympus, offers not only a survey of German philhellenism and archaeology from the 18th to the 20th centuries—a history of ideas, institutions and discourses—but also sheds light on relatively little known aspects of the German engagement in the Near East prior to World War I. Though Marchand does not intend a history of the Berlin Museums, much less an architectural analysis, she offers a foundation upon which such analyses could be based: first by showing how the gradual decline of the German philhellenic humanism was paralleled, on the one hand, by the rise of cultural relativism—the German particularism stemmed from a form of cultural relativism—and, on the other hand, by the undeclared colonial ambitions of the Wilhelmine Empire.37 She convincingly argues that the Prussian pioneers of the grand-scale excavations were not merely in the service of a “disinterested” science, but provided the infrastructure for a subsequently aborted effort to colonize the Levant.

In the light of Marchand’s history, I study on the following pages the celebrated “monuments” of the Pergamon Museum—all of which originated from the territories of an ailing Ottoman Empire—as the glorious symbols of a future colonial empire that never fully materialized. I hope my contribution to this debate will consist in

Geschichte der Institution des Kunstmuseums. Die Berliner Museumslandschaft 18301990 (Dresden and Basel: Verlag der Kunst, 1995), 171-189. 37

Suzanne L. Marchand, Down from Olympus: Archaeology and Philhellenism in Germany, 1750-1970 (Princeton N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1996) (hereafter cited as Down From Olympus). 32

establishing the Pergamon Museum not only as a cultural product of the colonial daydreams of the Wilhelmine Reich, but also as the most significant manifestation of a recurrent problem in history, as Western empires sought to represent their own hegemony by appropriating the “monuments” of others—either in a historic or geographic sense.

By focusing on the philosophical and technical aspects of Pergamon’s museum displays—i.e. by asking questions such as where does the original monument start, where does its modern frame end; that is by posing the problem of architecture in architecture—I do not mean to overlook the political and ideological dimensions that have been explored by Marchand, Wenk, Gaehtgens and others. Nor do I intend to underplay the serious political ramifications of my challenging of the myth of the monument’s absolute authenticity. Quite on the contrary, I intend to show that the museum restitution of an architectural object—whether it seeks to recover the original experience of the ancients who had built it, or the ideal conditions of viewing a work of art by re-contextualizing it in the museum—is an intrinsically ideological exercise.

In Part 2, “The Architecture of an Imperial Museum in Berlin: Art and Kultur,” I begin by exploring the vocation of the art museum in Berlin from Schinkel’s day in the 1820’s, when the institution served the bourgeois ideal of humanistic Bildung, to an increasingly étatist representation of world-history in the 1850’s, and finally to its servitude to the Kulturpolitik of an expansionist Kaiserreich. Focusing on Alfred Messel and Wilhelm von Bode’s project of the Royal Museum of 1907—today’s Pergamon Museum—I

33

investigate how the fin de siècle narratives of art and culture were translated into an actual architecture: the ordering of the collections of artistic and cultural objects on the museum’s plans. Hence the Royal Museum became a microcosm where the world’s cultures were mapped. I argue that what are commonly seen as antique “monuments” today were initially conceived as the interior furnishings of “style-rooms”: Bode’s aim was to remedy the displacement of art in the museum by constructing in the gallery a semblance of the architectural context for which the works of art—sculpture and painting—had been originally intended. Had this plan been carried out, the museum would have consisted of a series of Hellenistic, Gothic, and Baroque rooms, each presenting a dichotomy of works of art and architectural contexts.

In Part 3, “The Altar and Its Frames: Reconstructing Pergamon,” I study the historical process between 1907 and 1930 through which Messel and Bode’s “style rooms” were transformed into the “monuments” of antiquity, just as the museum was redefined as a “museum of ancient architecture.” I am particularly interested in underlining the paradox of this process, which both reproduced and authenticated the “monuments”: architectureinside-architecture became both an autonomous work of art, an object of pure contemplation, and a sublime interior, which is designed to awe and entertain the masses.

In pursuing the history of archaeological reconstructions in the museum, I have not found it always necessary to assume a single authorial voice: the reader will find intertextual “readings” of historical documents, as well as descriptions of the museum’s

34

objects in the present. This duality is perhaps most apparent in my discussion of the Pergamon Room (Pergamonsaal), which starts with a lengthy description of the “experience” of the interior from the position of an impersonal third person singular. In doing so my aim is not to go back to Kant’s “judgment” by an “impersonal mind,” nor to take for granted Wilhelm Dilthey’s psychological / intuitive “experience” (Erlebnis).38 Having revealed the “reality effects” of the Pergamon Room from the position of an imaginary observer (who replaces me as the author), the chapter goes on to provide an analysis of the art historical and aesthetic discourse concerning the modern presentation of antique sculpture in the museum.

An overarching concept in this dissertation is a critique of organicism in 20th century German architecture and intellectual culture. This critique comes to the foreground in Part 4, “Architectural Reproduction: Reconstructing Babylon,” which is dedicated to the curious reproduction / fabrication of Babylonian antiquities in the South Wing of the Pergamon Museum. Starting from Walter Andrae’s “production” of the Lion of Babylon—as the Babylonians would have produced it—I investigate the theories of the symbol in Andrae’s writing of the “origins” of art and architecture. I attempt to show how the late 19th century idea of “Gesamtkunstwerk”—the community of the arts—was transformed, by 1930, into a full-fledged esoteric tradition that sought to recover the “organic” architecture that transcends human reason, influencing the writings and

38

For Wilhelm Dilthey’s neologism “experience” (Erlebnis) defined in contradistinction to experience as knowledge (Erfahrung) see Das Erlebnis und die Dichtung: Lessing, Goethe, Novelis, Hölderlin (Leipzig: Verlag B. G. Teubner, 1916). 35

museum practices by the protagonists who sought to reverse man’s “alienation” from the “original language.”

***

From a methodological point of view, I undertake in this dissertation two distinct projects. On the one hand, I intend to write history as a means of demystification by exposing the ideological underpinnings of the process through which the museum’s object has become a self-enclosed and aesthetically autonomous “work of art.” I argue that, even though initially hypothetical, the reconstituted “monuments” gained autonomy from the discursive field in which they had found their form, and through the assumption of aesthetic distance and modern spectatorship, have come to replace the lost antique originals instead of representing them: full-scale models of the Altar of Pergamon, the Ishtar Gate of Babylon, the Market Gate of Miletus came to be seen as antique originals themselves.

On the other hand, informed by hermeneutic theory, I argue that, although not antique originals, the architectural objects in the museum are elevated into the category of the “work of art.” And this is not so much because they embody an “essence,” an “origin,” a timeless interior, but since throughout its afterlife in the museum the object gained autonomy from both the intentions of the builders and the ideology of the restorers and became a work that reflects as much modern “taste” as the antique one.

36

In focusing on an object, the Pergamon Museum, that has been excluded from developmental histories of modern art and architecture, I am nevertheless interested in establishing the museum’s radical modernity: its embeddedness in the modern German intellectual, socio-cultural history and the phenomenon of mass culture. I am particularly interested in knowing, in other words, why these “monuments” of Hellenistic Greece and Babylon could not have found their specific form anywhere other than Germany and at the turn of the last century: why the specific intersections between the objects and discourses could not have happened anywhere else.

To underline the contingency of the objects and occurrences, however, does not necessarily mean to adhere to a neo-historicist position: it is not to ask whether these occurrences are paradigmatic or symptomatic of a historic trajectory. Instead, following the example of Eric Michaud, I seek to call into question metaphors in the architectural and aesthetic discourse many of which have been recurrent in different forms since the 18th century.39 By the same token, many of these problems have maintained their actuality. To sum up, while I interrogate in this dissertation a particular museum in Berlin, I raise issues that find particular resonance today: the problems of authenticity, reproducibility and autonomy of architecture as an object of art.

39

I am grateful to Benjamin Buchloh for recommending Eric Michaud’s compelling study of art under National Socialism, Un Art de l’Eternité: l’image et le temps du national-socialisme (Paris: Gallimard, 1996).

37

Part 2 _______________________________________________________________________ The Architecture of an Imperial Museum in Berlin: Art and Kultur

38

2. 1. Alfred Messel’s Project for the Royal Prussian Museum, c. 1907

The liberal reforms after the Napoleonic wars created, in the European capitals, symbolic centers where the values of the emerging bourgeoisie and a new civic order, were celebrated. Nowhere did the idea of representing in architecture a new civic order seem initially more promising, and yet suffer a more tragic defeat than in Berlin’s Museum Island.1 Formerly known as the Spree Island, this narrow peninsula between the banks of the Spree and the Kupfergraben rivers witnessed for nearly a century the reformers’ aspiration to build an ideal community of artists and philosophers in the midst of the Prussian garrison town, whose historical archetype they found in the Greek polis. Karl Friedrich Schinkel (1781-1841) conceived Berlin’s first museum on the southern end of the Spree Island in 1822: a Neo-Greek temple, its row of Ionic columns facing the Royal Palace across the Lustgarten.2 The museum promised to transform Berlin into an “Athens-on-the-Spree,” which symbolized not so much the might of the Prussian state, as its commitment to educate the public in the paradigms of civic virtue and high morality.

1

One could perhaps compare the “Gesamtkunstwerk” of Berlin’s Museum Island—its symbolic and civic program—to Vienna’s Ringstrasse, although the latter was constructed only after the 1840’s. For an analysis of the the Viennese museum district see Carl Schorske, “Museum in Contested Space: the Sword, the Scepter, and the Ring,” in Thinking with History (Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998), 105-124.

2

Approved by the Prussian monarch Frederich Wilhelm III, Schinkel’s museum (today’s Altes or “Old” Museum) was opened to the public in 1830. 39

The political reaction that prevailed in the following decades transformed the Museum Island instead into a mirror of the pedantic taxonomies and cultural politics of the Prussian state. As the holdings of the Royal Museum expanded to encompass the works of a variety of civilizations, ancient and modern, a number of museums were built on the Spree Island, each of which housed different collections of art. The way the collections were classified, ordered and displayed in the museum revealed two competing paradigms throughout the 19th century: while a broad coalition of classical philologists, art historians and advocates of public education continued to privilege Greek sculpture and Renaissance painting as paradigmatic of timeless virtue and morality, and therefore essential for German education, 19th century historicism conceived of the history of civilization as a linear trajectory driven by continuous progress. The very idea that collections of art should be organized historically, and not based on a timeless aesthetic hierarchy, posed a challenge to the Neoclassical, humanist tradition.

After the political unification of Germany in 1871, the architectural program of the Royal Museum in Berlin was no longer seen as analogous to the history of the mind. Nor did the architecture of the museum—that is, both the style of the building and the program through which the collections of art were organized inside—remain a potent symbol of a civic or historical order. Instead, the fin de siècle museum in Berlin was housed in an eclectic, Neo-baroque palace (i.e. the Kaiser Friedrich Museum, today’s Bode Museum). The arbitrary citations of architectural styles on the museum’s facades, coupled with a chronological presentation of the period-styles in its interiors, reinforced the disjunction between the container and the contents of the museum. Hence the late

40

19th century museum presented a contradiction: while historicism led to the conviction that the art of each epoch presents a historical style that is retrospectively discernible in the installation of the collection in the interior—the “style rooms”—the eclecticism of the facades made clear there was no longer a ruling style in the present.3

It is in response to the precarious terrain of the Prussian museums, caught between the crises of German classical humanism and of 19th century historicism, that the last project for the extension of the Prussian Royal Museum took shape. Conceived by two prominent figures of Wilhelmine Germany, the architect Alfred Messel (1853-1909)4 and the art historian Wilhelm von Bode (1845-1929),5 the project of the new Royal

3

I find it useful to differentiate between historicism and eclecticism, which are often used interchangeably in architectural discourse to refer to the citation of historical styles in contemporary architecture. Here, I use historicism to refer to the 19th century doctrine that all phenomena, including art and architecture are determined by the trajectory of history: an interpretive model that translates the Hegelian historical determinism into art and architecture. Eclecticism, on the other hand, as Alan Colquhoun notes, originally refers to the belief that the historical styles are “emblems of the ideas associated with the cultures that produced them.” I seek to show on the following pages how the association between style and culture had become arbitrary by the end of the 19th century. Hence my use of eclectic, in reference to the fin-de-siècle museum simply means the use of styles as arbitrary signs. See Colquhoun “Three Kinds of Historicism,” in Modernity and the Classical Tradition, 3-19. 4

Alfred Messel, architect, best known for his design of the Wertheim Department Store of 1904 in Berlin. Though Messel was presented in histories of modern architecture as a pioneer of the Modern Movement avant la lettre —i.e. Barbara Miller, Architecture and Politics in Germany 1918-1945 (Cambridge Ma.: Harvard University Press, 1968)—Walter Curt Behrendt’s 1911 biography remains the most comprehensive source up until today. See also Alfred Messel 2 vols. (Berlin: E. Wasmuth, 1905-11). For an analysis of Messel’s concept of interior space see Julius Posener. Berlin auf dem Wege zu einer Neuen Architektur (Munich: Prestel, 1979), esp. 454-58. 5

Wilhelm von Bode, art historian and museum curator, became Assistant Director of Altes Museum in 1872, director of Department of Christian Sculpture in 1883, and director of Berlin’s Painting Gallery in 1890. Bode was appointed the General Director 41

Museum attempted to combine the distinct buildings and collections of the Spree Island into a single museum complex, while at the same time projecting a unified architectural image to the new German capital.

Seeking to interpret Messel’s project of 1907—today’s Pergamon Museum—I shall explore in the following pages the connections, if any, between the representations of the emerging German Empire and the architectural language and program of the museum. That the Kaiserreich commissioned a monumental museum in its capital to display works it had acquired from its interests overseas—thanks to state sponsored archaeological excavations, ethnological expeditions and museum purchases—presents a particularly difficult problem for the historians of modern Germany. It has been suggested that the Museum Island is “the particular result of Prussian and German Kunst- and Kulturpolitik,” just as the recent research has shown that the Pergamon Museum was fueled by Wilhelmine Germany’s Weltpolitik, more specifically by its colonial ambitions in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, the territories of the Ottoman Empire.6 And yet it is also established that the colonial ambitions of the German Reich in the late 19th century, unlike that of other European empires, was

of the Prussian Royal (later State) Museums in 1906 and held this position until 1920. Bode, whose ideas influenced museum displays in Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States, remains to this day one of the most studied museum curators. For Bode’s role in shaping the Kultur- and Kunstpolitik of the Kaiserreich see Gaethgens Die Berliner Museumsinsel, 11-65; for recent interpretations of Bode’s museum displays in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum see the special issue of Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen, 38 (1996). For a detailed biography see Manfred Ohlsen, Wilhelm von Bode, Zwischen Kaisermacht und Kunsttempel, Biographie (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1995) hereafter cited as Wilhelm von Bode. 6

See Gaethgens, Die Berliner Museumsinsel; Marchand, Down From Olympus. 42

not—could not be legitimized with a discourse of normative, universal civilization.7 There was neither an equivalent of a self-righteous “mission civilisatrice,” nor a selfcongratulatory “white man’s burden” in the German Reich prior to the Great War. Hence Bode and Messel’s project seems to present an impasse: even though an imperial museum typically entails a representation of the history of the universal civilization—in contrast to the more modest bürgerlich values of the 19th century German museum—its patrons tended to see the Kaiserreich more as an embodiment of a peculiar Kultur than the effectuator of the universal Zivilisation.

Hence the questions emerge of what was the vocation of an imperial museum in Berlin; how did the architecture of the museum represent the totality of human experience in art, history and culture? How did Messel and Bode translate the narratives of history and anthropology into the actual organization of things in architectural space, and for which political ends? Exploring the decline of the German humanistic Bildung (education of the urban middle classes), on the one hand, and the crisis of historicism around the 1890’s on the other, I shall attempt to understand how the colonial ambitions of the Wilhelmine Empire were reconciled in the museum with the peculiarism of the German Kultur.

***

7

About “Kultur” and Germany’s manifest destiny see Stern, The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963), esp. 150-52 (hereafter cited as Cultural Despair). See also Louis Dumont, German Ideology: From France to Germany and Back (Chicago: University of Chicago Presss, 1994). 43

Appointed the General Director of the Prussian Royal Museum in 1906, Bode designed the museum’s program, rallied political support and secured funding. According to the guidelines Bode presented to the Prussian Parliament in February 1907, the new complex consisted of three distinct museums: an extension for the Antiquity Museum, the “Near Eastern (Vorderasiatisches) Art Museum” and, finally, the “Ancient German Art Museum.”8

To draw the distinction between “Antique” and “Near Eastern” departments inevitably required a number of assumptions on the part of a new generation of museum administrators, in the absence of clear geographic or historical boundaries. For instance, the Near East would come to include the Hittites, a civilization newly discovered by the German archaeologists operating in central Turkey. The Hellenistic and Roman works from Turkey and Syria were, however, “Antique.” The boundary between Antique and Near Eastern “art” was, perhaps, self evident in the sense that it stemmed from a division, which goes back to the 18th century in the classical and Oriental philology in German academia,. While classical philologists studied Greece and Rome, the German Orientalistik explored the origins of the Indo-European languages and religions.

8

For Bode’s vision about the extension of the Royal Museum see Bode, “Denkschrift Erweiterungs- und Neubauten bei den königlichen Museen in Berlin” February 1907, reprinted in Bode Mein Leben, Bd. 2 (Berlin: Verlag Hermann Reckendorf, 1930), 239248; see also Bode, “Alfred Messels Pläne für die Neubauten der Königlichen Museen,” in Jahrbuch der Königlich Preußischen Kunstsammlungen 31, Berlin (1910): 59-63, reprinted in Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte München ed., Berlins Museen: Geschichte und Zukunft (Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1994), 244-46. See also Bode, Mein Leben, Bd. 2, 182 –92. 44

“Semitic” languages, Assyriology and Biblical archaeology were also considered in the domain of the Orientalistik. After 1898, the newly founded German Orient Society (Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft—DOG) explored the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia, while the German Archaeology Institute (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut—DAI) focused on the Hellenistic and Roman periods in the Eastern Mediterranean.9 Although the Near Eastern Museum responded to a practical necessity of displaying the Mesopotamian finds—several decades after the Assyrian exhibits in London and Paris—it was, nevertheless, significant within the German context: by allocating the Mesopotamian finds to a “Museum of Near Eastern Art” Bode departed decisively from the philological roots of the German Orientalistik: Mesopotamia offers not solely a repository of archaic texts of interest to the students of the Old Testament, but also “works of art.”

The “Museum of Ancient German Art,” on the other hand, was a radical departure from the 19th century conception that allocated the material culture of the Germanic peoples either to ethnology (Völkerkunde) or the local heritage museums. Initially, Bode conceived this museum as an extension of German and Dutch art collections from the medieval, renaissance and the baroque ages in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum—today’s

9

For a history of the German discipline of Orientalistik and its distinction from German philhellenic humanism see Marchand, Down From Olympus, esp. ch. 5 and 6; see also Marchand, “The Rhetoric of Artifacts and the Decline of Classical Humanism: The Case of Josef Strzygowski,” in Anthony Grafton and Suzanne L. Marchand eds., “Proof and Persuasion in History,” History and Theory 33 (1994): 107-130. For a history of the excavations of the German-Orient Society (DOG) see Gernot Wilhelm ed., Zwischen Tigris und Nil: 100 Jahre Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in Vorderasien und Ägypten (Mainz am Rhein, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1998). 45

Bode museum—which opened to the public two years earlier on the north end of the Museum Island. Yet, in addition to the art of the German speaking peoples of the Christian era, Bode also included in the museum “the art of the Germans from the stone age to the migration of peoples.”10 The annexation of what Bode called “the primitive art of the Germanic tribes” had portentous implications in its emphasis on the mythic common roots of the “Germans” (including all the Nordic races) before they figured in the Roman histories. One potential result of such a museum—as I shall touch upon later—was a polemical appropriation of the Dutch and Flemish masters. Furthermore, seeking to combine works of art with pre-historic or vernacular artifacts, Bode deliberately fused the contents of the traditional art museum with those of the more recent prehistory, ethnology (Völkerkunde) and applied arts (Kunstgewerbe) museums. Ranging from the “art” of the hunter and gatherer ancestors to the paintings of Rembrandt, the Museum of Ancient German Art conveniently captured the nationalist fervor of Germany under Wilhelm II. It seems, though, more as a result of Bode’s personal interests and convictions that the museum would focus on the art of the Renaissance and the Baroque periods in Germany and the Netherlands. Bode apparently did not think of modern art as much of an achievement for the “Germans” at the turn of the century: apart from a few 18th century works that glorified the ruling dynasty in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum no modern art was included in the new complex.

***

10

Bode, “Alfred Messels Pläne,” 246. 46

Just as Bode’s inclusion of cultures outside the canon of Western art history involved some political risks, so did his choice of architect to carry out this program. Messel had limited experience in official commissions: with the exception of a recent design for the museum in his native Darmstadt, he was known primarily for his private and commercial projects commissioned by an emerging class of nouveau-riche, German entrepreneurs and businessmen. Furthermore, his innovative design for the Wertheim Department store in Berlin, for which he is renowned today, had earned him the suspicion of Kaiser Wilhelm II. The Kaiser, a self-assured conservative who fancied himself as the patron of the arts and an amateur archaeologist, suspected Messel to be “hyper-modern,” and therefore unfit for the royal commission.11 Bode’s insistence in appointing Messel as the architect of the Royal Museum may suggest that as early as 1906 the museum curator favored a stylistic departure within the “official architecture” of imperial Germany: a type of eclecticism with a mix of Nordic vernacular, Renaissance and Baroque elements executed in monumental scale.12 It is more likely, however, that Bode was more impressed with Messel’s skills as an interior decorator than his potential as a revolutionary architect. He admired the house Messel had designed for Eduard Simon in Berlin, particularly Messel’s ability to connect the architectural style of a high-bourgeois interior with the objects of a private art collection. Bode must also have been well aware of the Grossherzogliches Museum in Darmstadt, where the architect successfully

11

Bode, Mein Leben, 2: 182–92; see also Volker Viergutz, “Berliner Museumskrieg: ein unveröfentlichtes Kapitel der Lebenserinnerungen Ludwig Hoffmanns” in Jürgen Wetzel ed. Berlin Geschichte und Gegenwart: Jahrbuch des Landesarchivs Berlin (Berlin: Landesarchiv, 1993), 85 (hereafter cited as “Berliner Museumskrieg”). 12

Cf. Bernau and Riedl, "Für Kaiser und Reich,” 171-89. 47

accommodated a difficult program (to exhibit objects as varied as paintings, sculpture, historical weapons and natural history collections). Messel designed a “clustered building” [“gruppirtes Gebäude”] in Darmstadt, which was shaped by the specific needs of each collection in lieu of imposing a rigid architectural form from outside.13

In addition to a difficult architectural program, Messel faced in Berlin a complex urban setting. The existing museums of the Spree Island—Schinkel’s Altes Museum, Stüler’s Neues Museum (compl. 1855), Johann Heinrich Strack’s National Gallery (1876), and the recently completed Kaiser Friedrich Museum (1904) by Ernst von Ihne—had been built, though not haphazardly, with conflicting urban plans.14 It suffices to contrast Stüler’s plans for the Spree Island with the project by August Orth, the chief architect of

13

In his analysis of Messel’s Darmstadt museum James J. Sheehan writes: “The key to the building’s interior design, therefore, is in its relationship to the various sorts of objects it was meant to contain: painting, sculpture, antiquities, weapons and other historical objects, and a natural history collection as well. To meet the different requirements of these exhibits Messel designed a ‘clustered building,’ with spaces appropriate for various sorts of displays.” Museums in the German Art World: From the End of the Old Regime to the Rise of Modernism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 174 (hereafter cited as Museums in the German Art World); see also Das Darmstädter Landesmuseum von Alfred Messel: Skizzen, Entwürfe, Fotografien, 18911906, exhibition catalog (Darnstadt: Hessisches Landesmuseum, 1986). 14

For the history of the buildings of the Museum Island see Wilhelm von Waetzoldt, “Die Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin 1830-1930,” Jahrbuch der Preuszischen Kunstsammlungen 51 (1930): 25-204. Stephan Waetzoldt, “Bauten der Museumsinsel” in Wilmuth Arenhövel ed., Berlin und die Antike, exhibition catalog (Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 1979), 361-74; Renate Petras, Die Bauten der Berliner Museumsinsel (Berlin: Verlag für Bauwesen, 1987); Stephan Waetzoldt, “Pläne und Wettbewerbe für Bauten auf der Berliner Museumsinsel 1873 bis 1896,” Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 35, Beiheft (1993): 7-184; Berlins Museen: Geschichte und Zukunft (Munich and Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1994). 48

the City of Berlin in 1875, to understand how radically the late 19th century planning departed from the idea of the Greek acropolis.

Located on a narrow peninsula tightly surrounded by Berlin’s historic Mitte and Neuköln, the Museum Island was not easily accessible from the main arteries of the city.15 Schinkel dedicated the Spree Island behind the museum to the customhouses and storage facilities alongside the Kupfergraben in his masterplan. Yet, the perspective opening onto the Spree to the North, and the wide urban plaza in front of the Royal Palace including Schinkel’s Lustgarten to the South made the Spree Island a highly visible urban site. Stüler took advantage of this relative isolation and visibility to transform the Spree Island into a “sanctuary of arts and sciences.” The overall image Stüler intended to display along the Spree was less a Greek acropolis than a Roman “forum.” Yet, unlike the Roman precedent this urban plaza was not woven into Berlin’s dense urban fabric and, instead, revealed carefully calculated vistas through the gardens, stairways, sculpture, and the neo-Roman temple fronts.16

The 1875 project by Orth, in contrast, redesigned the Museum Island as the center of a bursting metropolis. From 1871 to 1875, Orth designed Berlin’s municipal railway system (S-Bahn). Although the circumstances in which a major train line came to cross the Museum Island through the middle are not exactly clear—it was not included in the

15

Bode mentions the inaccessibility of the Museum Island as one of the major problems of Berlin’s Museum district, “Alfred Messel’s Pläne.” 16

See S. Waetzoldt’s entries in the exhibition catalog, “Bauten der Museumsinsel,” 36466; see also S, Waetzoldt, “Pläne und Wettbewerbe” 7-184. 49

initial commission, but Orth later took full responsibility for it—Orth seems to have seen the S-Bahn as an opportunity to connect the Museum Island with the rest of Berlin. In a sharp departure from the idea of the “sanctuary of the arts,” a retreat from the city, Orth conceived of the Spree Island as a sort of node for public transportation.17 His plan of 1875 also reflected this vision: the entire Museum Island was developed into a gigantic urban block. Orth integrated the detached museums by Schinkel and Stüler, as well as the National Gallery by Stark into a single complex, to such an extent that the space between the museums would be read not so much as a ground but as light-wells. The visitors’ circulation and the mass transit were solved on different levels: the S-Bahn trains, for instance, crossed the Spree and the Kupfergraben with two bridges and entered into a long tunnel inside the Museum Island’s unified urban block. The two facades of the gigantic urban block against the Spree and the Kupfergarben were dressed conveniently in “baroque” attire, which Orth must have borrowed from 17th century Rome.

Orth’s legacy in the Museum Island is not only the—much criticized—S-Bahn that crosses the island from West to East on a long, elevated viaduct, but also a new urban vision: a bustling metropolis in the making. In fact the subsequent projects for the Museum Island prior to 1907 combined in essence Stüler’s idyllic “sanctuary” and Orth’s urban block. For instance, in 1882 the Order of Architects and Engineers of Berlin (Berliner Architekten- und Ingenieur-Verein) organized the “Schinkel

17

S. Waetzoldt “Bauten der Museumsinsel,” 364; Petras, Bauten der Berliner Museumsinsel, 96-98. 50

Competition” for the extension of the Museum Island: the winning project by Ludwig Hoffmann, a close friend of Messel from Darmstadt and the future chief architect of Berlin, is, to my mind, a return to Stüler’s idea, only re-clothed in “late antique” style.

Messel was to participate in a second architectural competition for the extension of the Museum Island, which was organized by the Ministry of Culture in 1883—though without success. The ministry invited German architects to design two new museums—the antiquity and the Renaissance museum—while it left to the participants the decision of designing either a single building or a complex of several. The participants were required to reintegrate the North and South of the Museum Island, which had been divided by the S-Bahn, as well as providing “a dignified monumental character, with a simple [design] that refrains from unnecessary ornamentation.”18 By April 1884, fifty-two projects were submitted, including projects by Messel, Fritz Wolff and Ludwig Hoffmann. Although none of the projects was implemented—Bode later wrote in his memoirs that the competition brought no satisfactory solution—the ideas that emerged from this competition would later lead to Ihne’s Kaiser Friedrich Museum (the Renaissance Museum) and Wolff’s so-called interim Pergamon Museum.19

Messel’s entry in this competition, which he presented with the motto “Hellas and Rome,” sought a synthesis between Stüler’s forum and Orth’s unified urban block. He

18

S. Waetzoldt, “Bauten der Museumsinsel,” 362; Petras, Bauten der Berliner Museumsinsel, 99. 19

Ohlsen, Wilhelm von Bode, 120. 51

designed the Antiquity Museum across a large processional court facing the Kupfergraben, while the Renaissance Museum found its place under a Roman Baroque dome, similar to Orth’s project of 1875. The Antiquity Museum, a large vaulted building, would house a reconstruction of the Great Altar of Pergamon. Differentiating this building from the rest of the complex, Messel created a hermetic interior, which is almost completely closed to the outside. Unlike Orth, Messel did not build the entire museum island into a unified urban block: the detached museums are instead connected to one another through bridges. However, his architecture is unmistakably baroque—I use this term here not so much to refer to Messel’s stylistic preference, as his peculiar treatment of spaces. In Messel’s project we find neither the picturesque transparency (Anschaulichkeit) of Schinkel’s Neo-Greek temple in front of the Lustgarten, nor the idyllic vistas of Stüler’s forum.20 Messel sculpts the void between the solid masses as if the space is a tectonic matter: both the urban court opening to the Kupfergraben and the interior of the Antiquity (Pergamon) Museum seem to be created by carving or emptying out solid shapes.21

20

For an analysis of Schinkel’s “Anschaulichkeit” see Steven Moyano, “Quality vs. History: Schinkel’s Altes Museum and Prussian Arts Policy,” The Art Bulletin volume LXXII number 4 (December 1990): 601. Moyano shows how Schinkel associated “structural clarity with Classical Greek architecture, and, indirectly, with the prestige of Classical education [Bildung].” 21

Julius Posener contrasts Messel’s interior (Lichthof) of the Wertheim (1904) in Berlin with the interiors of 19th century Parisian department stores such as Henri Blondel’s La Belle Jardinière (1863) and Boileau and Gustave Eiffel’s Le Printemps (1876). He concludes that the Parisian department stores are “system-spaces” (Systemräume), where the light well serves the floors around it. Messel’s space on the other hand, is “an independent work of art.” Unlike the French precedent Messel conceived of the “Raum” as an object of “Gestaltung.” If the space of the French department store is “transparent,” that of Wertheim is opaque. Posener, 453-58. 52

Revisiting the problem of the Museum Island nearly three decades later, Messel worked from February to October 1907 on a number of sketches, which entertained the idea of housing the new Antiquity, Near Eastern and German Museums in detached buildings, each of which expresses the distinct “theme” of the collection it houses. It seemed at first impossible, as Messel admitted to Bode, to provide enough room in the Museum Island for the new collections, while connecting the existing buildings into a consistent whole.22 Departing from the idea of detached museums for each collection, Messel designed in July 1907 a gigantic structure that combined all three museums.23 He organized three curatorial departments into a U-shaped complex around a large court, which, as in his competition project of 1884, opened to the Kupfergraben. The Near Eastern, the Antiquity and the German Museums were placed on the South, East and North wings of the complex respectively. A less pronounced, one-storey wing for the Egyptian antiquities extended from the Near Eastern Department to the south, filling the narrow strip of land between the Neues Museum and the Kupfergraben. While Messel placed his complex carefully between the Kaiser Friedrich Museum and the Neues Museum, he proposed to demolish and replace Fritz Wolff’s Pergamon Museum, which was built between 1897 and 1899, and which contained a full reconstruction of the Great Altar.24 Messel’s complex was perhaps the most monumental, if not the most expensive

22

Bode, “Alfred Messels Pläne.” 244.

23

Viergutz, “Berliner Museumskrieg…,” 85.

24

The first Pergamon Museum by Wolff—now called the “interim building” in literature—was demolished only a few years after its completion, in order to open room for Messel’s new museum. See the discussion of Wolff’s museum in Part 3. 53

building in Berlin to that date, not least because it was placed partly on unstable ground that was unfit for any permanent construction: shortly after the foundations were laid in 1909, they started to sink into the river basin, making the construction of the museum a true engineering challenge.

An analysis of Messel’s drawings—now available in lithographs—shows the new Royal Museum as a series of style-rooms, each of them furnished with archaeological fragments, plaster casts and decorative elements.25 Works of art from a given historical period would be displayed together with architectural and decorative elements of that period in order to approximate the effect of the works in their original context. Had the project been carried out according to Messel’s design, a visitor to Berlin’s Museum Island would have experienced art in its distant origins in Egypt and Mesopotamia in the Southern part of the complex. Approaching from the Egyptian galleries, a visitor would have entered the Near Eastern Museum on the South wing where the antiquities of “South Arabia,” “Asia Minor” and “Syria” were exhibited on two floors respectively.

25

Messel completed two stages of the project prior to his untimely death in 1909. The first stage of August 22, 1907 included a site plan, plans of the two main exhibition floors and major sections and elevations, which were published by Bode in 1910, alongside the perspective renderings of the museum both from inside and outside. The second stage of the project of October 30, 1907 illustrates that Messel designed the interiors of the Antiquity and the German Museums in detail, while he left the Near Eastern and Egyptian museums for a later stage. See Alfred Messel, “Projekt für den Ausbau der Museumsinsel,” Berlin August 22, 1907: Plans of the first and second main exhibition floors, reduced in Bogdan Gisevius’s lithographs into 1/1500 scale. A more detailed project of October 30, 1907 consists of a site plan, two main elevations from the Kufergraben and from the Spree in 1/3000 and floor plans in 1/1200 scale. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin Preussischer Kulturbesitz Zentralarchiv, Bauverwaltung der Königlichen Museen, “Baudokumentation,” I/BV 494 (hereafter cited as SMzB PK Zentralarchiv). 54

Even though the Antiquity and the Near Eastern Museums were distinct from curatorial and administrative points of view, Messel seamlessly combined them in the South wing, perhaps to underline the cultural and historical connections between the Ancient Orient and classical Greece. Approaching from the Near Eastern Museum, the visitor would first encounter a reconstruction of the temple of Olympia in a two-storey gallery linked by a staircase inside. Due to a well-enforced antiquities law in 19th century Greece, the Prussian Museum acquired no originals from Olympia, the first excavation site of the German Archaeology Institute. The Olympia room featured instead copies—plaster casts—of architectural and sculptural elements, particularly of the sculptural relief from the pediment. A bridge connected the second floor of the Olympia room directly to the plaster cast collection on the second floor of the Neues Museum.26

The overwhelming majority of the works in the Antiquity Collection originated from the excavations in Western Turkey. In contrast to the Greek regulations, a more permissive antiquities law in the Ottoman Empire in the 1870’s allowed the Prussian Royal Museums to acquire originals from the German excavations of Pergamon: the Gigantomachy frieze from the 2nd century BC became the most celebrated holding of the museum. Even though the Ottoman law was modified in the 1880’s to ban all exports of antiquities, it fell short of restricting the ambitions of the Prussian archaeologists. The German Reich exercised direct political pressure on the Sublime Porte, sidelining the

26

Ibid. 55

Ottoman cultural bureaucracy and the Imperial Museum in Istanbul.27 Hence originals from Priene, Milet and Didyma on Turkey’s Ionian coast continued to reach Berlin.

Messel organized not only the Antiquity Museum but also the entire complex around a gigantic interior, the “Altar-Raum,” where he partially reconstructed the Great Altar of Pergamon from the 2nd century B.C. The Gigantomachy frieze would be displayed partly on the West façade of the altar. Two exhibition rooms containing the architectural fragments from Pergamon, to the North, and from Milet, Priene and Didyma to the South, opened to the main Altar-Raum.28

Having experienced Greek, Hellenistic and Roman monuments in the Antiquity Museum, the visitor would be able to proceed towards the German Museum in the North Wing. The connection between the German and Hellenistic art seems less evident than the link between the Near Eastern and Greek art. Looking at Messel’s plans, we may as well assume that the art of the Roman Empire and of the late Roman antiquity were the missing links between the Hellenistic Asia Minor and Medieval Europe.29

27

For a history of the Ottoman/Turkish Law of Antiquities in the 19th century see I. Günay Paksoy, “BazI Belgeler IsIgInda OsmanlI Devleti’nin Kültür MirasI PolitikasI Üzerine Düsünceler” and Nur Akin, “Osman Hamdi Bey, Âsâr-I Atika Nizamnamesi ve Dönemin Koruma AnlayIsI Üzerine Düsunceler,” in Zeynep Rona ed., Osman Hamdi Bey ve Dönemi Sempozyumu (Istanbul: Tarih VakfI Yurt YayInlarI, 1993). 28

See Messel’s perspectives of the interiors of the museum: “Pergamon Room,” “Gothic Room” and “Baroque Room,” lithographs, SMzB PK Zentralarchiv, I/BV 494. 29

Though Bode included a Byzantine room in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum and founded the Islamic Department of the Royal Museum in 1904, those civilizations were not included on Messel’s plans. Bode commissioned a separate museum for “Asian Art” by the renowned architect Paul Bruno outside the Museum Island, which would encompass 56

On the ground floor, the German Museum featured two church-like interiors, one in Romanesque and the other in Gothic style. Both rooms were to exhibit a variety of objects from medieval altarpieces to drapery and weapons. Messel placed a baroque room with rococo elements on the upper floor of the North Wing, near the bridge where the new museum was linked to the Kaiser Friedrich Museum’s Renaissance and Baroque collections. The “art” of the honorary ancestors of pre-historic times, on the other hand, was assigned to a crypt-like room in the German Museum’s basement.

Judging from the tripartite organization of the complex, Babylonia, Greece and Germany, one could conclude that Messel, like Stüler before him, fulfilled in the architecture of the museum G.W.F. Hegel’s (1770-1831) philosophy of history. It is true that “German art” from the medieval to the baroque ages is added oddly to a narrative of—apparently—universal history, suggesting the migration of the Spirit from one world-historical epoch to another.

A closer look suggests, however, that Bode’s program does not offer a linear history of civilization. The path from the ancient Orient to Greece and from Greece to Germany was only one of the ways the museum could be experienced and it was by no means the major one. Far from following a continuous line, the presentation of the history of art was frequently ruptured, then woven back through unexpected correspondences and

Islamic art in addition to ancient Chinese and Japanese art. It was only after Bruno’s Asian Art Museum was abandoned by the Weimar Republic that the Islamic Department was added to the South Wing of Messel’s project in 1926. 57

contingencies between the exhibited cultures. Even though all the departments were connected with one another, each of the collections could also be experienced as an independent museum, which could be accessed from the city through a separate entrance. The most ceremonial of these entrances was a monumental gateway, which, across the main open court facing the Kupfergraben, led visitors directly to the Pergamene Altar-Raum.

Nor was Messel’s Royal Museum a return to the “Neoclassical ideal,” which abandoned the historicist organization of the collections for a return to a hierarchical ordering of classical masterpieces.30 The prominence Messel gave to the post-classical, “baroque” art of 2nd century BC Asia Minor, in lieu of the classical art of Hellas, is indeed remarkable. The discovery of the Gigantomachy (the Battle of the Olympian gods with Titans) in the 1880’s created a shock in art historical circles. Highly expressive representation of bodies in motion on the Pergamene Frieze—its “pathos”—challenged the Neoclassical interpretations of the art of the antiquity, which had been firmly in place since Winckelmann’s dictum, “noble simplicity and calm grandeur.” Pergamon’s interpreters put into question the superiority of the classical art of Hellas over the Hellenistic art of later antiquity, which had been overlooked or outright dismissed as “decadent” prior to the 1880’s. In contrast to the central location of Pergamon, the classical Greek art of Olympia—the first major excavation site of the German Archeology Institute—occupied a marginal position in the museum plans on the South

30

Cf. Bernau and Riedl who argue that the “Neoclassical forms of the facades” of the Pergamon Museum and the exhibition of antique architecture inside parallel the simultaneous shift within the Wilhelmine official architecture around 1906-1907, 172. 58

wing of the complex: it was positioned not as the culmination of Greek art, but as a stage leading to the later antiquity of Pergamon. Hellas was represented not so much as the culmination of art and civilization, but as one point on a circle of culture, one of the many steps leading to the great synthesis of the East and the West in the Hellenistic Pergamon.

59

2.2. On the Vocation of the Museum: Bildung versus Kultur

The creation of the museum as a temple of knowledge in Revolutionary France convinced the Prussian reformers that the central state had a compelling interest in educating a scattered nation. Unlike the French precedent, however, the Prussian Royal Museum never unambiguously endorsed the universal project of the Enlightenment. This reluctance has as much to do with the rise of nationalist sentiment in Germany before and during the Napoleonic wars as it has with the peculiarity of German Romantic thought. The ideal of Enlightenment, just like the idea of universal civilization, was associated, first, with the genteel manners of the French-speaking elite, and, then, with the foreign invaders. Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803) was the first to idealize the spontaneous and primitive ways of the German peasant. It should therefore not come as a surprise that the German “culture,” defined in contradistinction to French civilization, was a neologism introduced at the end of the 18th century.31 A surge in interest in local traditions and “Germanic Altertüm” and the opening of semi-private “heritage

31

Even though Herder prefigured comparative and ethnological analyses, his notion of “Cultur” refers merely to the achievements or products of the civilization in a given present. The German word “Cultur” curiously languished in the early 19th century. A concept that Herder and Kant used is conspicuously absent from Hegel’s Philosophy of History. For a history of the concept see A.L. Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn, Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions (Milwood, N.Y.: Krauss Reprint Co., 1978). For the German distinction between Kultur and Zivilisation see Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process: The History of Manners (1939), English translation by Edmund Jephcott (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1978). 60

museums” were to follow.32 The Prussian reformers knew well that, though it helped in defeating the French, the German cultural peculiarism could as well pose a challenge to the central authority of the Prussian state. In tailoring the civic function of the Royal Museum, they sought to reconcile the “disinterested,” humanistic principles—identified with the state—with the peculiar character of the German Volk.

The foundation of the Royal Museum in Berlin underscores two assumptions about the nature of art and society, whose origins we may trace to German idealism. First is the conviction that art is “disinterested” and autonomous: it is detached from all the contexts of practical life; secondly, art has a social purpose: exposure to art cultivates among the ordinary citizens (that is middle class men) feelings of aesthetic pleasure and moral restraint. Although this might appear a paradox, it is indeed perfectly consistent with the work of Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805) who sees the social function of art only in its aesthetic autonomy. Noting the shocking destruction brought by the mob during the French Revolution, and the moral decadence and depravity of the “educated” upper classes, Schiller concluded in “On the Aesthetic Education of Man” that the development of civilization destroyed the wholeness of man—the unity of feeling and reason: “We see not merely individual persons but whole classes of human beings

32

See Suzanne L. Marchand, “The quarrel of the ancients and moderns in the German museums” in Susan A. Crane ed., Museums and Memory (Stanford Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2000). 61

developing only part of their capacities, while the rest of them, like a stunted plant, shew only a feeble vestige of their nature.”33 “Eternally chained to only one single little fragment of the whole, Man himself grew to be only a fragment… he never develops the harmony of his being and instead of imprinting humanity upon his nature he becomes merely the imprint of his science.”34 As Peter Bürger noted, Schiller introduced art precisely at this point as a means to develop the totality of human potential. Only art, in its detachment from everyday activities, may restore the wholeness of man, which had been shattered by centuries of overspecialization. Schiller admired the Greeks, not so much because they achieved a timeless civilization, but since he saw them as a historical people who explored the totality of human potential, unlike modern society, which is shattered by the division of labor. It suffices to recall a famous painting of the construction of the Parthenon in Athens by Friedrich Schinkel, to see that German humanistic Philhellenism depended less on the idea of a normative Classical civilization than the idealization of the Greeks as an organic ur-community of philosophers and artists. The museum, from its outset, was less a temple of civilization—in the French Enlightenment meaning of the word—than a cathedral of the ideal community.

33

Friedrich Schiller, On the Aesthetic Education of Man, translated by Reginald Snell (New York: Friedrich Ungar Publishing Co., 1965), 38; also cited in Peter Bürger, Theory of the Avant-Garde, translated by Jochen Schulte-Sasse (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), 44-45. 34

Schiller, 40. 62

Reconsidering the conflict between Alois Hirt and Friedrich Schinkel, which I have discussed in Part 1, and the events that led to Hirt’s resignation in this light, we can see why Hirt’s concept of the museum as an extension of the academy of fine arts was not popular among the ranks of the Prussian reformers: the museum was tailored for an ideal community of non-specialists, in the search for inner harmony and human “wholeness.” Indeed, when Humboldt was appointed in 1829 to supervise the installation of the works of art in the Old Museum, he, just like Schinkel, favored a hierarchical and nonhistorical organization of the works of art. The works, in other words, were not illustrations of historical development but embodied an aesthetic feeling that could be accessible to all. In his report of June 14, 1833, Humboldt saw a link between the aesthetic quality of the masterpieces and the task of national cultivation (Bildung), and argued that only antique sculpture and the masterpieces of European painting had to be included in the museum. For “Classical sculpture and Renaissance painting would affect the entire nation because they were accessible to natural feeling.”35 Classical art was not only to elevate the taste of the ordinary citizen, but also to speak to “natural feeling” and intuition.

Idealistic as it was, this spontaneous link between high art and the inner feeling of the Volk presented two fatal contradictions: First, the cultivation of the ordinary man by art, though it seemingly transcended the feudal class structure of Prussia, involved no political emancipation as such. Bildung promised first and foremost a key to the bourgeois society: individuals were to join the respectable ranks of Bildungsbürgertum,

35

Steven Moyano, “Quality vs. History: Schinkel’s Altes Museum…” 601. 63

thanks to merit, not privilege. Yet by the time the (Altes) museum opened to the public political reform had suffered crucial setbacks in Prussia. In fact, as Prussia’s failure to establish the constitution that had been promised in 1815 suggests, neither the monarch nor the feudal establishment intended to share power with Germany’s enlightened, artloving Volk. In an excellent analysis of Schinkel’s museum and its relationship with the Prussian state, Steven Moyano points out the apparent contradiction in the attitude of the German reformers when faced with the suppression of the constitution and censure. Seeing the impossibility of representative government in the foreseeable future, Humboldt, for one, argued in 1822 that the “members of the middle class” had to be truly cultivated before participating in the assemblies.36 The autonomy of art in the museum, just like “disinterested” aesthetic education, which transcends the social class of the viewer, assumed a double function: to cultivate the middle class (Bildungsbürgertum) and to provide a sanctuary from political conflict.

A second contradiction of the equation of art with Bildung, and the state with the patron of the arts, is the fact that it led precisely to what Schiller had hoped to remedy: the overspecialization of society. A new type of professional curator and museum administrator eventually replaced amateurs of art. Moyano writes,

In this light, the goal of disseminating cultivation through art was an attempt to recast society in the image of the museum’s advocates… General administration also claimed Bildung in the belief that the bureaucracy included the most

36

Ibid., 604. 64

educated and capable members of the society. Cultivation was theirs to allocate in order to direct society from above.37 Despite Schinkel’s refusal to conceive the museum as an extension of the academy, the new institution created within the context of Prussia was one of the most bewildering cultural bureaucracies ever created, its job initially to oversee the acculturation of the nation by means of exposure to an increasingly pedantic knowledge about art and its history.

***

Less than two decades after Schinkel’s museum, August Stüler built the Neues (New) Museum on the Museum Island as a metaphor for the history of the mind [Geistesgeschichte]. The museum, which was constructed between 1843 and 1859, consisted of three floors, each of which corresponded to one stage of Hegel’s Aesthetics: the symbolic, the classical and the romantic eras, which correspond to the unconscious, conscious and rational minds respectively. The ease with which the architectural program of the Neues Museum corresponded to the history of the mind could as well be due to Hegel’s original metaphor, which presents history as a tripartite building: each stage is built upon the foundations of the previous floor.

The triumph of historicism in the organization of the Neues Museum is politically significant.38 It meant, above all, that the civic and social function of the museum, the

37

Ibid. 65

Bildungsideal, was replaced by academism: a narrowly didactic project of representing Hegel’s history. The ground floor of the museum, which was dedicated to what Hegel called “symbolic art,” was a metaphor for the roots of history. In addition to the objects of prehistoric and non-historical (ethnological) peoples from overseas, it displayed the infancy of history in ancient Egypt. It suffices to reflect on the organization of the Egyptian collections by the German philologist and founder of Egyptology Karl Richard Lepsius (1810-1884) to underscore the importance of historicism. Lepsius led the Prussian scientific expedition to Egypt and Sudan from 1843 to 1845. He shipped to Berlin a large number of architectural reliefs and inscriptions taken from the ancient temples, in addition to drawings and actual artifacts, which he published in the twelvevolume Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien.39 Lepsius’ major contribution to archaeology is the Egyptian chronology he established in 1849: he observed correctly that the extinct civilization underwent significant evolution from the first dynasties of the Old Kingdom to its later days.40 Organizing the collections in the Neues Museum, Lepsius did not consider the aesthetic value, originality or uniqueness of the works, but treated all the objects as historical specimens. He included only the works that could be placed precisely in the chronology of Egypt’s dynastic history, and which could

38

For a discussion of historicism in the organization of the collections of the Neues Museum see Guido Messing “Historismus als Rekonstruktion. Die Ägyptische Abteilung im Neuen Museum” and Gunvor Lindström “Historismus als Ordnungsprinzip. Die Abgußsammlung im Neuen Museum” in Alexis Joahimides et al. eds., Museumsinszenierungen, 51-66 and 67-80. 39

Richard Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien (Berlin: Nicolaische Buchhandlung, 1849-1856). 40

Richard Lepsius, Die Chronologie der Ägypter (Berlin: Nicolaische Buchhandlung, 1849). 66

therefore illustrate Egypt’s historic development.41 The Egyptian department in the Neues Museum, in other words, treated Egyptian art merely as the hieroglyphics of Egyptian history.

Equally significant was the organization of the second floor of the Neues Museum to represent art’s “classical” age. Unlike Schinkel’s Museum, the Neues Museum did not comprise originals, but plaster-cast copies of the most representative Greek and Roman sculpture. The visitors were offered a linear history of the development of antique art from its archaic origins to its classical perfection. That Humboldt had rejected the plaster cast as an exhibition object, and had allowed only originals in the Altes Museum only a few decades earlier,42 illustrates how radically the historicist museum—its perception of art as illustration of the history of the mind—departed from Bildung, the civic task of the museum.

By abandoning the autonomy and the vocation of art, the Neues Museum not only lived up to Hegel’s étatism—he maintained that the modern State rather than the harmonious community of the Volk was the final embodiment of world-historical process—but also ceased to be a museum of art as such. For, the originals and the copies that adorn the museum’s floors are not so much the content of the museum as vehicles—symbols and allegories—through which the history of the Idea is presented, though imperfectly. The more art succeeds in depicting the idea of beauty with “sensuous form” the more it falls

41

Messling, 59.

42

Lindström, 67. 67

from the grace of history. In fact, Hegel maintained that the fundamental problem of classical art is precisely the fact that it achieved beauty all too well: “The deficiency of the classical is art itself—a complete unification between spiritual and sensual existence.”43 The “romantic art” is superior to the classical only to the extent it achieved “self-transcendence” though still in the form of art. The history of art would come to an end, according to Hegel, only when the idea of Beauty is achieved, not in the outer form, but in the spiritually inner world, when aesthetics is dissolved into ethics.

***

How Hegel’s iconoclastic conviction that art’s development was driven to its final transcendence by an idea external to it came to dominate the Prussian museums and academic art history in the mid 19th century deserves a separate study. For my purposes, however, it is important to note that Wilhelm Bode, and his generation of art historians, curators and critics who came to shape the discourse about the museum in the 1890’s hardly believed in Hegel’s philosophy of history, and even less in the Hegelian faith in historical progress.

The critique of the museum in the last decade of the 19th century is imbued with pessimism—if not cynicism—about the civic and didactic function of the institution, which is a symptom, in retrospect, of a larger crisis in Prussian public education. The

43

See Donald Preziosi, Art in Art History: a Critical Anthology (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 104. 68

German intellectuals’ disenchantment with the museum at the end of the century has to do as much with the institution’s failure to achieve its original goals—to speak to the inner feeling of the Volk—as with its servitude to academism. Historicism, the view that collections of art should be organized and understood in relation to the trajectory of the universal history of the mind, added to the perception that the museums became the “mausoleums of art,” where works are kept as relics of past epochs with no relevance to the ordinary German’s “feeling for life.” What is more, it was not only the disenfranchised art critic who voiced this opinion, but a new generation of museum administrators and curators, among them Wilhelm Bode.44

As early as 1860, the Swiss historian Jacob Burckhardt challenged the Hegelian philosophy of history by introducing a new scholarly method, cultural history, which was to exercise decisive influence on Bode’s museology. In his Die Cultur45 der Renaissance in Italien—erroneously translated into English as The Civilization of Renaissance in Italy—Burckhardt argues that the great art of the Renaissance was born not merely from the revival of classical antiquity, but from antiquity’s “union” with the genius of the Italian people, as made manifest in the Florentine community.46 “Culture,” unlike the pedantic Bildung, is the unconscious “survival” of genius in the “blood of

44

For the German discourse of the art museum at the turn of the 20th century see Sheehan, Museums in the German Art World, esp. ch. 4, “Museums and Modernism 1880-1914.” 45

Burckhardt spelled the word with “c” unlike the modern German “Kultur.”

46

Jacob Burckhardt (1860), The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy (New York: Phaidon, 1950), 104. 69

humanity.”47 The rebirth of genius in an organic community, either in the polis of Athens or in the city-state of Florence, is manifest in every aspect of its life, from the ingenuity of its handicrafts and the masterpieces of its art to its civic order.

It is true, as one historian has noted, that Burckhardt’s depiction of Florence bears some political resemblance with his native Basel, one of the last bastions of Neohumanism in the German speaking world: years after Humboldt’s education reform was stalled in Prussia, the patrician-merchant families of Basel zealously protected the independence, and the civic vocation of their university.48 Burckhardt’s cultural history of the Renaissance stemmed as much from his dedication to his own community in Basel as his disillusionment with 19th century Europe at large, its submission to the authoritarian empires and its inability to create an organic culture. And yet Die Cultur der Renaissance in Italien had a legacy above and beyond the historical circumstances in which it was written. Although Burckhardt’s cultural history is often incorrectly identified as historicist, it introduced an entirely different method: Burckhardt presents the Renaissance communities as a series of synchronic cross-sections, which explored all aspects of life in a given present. In lieu of the succession of events, causes and effects, we find in Burckhardt’s book an analysis of works and contexts.49

47

Jacob [also Jakob] Burckhardt, Weltgeschichtliche Betrachtungen, lectures published posthumously by Jakob Oeri (Berlin, Stuttgart: Verlag von Spemann, 1905), 52. 48

Carl E. Schorske, “History as Vocation in Burckhardt’s Basel,” in Thinking with History, 56-70. 49

Ibid. 70

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) is rightly cited as an intellectual source of the fin-desiècle critique of the museum.50 Even though he did not target the art museum as such, his writing effectively demolished two basic assumptions upon which the 19th century museum had been built: art’s autonomy from the practices of everyday life—which goes back to Kant prior to Schiller—and the very possibility of the history of the mind. In The Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche mocked Kant’s definition of “disinterested” art, and the unearthly pleasures of aesthetic contemplation as “the country parson’s naiveté.”51 He favored instead—a key argument in The Birth of Tragedy—the Dionysian rites in ancient Greece, where there was yet no distinction between the producers and receivers of art as such.52 Art was not defined by aesthetic detachment of a “disinterested” subject from the object of perception, but by mutual participation and performance. If the autonomy of art from the praxis of life was artificial, so was the entire category of Geistesgeschichte, which Nietzsche found irrelevant in the face of the eternity of the circular processes of life.53

It was, however, not Nietzsche, the disaffected philologist-turned-philosopher, but an embittered ‘outsider’ to the academy, Julius Langbehn (1851-1907), who leveled the

50

Sheehan, Museums in the German Art World, 140-143.

51

Cited in Sheehan, Museums in the German Art World, 140.

52

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy, translated by Douglas Smith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). See also Sheehan Museums in the German Art World, 141. 53

Friedrich Nietzsche, “On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life,” (1874) in Untimely Meditations, translated by R. J. Hollingdale (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). 71

most damaging critique, targeting the museum, along with the Gymnasium and the academy as the major symptoms of Germany’s “cultural decline.” Opinionated and halfeducated, Langbehn was no match to Nietzsche intellectually. Nietzsche however seems to have influenced Langbehn by providing him, perhaps, not so much intellectual venues, as with a personal obsession: it is possible that Langbehn, who apparently suffered from severe megalomania, identified himself with the Übermensch whose advent Nietzsche prophesized. Having heard of Nietzsche’s mental breakdown in late 1889, Langbehn was taken by the obsession that he should “save Nietzsche,” whom he had not met yet in person. He visited the philosopher in the Jena asylum every day for two weeks, sought his legal guardianship and tried to bar Nietzsche’s loyal friends and family from seeing him: only placing Nietzsche under his custody in Dresden, Langbehn insisted, would save the “child-like” philosopher.54 If Langbehn was the savior, so was the noble philosopher in mental distress a metaphor for the German Volk in despair.

Had Langbehn not succeed in inciting a widely popular anti-education movement in the 1890’s—one that influenced the proto-fascist Youth Movement—he would have stayed an odd footnote to German intellectual history, as one of the readers Nietzsche anticipated and feared most.55 As Fritz Stern put it: “In 1890, Langbehn, a failure and

54

Stern, Cultural Despair, 107-08.

55

Stern in his The Politics of Cultural Despair seeks to defend Nietzsche against the charges that he “fathered” the “Germanic ideology” epitomized by Langbehn. He argues that the latter misread the great philosopher, turning Nietzsche’s complex thought into tags and clichés that can be consumed by the masses. According to Stern the reception of Nietzsche’s critique of 19th century philistinism and pedantry at best paved the way for the success’ of Langbehn’s simpler and more ambiguous defense of irrationality. 72

psychopath, wrote a sensational bestseller, a rhapsody of irrationality, denouncing the whole intellectualistic and scientific bent of the German culture, the extinction of art and individuality, the drift toward conformity.”56 Langbehn’s book Rembrandt als Erzieher [“Rembrandt as Educator”—most probably an adaptation of Nietzsche’s title “Schopenhauer as Educator”] met with a rare success when it was published in 1890, reaching a thirty-seventh edition in less than two years.

Though its reception amounts to a mass euphoria in fin-de-siècle Germany, Rembrandt als Erzieher offers neither a clear argument nor an exhaustive analysis. We may start by noting that the book is not really about Rembrandt, the Dutch painter. It is an unsystematic compilation of reflections about everything that seems to have occurred to the author’s mind: the noble roots of the Germans, the decline of the humanistic Bildung, the doom of modern civilization as well as prophecies of salvation. Langbehn has something to say about everything: the chapters of the book read “German Art, German Science, German Bildung, German Mankind [Menscheit].”57 Though it imitates Nietzsche’s later prose, the book defies all disciplines and genres. Characteristically, Langbehn quotes a few words of wisdom by great men as tags for mass consumption (“Fichte says, to have a character and to be German are synonymous”). His own sentences either border tautology (“One can become an expert, a scholar, but one must

56

Ibid., xii.

57

Julius Langbehn [signed: a German], Rembrandt als Erzieher (Weimar: Alexander Duncker Verlag, 1922). 73

be born an artist”) or feature simple deductions (“therefore artistic culture [Bildung] is superior to scholarly learning [Bildung]”).

A consistent theme throughout the book is an ardent primitivism, which glorifies the pure German peasant: the native German is by birth predisposed to be an artist. The gymnasium and the academy are targeted throughout the book as two institutions of pedantic learning that waste the natural talents of the Volk. Langbehn, who had a taste for simple comparisons, likens the work of art to a single word and the museum to a dictionary: just as the meaning of the word was embedded in the context of a living language, so was the meaning of the work of art in the local traditions and the “tribal character” of the artist.

Rembrandt, and a lesser hero Shakespeare, appear occasionally in the book to illustrate the tribal and local character of great art and literature: the first is presented as the “most German of all German artists” and the latter as the Germanic “ur-poet.” Their artistic genius is the embodiment of the character of their tribe—Langbehn presented them as Niederdeutsche, the “purest” of the Germanic tribes—and of the peculiarity of the soil.58 Hence as role models, they could inspire the Germans to discover their own intuitive, artistic soul, their own predisposition to “individuality” and genius.59

58

Shakespeare’s native Germanic identity was evidenced, as Lanbehn did not fail to take notice, by his name, which mean “spear-shaker” [Speerschüttler], Langbehn, Rembrandt als Erzieher, 211; see also Stern, Cultural Despair, 135 n. 59

One suspects that Langbehn’s motive in choosing the Dutch painter and the English poet as two role models was little more than simple self-identification. Both, Langbehn insists, were Niederdeutsch, that is, from the purest of the Germanic tribes. Langbehn, 74

Theoretically, Rembrandt als Erziehler draws from contradictory, and at times antithetical positions in German idealism, without sublimating them into a synthetic position. Langbehn conflates Herder’s “Volksseele” [soul of the people], which inspired the study of anonymous vernacular traditions of the folk throughout the 19th century, with the concept of the genius-artist, which he borrows from Romanticism. The “individuality” of a genius-artist such as Rembrandt is, strictly speaking, the expression of, not freedom, but his native tribal character. Hence it is artistic intuition but not scholarly education that can save the Germans from cultural decline. All the ills of modern society, including cosmopolitanism, alienation, fragmentation, could be remedied by learning from Rembrandt what is already inherent in the character of the purest Germans.

Not surprisingly, Langbehn’s book resonated particularly well with the right-wing critics of modernity60: by 1890 a number of conservative intellectuals had been engaged in an anti-positivistic and organicist critique of Germany’s modernization. The “German

who was born in Schleswig-Holstein, then ruled by the Danish throne, considered himself a Niederdeutsch. He appears to have attributed his own “genius” and “individuality” to his own high birth, and complained that he was misunderstood—particularly by the Prussians who were too mixed with Jewish, Slavic and French blood. As Stern shows in his biography, Langbehn published Rembrandt with the pseudonym, “a German,” and spent an absurd amount of time to conceal his true identity; though few knew him, or were interested in finding out at that time. According to Stern, the concealment of the author’s identity worked unexpectedly as a marketing strategy; many mistook Langbehn initially for Nietzsche or Paul de Lagarde, the famous biblical scholar who had sought to coin a Germanic religion in the 1850’s, Cultural Despair, 109. 60

Sheehan, Museums in the German Art World, 142. 75

ideology,” as epitomized in Ferdinand Tönnies’ Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, also published in 1887 [Community and Society, 1957], elaborated a reactionary attitude. It persistently faulted the universal project of the Enlightenment for the devastating effects of industrialization in the metropolis, and the alienation of the individual in capitalist society, and dismissed the Enlightenment—which was seen as too French and therefore un-German—altogether in favor of a return to the volkish ideal of the organic community: one whose structure is embedded in the tradition of the soil and the preindustrial, handicraft production. New anthropological, and increasingly biologistic definitions of Kultur were coupled with a revived interest in the ethnic ancestors of modern day-Germans.

Among Langbehn’s admirers were also reformers and pioneers of aesthetic modernism: the architect and founder of the German Werkbund, Hermann Muthesius (1861-1927);61 a leading patron of modern art, Karl Enst Osthaus (1874-1921); the pioneers of modern museology Alfred Lichtwark (1852-1914) and Wilhelm Bode.62 In fact, Langbehn’s carefully constructed image as an “outsider” who ruthlessly attacks the cultural establishment while having no stake in it, is complicated by the fact that renowned museum administrators, curators and art historians supported and financially patronized a high-handed yet penniless Langbehn before and during the “German-Rembrandt” controversy. Richard Schöne, then the general director of the Prussian Royal Museum,

61

For Langbehn’s influence on Muthesius see Stanford Anderson, “Introduction,” in Muthesius, Style-architecture and Building-art: Transformations of Architecture in the Nineteenth Century and Its Present Condition, translated by Stanford Anderson (Santa Monica: The Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1994), 6. 76

opened his house and private library to Langbehn. Without the encouragement of the art historians Alfred Lichtwark and Woldeman von Seidlitz (1850-1920), who helped Langbehn to study Rembrandt, the book would perhaps not have been completed.63 Bode, who met Langbehn upon Seidlitz’s recommendation, agreed to cover the publication expenses of Rembrandt als Elzieher from his own private funds in 1899, when Langbehn failed to find a publisher for his manuscript. After L.H. Hirschfeld, a publishing house in Dresden agreed to publish the book, Bode and Seidlitz sent copies of Rembandt als Erziehler to their most affluent contacts in Germany and abroad. Langbehn, who made a point of limiting the sale price to two Marks in order to make the book available to ordinary Germans, did not object to reaching out to this most distinguished audience.64

Nor is it a coincidence that Bode wrote the first professional review of the book in the respected Preussische Jahrbücher in March 1890, which he titled “Rembrandt as Educator by a German.” He praises the book as “a polemic, derived from the innermost life of the German spirit, which intends to find through a diagnosis of today’s frequently corrupt conditions the basis for the necessary rebirth of German art and culture.”65

63

Ohlsen, Wilhelm von Bode, 146.

64

Langbehns gave consent to the distribution of his book to affluent readers, with the sole condition that the book not be sent to university professors and the Jews. Ohlsen, Wilhelm von Bode, 149. 65

Bode, “Rembrandt als Erzieher von einem Deutschen,” Preussische Jahrbücher, LXV:3 (March, 1890), 301-314. Also quoted in English translation in Stern, Cultural Despair, 159. 77

It is indeed puzzling why Bode, who first curated Rembrandt paintings in the Royal Museum, endorsed Langbehn’s gross misrepresentation of the Dutch master and ruthless attacks on the institution. One cannot completely rule out the possibility that Bode, just like Langbehn’s other admirers among Germany’s cultural elite, was so taken by the forcefulness of the author’s argument and so attuned to the German ideology, that he turned a blind eye to the inconsistencies or outright errors in Langbehn’s account.66 It is more likely, however, that Bode’s endorsement of the book reveals more than an occasional sympathy for Langbehn’s ideology when he writes: Although Rembrandt is only the thread by which the author unfolds his tapestry, his appraisal of the great master is based on the knowledge of his work and a fine understanding of his nature. What he says about him is often new and surprising, always brilliant and presented with the warmth of glowing admiration for the artist… [The book] is certain of a distinguished place in the Rembrandt literature.67 Langbehn’s book, to say the least, was hardly a “distinguished” contribution to the Rembrandt literature. At least one leading Rembrandt scholar in the Netherlands to whom Bode had sent a copy of Rembrandt als Erziehler, had brought to Bode’s attention some of Langbehn’s errors.68 Bode’s personal correspondence with Langbehn also suggests that Bode’s review was carefully planned and coordinated with the author to lend the book the very scholarly legitimacy that Langbehn denounces as decadent.69

66

Stern, Cultural Despair, 159.

67

Bode, “Rembrandt als Erzieher,” 303; Stern, Cultural Despair, 120 n.

68

See the Dutch art historian Abraham Bredius’s letter to Bode, 26 November 1889, Berlin, SMzB PK Zentralarchiv. 69

See Langbehn’s letter to Bode, 10 January 1890, SMzB PK Zentralarchiv. 78

Even if Bode agreed that Germany was “corrupt” and needed “cultural and artistic regeneration,” one could hardly believe that he failed to see the feebleness of Langbehn’s “Kunstpolitik.” Langbehn advocates reintegrating the urban proletariat with the pastoral Volk and establishing a “social aristocracy,” a harmonious community in which the peasants happily defer to the racial purity and artistic intuition of their lords: a naïve—though not innocent—“education reform.” He argues that only by exploiting the artistic talent of the few—the noblest, purest peasants— could Germany transcend its current state of mediocrity. Yet, it did not occur to the author that his populist primitivism might contradict his political elitism. While Langbehn benefits from the popular disillusionment with Bildung, particularly with secondary school education, he offers no viable alternative. Instead, he substitutes Humboldt’s educated middle class (Bildungsbürgertum) with a vague “Bidungsaristokratismus,” an absurd oxymoron.70 Bode, on the other hand, knew all too well that he could achieve reform in the museum only by enlisting the financial and political support of the emerging class of Berlin’s cosmopolitan (partly Jewish) bourgeoisie, which Langbehn—an anti-Semite—loathed. The question remains, then, of why Bode choose to underwrite Langbehn’s quixotic opportunism?

Bode belonged to a new type of connoisseur-curator who came to dominate the German museums at the turn of the last century. We may list at least three factors that contributed to the rise of a new curatorial connoisseurship: the emergence of international art

70

Langbehn, Rembrandt als Erzieher, 40. 79

markets, the rise of German nationalism in the aftermath of political unification, and the critique of academic art history by hands-on museum curators who preferred instead a practical “Kunstwissenschaft.”71 Bode’s patronage of Langbehn is, in this light, the most significant evidence that points to the relation between the movement for museum reform and the rise of the German ideology at the turn of the century.

An ardent nationalist, Bode was profoundly concerned about how to display in the museum the “German character in art,” which, he maintained, had been ignored by the Royal Museum since its foundation.72 And yet, as a political realist who mastered the mechanisms of power in Prussia’s cultural establishment, he conceived not of Langbehn’s noble peasant, but the cosmopolitan bourgeoisie of Berlin as the museum’s preferred audience. A new class of entrepreneurs yearned for social legitimacy and had the means to acquire prestigious collections of art. Bode, who gained his art historical credentials not in the academy but through on-the-job experience and who mastered the international art markets, offered Berlin’s rich collectors two invaluable assets: the service of a renowned connoisseur who could distinguish, through half scientific and half intuitive methods, an original masterpiece from an imitation (hence the difference between a good and bad investment); secondly the service of a collector who can “tastefully” display the originals in Berlin’s bourgeois intérieurs by taking into account

71

Alexis Joachimides, “The Museum’s Discourse on Art: the Formation of Curatorial Art History in Turn of the Century Berlin,” in Susan A. Crane ed., Museums and Memory (Stanford Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2000), 200-19. 72

Bode, “Denkschrift Erweiterungs- und Neubauten bei den königlichen Museen in Berlin.” 80

both the social convenance of the patron’s apartment and the original—usually aristocratic—setting from which the work was displaced. Thanks to Bode’s invaluable advice, Berlin’s new class of entrepreneurs, who acquired a substantial quantity of original works from France—due to the war reparations imposed after the FrancoPrussian war, France was suffering an economic crisis—and from the declining aristocratic families in Italy and Britain, would appear less the unrefined “Huns,” as they were commonly seen in the rest of Europe.73

Bode, a public servant who accepted no payment from the rich collectors, arranged for substantial donations to the Royal Museum both in original works of art and in funds. He also financed some of the major public projects such as the construction of the Renaissance museum (Kaiser Friedrich Museum or today’s Bode Museum) by enlisting rich benefactors in Berlin in private associations; he founded the Verein für Kunstwissentschaft to finance Messel’s project.74 Bode, in this sense, is a founder of the modern capitalist art museum for he turned upside down the Humboldtian relationship between the public institution and its audience, the urban bourgeoisie. It was no longer the state museum that contributed to the construction of an urban middle class by educating the “taste” of the individual. It was instead the wealthy bourgeoisie that sustained the Royal Museum and in doing so acquired social legitimacy.

73

Gaehtgens, Die Berliner Museumsinsel, 12-13.

74

Each member of the Kaiser-Friedrich-Museum-Verein contributed a yearly membership fee of 500 Mark. Considering that the association had about one hundred members, Bode amassed considerable funds for the construction of the museum. See Petras, 102-03. 81

Though contingent on the socio-political conditions of Germany at the turn of the century, the new relation between the museum and its patrons had two lasting results: firstly, the disciplinary autonomy of the connoisseur curatorship, which severed the museum’s connection with the academy, and secondly, the construction of the cult of authenticity in which the original work of art is thought to embody a unique essence, which cannot be reproduced in its imitations or plaster casts: the task of the art museum was no longer to educate the public but to highlight that authentic essence by creating the best possible conditions for the exhibition. Bode ridiculed academic art historians like his chief opponent, Hermann Grimm, who occupied the first regular art history chair in the University of Berlin, and his successor Heinrich Wölfflin. Grimm was an oldfashioned Hegelian who did not comprehend why Bode would spend public funds to acquire relatively insignificant originals instead of displaying copies of the most significant masterpieces. He complained—correctly—that the Royal Museum no longer provided visual aid for the education of art history in the university.75 Wölfflin, on the other hand, constructed grandiose theories about the changes of epochal visions throughout history, but could not always correctly establish the authorship and the authenticity of a masterpiece, which Bode saw both as a test of competence and the goal of art history.76

75

Joachimides, “The Museum’s Discourse on Art,” 204-10.

76

Ibid., 211-15. 82

Paradoxically, then, Langbehn’s primitivism had a particular appeal for the emerging curatorial connoisseurship and the new art museum, and not simply because he condemns humanistic Bildung and academic historicism alike. In his yearnings for redemption, both cultural and spiritual, Langbehn enthrones art as a surrogate for religion: art leads to the Volk’s salvation in and by itself.

Though Langbehn’s art may imply a type of autonomy, it surely departs from Schiller’s autonomous art, which, as we have seen, fulfills its vocation through its detachment from the context of everyday life. Nor is Langbehn’s “art” analogous to that of Nietzsche, who challenges the rarefied experience of aesthetics, and emphasizes its performative, ritual roots. Langbehn, in contrast, both intends to relocate “art” in its authentic context, the character of the local tribe and the soil, and keep the aesthetic distance that distinguishes an original “masterpiece” from the praxis of life: he “liberates” the work of art from the museum and, yet, maintains the “aura” that had resulted in the aesthetic differentiation of an object as a “work of art” in the museum in the first place.

For our purposes here, it is important to note that Bode’s aesthetic presentation made Langbehn’s notion of redeemer-art (in contrast to didactic art) the very content of a new museum: a museum that was put together by the technical expertise of the connoisseurcurator, and one that was intended for the innocent eye. Had it been carried out according to Bode’s original plans, the German Museum would have revealed further the

83

connection between the aestheticism of the connoisseur-curatorship and the populist primitivism of Langbehn’s German ideology.

84

2.3. Art versus Ethnology: Imperial Archaeology and Taxonomies of Culture

A history of the Royal Museum and its later transformation needs to take into consideration the prominent role archaeology came to play in the self-representations of an increasingly aggressive, expansionist German Reich at the turn of the 20th century. As shown in a recent history of German archaeology and Philhellenism by Suzanne Marchand, German archaeology underwent a massive reorganization in the aftermath of the unification, bringing under a central cultural bureaucracy not only the 19th centuryhumanistic disciplines of ancient philology and antiquarianism, but also the museums of art and ethnology. The centralization under the state apparatus brought the German sciences of things ancient into a unique position, allowing large-scale undertakings, such as long-term excavations in Olympia and Pergamon.

During the reign of Wilhelm II the imperial patronage of archaeology in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East reached its most ostentatious dimensions, compelling scholars to serve under increasingly nationalistic and, at times, comically pompous representations of the German throne. Fuelled by the enthusiasm of the Kaiser for ancient dynastic histories, the Reich mobilized unequalled resources—financial, political and diplomatic—for the exploration of ancient sites in a geography expanding from the Aegean Sea to ancient Mesopotamia: the vast territories controlled by the Kaiser’s ailing “friend,” the Ottoman Empire. The vast region claimed for German science perfectly coincided with Germany’s systematic—and officially undeclared—designs on the

85

Ottoman Empire: the connection between the science of the past and Germany’s political interests in the future of the region became all the more clear during the construction of the Istanbul-Baghdad Railway. The foundation of the German Orient Society (DOG) in 1898 by a board of trustees—including Georg von Simmens, the director of Deutsche Bank—marked the beginning of a new era in the Western exploration of the ancient Near East. Starting with the excavations of Babylon and Assur, the German Orient Society unearthed the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia, completing the sporadic explorations by the British, French and American travelers in the 19th century.77

Notwithstanding the political designs of the German archaeological institutions—to provide an infrastructure for a future German occupation78—the effects of German archaeology in the Near East were phenomenal. Within four decades, from the Pergamon excavations of 1883 to 1918 when Germany and its Turkish ally were defeated in World War I, systematic excavations of a dozen archaeological sites transformed the modern knowledge of the ancient civilizations of the Eastern Mediterranean and Mesopotamia.

The new German archaeology was less dependent on the 19th century dilettantes, adventurers and treasure hunters like the Englishmen Henry Layard (Nineveh) or the German Heinrich Schliemann (Troy) who had pursued the European public’s attention

77

Marchand, Down From Olympus, esp. ch. 6, “The Peculiarities of German Orientalism (188-227).

78

Ibid. 86

more than a systematic documentation of the sites.

As a new generation of German

archaeologists commenced excavations in some of the most important sites of the ancient world from today’s Iraq to Turkey’s Ionian coast, the age of sensational “discoveries” in the Orient gave way to the era of “grand-scale archaeology”: long-term explorations in ancient sites, which reached their objective as a cumulative effort of generations of archaeologists working under Western colonial and national institutions.79 In other words, the German excavations prior to World War I radically modernized archaeology, transforming it into a professional practice, which claimed a degree of scientific objectivity. And yet, the professionalization of the discipline tended also to compromise the spirit of humanism as professed by the mandarins of classical Greece and Rome.

The famed amateurs, the engineer Carl Humann (1839-1896) and the architect Robert Koldewey (1855-1925), were succeeded by their assistants, Theodor Wiegand and Walter Andrae (1875-1956), a new generation of archaeologists trained in the field. These archaeologists professed first-hand knowledge about the civilizations they “discovered.” Sponsored directly by the Kaiser, they also proved able bureaucrats who survived countless controversies within Prussia’s cultural establishment. Wiegand, the son-in-law of the powerful Siemens family, for instance, was equally at ease in orchestrating byzantine intrigue in Istanbul and Berlin at the height of the Wilhelmine Empire. Despite the fall, in 1918, of the regime that favored them, both figures came into prominent administrative positions in the Berlin State Museum. It was under the

79

See Marchand, Down From Olympus. 87

supervision of these archaeologists-turned-museum directors that today’s Pergamon Museum would take shape.

***

The extraordinary expansion of the holdings of the Prussian Royal Museum during the Kaiserreich was undoubtedly a practical outcome of imperial archaeology. As early as the 1850’s, shortly after Lepsius shipped the Egyptian finds to Berlin, the Prussian museum was reshaped to represent the experience of humanity—artistic, cultural and historical—in the spatial organization of a museum: the historical and ethnological narratives are translated into actual architectural spaces.

By the end of the 19th century, however, the realization that the history of humanity is not a continuous and linear evolution from one world-historical stage to the following, but consists of several cultural circles that have come into contact with one another at several points in their developments, made the totality of the experience of humanity unrepresentable. No single chart of the genealogy of art and culture could be agreed upon. Nor could the taxonomies of artistic and cultural objects in historical or ethnological narratives be easily translated into an architectural diagram.

The theories of cultural diffusion, which emerged particularly from fin-de-siècle Austria, explored manifold connections between the Western and Oriental cultures, seeking the common origins of Celtic, Greek, Mesopotamian and Islamic art. Whether that origin

88

was to be found in Egypt, before it was perfected in Greece and transmitted to Europe and the Islamic Near East, as Alois Riegl and others maintained,80 or whether there existed an ur-Aryan culture in Persia, which lent its forms both to the German and Islamic cultures, as Riegl’s chief opponent Josef Strzygowski (1862-1941) argued,81 matters less compared to the revolution such inquiry entails in the historian’s method. In the absence of written record, formal analysis of the decorative ornament came to be accepted as a viable historical method, just as the similarities and differences in “style” were seen as evidence of cultural continuities or ruptures.82

***

One crucial result of the new historiographic positions in Germany and Austria was the blurring of the boundaries between works of art and ethnological objects. As early as 1880, the acquisition of artifacts from cultures historically and geographically distant to Germany initiated an intense debate among the ranks of the Royal Museum. Initially all objects of non-Western civilizations, including Chinese and Islamic artifacts, were included within Berlin’s ethnologic collections: the museum made no distinction between the objects of popular crafts and those of more sophisticated courtly traditions.

80

Alois Riegl, Problems of Style: Foundations For a History of Ornament (1893), translated by Evelyn Kain (Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992). 81

Josef Strzygowski, Orient oder Rom: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Spätantiken und Frühchristlichen Kunst (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1901). 82

See Marchand, “The Rhetoric of Artifacts and the Decline of Classical Humanism: The Case of Josef Strzygowski.” 89

Though the necessity of studying the peoples oversees was not in dispute, all the more necessary because of Germany’s new-found colonial ambitions, how to integrate the ethnological collections into the rubric of the 19th century museum raised a number of questions: should the objects of ancient Oriental civilizations from the Sumer to the Islamic middle ages be displayed alongside the masterpieces of Western art? Could nonWestern art, if such categorization could be justified at all, be presented for the aesthetic enjoyment of the German public?

As general director, Richard Schöne (1840-1922) is responsible for expanding the scope of the Royal Prussian Museums in Berlin, adding several new departments including the Völkerkunde Museum. Yet, Schöne did not fully understand the implications of the vast expansion of the museum to encompass objects that had not previously been considered “art.” He wrote in 1880 that the ethnological collection could no longer be embraced within the art museum derived from the principles of Wilhelm von Humboldt. One could not enjoy these objects artistically: ethnological objects constituted a category outside art.83

The ethnological collections of the Royal Museum, which go back to the expeditions of the German naturalist Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859) in South America, were initially exhibited, as we have seen, on the ground floor of the Neues Museum, and represented the symbolic age of the civilization. Yet the construction of a distinct

83

Festschrift zur Feier ihres 50 jährigen Bestehens am 2.8. 1880: Zur Geschichte der Königlichen Museen in Berlin (Berlin, 1880), 56; cited in Gaehtgens, “The Museum Island,” 63. 90

Museum of Ethnology (Völkerkunde) on the Königgrätzer street between 1880 and 1886 institutionalized the distinction between the categories of work of art and ethnologic object: if works of art were “historical,” the ethnological objects were “non-historical.” From the ethnologist’s—rather self-serving—perspective, art was a sub-category of “culture.” Adolf Bastian (1826-1905), head of the new Völkerkunde Museum, significantly narrowed the domain of art museum to encompass only the “artistic products of a historical people.”84 Hence Bastian not only requires all art to be historical, but also uses “culture” in a non-elitist sense that has little in common with, for instance, the meaning Burckhardt assigned to the word three decades earlier: the sum of the achievements of a golden age, such as those of classical Hellas or Florence of the Renaissance.

One outcome of limiting “art” to the domain of the historical was the transformation of the museum of art into the museum of art history—as, for instance, the Art History Museum in Vienna. Yet, the “historical peoples” of Europe also produced crafts, objects of good “taste” for practical use (including architecture), which necessitated a category outside of the “disinterested” domain of fine arts. Faced with the decline in the “taste” of the European public after the industrial revolution and the perceived superiority of the traditional crafts and ornamental designs of India and North Africa, the South Kensigton Museum in London (est. 1851, now the Victoria and Albert) provided a new model. The museum was intended not so much for the general public—its aim was not to cultivate

84

Cited in Sigrid Westphal-Hellbusch, “Hundert Jahre Museum für Völkerkunde Berlin: Zur Geschichte des Museums,” Baessler-Archiv, Beiträge zur Völkerkunde, Neue Folge 21 (1973): 4; see also Gaethgens, “The Museum Island in Berlin,” 63. 91

the moral and civic character of the middle classes—as for professionals, designers and industrialists. That the Kunstgewerbe Museum (Museum of Applied Arts) was financed initially by the Prussian Ministry of Trade—not by the Ministry of Culture—suggests that the institution was seen as instrumental for economic development, alongside the arts and crafts school.85 Even when the new museum on Prinz Albert Street was incorporated into the Royal Museum in 1885, the civic and moral benefits one could gain from such collections were far from established.

The disagreement about the future expansion of the Royal Museum—the first of nearly half a century of “museum wars” among the competing factions of Prussia’s cultural bureaucracy—erupted in 1880 between Schöne, the general director, and Bode, then the director of the Department of Christian Sculpture. Faced with a lack of space on the Museum Island and Berlin’s expanding collections, Schöne intended to separate the ethnology and applied arts collections from the more traditional collections of fine arts. According to Schöne, while the Museum Island would continue to house the collections of fine arts, emphasizing art’s origins and its highest achievements in the ancient Mediterranean, the ethnology and applied arts collections would be housed in new museum buildings, miles from the Museum Island, on what later became Prinz Albert Street. Bode, in contrast, proposed to integrate Berlin’s Painting Gallery (Gemäldegalerie) with the Department of Christian Sculpture into a new Renaissance

85

Gaehtgens, “The Museum Island in Berlin,” 64. 92

Museum on Prinz Albert Street: a museum that would display the art of Italy and Germany from the Middle Ages to the end of the baroque era.86

The debate has been presented in histories as an encounter between a conservative Schöne who subscribed to the old-fashioned idea of fine arts, and a reformist Bode who introduced the more recent ideas of the Kulturgeschichte.87 In fact, there is little doubt that Bode’s Renaissance Museum was informed by his reading of Burckhardt’s Die Cultur [Kultur] der Renaissance in Italien: instead of comparing and contrasting the aesthetic values of a single art form in the gallery, Bode sought to reintegrate painting with other achievements of a given “culture.” That Bode was in tune with more recent historiographic approaches, however, does not necessarily mean that his museum was more socially progressive than Schöne’s.

Schöne maintained that the distinct methodologies of art history and ethnology made these two types of museum irreconcilable: the ethnologists collected specimens whereas art historians sought masterpieces. Art and ethnology museums also had different tasks. The scientific curiosity about the primitive man or the instrumental interest of professionals in the ornamental designs of pre-industrial cultures should be kept separate from the vocation of the museum of fine arts. Hence the Museum Island would remain a sanctuary of moral and civic Bildung, unadulterated by scientific and practical interests.

86

Petras, 100.

87

Ohlsen, Wilhelm von Bode, 110-11; Gaehtgens, “The Museum Island in Berlin,” 65; Petras, 100. 93

Even though Schöne seems to have prevailed initially—most museum directors sided with Schöne—he had to accept over the years compromises due to Bode’s increasing influence with the royal family and Berlin’s powerful class of entrepreneurs. Two museums, the interim Pergamon Museum by Fritz Wolff and the Renaissance Museum—named after the late Kaiser Friedrich—were constructed on the Museum Island. Bode, who became the director of the Gemäldegalerie in 1890 and oversaw the construction of the Kaiser Friedrich Museum, eventually transformed the very structure of the Royal collections. He founded early Christian and Byzantine, Near Eastern (1899), Islamic (1904) and East Asian Art (1907) departments, and planned for the Ancient German Art Museum. Most of these new collections were housed initially in Bode’s Kaiser Friedrich Museum and, in many instances, in spite of Schöne’s fierce opposition.

Bode, unlike Schöne, seems to have taken notice that the superiority of the Mediterranean civilization and its privileged place in the humanistic Bildung could no longer be defended in the face of the rise of cultural relativism. In fact, in its defense of the German culture against the advances of universal civilization, the German ideology put into crisis the humanistic vocation of art. Compared with the newfound necessity to honor the heritage of the ancestral Germanic tribes, or to display the cultural objects of the other “primitives” overseas, the privilege of the “art” of the “historical peoples”—Greeks in particular—came under constant scrutiny.

94

In a memorandum concerning the extension and the new buildings of the Royal Museum, published in February 1907 shortly after he succeeded Schöne as the general director, Bode clarifies his vision of a new museum. Noting that “ancient German art” has been neglected by the Royal Museum—in fact, such a collection was nowhere to be found in Germany—he underlines the difference between a museum of German art and a museum of applied arts or cultural history. Bode’s Museum of Ancient German Art, alongside the museums of East Asian and Islamic art, would not necessarily present cultural history as a general picture of the “fundamental character of the German art and its various developments.”88 That the German Art Museum was one among a series of new art museums dedicated to Near Eastern, Islamic and East Asian art suggests that Bode’s vision was more than an opportune response to the rising Germanophilia.

Overall, Bode’s new museum was an attempt to rescue “art” from the crisis brought about by the fin-de-siècle cultural relativism: he redefined art as a fundamental experience, which is not simply a specimen of culture—ethnologic object—as such, but which, in its sublimity and essence, embodies the fundamental character of a people. Bode transformed Langbehn’s exclusively Germanic cult of art into a cross-cultural, rather than universal, category, analogous to the sacred. For Bode, unlike Langbehn, authentic context and original “art” could be embodied as much in a Chinese bronze or Islamic ornament, as in the unacknowledged “masterpieces” of the pre-historic Germans.

88

Bode makes a distinction between the Museum of Ancient German Art and “cultural history” or applied arts museums such as the Germanic Museum in Nuremberg or the Roman-Germanic Central Museum in Mainz. See “Denkschrift Betreffend Erweiterungs- Und Neubauten bei den Königlichen Museen in Berlin” (1907), in Bode, Mein Leben, II: 242-44. 95

It is in this context that we may understand the innovation Bode brought to the Berlin Museums: the simultaneous introduction of Germanic and Asian “art” museums. By abandoning the dependence of art on Bildung and redefining it as a non-elitist, and yet profound experience shared by every culture, Bode prefigured the postwar discourse of art and of the “family of man,” one that we find in the writing of another connoisseur of Oriental art, André Malraux.

96

2.4. The Style Room: Between the Original Setting and the Bourgeois Intérieur

Bode’s Stilraum (style-room) must be seen as a technique of museum display through which the curator negotiated between the monumental character of the imperial museum and the taste of the private, bourgeois viewer. As early as 1880, Bode opposed Schöne’s plans to centralize the Royal collections on the Museum Island, which would lead inevitably to an officially sanctioned taste in the representation of the history of art, and favored instead the dispersion of the collections within the city into pseudo-aristocratic private residences. Though it was constructed on the Museum Island and not on the site favored by Bode, the Kaiser Friedrich Museum reflected Bode’s idea of the museum.

Though most exhibition rooms in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum were identified with a master or a historical school, such as the Rembrandt room, a few were dedicated to private collections and were named after the donor. Hence more than a comprehensive survey of historical styles, the museum celebrated a new political order: the cultural and artistic choices of the Kaiserreich—a Kulturstaat—could be sustained only thanks to the taste of the museum’s affluent benefactors.89 It mattered little, at least in the representation of the museum, that such private taste was mediated by Prussia’s powerful connoisseur-bureaucrat, Bode, who was responsible for selecting and organizing the collections.

89

Gaehtgens, Die Berliner Museumsinsel, 116-18. 97

By reshaping the public museum along with the “taste” of the private collector, Bode was responding to a fin-de-siècle critique: the public museum, Bode maintained, stacked the works of art in a “warehouse,” which, due to the overabundance of masterpieces and the lack of appropriate conditions of display, distracted the attention of the viewers. Explaining his alternative technique of display to an English audience in 1891, Bode writes that “the chief aim” of the museum should be “the greatest possible isolation of each work and its exhibition in a room which, in all material aspects, such as lighting and architecture, should resemble, as near as may be, the apartment for which it was originally intended.”90 Hence Bode set forth two objectives: first, to recontextualise the masterpiece in a semblance of the historical setting for which it was intended in the first place; secondly, to “isolate” the work from other masterpieces. Bode opposed the comparative displays of the 19th century museum, which often grouped the very best examples of painting together. The painting could better be served, he argued, by combining it with works of lesser artistic value, usually sculpture and architectural decoration.

The characteristic features of Bode’s style-rooms in which he pursued these two objectives are well known.91 Unlike the earlier displays of the Royal Museums, which classified the arts according to their medium, Bode integrated paintings, sculpture, and

90

Bode, “The Berlin Renaissance Museum,” Fortnightly Review, 50 (1891): 506-15; cited in Malcolm Baker, “Bode and Museum Display: The Arrangement of the KaiserFriedrich-Museum and the South Kensigton Response,” Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen (1996): 144 (hereafter cited as “Bode and Museum Display”). 91

Malcolm Baker provides an excellent critique of Bode’s museum displays in “Bode and Museum Display,” 144-52; see also Gaehtgens, Berliner Museumsinsel, 12-23; See Petras for photographs of Bode’s museum displays. 98

applied arts into historical ensembles within the museum interiors to evoke the periodstyle. As early as 1888, nearly two decades before the opening of the Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Bode petitioned the Prussian Ministry of Culture to acquire, in addition to original paintings and sculpture, original architectural elements such as portals, fireplaces and ceilings of the Italian renaissance… in order to exhibit painting and sculpture in a series of rooms each of which is furnished in a way that corresponds to the exhibits with genuine, contemporary decoration.92 Though it integrated works of art with applied arts, Bode’s “style-room” had little in common with the American “period rooms,” which displayed all the contents of a historical interior from Europe and reinstalled it within the museum.93 When we take for example Bode’s organization of the Rembrandt Room, it becomes clear that Bode did not intend to replicate an existing, or an archetypal historical Dutch interior.

Nor did Bode recontextualize the works within modern life by imitating, as it were, the living room of a private collector. The visitor could certainly not sit and make himself at

92

“eine Reihe von Räumen in einer den darin auszustellenden Kunstwerk ganz entsprehenden Weise mit echten gleichzeitigen Dekoration auszustatten.” Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußicher Kulturbesitz (GStAPK), I.HA Rep.76 Ve Sekt, Kulturministerium, 15 Aby. VIII, Nr.2., Bd.10: 10-12; cited in Ohlsen, Wilhelm von Bode, 134. 93

In a recent book on the history of the Art Museums in Berlin the editors offer three definitions based on the way the interior of the museum relates to its historical contents in the German museology: (1) an “Epochenraum” combines originals that belong to a historical or stylistic epoch in the modern museum without imitating the architectural context of the time. (2) A “Stilraum,” in contrast to “Epochenraum,” imitates a historical interior by using architectural elements that match the style of the exhibited objects. (3) A Period Room (used in English in German texts) displaces the original architectural elements of a historic interior and restores them as an actual room in the museum. Alexis Joachimides et al. eds., Museumsinszenierungen, 235. 99

home on a period-chair in front of a Rembrandt, for the furniture, just like the painting, was a museum display. And yet, unlike an applied arts collection, the utilitarian and decorative objects are not presented for inspection. They are merely in a subsidiary role as “accompaniments” to the paintings. The symmetrical organization of decorative objects and sculpture in the interior was designed to draw attention to the masterpieces.94 In combining these objects into an aesthetic ensemble, Bode claimed to approximate in a modern interior the original experience of the paintings, had they not been displaced from the rooms for which they were intended. Such a claim of course poses an insuperable problem.95

The dependence of a work of art on a historical or cultural context is already implied in the very notion of “style”: the 19th century historical consciousness maintained that all works embody some binding characteristics of the periods during which they were executed, which are often not discernible by the artists themselves, but visible to the retrospective gaze of the connoisseur. The conformity of the period style with the dominant taste of an epoch is justified by the fact that the work does not only entail a peculiar expression but it is put to use within a context: the Rembrandt painting

94

Baker, “Bode and Museum Display,” 150.

95

Some of those problems have been thoroughly addressed. Gaehtgens, for instance, finds a “paradox” in Bode’s intention to recontextualise the masterpieces in the museums at a time when more Renaissance and Baroque interiors across Europe were deprived of their original works of arts due to the Berlin Museum’s unstoppable appetite for originals. Berliner Museumsinsel, 16. Malcolm Baker, on the other hand, points out that, “The harmonious qualities of Bode’s [style-] rooms mask the underlying disjunction between original setting and the place of the de-contextualised figure in the museum,” “Bode and Museum Display,” 150. 100

originally decorated a 17th century Dutch interior. This said, we have also to mention that style for Bode was not so much a historical, interpretive tool, as it was for the fin de siècle historians, but an operative, aesthetic category. By creating a semblance of the historical and cultural setting in a museum-interior, Bode turned upside down the relation between art and context: works can only be experienced in their authentic architectural context, and yet the architectural context is only subsidiary to the experience of the original work.

However, that which makes a work a “masterpiece,” worthy of unwavering attention, is its aesthetic differentiation from the context of its original use: hence the difference between art and applied arts, between painting and architectural ornament. The decontextualisation of art is not a shortcoming of the exhibition techniques of the 19th century museum, as Bode maintained, but a structural transformation in the status of the object, which made the institution of the museum necessary in the first place. For, as Theodor Adorno once wrote, even if the masterpieces of art are ‘liberated’ from the museums and hung in their original places in aristocrats’ palaces across Europe, they would still remain “museum objects without museums,” to the extent that they remain object of pure aesthetic contemplation.96

***

96

Theodor W. Adorno, “Valéry Proust Museum” in Prisms, translated by Samuel and Shierry Weber (Cambridge, Ma.: The MIT Press), 184 101

Despite the risk of oversimplifying the complex intersections between the taxonomies of art and culture and the history of Prussian Museums, we may summarize the history of Berlin’s Museum Island prior to the Pergamon Museum as the succession of three distinct mentalities. At its origin the Prussian Royal Museum presented a direct correspondence between the museum and the project of social reform. The museum—its architectural style, as well as its contents—was seen as a potent emblem for civic virtue and morality. The architecture of the museum, in other words, did not raise a distinct problem, but was an organic part of the vocation of art as Bildung.

The discrepancy between the architectural language and program of the museum emerges arguably for the first time in the Neues Museum, thanks to the decline of Humboldtian Bildung and the triumph of Hegelian historicism. While Stüler intended an idyllic Roman forum—“a sanctuary of arts and sciences”—in the midst of the city, his collaboration with the leading Prussian academicians and philologists such as Lepsius resulted in building the Neues Museum as a metaphor for the philosophy of history. Had Stüler instead chosen an eclectic language, a combination of architectural styles that correspond to the symbolic, classical and romantic collections on the façade of each floor respectively, he would have contradicted Hegel’s historical determinism (the forms belonging to distinct historical ages cannot co-exist in a given present). For the Neues Museum did not present so much what art had been in the past, but what it was leading to, its final transcendence. I have argued that subjugating art into the idea of historical progress, a telos external to art, served a conservative project that consolidated the

102

authority of the Prussian state (a bewildering cultural bureaucracy), over the initial project of instituting a civic community.

Bode’s notion of the Renaisssance Museum, which found its expression in Ihne’s Kaiser Friedrich Museum, abandoned the mid-century idea of the museum as a metaphor for history. Yet, Bode did not go back either to the earlier idea of the museum as Bildung. The architecture of Ihne’s Neo-Baroque palace-museum has no moral or historical message to convey. In its interiors Bode intended to create the “authentic experience” (Erlebnis) of “art,” by reconstructing a semblance of cultural and historical contexts. And yet, Bode’s architectural context in the museum is strictly speaking fictional and modern and it does not replicate the historical interior from which the work was displaced. I have attempted to trace some of the intellectual origins of Bode’s dichotomy of art and context, from the work of Burckhardt and Nietzsche to that of Langbehn. Several other sources could also be suggested, among these Wilhelm Dilthey’s theory of “experience” (Erlebnis) in literary criticism and Konrad Fiedler’s formalism in art. Bode’s curatorial connoisseurship was formalist in the sense that it rejected all earlier notions that art mirrors something other than itself, either a moral idea, or the idea of historical development. Instead, Bode subscribed to a vague definition of art as national character, which he owes to Langbehn’s vaguely allusive and confused theory of art as the redeemer of the Volk.

Basing his museology on a dichotomy of art and context, Bode created a new schism between the architectural style of the museum and the styles of its interiors. Only the

103

neutrality of the white cube, which would be introduced nearly two decades later, could resolve the disjunction between the interior and the exterior of the museum. The transformation of the Royal Museum of 1907 into the Pergamon Museum presents a fascinating case in that sense—even though the Pergamon Museum never became a modernist gallery.

When Messel wrote to Bode in 1907, having tried without success to match the theme of each collection with the architectural style of the museum in which it is housed, he was, perhaps, warning Bode that such correspondence is no longer possible.97 He provided instead simple facades in Berlin’s characteristic vernacular classicisim (Zopfstil), which hide hermetic interiors, each of which reconstructs a context for a different art and culture. If Stüler’s museum embodied the history of civilization, turning art into a hieroglyphics of history, Messel’s museum mapped in architectural space the human geography of arts and cultures.

97

Messel’s letters to Bode, 2 July 1907 and 7 August 1907, Berlin, SMzB PK, Zentralarchiv. 104

Part 3 _______________________________________________________________________ The Altar and Its Frames: Reconstructing Pergamon

105

3. 1. Space and Relief in the Pergamon Room

Let me begin by noting the difficulty of describing the object. The truth is that we do not know exactly what the object is or what it stands for. Some earlier accounts call it the “Zeus Altar of Pergamon,” others simply the “Great Altar,” referring to a modern presentation of a lost monument. Most visitors would agree that in the museum we stand in the presence of one of the opera nobile of the history of art. Yet, what sort of object is exhibited in the museum? Can it be displaced and replaced? And what about the modern space of the gallery, the architecture of display, the optical reality-effects, the discursive and aesthetic parameters that sustain the authenticity of experience?

From a strictly architectural point of view the object of experience is a modern interior. The observer enters the room from a gate off the center, facing the main exhibit with a sharp perspective angle. The Pergamon Room, or the “Pergamonsaal” as it is called in German, is a rectangular prism approximately twenty meters high, fifty-one meters wide and thirty-two meters deep. On all sides, the room is surrounded with light-colored walls with no window to the outside with the exception of its translucent ceiling. Filtered through the double layers of the glass roof, daylight gives the room its peculiarly austere character. The exhibited objects are arranged alongside the inner walls of the room. The space that the giant prism defines is mostly left empty in the form of a large void.

106

The moment of entrance was no doubt conceived as one of the most important aspects of the Pergamonsaal, leaving a permanent impression on the viewer. The visitor’s attention is immediately directed to the façade of an ancient monument from the Hellenistic city of Pergamon, reconstructed on the opposite side of the room. Two wings of this façade extend from the rear wall of the Pergamonsaal towards the observer. As sculptural objects in space, these two wings give the impression that the reconstructed altar is a freestanding monument. They also frame the overall composition as seen from the entrance.

The other three walls, which remain on two sides and at the back of the observer at the moment of entry, are mostly left unoccupied. They rise 20m from the ground and meet the glass ceiling with a simple ornamental moulding, a classicizing cornice. The flat and mostly unarticulated surfaces of these walls give the impression that the altar is exhibited inside a giant Platonic prism.

Near their lower edge, these three walls exhibit a long frieze in sculptural relief. The eye of the observer scans the frieze horizontally, although the frieze is placed significantly higher than eye level. Approximately one hundred thirty meters in length, the “Gigantomachy frieze” once decorated the four sides of a freestanding altar in Pergamon. It represents a scene from the mythic battle of the Olympian gods with the giants. The frieze, which depicts the extremely expressive forms of bodies in motion, has inspired modern artists and writers alike since Carl Humann shipped its fragments to Berlin during the excavations of Pergamon in 1878-1886. Given its cultural and art

107

historical importance we may assume that the display of the Gigantomachy is the primary concern that shaped the Pergamonsaal of the Berlin Museum. Here in the hall we may observe two different strategies of display. Most of the marble panels of the frieze are exhibited on the walls of the room, independently from the reconstructed altar. They are not exactly hung on the wall in the way a picture canvas is displayed in a gallery, rather they are incorporated into the plaster finishing of the modern walls. Only a small portion of the frieze, which actually corresponds to two wings of the altar beside the great stairway, is exhibited with its architectural context as incorporated into the reconstructed façade.

As the observer proceeds towards the façade and reaches the broad flight of the great stairway, the experience changes drastically. The viewer no longer contemplates the altar as a tableau from a distance, but rather walks through the scenery. The large steps somewhere in the middle of the Pergamonsaal define the boundary that demarcates the space of the museum in front of the altar, from the space of the altar proper. Judging from its white marble finish, we may conclude that the stairway is a part of the original altar, more than a modern architectural element. Yet the visitors are not only allowed to step on it, they are encouraged to ascend the stairs. This is in sharp contrast, for example, to the columns, base and entablature of the altar, which are vigilantly protected against tactile perception. As in any other museum, security officers watch the crowd that might feel compelled to actually touch the “monument.”

108

The stairs take the viewer through the altar, presenting the sculptural frieze on both sides. The sculptural figures that are kneeling on these very steps powerfully integrate the exhibit with its frame. At the end of the stairs the viewer reaches a higher platform, which leads first across a row of Ionic columns to a vestibule overlooking the Pergamonsaal, and then, through a gate, to a separate exhibition room of the museum. This room is named after Telephos, referring to a separate frieze that narrates the legend of the founding of the city of Pergamon. Here a series of complementary impressions are exposed. The gallery, which runs parallel to the reconstructed façade, provides the visitor with a view of the Pergamonsaal from above and through the columns of the peristyle. The impression is certainly that of looking at the Pergamonsaal from inside the monument: a view from inside out. The Telephos Room constitutes an architectural interior, which is curiously experienced as distinct from the overall interior of the Pergamonsaal. This architectural boundary between the Pergamonsaal and the Telephos Room is perceived as the threshold between the outside and the inside. Even though the observer physically leaves one exhibition hall and enters another, a masterful treatment of enclosures gives the visitor the impression of entering a freestanding Hellenistic building. Hence the modern Pergamonsaal is translated into an impression of the antique Pergamon Altar, as seen both from outside and inside.

A closer look suggests that the Pergamonsaal consists of critical points, which unfold the optical construction of its reality-effect. Characteristically, these are located at the very sites where the reconstructed altar meets the museum’s wall. If we ignore for a moment the two freestanding wings and focus on the central colonnade of the Zeus

109

Altar, we will see that this central section is a sculptural articulation of the modern partition wall between the Pergamonsaal and the Telephos room. From a distant perspective, however, the central colonnade looks like the peristyle of an ancient monument, while the section of the wall immediately above the colonnade is dematerialized. In order to give the Pergamon Altar its discernible “façade,” the eye erases the modern partition wall in the background, as if it is simply the sky. This effect that brings the Pergamonaltar to the foreground while effacing the architectural frame is the result of a simple contrast between the highly articulated façade, attributed to antique Pergamon, and the “neutral” surface of the modern museum. Yet, the aesthetic aspect of this contrast is nevertheless remarkable: The Pergamon Altar is read as a work of art against the background of a non-ground.

So far we have observed that the Pergamonsaal consists of carefully chosen visual effects which present the semblance of an antique building in a modern interior, and that this presentation occurs in two distinct yet complementary spheres of perception. The first sphere is analogous to the contemplation of a picture. At the moment of entrance, the observer sees the Pergamon Altar as an “ensemble” at a glance. The aesthetic distance between the observer and the object of perception lends the reconstructed altar an effect of completeness, which it physically lacks. The large void in front of the altar magnifies the effect of depth and compels the observer to read the sculptural relief as the image of a building. It is also important to note that this effect is not necessarily a trompe l’oeil in the limited definition of the term. It does not construe the third dimension out of a two-dimensional picture. Yet the reconstruction of a representative

110

part—which is technically speaking a combination of freestanding sculptural forms and sculptural relief, conveys the effect of the whole monument.

Secondly, the architectural promenade through the altar gives the visitor the impression of occupying the original space of a Hellenistic building. More specifically it gives an impression of crossing the boundary between inside and outside. It evokes a sense of enclosure and exposure in the face of an imaginary landscape. The distant perception of the altar as a picture and the subsequent experience of an enclosure do not conflict with one another because of what we may call a scenario of experience, or rather, a mnemonic sequence. In other words, the observer is overwhelmed by the vision of an ensemble, prior to examining the reconstructed altar with close-ups in profile. The vision proceeds from the general to the particular and constitutes a visual field that restores an architectural continuum. Even though the wall of the gallery cuts through the altar as a picture plane, the impressions of a moving eye restore the third dimension beyond this plane. The depth of the Pergamon Altar extends in front of the viewer in high relief as a fictive space.

***

Archaeological evidence shows that a major Hellenistic monument with elaborate sculptural program was built in the castle of Bergama, in Western Anatolia, most probably during the reign of Eumenes II (2nd century BC)—only decades before 133 when Attalus III bequeathed the kingdom to Rome, and Pergamon became the provincial

111

capital of Roman Asia. The monument stood on a lower terrace of the Pergamene acropolis, south of the sacred precinct of Athena, facing the vast valley of the Bakırçay (antique Caicus river). Following a peculiar Hellenistic type it consisted of a colonnaded open court on an elevated podium (built upon 36.80 x 34.20 m foundations). The monumental frieze Gigantomachy surrounded the high podium on all sides. A monumental stairway, which faced the valley on the West side, gave access to an inner court. An inner structure, walled with a balustrade on three sides and opening to the West—perhaps a sacrificial altar—was housed in this court. The inner court was also embellished by a smaller frieze, which showed the story of Pergamon’s mythic founder, Telephos.98

Conclusive evidence stops there: we have remarkably little knowledge about the program and function of the antique building. We call it an “altar”—most often, the Great Altar of Pergamon—for its architecture seems to fit a peculiar type of monument in Hellenistic Anatolia, and for the only Roman writer who testified to its presence, Lucius Ampelius called it “ara,” though he failed to identify to whom the “altar” was

98

A number of publications that followed the first German excavations of 1878 and 1886 attempted to reconstruct the Great Altar of Pergamon: Richard Bohn, the architect of the excavations, published the first reconstruction of the ground plan of the Hellenistic altar in the preliminary excavation reports published in 1880 and 1888; Otto Puchstein reassembled and arranged the Gigantomachy Frieze in 1888-89; Hans Schrader studied the sacrificial altar and the Telephos Frieze in two publications, “Die Opferstätte des pergamenischen Altars,” Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 6 (July 1899): 612-25 and “Die Anordnung und Deutung des pergamenischen Telephos-frieses,” Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 15 (1900): 97-135; A volume dedicated to the architecture of the Great Altar, Der grosze Altar. Der obere Markt by Jakob Schrammen, appeared in a series of official museum publications, Altertümer von Pergamon (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1906). 112

dedicated.99 For our purposes it is important to underscore the hypothetic nature of all architectural reconstruction. Particularly the function and the form of the structure, which was housed in the inner court, cannot be established with certainty: it might have served as a sacrificial altar for the actual slaughtering of animals, an ash altar for the burning of the offerings, a palatial court for festive banquets, or as the figurative altar of a victory monument where the enemies of the Greeks, mythic and real, were depicted in a set of reclining sculptures.100

99

It is likely, given the prominent position of the figures of Zeus and of Athena Nikephoros (victory-bringer) on the East frieze, that the two Olympians were among the honorees of the altar. This, however, does not rule out the possibility that the altar was a shrine to a mortal (which may or may not have included a tomb), perhaps dedicated to the hero Telephos, or to a member of the Royal family, most likely queen mother Apollonis (died 183 B.C.?). None of these hypotheses, as Andrew Stewart has recently noted, is exclusive: the altar may have had several honorees. See Stewart, “Pergamo Ara Marmorea Magna: On the Date, Reconstruction and Functions of the Great Altar of Pergamon,” in From Pergamon to Sperlonga: Sculpture in Context, eds. Nancy T. de Grummond and Brunilde S. Ridgway (Berkeley Calif.: The University of California Press, 2000), 37. 100

Volker Kästner and Wolffram Hoepfner have recently proposed two reconstructions of the Great Altar on paper, which differ both from Bohn’s 19th century reconstruction and from each other in a number of details. Hoepfner also led a team that reconstructed the altar in a new (1/20) scale model built from corian. While Kästner argues that the sacrificial altar for burnt offerings may have been roofed by a baldachin, Hoepfner endorses an older hypothesis that the sacrificial altar was either used for unburnt offerings or contained a figurative representation of sacrifice. According to Hoepfner the defeated enemies of the Greeks, Amazons, Persians and Celts were represented on the “altar.” See Kästner, “Der Pergamonaltar als Bauwerk,” in ‘Wir Haben eine ganze Kunstepoche gefunden!’ Ein Jahrhundert Forschungen zum Pergamonaltar, exhibition catalog (Berlin, DDR: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 1986); Kästner, “The Architecture of the Great Altar and the Telephos Frieze,” in Pergamon: the Telephos Frieze from the Great Altar, Renée Dreyfus and Ellen Schraudolph eds. (San Francisco: Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, 1997), vol. II: 68-82. See also Hoepfner, “Bauliche Details am Pergamonaltar, Archäologischer Anzeiger (1991): 189-202; Hoepfner, “Siegestempel und Siegesaltäre: der Pergamonaltar as Siegesmonument,” in Wolffram Hoepfner and Gerhard Zimmer eds., Die griechische Polis: Architektur und Politik (Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag, 1993); Hoepfner, “Der vollendete Pergamonaltar,” Archäologischer 113

Even though it might not be apparent to viewers at first glance, there is a correspondence between the actual position of the Gigantomachy frieze on the museum walls and its original location on the historical altar in Hellenistic Pergamon. Given that only the West façade of the Hellenistic altar is reconstructed in the Pergamonsaal (opened to the public in 1930) the German restorers needed to develop a peculiar order of presentation for the East, North and South segments of the Gigantomachy.

A landmark novel in contemporary German literature, Die Ästhetik des Widerstands [The Aesthetic of Resistance] by Peter Weiss, captures this critical issue in one paragraph. Weiss’s novel, which narrates the resistance of a group of German insurgents against the Nazi regime, starts with a description of the Gigantomachy frieze in the Pergamon Museum. In an extended description that reanimates the sculptural figures in narrative time, the author transforms the scene of the Gigantomachy into an allegory of the German struggle against fascism. In the last paragraph of the first section, Heilmann, the character from whose voice the author speaks, observes the peculiar strategy of the reconstruction. He notices that inside the Pergamonsaal the “spatial function was turned inside out” and that “the exterior surface of the temple became the inner walls of the room.” “When we face the stairs of the West façade, we have behind us the East façade, that is, the back side of the temple, which was only partially reconstructed.” Likewise on

Anzeiger (1996): 115-134. Hoepfner “Model of the Pergamon Altar (1:20),” in Renée Dreyfus and Ellen Schraudolph eds., vol. II: 59-67. 114

the right of the observer, the southern frieze extends through the wall of the Pergamonsaal, while the North frieze is located on the left-hand side.101

Hence the presentation of the frieze in the museum is remarkable: it offers the viewer an opportunity to inspect the one hundred and thirty-five-meter long frieze without breaking the original order of the sculptural figures. And yet, by displaying the Gigantomachy on the inner walls of a gallery, the museum effectively turned the Hellenistic building outside-in like a glove. (Admittedly, the analogy of glove is helpful only to a certain degree: for while the exterior facades of the Hellenistic monument were translated into the inner façades of the Pergamon Museum, the sculpture on display in Berlin is not a mirror image of the antique frieze.) In other words, the frieze of the historical altar, which could be experienced only by a viewer who circled around the monument, became the panoramic vision of an observer who stands in the middle of the Pergamonsaal.

Only when we reflect on the place of the observer who sees all the four facades of an antique building, can we underscore the ambiguity of the museum presentation. No need to say that the space defined by the four façades of a building is intuitively perceived as its inside. Yet the viewer of the Pergamonsaal is given the impression of seeing the monument from the exterior: a mental eye sees both the back and the front of the same building from the same standpoint. It is therefore not so much the Great Altar of Pergamon, which was uprooted and displaced from its original site, but the subject who

101

Peter Weiss, Die Ästhetik des Widerstands (1975) (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, taschenbuch edition, 1998), 19. 115

looks at the altar. Conceptually omnipresent, yet physically absent, this observer who sees the monument from everywhere is, actually, nowhere.102

To sum up: the object presented in the Pergamonsaal is not so much a restoration of a freestanding architectural monument as a conceptual model of ancient architecture. The museum presentation created the atmosphere of experiencing the Hellenistic altar not by restoring it to its entire form, but by citing a hypothetic reconstruction of its façades in four picture planes, and pasting them on the interior walls of the museum. To put it polemically, the modern presentation deprived the Great Altar of Pergamon of its buildinghood. The status of the altar as a freestanding tectonic corpus is compromised to achieve the visual effect of an artistic whole. To the contrary of the common impression, it is not that a historic altar was displaced and relocated in a modern interior; rather, the prism of the Pergamonsaal functions as a giant apparatus that construes the Great Altar as a modern spectacle.

The basic characteristic of such presentation, as we shall see, is that it does not acknowledge its own status as a conceptual model, and, instead, amounts to a makebelief: a tableau vivant. Such presentation is achieved by constructing in the modern

102

According to Weiss, the strategy of display in the Pergamon Museum is one that renders the works completely dependent on the subjectivity of the viewer. The museum, in other words, presupposes its audience. In a remarkable passage, Weiss’s hero, Heilmann, asserts that the Pergamon Museum compels us to better understand—what he calls the “theory of relativity.” The sudden encounter with the monuments of Pergamon, Milet and Babylon in the adjacent rooms of the museum, the sudden transition from the forms of one century to another, which is immediately accompanied with the experience of the modern metropolis, is a “dizzying occurrence.” The museum both disorients and reorients its visitor, and induces the subject to take a new position. Ibid. 116

gallery a fictive boundary between the antique space of the Hellenistic altar and the real space of the modern museum.

117

3.2. Antique Fragments and Modern Visions

The museum reconstruction of the Great Altar is often presented as a result of the successful German excavations in Pergamon in the last decades of the 19th century.103 This statement, though literally correct, underplays an essential aspect of the relation of German imperial archaeology with the Prussian Royal Museum: the promise of achieving a spectacular museum reconstruction in Berlin was the main motive that led the Prussian State to sponsor excavations in Western Turkey in the first place. When the expatriate German engineer-architect Humann shipped his private finds from the castle of Bergama, he failed initially to obtain the official support of the Royal Museum. It was the newly appointed director of Berlin’s Antiquity Collection, Alexander Conze (18311914),104 who first saw the potential of reconstructing a monumental Hellenistic Frieze, the Gigantomachy, from the fragments of human and animal figures in high relief.105

103

See for example Matthes, The Pergamon Museum, especially “Introduction,” 9. Cf. Kunze, “Der Pergamonaltar und die hellenistische Kunst Griechenlands: Geschichte und Stand der Erforschung,” in ‘Wir Haben eine ganze Kunstepoche gefunden!’, ed. Kunze, 5-9. A history of the reception of the Pergamon Altar in Germany by Hans-Joachim Schalles, on the other hand, shows the way Pergamene art came to be identified in the 19th century with the self-representation of the Wilhelmine Reich. See Schalles, Der Pergamonaltar: zwischen Bewertung und Verwertbarkeit (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 1986); Schalles, “Rezeptiongeschichtliche Nachlese zum Pergamonaltar,” in Modus in Rebus Gedenkschrift für Wolfgang Schindler, eds. D. Rösler and V. Stürmer (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1995), 189-200. Although I am indebted to Schalles’ excellent study, I depart from his “history of reception” by arguing that the Pergamene “works of art” did not stand on the shore of modern history but they were actually shaped by it. Hence the appropriation of antique art is not, in my mind, “abuse” or “explotation” of it by modernity: I intend here, in other words, a history of modern construction of Pergamene art.

104

Alexander Conze was appointed as director of the Sculpture Collection of the Royal 118

As often is the case when archaeology is seen as a means for museum reconstruction of monuments, the first German campaign in Pergamon was guided by a Romantic idea of a golden age, and a determination to recover it at all cost. Neither Humann who had been trained as an architect in Berlin, and had pursued most of his career as a road engineer in Turkey, nor Conze, a curator of Greek sculpture, showed much interest in preserving the historical strata belonging to the Byzantine and the Turkish Karasi Beylik eras in the castle. The late antique and medieval structures were systematically destroyed to obtain the fragments that might help a hypothetic reconstruction of the acropolis to its stage during the Hellenistic and early Roman eras.

Seeking to recover a monument, which had once stood in the castle of Bergama, and which had long since been absorbed into other historical structures, the German restorers tackled two extraordinarily difficult problems: first, how to reassemble the fragments of sculptural relief, most of which were embodied within an 8th century Byzantine wall, into their original Hellenistic configuration—recovering the Gigantomachy, a masterpiece of the 2nd century BC; secondly, to recover the architectural monument to which the frieze belonged. As early as 1878, Conze instructed Humann to seek not merely “single works of arts, but rather to keep in view the whole structure of the altar,

Prussian Museum (Berlin) in 1877, and the director of the German Archaeology Institute in 1881. 105

Matthes, The Pergamon Museum, 12. 119

the true object of inquiry.”106 In fact, Conze’s quest to recover a lost Hellenistic monument was also fuelled by the remarkable landscape of ruins in Bergama, which so impressed the visitors and the excavators. Towering some two hundred and fifty meters above the Bakirçay valley, the terrace where Humann excavated offers a vertiginous view: the modern Turkish town on the Bakirçay valley covers to this day only partly the ruins of a much larger Hellenistic and Roman settlement.

***

Among thousands of pages of excavation reports, official and private correspondence, personal memoirs, two documents from Humann’s hand—a letter he wrote to Conze in 1878 and his first excavation report of 1878-79—provide a synoptic view of the process through which the Gigantomachy was restored.

Since the start of the first official campaign sponsored by the Prussian State on September 9, 1878, Humann and an army of workers—Turkish and Greek locals who enlisted for the excavations—had dug a long trench on the lower terrace of the castle along the Byzantine wall. Over ten months of excavations the trench had disclosed several figures built into the wall: fragments of human and animal scenes carved on slabs of white marble. Pursuing the foundations of a lost monument, Humann extended

106

See Conze’s letter to Humann, 16 July 1878, Chronik der Ausgrabung von Pergamon 1871-1886, ed. Eduard Schulte (n.p., n.d.); also cited in Marchand, Down From Olympus, 95. Conze predicted—correctly—that the sculptural fragments Humann recovered belonged to a freestanding altar with an open court and not to a Greek temple. 120

the trench to the East where he encountered four marble panels in April 1879. In his letter to Conze of July 22, 1879, and in his excavation report, Humann describes the events of July 21 when the excavators turned over the marble slabs and brought their sculptural relief into light. In his excavation report Humann writes, I had visitors in Pergamon; my wife had come over from Smyrna [Izmir] and also Dr. Boretius from Berlin, on his trip through the Orient. It was July 21 when I invited the visitors to the [excavation site in the] castle to observe the turning of the slabs, which were standing outwards with their backsides and against the debris. While we were ascending, seven mighty eagles circled the castle, anticipating good luck.107 According to Humann’s vivid description, first a serpent-legged giant was turned over and fell into the trench: the figure, whose back was stretched with fervor, and whose left arm was raised defensively, faced toward an opponent to the left. Larger than life and chimerical, the figure did not seem familiar to Humann. The second slab to be uncovered displayed the powerful torso of an Olympian who towered over the composition. His robe was wind-blown around the torso and between the legs, clearly suggesting the posture of stepping in attack. His arms extended to the adjoining slabs, which were still lost. If the figure had a head, it would perhaps have turned toward the serpent-legged giant to engage him in battle. The identity of the torso escaped Humann at first. Then the excavators uncovered a third figure: a slightly built, but muscular giant who had fallen to his knees. His left hand held with pain the right shoulder from which the arm hung, slack and lifeless. Then, a fourth panel came to light: a giant who wore a

107

“Humanns erster Bericht über Pergamon, 1878/79,” in Der Entdecker von Pergamon Carl Humann: ein Lebensbild, ed. Theodor Wiegand (Berlin: G. Grote’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1930), 42. 121

shield and sword, yet, defeated in the battle, fell on his back. Rays of a thunderbolt had cut through his body and pierced his thighs. The lightning that struck this last figure left little doubt in Humann’s mind about the identity of the giant’s opponent. Who in Olympus would use such a weapon? I feel your presence, Zeus! [Ich fühle deine Nähe Zeus!] Feverish, I am rushing around the four marble slabs; here the third [slab] fits onto the first one; the snakes of the big giant clearly turn toward the slab with the giant on his knee. The upper part of the slab where a giant has stretched his arm, wrapped in fur, is missing; but one sees clearly that he is fighting above the fallen one. Could it be that he is fighting against the greatest god? Surely, yes, his left foot, covered by the garment, disappears behind the kneeling giant. Three slabs fit together, I exclaimed, and am already with the fourth one; it fits too—the giant struck by lightning falls under the god. I am literally shaking, my entire body; there, another piece comes along—with my nails, I am scraping off the soil—lion skin, it is the arm of the giant—next to him, a tangle of scales and snakes—the Aegis! It is Zeus! Such a magnificent work was bestowed upon the world again and crowned our efforts; the Athena group [a previously discovered group of the Gigantomachy] found its most beautiful counterpart. Deeply moved, three of us stood around the delicious find until I sat down on Zeus and cried in tears of joy…108 Humann’s description of the discovery in his letter to Conze, is virtually identical, though it makes more pointed references to the supernatural signs that presaged the discovery of the Zeus group: “Seven eagles circled the tip of the castle, and I asked Mr. Boretius whether he knew anything about the birds; he believed it meant good luck.” After identifying the slabs as the Zeus Group, Humann adds, “that is why the flying of seven eagles.”109

108

Ibid., 42-43.

109

Humann’s letter to Conze, 22 July 1879, Der Pergamon Altar: Entdeckt, Beschrieben und Gezeichnet von Carl Humann, ed. Eduard Schulte (Dortmund: Ardey Verlag, 1959); reprinted in Friedrich Karl and Eleonore Dörner, Von Pergamon zum Nemrud Dag: Die archäologischen Entdeckunken Carl Humanns (Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1989). 122

Humann’s description reveals the quasi-mythic consciousness that “discovered” the Gigantomachy. For instance, “Ich fühle deine Nähe Zeus!” which he awkwardly inserted both in the letter and report, breaks with the usual narrative voice of the author (who, exactly, feels the presence of Zeus?). As a pronouncement in the tradition of the Hellenistic soothsayers, this exclamation clearly belongs with the eagles that had circled the castle the morning of July 21, 1879.

If the role of Humann in this drama of “discovery” is to foretell the return of the “masterpiece,” the role of his immediate audience is equally crucial. Humann presents his two non-specialist visitors, Dr. Boetius and Mrs. Humann (who resided in Izmir and occasionally traveled to Bergama) as “skeptics.”110 They come to embrace the slabs of Gigantomachy only at the end of Humann’s reconstruction, not when the fragments fall into the trench, but only when Humann presents compelling evidence about the identity of the god represented. One could ask whether the Greek and Turkish workers who turned over the slabs also felt “the presence of Zeus” along with the three Germans. Humann, who studied and compared the work habits of his Muslim and Christian Orthodox workers—in order to obtain higher efficiency—is silent about the reaction of his workers to the discovery. Nor does he mention how they perceived the miraculous signs that presaged it. That their reaction, unlike that of a Dr. Boretius in his grand tour in the Orient, is totally irrelevant is not without significance: even though the “work was

110

Cf. Humann’s account with an article published by Boretius in Nationalzeitung about the discovery of the Zeus Group, n.d., reprinted in Schulte, 59. 123

bestowed upon the world,” the reconstruction was intended, at least initially, for a specific audience. The “discovery” of Pergamon, that is the destruction of the medieval structures in order to recover a lost antique image is, above all, a process of cognition: it could be achieved only by a group that was predisposed to see the cognates of Zeus—the aegis, the thunderbolts, the eagles etc…--but cared little about the late antique and medieval castle.

Humann’s biographers quoted indefatigably this moment of original “discovery.”111 In the 1920’s and the 30’s, the narration of the quasi-mythic events that had led to the discovery of the Zeus Group effectively helped to refashion the image of the expatriate architect as a “pioneer” of the emerging German nation, “the discoverer of Pergamon” and—more astonishingly—“the savior of the frieze” (in the light of the recent repatriation debates, such a title has a political significance).

The historical personality is undoubtedly more complex: Humann entered the service of the Ottoman Government under the premier minister Fuat Pasha in 1864. He was sent on Turkish engineering missions in Syria and Palestine. He first arrived in Bergama in order to construct the Bergama-Dikili road and commanded as many as two thousand construction workers in the region. Having established his engineering headquarters in Bergama he started collecting antique marble from the castle in 1869. Though an admirer of Greek architecture, what made Humann’s service invaluable for the German Reich after 1871 was certainly not his knowledge of Greek antiquities. Few foreigners

111

See especially Wiegand, ed., Der Entdecker von Pergamon, Carl Humann. 124

knew the infrastructure of Western Anatolia as well as one who had actually helped build it. Humann’s contacts with the Ottoman Turkish bureaucracy in the province [vilayet] of Izmir also proved crucial in undertaking grand-scale excavations and successfully exporting the finds from Pergamon, Magnesia on Büyük Menderes (Maeander) (1891-93) and Priene (1896).112

***

As early as 1886 the “Zeus Altar of Pergamon” came to be identified with the glory of the Kaiserreich. The similarities between the Pergamene Kingdom that was patron to the monument and the Prussia that recovered it, seemed convincing: the Attalids, like the Prussians, were committed to reviving Hellenism, paid tribute to the high culture, religion and traditions of classical Athens, and unified Hellenistic Anatolia under their rule (building a second Greek empire after Alexander). To make matters worse, the major victory of the Pergamenes was against the much-hated Celts (often cited as the “Gauls,”113) who invaded Anatolia in the 2nd century BC. In fact, even though we cannot establish whether the original altar was intended to celebrate Eumenes II’s victory over the Celts, there is little doubt that fin-de-siècle Germany embraced the monument as one that crowned the Prussian victory over France.

112

See Karl and Dörner, Von Pergamon zum Nemrud Dag, 11-24.

113

The bronze Pergamene sculptural group representing the Celts is available today only in marble Roman copies. See for example Epigonos (?) Dying Gaul, in Museo Capitolino, Rome and Epigonos (?) Gaul Killing Himself and his Wife, in Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Altemps, Rome. 125

It is thus little wonder that the first reconstruction of the city of Pergamon in Berlin was a panorama, a popular entertainment, which flourished in Europe and in the United States in the 19th century.114 The occasion was the exhibition celebrating the hundredth anniversary of the Royal Academy of Arts in Berlin in 1886, as well as the 25th anniversary of Kaiser Wilhelm I’s ascension to the Prussian throne. In addition to a number of colonial pavilions,115 the exhibition also featured a “Temple of Pergamon,” a temporary structure that celebrated the achievements of the German archaeologists under the Kaiser’s patronage.116

The “Temple of Pergamon” was an architectural wonder: its base consisted of a reconstruction of the elevated podium of the Great Altar of Pergamon, which was decorated by plaster casts of the Gigantomachy frieze. On top of the Pergamene podium a reconstruction of the Zeus Temple of Olympia was mounted. This architectural chimera, which fused two monuments of two distinct cities and of two distinct historical periods into a single structure, was dedicated to the achievements of German

114

For a history of the panorama, see Stephan Oettermann, The Panorama: History of a Mass Medium (New York: Zone Books, 1997).

115

The exhibition also featured a “Kaiser-Diorama”—a misleading name that shouldn’t be confused with the optical viewing device designed around the same years. The installation presented the recent achievements of German colonialism in central Africa in five different panoramas. The architects of the exhibition chose to house the colonial installations in a replica of the Temple of Denderra in Egypt, which dates not from the pharonic Egypt, but rather from the Hellenistic period: an exceptional symbolism to incorporate Africa into the German empire without giving up the high Hellenic ideal. See Schalles, “Rezeptionsgeschichte Nachlese zum Pergamonaltar,” 190. 116

Ibid., 188. 126

archaeology: Olympia and Pergamon were the two major sites recently excavated by the German Archaeology Institute. Although we have nearly no information about the architects, Kyllmann and Heyden, it is clear that they conceived the “temple” as a popular entertainment and did not intend a restoration of either historical monument.117

In a recent article which focuses on the exhibition, Hans-Joachim Schalles points out a few inconsistencies in the presentation of the “citations” of the Zeus Temple on Olympia and of the Great Altar in Pergamon. First, echoing the 19th century debate on polychromy in Greek architecture, the frieze on the pediment of the Olympia Temple was fully painted, while the casts of the Gigantamochy frieze were left white.118 Secondly, the German architects altered freely the sequence of the figures of the Gigantomachy in order to accommodate the decorative program of the new building. The two most celebrated sculptural elements, the Zeus and the Athena groups, which originally belong to the East façade of the altar were presented on its front, on the most prominent site of the modern “temple.”

Walking up the stairs of the Pergamon Altar through the peristyle of the Olympia Temple, visitors entered a large semi-circular room. The interior wall of the half-rotunda

117

Oettermann, The Panorama, 257.

118

Only three years later in 1889 the Berlin art historian, Heinrich Wölfflin writes: “Whereas one could imagine the Pantheon frieze with a gold ground, which might form an effective foil to the beautiful contours of the figures, this would not be possible with a more painterly relief like the Pergamene Gigantomachia, which relies entirely on the effects of moving masses, and for which a gold ground would only create a wild and completely inappropriate confusion of color.” Wölfflin, Renaissance and Baroque, translated by Kathrin Simon (London, Collins, 1964), 63. 127

featured the “Pergamon Panorama” painted on a fourteen by sixty meter-long canvas. The semi-circular Pergamon Panorama was adapted from a perspective by Richard Bohn (1848-1898) who joined Humann’s excavations in 1879. According to the exhibition guide, the panorama depicted “a moment …in the annual feast of Pergamon, one of the capitals of the province of Asia Minor during the Roman Empire… The theater was splendidly decorated, the lodge of the governor was covered with red cloth. The performance has just ended and some of the spectators proceed towards different exits through narrow stairs. Most of them hurry towards the altar and the market, and can still be seen on the processional way of sacrifice as they approach the Zeus Altar.”119 As Schalles argues, the depiction of people on their way to the altar of sacrifice, this episode from the life of the “war and art-loving Hellas” can easily be recognized as a motto in the self-image of the Kaiserreich.120 In summer 1886 some one thousand and five hundred actors in period costume dramatized the victorious wars of the Attalids against the invading “Gauls,” using the Temple of Pergamon as an open-air décor. Both the Pergamon Panorama and the Temple of Pergamon of 1886 played a crucial role in the German self-identification with the antique city.

Even though the chimerical mixture of the Gigantomachy with the Zeus Temple of Olympia had little effect on the later museum reconstructions, the idea of presenting a panoramic view of the acropolis in an interior as an ensemble remained a powerful influence. Hence as early as 1886, the Pergamon Panorama presented a phantasmagoric

119

E. Fabricius, cited in Schalles, “Rezeptionsgeschichte,” 195.

120

Ibid. 128

vision of Pergamon as a sublime landscape, curiously contained in a “Pergamon Temple”—reversing the relation between the Hellenistic altar and the historical landscape in which it once stood.

***

The French response to the Pergamon Panorama of 1886 came more than a decade later with the monumental publication of Pergame by the historian Maxime Collignon and the architect Emmanuel Pontremoli. Alarmed by the German appropriation of major archaeological sites in the Eastern Mediterranean, the French Ministry of Education sponsored a number of archaeological publications, which brought together a prizewinning architect of the Beaux Arts academy with a historian of antiquity, usually a member of the French School in Athens. Although the restoration of antique monuments in Italy in a conventional set of drawings had long been part of the Beaux Arts pedagogy—the winners of the prix de Rome after 1880 persistently chose the recently excavated sites in Greece and Turkey as the topic of their 4th year-restoration projects121—the architect’s collaboration with the historian was aimed at creating a new type of scholarship in archaeology beyond the purpose of enhancing architectural education.122

121

For an overview of the projects by the fellows of the French Beaux Arts academy in Rome see the exhibition catalog, Paris, Rome, Athènes: le voyage en Grèce des architectes français aux XIXe et XXe siècles (Paris: L'École nationale, 1982). 122

In one instance the French historian Bernard Haussoullier and the architect Emmanuel Pontremoli carried out excavations in 1895-96 in the temple of Didyma in Western Turkey, in a desperate and ultimately failed attempt to compete with the 129

It is bemusing, given the contemporaneous and distinctively anti-French celebration of Pergamon in Berlin, that Collignon starts the book by arguing one should look nowhere other than Versailles in order to understand Pergamon.123 According to Collignon, both the palace of Louis XIV and the seat of Eumenes II were conceived as an architectural “ensemble,” a visual expression of the absolute power of the king. Vaguely allusive, this comparison proved extremely influential on the subsequent interpretations of the site plan of Pergamon.124 And yet Collignon’s comparison plays out a deep misunderstanding: even if the capital of the Attalids were composed intentionally around an actual viewpoint—it was not; the acropolis was an accumulation of several historical layers—such a privileged viewpoint would have to correspond to the symbolic place of the king proper, the embodiment of divine authority. This was certainly not the case in antique Pergamon: the king’s palace was one among many monuments that could be seen by a traveler who approached the city from the valley.

German Archaeology Institute (DAI). See Pontremoli, Didymes: fouilles de 1895 et 1896 (Paris: E. Leroux, 1904). In other cases, French historians and architects studied archaeological evidence already available in situ or in the Berlin museums. We may cite the restoration of Olympia by Laloux and Monceaux, Epidaurus by Defrasse and Lechat, among the most remarkable publications. Pergame of 1900 is a significant example of this genre. 123

M. Colignon and Emmanuel Pontremoli, Pergame: restauration and description des monuments de l’acropole (L. H. May, 1900), 229. 124

Looking at a small fragment of the antique city of nearly one million inhabitants historians often interpreted Pergamon as “scenographic” urbanism, a giant stage-set that pivots around the theater, opening to the vast valley, and hence celebrating the absolute power of the suzerain. 130

Pontremoli’s impressive drawings, which he had originally submitted to the Beaux Arts academy as his 4th year project in Rome [envoi de Rome], restored the Pergamene Acropolis into a harmonious composition, an “ensemble.”125 Unlike the Pergamon Panorama, which is based on Bohn’s perspective, and where the modern viewer is expected to occupy a central viewpoint (from which the ancient city as a theater-stage is looked at), Pontremoli restored the acropolis in a set of Beaux-Arts drawings (most remarkably in an elevation, which interpreted the antique city as a single and gigantic façade). Even though the French architect restored the acropolis into its complete form during the Roman era, he, unlike Bohn, does not depict a given historical moment in Pergamon. Pontremoli made clear his disdain for theatrical restorations of antiquity, which depicted man in historical attire on the architectural drawings alongside the restored monuments.126 His elevations of the city of Pergamon, just like the drawings of Olympia by his teacher, Victor Laloux, are curiously devoid of people but overly populated by a large number of Greek sculptures: the uncanny vision of an antique city in a perfect state, suddenly abandoned by its people.

125

A student of Victor Laloux [who is known for his monumental reconstruction drawings of Olympia in 1883], Pontremoli won the first prize in 1890 in the Beaux Arts competition and was sent to Rome. As a “pensionnaire” in the French academy in Rome, he first worked on the architectural restitution of monuments in three Italian cities, as was expected during his first three years. For his fourth and final project of restitution, however, he chose Pergamon. In Summer 1894 Pontremoli traveled to Berlin to work on the fragments of the Pergamon Altar and especially those of the Gigantomachia frieze. He must have seen them as exhibited in the Altes Museum. 126

See Pontremoli, Didymes. 131

A comparison of the hypothetic restorations of the Great Altar by German and French architects is fascinating: it shows how the archaeological evidence available at the end of the 19th century could be interpreted to “restore” two radically different buildings. Based on a comparison of the archaeological fragments with the grid foundations in Bergama, Bohn achieved the first hypothetic reconstruction of the altar in 1880127, in which he conceived of the altar as an architectural frame for viewing a “baroque” sculptural group. Based on the superficial resemblance of the Pergamene sculpture to 17th century sculpture in Rome, German art historians called the art of the 2nd century AD Anatolia “Hellenistic baroque,” a category defined in opposition to classical art. Fuelled by the neo-baroque style in German architecture in the 1860’s, and by German art history’s preoccupation with “baroque” in the 1890’s, the Pergamene altar has been interpreted up until today as a “post-classical” or “baroque” structure.128

127

Volker Kästner, “Architecture of the Great Altar,” 68.

128

Representation of movement in painting and sculpture had become a central problem in German aesthetics and art history by the end of the 19th century. Some of the discussion was literally formulated in the aftermath of Carl Humann’s discovery, by a group of scholars who were inspired by the Hellenistic figures of the Gigantomachy frieze. In striking contrast to restrained, static and canonical representation of the human body in Classical Greek sculpture, the Pergamon frieze offers an intense and exaggerated way of expressing movement. The discovery of the Gigantomachy frieze put into question the Neoclassical scholarship that had ignored Hellenistic art as decadent or imitative of the classical age, and cast doubt on Johann Joachim Winckelmann’s (17171768) famous dictum on the "noble simplicity and quiet grandeur" of Greek sculpture. The Gigantomachy frieze presents formal features that are almost entirely missing from classical Greek art. In Art in the Hellenistic Age, J.J. Politt identifies some of these characteristics as “undulating surfaces; agonized facial expressions; extreme contrasts of texture created by deep carving of the sculptural surface with resultant areas of highlight and dark shadow; and the use of ‘open’ forms which deny boundaries and tectonic balance.” See Art in the Hellenistic Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 111. It was not until the first years of the 20th century that the term “Hellenistic Baroque” came to describe the Pergamene architecture and sculpture. We owe this artistic category largely to the influence of the German art historian Heinrich Wölfflin 132

In contrast to the German interpretations, the French architect who studied the fragments of the Gigantomachy in the Berlin Museum in 1894 and surveyed the foundations of the monument in Bergama, conceived the altar as a curiously art nouveau ziggurat.129 In Pontremoli’s project the Gigantomachy surrounds a towering structure where the monumental stairs lead to the high terrace of a sacrificial altar. Pontremoli’s fantastically Oriental monument reveals the continuing influence of the British art historian James Fergusson who restored on paper the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus in 1862.130

The subsequent reconstructions on paper by Jakob Schrammen in the official publication Altertümer von Pergamon of 1906, and by Armin von Gerkan, which guided the museum display of the late 1920’s, departed from Bohn’s initial plan only in minor

(1864-1945). In his Renaissance and Baroque (1889), a history of architecture of the period immediately after the Renaissance in Italy, Wölfflin posits “baroque” as the diametrical opposite of the classical idea in architecture. Baroque, then, besides referring to a specific historical period in 17th century Italy, is a general tendency that periodically surfaced in Western art, and usually as a reaction against a classical epoch. Wölflin’s generalization of “baroque” into a circular, world-historical category is indebted to the similarity he perceived between the Italian baroque and the Hellenistic art of Pergamon. See especially Arnold von Salis, Der Altar von Pergamon: ein Beitrag zur erklärung des Hellenistischen Barockstils in Kleinasien (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1912). 129

A graduate of the Beaux Arts academy, Pontremoli executed most of his buildings in art nouveau style. See for instance his Villa Kerylos, France for the archaeologist Théodore Reinach, built 1902-08. Pierre Pinon, “The Architect and the Archaeologist: the Villa by Emmanuel Pontrémoli for Theodore Reinach,” Lotus International, 60 (1989): 112-27. 130

See Fergusson, The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus Restored (London: J. Murray, 1862). See also Fergusson, The Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis Restored: An Essay on the Ancient Assyrian and Persian Architecture. (Delhi: Goyal Offset Printer. First reprint 1981). 133

details. Since the subsequent excavations did not reveal substantial new evidence, our knowledge about the superstructure of the altar essentially does not exceed that of Bohn in 1888. The axial spans of the colonnade, the shape and function of the “sacrificial altar,” the height of the building, the placement of the freestanding sculpture can only be hypothetically reconstructed.

134

3.3. The Problem of Museum Reconstruction

By the end of the first campaign in 1880, Humann had shipped ninety-seven frieze slabs and approximately two thousand fragments of the Gigantomachy, alongside thirty-five slabs of the smaller Telephos. In his excavation report he predicted that the original Gigantomachia covered an area of 135 X 2.30 m., and the sculptural fragments he sent to the museum corresponded roughly to three-fifths of the original frieze.131 Hence, while a substantial portion of the Great Frieze has survived, the architectural fragments Humann uncovered are incomplete, making a restoration of the monument from its original pieces impossible. Similarly, the grid foundations, which Humann uncovered on the altar terrace in Bergama in 1879, scarcely reveal a specific scheme for the floor plan of the monument.132 As for nearly fifty fragments of ceiling slabs that have survived, Humann left them in Bergama, where they can still be seen around the foundations.

From the moment that the fragments of the Gigantomachy reached Berlin, the question of how to integrate the frieze with its architectural setting preoccupied the restorers. Two

131

Humann, “Die Ausgrabungen zu Pergamon. Geschichte der Untersuchung. Vorläufiger Bericht,” Jahrbuch der Königlich Preussischen Kunstsammlungen I (1880): 129-56; also cited in Ursula Kästner, “Excavation and Assembly of the Telephos Frieze,” eds. Renée Dreyfus and Ellen Schraudolph, vol. I: 25. 132

These foundations, unlike the marble upper structure, were constructed from the locally available tufa; their partitions were independent from those of the upper structure. No more than two marble steps on the East façade have survived: we have no fragment of the monumental stairs of the West façade. See V. Kästner, “The Architecture of the Great Altar,” 69. 135

different approaches presented themselves in the architectural competition for the extension of Berlin’s Museum Island in 1884. While a group of participants proposed to display the frieze on a partial reconstruction of the Great Altar, an arrangement that imitated the original setting of the Hellenistic relief (e.g. entries by Fritz Wolff, Ludwig Hoffmann and Alfred Messel); other architects conceived a more “museal” presentation, displaying the frieze on the wall of a large museum interior (for instance, the winning project by Alfred Hauschild).133

The Gigantomachy was first reassembled inside the “Pergamon Museum,” an interim building designed by Fritz Wolff on the Museum Island. Even though the building was constructed between 1897 and 1899, the sorting and assembly of the fragments of Gigantomachy was completed only in 1901, when the museum was opened to the public.

At first sight, Wolff’s design presents a simple idea: a full-scale reconstruction of the Pergamene altar placed inside a large square of about fifty meters on each side. The architect’s treatment of the exterior facades of the museum, particularly the vestibule, in Neoclassical style gives the impression of a Hellenistic altar placed inside a slightly larger Greek temple—a building inside a building. And yet, as the photographs of the museum galleries show, the shell of the museum was not experienced from inside as an uninterrupted container. Wolff divided the space of the museum into three distinct areas, each of these roofed in a different way. The area between the principal façade of the Great Altar with its monumental stairs and the vestibule of the museum was roofed with

133

See S. Waetzoldt, “Bauten der Museumsinsel.” 136

a high vaulted ceiling. The architect surrounded the North, East and South segments of the Gigantomachy with a narrow corridor, focusing direct light onto the frieze from the museum’s windows. Inside the interior wall of the museum, which was read as the exterior façade of the Pergamene Altar, Wolff placed a comparative architecture gallery: the “interior” of the reconstructed altar, so to speak, is not an elevated inner court, as in the historical original, but a sunken room lit through its glass ceiling. This large, central space featured fragments from extinct cities in Western Anatolia, Pergamon, Priene and Magnesia.

According to Volker Kästner, Wolff’s reconstruction of the altar in an “architecturally neutral” interior, anticipated 20th century museum aesthetics. The interior of the first Pergamon Museum was simple and relatively free of architectural ornament, unlike Bode’s “style-rooms” in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum.134

Yet, despite its simplicity Wolff’s museum was not by any means a precursor of the “white cube” of the typical modernist gallery: it did not make a self-conscious statement about the “neutrality” of the architectural frame in which “originals” were exhibited. Quite the contrary, Wolff presented no ontological difference between the reconstructed altar and its neoclassical container. Instead, Wolff’s Pergamon Museum acknowledged both the partial reconstruction of the Great Altar (that is, the inner wall of the museum)

134

Volker Kästner, “Das alte Pergamonmuseum Berliner Museumsbaupläne gegen Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts” in Staatliche Museum zu Berlin Forschungen und Berichte 26, (Berlin, DDR: Henschelverlag, Kunst un Gesellschaft, 1987). 137

and its modern frame, the Neoclassical museum, as modern-day constructions: they are the inseparable parts of a late 19th century design.135

Hence the first Pergamene “reconstruction” in the museum presents a historical irony: Wolff’s design was the only instance, in more than a century of museum displays, which integrated all the segments of the Gigantomachy into an architectural reconstruction of the Hellenistic altar. And yet, unlike his successors, Wolff did not see the reconstruction of the altar as a museum exhibit in its own right: the reconstructed altar is merely an imitation of the original architectural context of the frieze. The guide to the Pergamon Museum of 1904 makes this point clear: “The purpose which governed the plan of the Museum was the erection of a building in which the frieze of the Great Altar of Pergamon might find, as nearly as possible, its original setting and light.”136

The question remains of why Wolff’s museum, whose construction took nearly four years, was demolished only eight years after its opening. True, structural problems of the first Pergamon Museum and the unstable ground of the Museum Island were cited as reasons for replacing it in 1908. One nevertheless wonders about the wisdom of building

135

In contrast to the make-believe of today’s Pergamonsaal, Wolff invited the viewers to an interesting negotiation of the original plan of the altar and its adapted uses in the gallery. This is particularly apparent in the entrance of the museum. Wolff bisected the large monumental stairs of the Great Altar in the middle and introduced modern stairs that descended to the sunken architecture galley. Inside the two projecting wings (risalites) of the reconstructed West façade Wolff inserted two staircases leading to the study collection upstairs for more specialized visitors. See Royal Museums of Berlin, Guide to the Pergamon Museum (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1904).

136

Ibid. 138

a much heavier structure on the same ground, as Messel and his successors did between 1908 and 1930. Furthermore, the entire South Wing of Messel’s building was intended for a silted rift, unfit for construction. The ground needed to be stabilized with wooden palisades, steel trusses and reinforced concrete vaults: an illogically expensive and lengthy solution to the perceived problem.137

It is more likely that Wolff’s design did not satisfy the expectations of the fin de siècle public, which must have kept a vivid memory of the colonial display of the Pergamon Panorama two decades earlier. Wolff’s building left too narrow a space—seven to nine meters—between the altar and its modern shelter. The visitors could experience the Gigantomachy from all four sides. But they did not have the chance to experience the building as an ensemble from a distance, which reduced the monumental effect of the museum interior. Such a reconstruction was apparently not deemed appropriate to representing the glory of the German Reich. At least one visitor, Kaiser Wilhelm II, was particularly disappointed with Wolff’s rigorous and yet modest display of the Gigantomachy.138 Wolff’s Museum was demolished in 1908 to give its place to Messel’s new museum. The Gigantomachy had to wait until 1930 for the completion of its new “home.”

137

See the engineer O. Leithof’s design of the steel construction for the foundations of the South Wing. SMzB PK Zentralarchiv, I/BV 365; see also Matthes, 45-47. 138

See Ohlsen, Wilhelm von Bode, 200. 139

A comparison of Wolff’s plans with Messel’s perspective of the “Altar-Raum” of 1907 shows that the latter remedied the perceived “failure” of the first Pergamon Museum. Unlike Wolff, Messel displayed a reconstruction of the West Façade of the altar from an awe-inspiring perspective angle and from a considerable distance. While Messel also displayed the frieze on the interior walls of the gallery, he left the center of the “AltarRaum” unoccupied.

It seems that Messel was neither interested in reconstructing the Great Altar according to its historical plan, nor did he intend to create the ideal architectural setting for the Gigantomachy—in fact, as critics of the project noticed in the 1920’s, the scale of the “Altar-Raum” and its fictive reconstruction of the West Façade distract viewers from an experience of the Gigantomachy. He intended to create a hermetic interior, with an overwhelming and unique experience. It is the unique experience conveyed by this “Raum,” and not a reconstruction of the altar, that should be cited among Messel’s major contributions to the history architecture.

140

3. 4. On the Museum’s Object: a Model, a Décor and a Restored Monument

The museum that opened to the public in October 1930 departed significantly from Messel and Bode’s project of 1907. This transformation was partly due to the interventions of the architect, Ludwig Hoffmann (1852-1932), who oversaw the completion of the museum after Messel’s untimely death in 1909.

Hoffmann, just like his close friend Messel, had several occasions to develop ideas for the architecture of the Museum Island throughout his career. He first came to prominence by winning the Schinkel Competition for the Development of the Museum Island in 1882. Hoffmann also participated in the competition of 1884 with a successful entry. His design of the Antiquity Museum was in many ways similar to Messel’s in the same competition: both architects placed a full-scale reconstruction of the Pergamon Altar in a large museum, and conceived of a processional court in front of the Antiquity Museum opening to the Kupfergraben. Having become the city planning councilor of the City of Berlin in 1896, Hoffmann designed and actually built a large number of public buildings, among which are the Märkisches Museum (1899-1908) and Stadthaus (19021911) in Berlin. Around 1910 Hoffmann abandoned his earlier Neo-Baroque and eclectic building style and, like other influential architects who reshaped the “official

141

architecture” of Wilhelmine Germany, started to build in simple Neoclassicism often making reference to Berlin’s local classicism [Zopfstil] of the 18th century.139

Hoffmann’s projects between 1911 and 1920, which altered Messel’s original plan, seldom received positive reviews from his contemporaries. The protagonists of the emerging Modern Movement, Walter Curt Behrendt, Adolf Behne and Karl Scheffler saw the chief architect of Berlin as a proponent of the ancien régime, and found his monumental Neoclassicism anachronistic.140 Behne, who wrote several articles on the Pergamon Museum in the daily press in the 1920’s dismissing it as an “uncanny child of the Wilhelmine spirit,” accused Hoffmann of blocking the “transparency” of Berlin’s urban center.141 Scheffler wrote in 1924 that Hoffmann “spoiled everything that had been good in Messel’s project, and everything that had been bad became worse.”142 By

139

See Hans J. Reichhardt and Wolffgang Schäche, Ludwig Hoffmann in Berlin: die Wiederentdeckung eines Architekten (Berlin: Landesarchiv, 1987); Volker Viergutz, "Der Nachlass Ludwig Hoffmann: Stadtbaurat für Hochbau in Berlin von 1896-1924" Museums Journal (Berlin) 8, 1 (January 1994): 48-51; Viergutz, “Berliner Museumskrieg.” 140

In his biography of Messel, Behrendt compared the architect with Hoffmann. While

Hoffmann, according to Behrendt, is a neoclassicist who “achieves beauty through the laws of proportion” Messel, is an artist who “feels the effect of plastic form” and heard the “melody… of architectural beauty.” Behrendt, 132. 141

For Behne’s critique of the Pergamon Museum and Hoffmann see his papers and manuscripts in Berlin, Bauhaus-Archiv. Especially his typescript, “Das auf dem Pergamon-Altar geopferte Deutsche Museum,” printed in Die Weltbühne 42 (1930): 583-85. See also Behne, “Vernunft oder Repräsentation im Städtebau?” Sozialistische Monathefte 62 (5. June 1925): 352-54; Behne, “Die Museumsinsel eine Tragödie Berliner Städtebaues,” Das neue Frankfurt 4 (1930): 211-13. 142

Cited in Bernau and Riedl, “Für Kaiser und Reich,” 172. 142

attributing the Pergamon Museum to Hoffmann, architectural historians have conveniently cleared Messel—the “progressive” architect—from the responsibility of designing what has come to be seen a politically and artistically reactionary landmark.143

It is therefore curious that, as at least one historian of the Museum Island noted, Hoffmann’s interventions between 1911 and 1928 could as well be read as an attempt to “modernize” Messel and Bode’s museum interiors.144 From his first project of January 1911 onward Hoffmann took issue with Bode’s style rooms, opposing the integration of works of art with architectural or decorative elements. He favored instead a “neutral, …simple, modern room” [neutral gehaltene einfache moderne Zimmer], which is suitable for the display of any collection. The minutes of the official meetings of the Commission for the New Building Construction [Baukomission] underscore Hoffmann’s struggle with Bode. At least in one instance, on 18 November 1915, Hoffmann burst out in anger, accusing Bode of effectively blocking his plans to modernize the museum for the previous five years. Although the General Director, Hoffmann argued, had conceded to changes on Messel’s exterior facades, he had rejected any compromise in the Museum’s interiors.145

143

As late as 1994, for instance, Goerd Peschken calls Hoffmann’s alterations to Messel’s project “a provincial stupidity”—and he does not mean “provincial” in a kind way. “Der Messel-Bau,” in Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte München, Berlins Museen: Geschichte und Zukunft (Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1994), 239-246. 144

See Gaehtgens, Die Berliner Museumsinsel, 114; also cited in Marchand, Down From Olympus, 289-90.

145

See the official minutes of the meetings (Sitzungs-Protokol) of the Baukomission, 18 November 1915, Bauverwaltung der Königlichen bzw. SmzB PK Zentralarchiv, I/BV 327 (Cf. I/BV 328 for the copy of the minutes with Wille’s manuscript corrections). 143

Though Hoffmann’s understanding of the interior seems more in tune with emerging museal aesthetics in the first decades of the 20th century, it remains to be seen whether his project was truly more “modern” than that of Messel. An analysis of Hoffmann’s plan of September 1913 shows that the architect’s struggle to simplify Bode’s stylerooms was consistent with his persistent quest to classicize Messel’s museumcomplex.146 While Messel and Bode conceived of the museum as a series of selfcontained interiors, organized around an open court or extending along the Kupfergraben, each of which reconstructs a cultural and architectural context for the period art, Hoffmann’s composition conceived of the complex as a unified monument organized around a strictly symmetrical axis. Though Hoffmann’s interventions in Messel’s site plan seem relatively insignificant at first sight, he effectively transformed the court into a Neoclassical, processional axis. Furthermore, by raising the building as much as five meters, Hoffmann gave the museum a much more monumental appearance than Messel had intended. Overall, as Behne correctly noticed, Hoffmann’s museum looks severely heavier and bulkier than Messel’s project of 1907.147

Having conceived the Pergamon Museum as an urban landmark, Hoffmann sought to remedy its relative isolation in Berlin’s historic center. His urban plan of 1912 for the Museum Island and the University, cut a monumental East-West axis through the

146

See Hoffmann’s project of September 1913, lithograph, SMzB PK Zentralarchiv, I/BV 494. 147

Behne, “Vernunft oder Repräsentation im Städtebau?” 144

existing urban fabric, connecting the processional court in front of the museum to the Hegelplatz behind the University of Berlin (today’s Humboldt University). Had Hoffmann’s urban plan been implemented, the West façade of the Great Altar, hypothetically reconstructed in the museum, would crown one end of a monumental urban axis.148 *** Today’s Pergamonsaal was achieved after a lengthy and remarkably experimental process of design: different alternatives for the interior arrangement of the room were built in the museum as full-scale wooden models. The records of the Building Commission show that decisions were often taken after the museum directors, archaeologists and other members of Prussia’s cultural bureaucracy inspected the models.

Even though the alternatives the commission considered over the years are varied both in their strategy of museum display and concept of historical reconstruction, two major tendencies could be detected. The vaulted, false-ceiling of Messel’s “Altar-Raum” was simplified and regularized: by 1914 the Pergamonsaal had become a pure rectangular

148

Cf. Hoffmann’s master plan for Athens, Greece in 1910. See Hartwig Schmidt, “Das ‘Wilhelminishe’ Athens. Ludwig Hoffmann Generalbebauungsplan für Athen,” Architectura 9/9 (1979): 30-44; see also Hans J. Reichhardt and Wolffgang Schäche, Ludwig Hoffmann in Berlin: die Wiederentdeckung eines Architekten (Berlin: Landesarchiv, 1987), 36-37. 145

prism.149 A second, and perhaps a more intriguing development occurred in the room which is adjacent to the Pergamonsaal, and which extends to the West of the Museum Island, towards the Spree. In Messel’s project the contents and function of this room are not linked to the Pergamene reconstruction. Curiously, in the projects of the 1910’s and 20’s this room has first become a sort of annex to the Pergamonsaal and then was transformed into today’s Telephos Room—even though the plan of the Telephos Room is not analogous to that of the inner court of the historical structure. By 1920 it had come to be perceived as the “interior” of the reconstructed altar.

Such perception, however, is complicated, as we have seen, by the display of the East, South and North sections of the Gigantomachy as detached from the reconstructed West Facade. In fact, Hoffmann proposed to reconstruct the remaining four façades of the historical altar and paste them on the remaining interior walls of the Pergamonsaal. Hence instead of the presentation of a “monument” of the altar from a distance, Hoffmann sought to integrate the Gigantomachy into a semblance of its original architectural setting on all four walls of the Pergamonsaal. Wiegand is mostly responsible for blocking Hoffmann’s plans and giving the gallery its final shape.150 The archaeologist must have thought that reducing the altar to a mere architectural context

149

As late as September 1913, Hoffmann maintained the vaulted ceiling Messel had designed for the Pergamonsaal. The following project of June 1914 transformed the Pergamonsaal into a simple rectangular prism. I/BV 494 150

In the final analysis Wiegand, the director of the Antiquity Collection, was more influential than Hoffmann in shaping the Pergamonsaal. See the official correspondence of the museum directors about the construction and interior arrangement of the Pergamon Museum, 1914-15 and 1920-31. SMzB PKB, Zentralarchiv, I/BV 329. 146

for the Gigantomachy would confuse viewers and, more importantly, would diminish the imposing effect of the monument seen as an “ensemble” from a critical distance.

Although the projects for the museum between 1911 and 1930 are single-handedly attributed to Hoffmann, Wilhelm Wille (1877-1929), a relatively unknown architect, played a crucial role in the museum’s design, particularly in developing the Near Eastern Museum in the South Wing of the complex.151 We may assume that while Hoffmann, who oversaw a large number of public projects simultaneously, was responsible for more general decisions, Wille executed most of the projects.

Apparently frustrated with Hoffmann’s complacency, Wille developed two alternative projects for the museum in 1921 and 1927, which, in both instances, created controversies. Unlike Hoffmann, Wille believed that Messel’s “Altar-Raum” contained a “false representation” of the Hellenistic altar and should be abandoned.152 In his project of 1921, he proposed instead to restore the altar to its full architectural plan. This required extending the Pergamonsaal considerably by constructing a large niche where the floor plan of the antique building could be fitted. In sharp contrast to Messel’s original idea, Wille’s project can be read as if a historical monument is restored to its original plan and grafted, as it were, into the space of a modern museum.

151

Wille developed nine alternative designs for the Near Eastern Museum between 1912-1914. See the projects in SMzB PKB Zentralarchiv, I/BV 494. 152

Sitzungs-Protokol, July 1920, SMzB PKB Zentralarchiv, I/BV 327. 147

Even though Wille proposed to restore the entire Great Altar to its original plan, his presentation of the altar in the museum was still frontally organized: the monument could be seen from three sides, but not from its back. In what appears to be a compromise in his “truthful” representation, Wille had to paste the rear (East) façade of the Great Altar on the museum wall, opposite the West façade of the restored altar. Hence inside Wille’s Pergamonsaal, the viewer would have found him/herself effectively occupying a place between the front and back of a Hellenistic building, as well as inspecting its entire plan.

We also learn from the official records of the Building Commission that Wille developed six years later a second alternative for the Pergamonsaal. This time, having altogether dismissed Messel’s reconstruction as a “theater stage,” he proposed to restore the Pergamon Altar as a freestanding building inside the Pergamonsaal. To the dismay of the other members of the Commission, Wille provided Berlin’s daily press with a critique of Messel’s original idea as well as an account of the advantages of his own.153 Wille’s design eventually found supporters in the Prussian Ministry of Culture under the Weimar Republic, which further infuriated Berlin’s conservative museum administration. The Building Comission meeting of July 1, 1927 when Wille’s project

153

Daily Berliner Tageblatt of 9 April 1927 argues that the Altar Raum is “so small” that only part of the altar can be exhibited. The author adds “To enlarge the room to contain the full depth of the altar—would have a greater effect.” 148

was considered and rejected is particularly informative, underscoring the divergent concepts of reconstruction debated by archaeologists and architects.154

Offering qualified support to Wille’s alternative plan, Carl Heinrich Becker (18761933), the Prussian Minister of Culture (1925-30) and renowned scholar of Islamic Art, opened the discussion by comparing two different types of museum display: the first is a “purely museal presentation”—the display of the original frieze inside a modern museum—while the second entails the reconstruction of the Great Altar as an “architectural object” [“corpus”]. Demanding that museum directors pay closer attention to Wille’s alternative plan, Becker underscored the ambiguity of Messel’s “AltarRaum”: it was neither a “museal” presentation, nor an architectural restoration. It reminded Becker of a theater décor, or a “Kulisse”—a theater back stage.155

Eventually Wiegand prevailed and Wille’s idea of full architectural restoration was defeated on the grounds that the remaining space in the Pergamonsaal would be limited and it would not give the observer the chance to experience the façade from a distance and through a wide perspective angle. According to Wiegand, the contemplation of the whole monument at a glance—and not a freestanding architectural restoration—was the aim of the Pergamonsaal. Furthermore, Wiegand’s argument in defense of Messel’s reconstruction is telling: he countered Becker’s criticism by arguing that the “Kulisse”-

154

Minutes of the meeting of the Museum Building Commission on 1 July 1927, SMzB PKB Zentralarchiv, I/BV 327. 155

Ibid. 149

like effect of the museum display was precisely what the Hellenistic builders had intended in the first place.156 The aim of the museum, according to Wiegand, is neither to create a “purely museal” presentation of works, nor to restore an architectural “corpus,” but, rather, to recapture the original, theatrical spectacle of the ancients.

The controversy over the Pergamonsaal continued after Wille’s death in 1929. Perhaps more than Wille’s alternative plan, his critique of Messel’s—and Hoffmann’s—design as a “theater-stage” and a “false representation” became the starting point of subsequent criticism.157

156

Ibid.

157

Daily Der Tag of 23 April 1929—a few months before the architect’s death—reported that Wille’s alternative was never made public. Yet the author argues that the full restoration of the Great Altar, as suggested by Wille, would be logical only if the altar is restored in its original place in Western Anatolia. 150

3.5. The Museum of Ancient Architecture: Monuments for Mass Spectacle

The construction of the Pergamon Museum in the1920’s had provoked one of the most bitter controversies on the representation of art and culture in modern Germany. The main participants in this debate were the constituents of the cultural bureaucracy which the Weimar state inherited from the Kaiserreich, as well as critics who futilely attempted to modernize that very apparatus: archaeologists, architects, art critics, politicians and advocates of education reform.158 What appeared at first a territorial skirmish among the competing humanistic disciplines to demand more space on Berlin’s Museum Island for the object of their study, quickly escalated into an ideological battle. Theoretically, “Berlin’s Museum War”—as it is known in the literature—evolved amidst the rise of cultural relativism: while an increasingly biologistic definition of “culture” became commonplace, the idea of universal civilization was marginalized. From then on, no normative judgment about the hierarchies of art and culture could be taken for granted without causing a political controversy.

Writing in 1921, in the wake of Germany’s military defeat, economic collapse and political turmoil, the art critic Karl Scheffler (1869-1951) offered a harsh account of the Wilhelmine Kulturpolitik in his Berliner Museumskrieg. He observed, acutely, that the

158

For analysis of “Berlin’s Museum War” and its significance see Marchand, Down From Olympus, 288-94. See also Silke Wenk “Theodor Wiegand: Chronik,” in Auf den Spuren der Antike, 24-26; Frank Matthias Kammel, “Neuorganisation unserer Museen oder vom Prüfstein an dem sich die Geister Scheiden,” Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 34 (1992): 121-136. 151

general strategy of display in the Pergamon Museum was determined by a “mania of completeness” and a “façade mentality.” In lieu of exhibiting archaeological fragments as distinct objects, the museum chose to integrate them into an architectural décor. Mocking the imperialist ambitions of the “archaeologists,” Scheffler wrote: “If the era of the Wilhelmine Reich had lasted fifty years longer, if the war had come later and excavations continued, we would surely have had to make room in the museum for an entire Greek city.”159

Two visions came to clash in “Berlin’s Museum War”: Bode’s idea of the museum of art and culture, which sought to give priority to the completion of the German Museum on the historical Museum Island and the Asian Art Museum in Dahlem; and the archaeologist Wiegand’s position to transform Messel’s building into a grandiose antiquity museum—the “museum of ancient architecture” as Wiegand called it. Unlike Bode’s style rooms, Wiegand’s museum would feature completed facades or ensembles of architectural elements from antiquity. Whereas the influence of Bode waned during the Weimar years—he resigned as the General Director of the Berlin State Museums (former Royal Prussian Museums) in 1920, and kept an increasingly symbolic post as the director of the New Building Commission until 1928—Wiegand became one of the most influential figures of the Prussian cultural bureaucracy during the Weimar years, first as head of Berlin’s Antiquity Collection and then as the director of the German Archaeology Institute (DAI), a position he kept during the first years of the National

159

Karl Scheffler, Berliner Museumskrieg, 76 (Berlin: Bruno Cassirer, 1921). Cited and translated into English in Marchand, Down From Olympus, 290 n.107. 152

Socialist era, until his death in 1936.160 As early as the 1920’s Wiegand successfully blocked Bode’s plans and diverted the severely limited funds of the Weimar State to his “museum of ancient architecture.”

In this light, Scheffler’s Berliner Museumskrieg appears as an attempt to support Bode in a losing battle. The megalomaniac “archaeologist” with “façade mentality” that Sheffler refers to is, undoubtedly, none other than Wiegand. Enraged by the decision to abandon the Asian Art Museum in Dahlem, Scheffler echoes in his book the ideas already put into practice by Bode decades earlier in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum. He underlines the necessity of distingusihing the masterpieces of Asian “art” (those produced by courtly traditions in East Asia and the Middle East)—from ethnological objects of “primitive” peoples.161

***

If Bode—and later Scheffler—attempted to rescue “Asian” and “Germanic art” from the hands of the ethnologists—construing high art as a cross-cultural category, Wiegand’s position about the hierarchies of ancient arts and cultures is more ambiguous. He fought a fierce battle to defend the primacy of Mediterranean antiquities over ancient Germanic or Asian art in the museum’s plans. And yet, his choice of “ancient architecture” as the

160

Watzinger, Carl, Theodor Wiegand: ein deutscher Archäologe 1864-1936 (Munich, C.H. Beck, 1944), 351-56.

161

Scheffler, Berliner Museumskrieg, 7-42. 153

principal exhibit of the museum and the emphasis he gave to Hellenistic and provincial Roman monuments in Anatolia instead of the classical art of Hellas show that Wiegand departed significantly from the vocation of the 19th century museum, Bildung.

Unlike most of his predecessors, Wiegand did not come to prominence in German archaeology as a scholar of classical philology. He made a career for himself as an excavator—he directed excavations in Miletus, Didyma and Pergamon after Humann’s death—and a political liaison in Istanbul, who successfully imported archeological finds to Berlin from the Ottoman Empire. A man of action, Wiegand founded and commanded a field artillery unit, the so-called “German-Turkish Commandos for the Protection of Antiquities” in 1914-1918, during the Turkish-British war in Sinai and Palestine. Using German reconnaissance planes and his military staff, he surveyed a number of archaeological sites in Sinai, Palestine and Syria, which appeared in a series of impressive publications after the war.162

Wiegand’s success in shipping the archaeological finds to Berlin, in violation of the Ottoman Law of Antiquities, was often thanks to his friendships with the Turkish officials in key positions including Osman Hamdi Bey (1842-1910), the director of the Imperial Museums and the founder of the Beaux Arts academy in Istanbul, and Cemal Pas- a, (1872-1922) the commander of the 4th Turkish army and the war-time governor of

162

See Theodor Wiegand, Sinai, Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen des deutschtürkischen Denkmalschutz-Kommandos, heft 1 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1920), 1-35; see especially a monumental survey of Damascus, Carl Watzinger and Karl Wulzinger: Damaskus: Die Antike Stadt, heft 4 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1921). 154

Syria and Arabia. When his contacts failed to comply with his demands, Wiegand proved to be a true brinkman, who did not refrain from using the financial influence of his father-in-law, Georg von Siemens, the director of the Deutsche Bank, as leverage.163

Wiegand’s philhellenism, which was crucial in transforming Bode’s “German Museum” into a “museum of ancient architecture,” was not so much rooted in the classical philological traditions as in his quest for an imposing and graphic presentation of the “monuments” of antiquity, which he called “Total Anschauung” (view, intuition, experience, contemplation).164

As early as 1908 a controversy erupted over the display of the Market Gate of Miletus, the fragments of which Wiegand shipped from Turkey. Despite Hoffmann and Bode’s fierce opposition, Wiegand was determined to open room in Messel’s plans for a grandiose reconstruction, and ultimately succeeded in securing Kaiser Wilhelm II’s support. In his diaries Wiegand writes that he impressed Wilhelm by presenting him a “full-scale” model of the Milesian gate from the right distance—24 m—that allowed the German monarch to see the monument as a “whole.” Wiegand also argues that Hoffmann attempted to hinder the effect of the “scenery” by initially arranging Kaiser’s viewpoint too close to the model—only 10 meters: an effort Wiegand noticed and prevented the day of the Kaiser’s visit. This anecdote is certainly as telling about

163

See Marchand, Down From Olympus, especially 202-05.

164

Theodor Wiegand, “Pergamon-Museum,: 15 July 1925, SMzB PKB Vorderasiatisches Museum, 17; cited in Marchand, Down From Olympus, 291. 155

Wilhelm as Wiegand’s idea of museum display—the Kaiser was flattered to learn that the distance between the Cesar’s seat and the arches of the procenium in the Roman theater was equal to the distance of his viewpoint to the Milesian model at that very moment. (“What Augustus thought right…, Your Majesty will find proper”).165 Impressed by Wiegand’s presentation Wilhelm ordered that “the recently acquired Market Gate of Miletus be reconstructed into its “real scale” [in wirklicher Größe] like a theater backdrop [Kulisse].” The Kaiser also approved Wiegand’s proposal to place the reconstruction inside the museum, in between two exhibition rooms.166

An analysis of Wiegand’s reconstruction of the Market Gate of Miletus and of his arrangement of the comparative architecture rooms two decades later shows that “Total Anschauung” meant for Wiegand little more than a visually pleasing composition of fictive architectural ensembles in the museum. A number of photographs that have survived in the archives of the German Archaeology Institute give a glimpse of the process through which a relatively small quantity of antique fragments were mixed with brick and cement, reinforced by steel and covered with stucco, producing, as it were, “antique architecture” in the museum as composite objects.167 The most remarkable

165

Cited in Matthes, The Pergamon Museum, 59. See also Wiegand, “Wichtige Ergänzungen zu meinen Tagebüchern etc… Cospel,” DAI Wiegand-Archiv, Kasten 25.

166

“Auszug II.1358.10,” SMzB PK Zentralarchiv, I/BV 327.

167

As early as 16.8.1922 Wiegand lists the benefits of using modern materials—brick, cement and stucco—in the “completion” [“Ergänzung”] of antique monuments in a letter he sent to the museum directors. New materials, according to Wiegand, are cheap and preferable in terms of strength. He notes that limestone—which had been chosen by Wilhelm II in 1910 for the finish of the museum—conveys the “best effect” of antique architecture. SMzB PK Zentralarchiv, BV 329. 156

aspect of these photographs is perhaps not so much their evidential nature, showing how little of the museum’s exhibits are indeed antique, but the fact that they were used as the very medium through which the exhibits were designed. The photographs show the architectural objects in different stages of their construction and in different arrangements. Often set against a black background, the architectural ensembles were photographed with a human figure or a mannequin to suggest the scale of the visitors. Some of the black and white prints in the Wiegand archive were sketched upon with red pencil.168 Far from being merely a matter of convenience, the use of photography in the composition of these ensembles underscores a new development in museology. Wiegand understood well that the photographic reproduction of the “monuments of antiquity” in the museum reach a wider audience than the museum itself. Once completed, the “monuments” were meant not only to awe the visitors who walk into the gallery, but also to be photographed.

***

The critics of the Pergamon Museum in the 1920’s and the early 1930’s focused primarily on the question of material authenticity. It seemed problematic to them that “imitations” of antique monuments posed in the museum as “originals.” The museum’s most eloquent critic, Scheffler obtained and published in 1926 some of the photographs of the “antique” exhibits during their construction. Scheffler’s article, which

168

Eight black and white prints by Max Krajewski, Lichtbildwerkstatt (Charlottenburg, Berlin) some of them with sketches with red pencil. “Pergamonmuseum, Milettor, GallProzess,” in DAI, Wiegand-Archiv, Kasten 21. 157

accompanies the photographs, warns the German public against what the author sees as a deliberate forgery. About the reconstruction of the Great Altar of Pergamon Scheffler writes, “the only original component is the frieze, all the rest is built artificially out of plaster and cement.” Just like the other architectural reconstructions in the museum the Pergamonsaal exemplifies, according to Scheffler, the triumph of “quantity over quality, plaster over marble, the pedantic over the artistic, and the imitation over the original.” The material inauthenticity of the architectural elements, Scheffler argues, compromises the integrity of the original frieze as well.169

In another critique published in a daily newspaper in Dresden in April 1929, Dr. Paul F. Schmidt characterizes the Pergamon Museum as “an artistic [act of] barbarism against archaeology.” The very intention of the museum to create a “picturesque and romantic ensemble,” Schmidt contends, violates the ethics of professional archaeology. By erecting antique monuments in real scale and out of cement and plaster, the restorers ignored one basic principle of the discipline: the dependence of the truth claim on the materiality of the archaeological finds. Having thus condemned from the outset the very intention of substituting the “effect” for the material truth, Schmidt goes on to criticize the restored monuments. He finds the artistic effect of reconstruction in the Pergamon Museum “disastrous.” According to the author, the freestanding columns, gates and other elements from the Hellenistic and late Roman periods were carelessly reconstructed in the comparative architecture rooms without respect to their original

169

Karl Scheffler, “Das Berliner Museumskaos,” Kunst und Künstler (April 1926): 26667. 158

proportions. Furthermore, Schmidt dismisses the Pergamonsaal as a “theater-décor.” Apart from the material inauthenticty of this décor, the author fears that the authenticity of the frieze has also been compromised, since one could hardly distinguish authentic from copy.170 In another article published in the daily Berlin newspapers two days later on April 22, Schmidt attacks the Pergamon Museum with another eye-catching title: “Millions Were Wasted for Kitsch.” The author’s argument is analogous to that of the previous article in its general lines. Yet in this article Schmidt uses the terms “kitsch,” “ornamental,” “decorative” interchangeably to characterize the restoration, which is clearly contrasted with “authentic,” “freestanding” and “archaeological.”

Though Scheffler and Schmidt were the most outspoken critics of the Pergamon Museum, they were certainly not the only ones. A survey of the daily newspapers in Berlin between 1926 and 1931 reveals a discourse that persistently put into question both the political ambition and the aesthetic strategy of the reconstruction. A newspaper published a few days before Schmidt’s articles on April 17, 1929 cynically called the Pergamon Museum “The Commercial-Mall State Museum,” accusing the restorers for the commodification of archaeological finds.171 Another article from April 1929 characterizes the reconstruction of Pergamon under glass ceiling as a modern “panopticon.” It does not however elaborate on the perceived analogy of the

170

Paul F. Schmidt, “Das Pergamon-Museum: Eine künstleriche Barbarei der Archäologie,” Dresdner Nachrichten, 20 April 1929. 171

Georg Stein, “Magazin Statt Museum,” Berliner Börsen-Courier, 17 April 1929. 159

Pergamonsaal to the infamous model for the 18th century prison designed by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham.

Common to many critics of the Pergamon Museum in the 1920’s is the tendency to point to the rift between the appearance and the historic essence of the reconstructed monuments. The characterization of the exhibits as a theater “décor” often sufficed to dismiss them as “fakes.” Hence the critics seem to subscribe to a rather strict understanding of authenticity. They contended that an object which was not an antique original had no place in the museum.

In retrospect, we may certainly defend the exhibits of the Pergamon Museum against such orthodoxy: a conceptual model or a hypothetic reconstruction should certainly have a place in a “museum of ancient architecture.” And yet, Wiegand’s intention was by no means to acknowledge the status of the objects for what they are: he instead chose to authenticate, if not the objects themselves, then the experience of viewers who encounter them. The deliberate confusion of fictive reconstructions with “antique monuments” surfaced particularly clearly in 1929.

The Pergamonsaal was first presented to an international group of archaeologists in 1929 on the occasion of the centennial of the German Archaeology Institute (DAI). The general director of the State Museums in Berlin, Wilhelm Waetzold, and the director of the Antiquity Collection, Wiegand, emphasized in their respective speeches that the primary task of the museum was to achieve a “living” [“lebendig”] presentation of the

160

work of art. In Waetzold’s words, the museum needed to highlight the “elementary force of the artwork” [“elemantar Gewalt der Kunstwerk”].172

Wiegand, on the other hand, argued that a museum reconstruction should aim at conveying the “whole at a glance” [der Blich auf Ganze], unlike archaeological research, which was all too often lost in the particular aspects of the past and hence could not see the entire world picture. What followed was a comically dramatized praise of the “monuments” of antiquity. The Nietzschean, Wagnerian tone of Wiegand’s speech culminated in its finale, where he invoked an Apollonian - Dionisian duality. Having invited the guests to observe the “extravagantly rich pictorial decoration” [“Schmuck”] that surrounded them, he likened the Pergamonsaal to a “powerful symphony” that recaptures “the triumph of light over unbridled wilderness and barbarism.” “Perhaps the time has come,” he added, that “all the cultivated peoples of the world unite under a single will… that the two thousand-year old work that rises here be a warning symbol for all the acculturated peoples on earth.”173

In both speeches the critique of 19th century philistine culture and a profound distrust for knowledge about history are made manifest. As Silke Wenk noted in an excellent biography of Wiegand, the “non-verbal persuasive power” of the Pergamon Museum

172

See Waetzoldt’s speech, Hunderdtjahrfeier des Archäologischen Institut, (Berlin, 1930): 112; also cited in Wenk, Auf den Spuren der Antike, 50.

173

Wiegand, manuscript of the speech given at the centennial of the German Archaeology Institute (DAI), 22 April 1929, Pergamon Museum, “Zum Tagebuch 1929,” DAI, Wiegand-Archiv, Kasten 21. 161

differentiated it from its precedents. In other words, the “modern” museum meant to overcome 19th century historicism so as to reinstate an essentialist trust in the unmediated power of “art.” The strategy of the museum entailed the sacralization of the work of art by restoring an “aura”—to use Walter Benjamin’s word—around supposedly original “monuments” of antiquity. Waetzold’s speech made this aura particularly clear, by calling the Pergamon Museum what it truly became within three decades: “a sacred island in the ocean of the modern life of the metropolis.”

The sacralization of the museum’s exhibits as “works of art,” and the new investment in the immediacy of their artistic message, unfold a new populism, which was shared by the Weimer politicians and the cultural establishment that the republic inherited from the Wilhelmine Empire. In fact, the triumphal tone of the opening speeches hardly conceals the complex circumstances, which led the social democrat governments of the Weimar Republic to yield to the demands of the conservative cultural bureaucracy and to appropriate half-heartedly this major symbol of the Wilhelmine imperialism. For, if Oppeln-Bronikowski, the Prussian Minister for Science, Art and Public Education, a social democrat, saw in the immediacy of the Pergamonsaal a means of reaching out to the underprivileged and uneducated classes,174 Wiegand, an affluent conservative, viewed the “social mission of the museum” as making the “masterpieces” of Greece and Rome accessible to the German “Volk.” Hence departing from the 19th century critique of the museum as “mausoleums” and from the rejection of philistine Bildung, Wiegand aimed at creating a new museum, one that was in agreement with the early 20th century

174

See Oppeln-Bronikowski’s comments cited in Wenk, Auf den Spuren der Antike, 50. 162

Germany’s characteristically vitalist, right-wing populism: quoting Wiegand, a daily newspaper of 23 April 1929 declared that the Pergamon Museum is neither “a museum of dead-architecture,” nor a place for “past cultures,” but “a living folk-museum” [“ein lebendiges Volksmuseum”].175

Wiegand, more than any other, understood that a new audience had emerged for the museum. The “museum of ancient architecture” was not intended for a small group of artists, intellectuals or students of ancient architecture, many of whom readily dismissed its exhibits as “fakes.” Nor was the task of the museum necessarily Bildung in the 19th century meaning of the word. A century after the emergence of the Berlin Museum as an institution for the elevation of the taste of the bourgeois public, the Pergamon Museum was intended for the most impressionable crowds: conveying an immediate and aweinspiring image, the museum of ancient architecture created a peculiar type of massspectacle. Wiegand’s strategy of display met unequalled popular success: only a year after its opening on October 30, 1930, more than one million people visited the Pergamon Museum.176

***

175

“Tausend Archäologen im Pergamon-Museum,” Danziger Neueste Nachrichten (23 April 1929). 176

Oppeln-Bronikowski reports that from October to February, in the first five months, 600 000 people visited the Pergamon Museum. “Pro Pergamo,” Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, Abend-Ausgabe (10 February 1931). 163

In this light—that is, in the light of the process of sacralization of the “monuments” in the museum, which cultivates a vaguely allusive sense of authenticity and of the accessibility of a “sublime” message for the masses—we may understand the enthusiasm of the National Socialist rulers of Germany for the Pergamon Museum. In fact, the Pergamon Museum not only served as the backdrop for pathetic spectacles that reenacted an image of ancient Greece during the Berlin Olympics; the reconstruction of the Great Altar was also to become a recurrent model of the Nazi official architecture. Soldier’s Hall by Wilhelm Kreiss, which was to be erected on the monumental NorthSouth axis of Germania, would-be capital of the Nazi Empire, and the Zeppelinfeld Stadium by Albert Speer in Nuremberg are the most significant examples.

In early 1934 Speer, still a relatively unknown member of the National Socialist Party, received his first major commission from Adolf Hitler: “a permanent stone installation” that was to replace the temporary bleachers on the Zeppelinfeld in Nuremberg for the celebrations of Reich-Partie Day. Going far beyond the scope of the assignment, Speer designed a major monument: an ambitious project that also marked his political debut. Speer recalls in his memoirs:

I struggled over those first sketches until, in an inspired moment, the idea came to me: a mighty flight of stairs topped and enclosed by a long colonnade, flanked on both ends by stone abutments. Undoubtedly it was influenced by the Pergamum [Pergamon] altar. The indispensable platform for honored guests presented problems; I tried to place it as unobtrusively as possible midway in the flight stairs.177 177

Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs by Albert Speer (1969), translated by Richard and Clara Winston (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1970), 65. 164

And yet, what Speer ignores is precisely this: he was not influenced by the Hellenistic altar itself—now lost—but by the Pergamonsaal, the most popular museum display in Germany. Just as the Pergamonsaal consists of a large void for the awe-struck masses, so, too, does the “permanent installation”—as Speer called it—of the Zeppelinfeld. The analogy between the two, however, stops there: admittedly, the museum and the paradeground had a different relation with the masses. The crowds visited the Pergamonsaal with the hope of seeing an antique “original”—although such object was nowhere to be found. The Zeppelinfeld framed a political rally. The first seemingly transforms architecture into an object of spectacle, the second highlights a setting in which the crowd itself is the exhibit.

***

Consequently, the reconstruction and display of Pergamene art in Berlin underwent a metamorphosis through which both the task of the museum and the status of its object have changed. Initially the reconstruction of the Great Altar was seen as a museal setting for the Gigantomachy Frieze. Instead of displaying the sculptural relief as detached fragments, the museum sought to reintegrate it into a hypothetic reconstruction of its original architectural context. In Wolff’s first Pergamon Museum, for instance, the function of the “altar” was merely to create the ideal conditions of viewing for the Hellenistic sculpture. Even though the first Pergamon Museum achieved a partial restoration of the altar, the altar was not seen as the object of the museum. Hence in Wolff’s museum the distinction of the “work of art” from its frame was not ambiguous: 165

architecture—either the shell of the museum or the partial reconstruction of the altar—served as the modern frame of antique sculpture.

Departing significantly from the earlier concept of the museum, Messel intended in his “Altar-Raum” a self-contained interior, which transfers the viewer into antique Pergamon: an interior that conveys the feeling of standing in front of a monument in a distant historical present. By displaying the West Façade of the altar from a distance, Messel provided an impressive representation of ancient architecture, one that eventually distracted the viewers from an experience of the Gigantomachy. And yet, the “AltarRaum” did not restore an architectural monument: the exhibit of the museum was merely a sculptural articulation of the modern wall of the museum.

Curiously, between 1910 and 1930, Messel’s “Altar-Raum” underwent a significant transformation. In fact, it was not so much the hypothetic reconstruction of the West Façade but its relation with the museal frame in which it was displayed that changed. The “Great Altar” in Berlin, which was initially conceived as a context for antique sculpture, was eventually objectified and authenticated inside a gigantic prism: “antique architecture” became the exhibit of the museum. So much so that, since it opened to the public in 1930, the museum has conveyed to its visitors the erroneous impression of an antique building displaced from its original site and relocated inside the modern museum.

166

Hence Wiegand’s “museum of ancient architecture” has come to pose a paradox: the exhibits of the museum are endowed with a sense of authenticity thanks to their aesthetic differentiation from their museal frame, the architecture of the museum. Wiegand’s photographs showing the architectural exhibits against a black background are quite telling: the object of the museum is meant to be a work of art against a non-ground. While antique architecture came to the foreground, the architecture of the museum was effaced. And yet, in the final analysis, the distinction between the museum’s frame and its exhibits is merely fictive.

Hence the question remains of what is the “object,” the exhibit of the modern Pergamonsaal: a fictive architectural context for the Gigantomachy frieze; a hypothetic conceptual model of an antique building, which conveys an idea about the original without actually restoring it; a partial architectural façade, an exhibit in its own right? Admittedly these three definitions of the museum’s object are not mutually exclusive. The Pergamonsaal may exhibit several things at once: a partial reconstruction, a fictive context and an architectural model. What is problematic, however, is precisely that Wiegand’s “museum of ancient architecture” constructed, and has maintained up until today, an undue cult of authenticity: obscuring the hypothetic, fictive and conceptual nature of the museum’s exhibits.

167

Part 4 _______________________________________________________________________ Architectural Reproduction: Reconstructing Babylon

168

4.1. The Lion of Babylon in the Age of the Work of Art

An ambiguous site in the Pergamon Museum, and perhaps the most fascinating of all the exhibits, is a double-sided gate that demarcates the Antiquity Collection (Antikensammlung) from the Near Eastern Museum (Vorderasiatisches Museum). Approaching from the Antiquity Collection, the structure is perceived as the Market Gate of Miletus, Wiegand’s reconstruction of a Roman gate from the 2nd century AD. As the visitor walks through the gate, the austere, limestone finish of Miletus yields its place to a sudden burst of colors, chiefly vivid dark blue and yellow. Countless fragments of enamel compose glazed bricks, which for their part are assembled into the appearance of a gate of the Ancient Near East. Looking from the Near Eastern section of the museum the doorway represents the Ishtar Gate of Babylon. Dragon and bull figures in bas-relief decorate the gate. Perhaps a modern monument to Janus, the animistic spirit of doorways in Ancient Rome, the reconstructed gate offers two faces to the visitor: one in Western, late antique, and the other in archaic, Oriental attire.

Having entered the Near Eastern Museum, a careful visitor may observe some discrepancies in the presentation of the Ishtar Gate. The historical gate (as can be seen in a scale-model, also displayed in the gallery) was much higher (about 12 m) than the museum-reconstruction. As many as thirteen rows of animal figures decorated the original gate, compared to only five rows on the museum-reconstruction. Clearly, the proportions of the reconstructed gate have little in common with those of the Babylonian original.

169

Furthermore, one can observe a duality in the museum display of the Ishtar Gate: the bricks on the lower part, particularly those of the bull and dragon figures, are composed of a large quantity of broken fragments: the face of each brick consists of a mosaic of several glazed pieces, suggesting that they were assembled of antique originals. Unlike the fragmentary appearance of the lower section, the bricks on the upper parts are flawless. They are clearly the products of modern brick manufacturers, which attempted to imitate the Babylonian technique of glazing.

***

A professor of history of architecture and the director of the Near Eastern Section of the State Museum in Berlin, Walter Andrae undertook an unprecedented project of archaeological reconstruction in 1928. His design of the interior of the Near Eastern section of the museum consists of a creative rearrangement of about 300.000 broken fragments of glazed brick into an image of the ancient city of Babylon. At the center of Andrae’s plan is a thirty meter-long, eight meter-wide, double-height gallery, which leads the visitors to the reconstruction of the Ishtar Gate. Andrae conceived the gallery as a shortened replica of the Processional Street of Babylon. Built during the reign of Nebukadnezzar (6th century BC), the Processional Street was originally about three hundred by sixteen meters and was surrounded on two sides with glazed brick walls. No less than one hundred and twenty lions in bas-relief—perhaps as many as two

170

hundred—decorated the walls of the Processional Street on either side.1 Since the figures on one side of the street were the mirror image of those on the other, there must have been two prototypes of lion figures, one walking to the right and one walking to the left. All lions on the Processional Street were otherwise identical. The Babylonian walls were clearly the products of a highly industrialized process, an archaic system of architectural production in large quantities, which Andrae was determined to reinterpret in Berlin.

Initially, the reconstructed lion figures were to be displayed on the South wing of Messel’s complex, in the Near Eastern section designed by the architects Hoffmann and Wille. As early as the 1910’s Wille developed a number of alternatives for the Near Eastern Museum, many of which arranged the Mesopotamian collections along a long and double-height gallery. Though it would have also displayed the reconstructions of the Babylonian reliefs on both sides, Wille’s gallery recalled more the interior of a Gothic cathedral than a sacred street in Ancient Mesopotamia.

Trained as an architect, Andrae rejected these museum plans, which, in his own words, had been imposed on him as a “fancy dress costume that did not fit properly.” He found the imagination of the architects, Hoffmann and Wille, rather “limited.” Whereas color had been an essential part of Andrae’s reconstructions of Babylonian and Assyrian antiquities since 1900, Wille’s interiors were inappropriately somber and dull. Given the

1

Walter Andrae, “Vorderasiatisches Museum,” October 1930, 4 pages typed manuscript, Andrae Archive, Berlin, Staat Bibliothek, 17. 171

fierce battles that had been fought over Messel’s plans for nearly a decade—the socalled “Museum Wars”—it should not come as a surprise that Andrae did everything in his power to undermine Wille’s plans. He went as far as redesigning the interiors of the Near Eastern Museum, which he represented in a number of watercolor perspectives, a medium he mastered during long years of excavations in Babylon and Assur. He called upon the scenery-décor painters of the Berlin State Opera to enlarge his watercolors into life-size models, painted on wood and paper, and installed them in the South wing. It was this full-size wooden installation that convinced both the Prussian Ministry of Culture and the museum administration to replace Wille’s earlier plans with Andrae’s design. The positive impression created by Andrae’s installation also convinced the ministry to reconstruct a large number of lions to decorate the gallery, although it had instructed earlier that only two exemplars of the Babylonian lion be reconstructed for they were “all the same.”2

The fragments that Andrae used in his reconstruction found their way to Berlin after a long process. The archaeological excavations of the German Orient-Society (Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft, DOG) directed by Robert Koldewey between 1899 and 1917 in the extinct city of Babylon came to an abrupt end with the Great War when the OttomanTurkish army retreated from Mesopotamia. As the provinces of Baghdad, Mosul and Basra were given to British mandate, the German finds were seized by the new colonial administration of Iraq. Nine years later, and after Koldewey’s death in 1925, it was his

2

Andrae, Lebenserinnerungen eines Ausgräbers (2nd edition; Stuttgart: Verlag Freies Geistesleben, 1988), 274. 172

assistant Andrae who successfully negotiated the “return” of the German archaeological property in 1926. Given the ill feeling between the two countries, the British decision to send Babylonian finds to Berlin was an extraordinary gesture—but, of course, whose property was it in the first place? For our purposes, it is critical to note that the Babylonian finds were no “archaeological treasure” in the conventional sense of the word. Out of five hundred thirty-seven crates, the first shipment that reached Berlin in January 20, 1927, about four hundred were filled with broken pieces of bricks, some with a faint trace of enamel glazing on one side.3 For the most part, the Babylonian finds were not free-standing works of art—and not even recognizable fragments of antique sculpture—but a large mosaic of hundreds of thousands of pieces of baked mud. It was Andrae’s task in 1928 to create new constellations from the most unassuming of archaeological fragments.

An issue of the German Orient Society’s journal, the recollections of Andrae in his posthumously published memoirs and some documents in the Walter Andrae Archive give us a clear idea of how the reconstruction proceeded. The fragments of glazed brick were first desalinated and waxed with paraffin in the chemical laboratories of the Berlin Museum under the supervision of Prof. Rathgen in 1927. The following year Andrae entrusted the task of sorting and reassembling the fragments to an expert in sculpturecasting, Willy Struck, who, together with six to eight assistants and “the patience of an angel” classified hundreds of thousands of pieces according to “find-spots” and

3

Eva Strommenger and Kay Kohlmeyer, Wiedererstehendes Babylon, exhibition catalog (Berlin: Museum für Vor und Frühgeschichte, 1991), 53. 173

according to “types of animal or decorative motives.” The reconstruction deserves a long quote in Andrae’s words: Then, [Struck] started to put the fragments together, first into single bricks, and finally into complete animals: lions, bulls and dragons, and then into various decorative elements that went with them... One look at Struck’s infinitely long worktable shows what a painstaking job this was. On the table everything was arranged according to type, for instance all pieces with a lion’s eye ... were classified together. We know that all 60 lions on one side of the street came from one and the same mould. That is, all the fifty-odd bricks of about 33 cm length and 10 cm height, which constituted one lion, were from the same mould... The same applied to two kinds of bulls and dragons...4 The ambiguity of this description consists in the fact that it presents assemblage of archaeological fragments as an ordinary puzzle-game (“Geduldspiel”)5. The eye, the leg, the jaw of a lion were fit together so as to assemble a figure out of the found fragments. Yet, Andrae goes on to explain that fragments were grouped according to their types. That is, all the fragments that might have belonged to an eye were put together. Andrae reported that Koldewey had collected fragments from Babylon, which would be sufficient to reconstruct one hundred and twenty lions. Even if classification according to find-spots had prevented the fragments of a figure from being mistaken for the fragments of another, such distinction would haven been lost on Struck’s worktable, at the very moment the fragments were re-classified according to their types.

4

Andrae, “Von der Arbeit an den Altertümern aus Assur und Babylon,” Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 66 (April 1928): 20. Also cited in Ernst Walter Andrae and Rainer Michael Boehmer, Bilder Eines Ausgräbers: Die Orientbilder von Walter Andrae 1898-1919: Sketches by an Excavator (2nd enlarged edition in German and English Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1992), 144: n. 73. 5

Ibid. 174

Reading Andrae’s accounts and judging from two photographs of the assembly desk, it seems that each time the restorers picked a lion’s eye from the desk they had to choose among a large pool of fragments, which could have belonged to any of about one hundered lions on one side of the Processional Street. The face of each brick was reconstituted from a combination of six to seven fragments, which further increased the choices that the restorers had to make each time they assembled a figure. Unlike a jigsaw puzzle, the Babylonian walls had not one, but an infinite number of solutions.

In the instance when no fragment from the pool seemed adequate to fill in the missing part, Andrae used modern bricks manufactured by three factories near Berlin.6 In addition to lions “produced” in this way to decorate the Processional Street, many others were distributed to museums across the world. Andrae offered two “exemplars,” as he calls them, to the Istanbul Archaeology Museum (formerly the Ottoman Imperial Museum) and to the new Baghdad Museum in Iraq, as these were the institutions that negotiated the division of the Babylonian finds with Berlin before and after the war respectively. Others were sent to Vienna, Paris, Copenhagen, Göteborg, Chicago and to other unspecified museums in the US, as well as to Dresden and Munich.7

6

Three ceramic factories near Berlin, H. Körting in Oranienburg, Blumenfeld in Velten and Mutz factory in Neu-Ruppin, manufactured the modern “Babylonian” bricks. See Andrae, “Das Vorderasiatische Museum in Berlin,” Museumskunde, Neue Folge III, Heft 2 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1931), 76. See also Andrae Archive, Berlin, Staat Bibliothek, document no. 21), 29. 7

Andrae, Lebenserinnerungen eines Ausgräbers (First published in 1961; 2nd edition, Berlin: Verlag Freies Geistesleben, 1988), 277. 175

Andrae was surely not interested in reassembling each lion out of its exact original pieces, without mixing the parts of different lions with one another: such concern would have been irrelevant, for the lions of Babylon had been mass produced. Hence by transforming archaeological reconstruction into a system of “production,” Andrae transgressed an established rule of modern aesthetics: the distinction between the original work of art and its copies.8 Not a single figure of bas-relief was reconstructed by uniting its original pieces as they really were. But each figure consisted of a combination of pieces gathered from different excavated walls, and of modern infill. Each lion figure, in other words, includes antique pieces that might have belonged to any of the one hundred lions on one side of the Processional Street.

Against common wisdom, the reconstructions of the Processional Street and of the Ishtar Gate in the museum are not antique “originals” in the limited, 20th century definition of the term, but a fascinating, and distinctively fin de siècle constellation of antique fragments: an ornamental pattern that clearly reflects the preoccupations and taste of the Jugendstil and the Art-Deco.

Having established this point, we have to underscore that there is nothing particularly problematic in Andrae’s reconstruction of 1928, completed prior to the wide-spread

8

On the contrary to Walter Banjamin’s well-known thesis in his “The Work of Art in the Age of its Technical Reproducibility,” it is not the concept of reproducibility, but those of authenticity and “aura” that are products of recent modernity. By reproducing the Babylonian architecture in Berlin, Andrae does not violate the ancient system of ornament, but transgresses the modern, museum aesthetics, which is invested in the uniqueness and authenticity of the ancient “work of art.” 176

embrace of—what I shall call—the modern cult of authenticity: imaginative restoration was not yet fully outlawed by the advocates of “historic presentation.” Nor was the Art Nouveau philosophy of art, which also nurtured the Jugendstil movement in Central Europe, fully replaced by the Modern Movement, one that declared Art Nouveau’s preoccupation with ornament a “crime.”9 Andrae’s reconstruction of Babylon could be better understood when compared to another imaginative reconstruction of archaic civilization, Sir Arthur Evans’ Minoan “palace” in Crete, which has been recently acknowledged as among the most significant examples of Art Nouveau in Greece.10

Nevertheless, the ambiguity of the museum’s “exhibit” (which is both ancient ornament and modern work of art) seems to trouble some museum connoisseurs and archaeologists, who are apparently convinced that acknowledging the influence of modern taste, and of the changing ideas of historical reconstruction would depreciate the museum’s object. In an exhibition catalog, Wiedererstehendes Babylon [Babylon Reconstructed], for instance, Eva Strommenger and Kay Kohlmeyer characterize the Babylon excavations and the subsequent reconstruction in the following terms: The basis of the German success [in Babylon] was not due to the excavator’s luck in finding material (Findersglück), but rather due to the development of a new method of excavation and documentation. For the first time, a precise 9

See Adolf Loos. “Ornament and Crime” (1929), in Adolf Loos, Ornament and Crime: Selected Essays, Selected and with and introduction by Adolf Opel Riverside, translated by Michael Mitchell (Calif., Ariadne Press, 1998). 10

See Anton Bammer, "Wien und Kreta: Judgendstil und minoische Kunst," Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien, 60 (1990): 129-152; see also John K. Papadopoulos, “Knossos," in The Conservation of Archaeological Sites in the Mediterranean Region, ed. Marta de la Torre (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1997). 177

recording of the excavation finds was carried out, and the essential features of an ancient cosmopolitan city were ascertained… Furthermore, the Ishtar Gate, the Throne hall façade and the Processional Street stand today as a particularly painstaking, scientifically grounded and technically challenging reconstruction, which, in its concept, offers the museum’s visitors an exact (faithful) impression of the antique architecture in original scale.11 Surely, Andrae’s reconstruction was “scientifically grounded” just like Viollet-le-Duc’s imaginative restoration of Gothic cathedrals was “rational.” That the German archaeologist assiduously recorded his finds, however, does not necessarily mean that he based his reconstruction on a positivist notion of “faithfulness” (exactness) to the “original.” The theoretical framework, which legitimizes reconstruction only to the extent it is scientifically “faithful” to the “original,” does not do justice to the complexity of the case we face.

Among several questions that Andrae’s imaginative reconstruction of Babylon in Berlin raise, I shall tackle two sets, which seem particularly relevant for our investigation of architecture in the museum. Firstly, why did the German archaeologists spend nearly two decades excavating Babylon, an extinct city, which unlike Pergamon, did not reward their effort with spectacular finds (in fact an earlier expedition conducted by the University of Pennsylvania was called off after a couple of years of frustration). What did the German Orient-Society hoped to discover in the Biblical city—and to serve which theological, cultural and political ends? Secondly, how did the German architects reconstruct Babylon from the most inconspicuous mud-brick foundations into spectacular “monuments”? How did they conceive architecture of an antique culture

11

Strommenger and Kohlmeyer, 5. 178

about which they had no theoretical or methodological preparation—at least nothing comparable to the accumulation of expertise about Classical, Greek architecture?12

12

Unlike classical architecture of Greece and Rome, which was studied and restored as part of the Beaux Arts education, architecture of the Ancient Near East figured in the 19th century merely in the studies of Oriental religions and of the symbol. Georg Fredrich Creuzer’s Symbolik und Mythologie der alten Völker (6 volumes, Leipzig and Darmstadt: Carl Wilhelm Leske, 1810-23), a founding text of German Orientalistik, for example, defined “allegory through architecture” as a branch of symbolic expression. See especially Creuzer’s chart in volume I, 1819. 179

4. 2. Transgressing Bilderverbot: the Babel-Bible Controversy

The driving force behind the German expedition was the rising interest in Assyriology in Germany in the last decades of the 19th century. Following the sensational discoveries by the English adventurer Henry Austen Layard and the French consul to Mosul, PaulEmil Botta, a group of philologists were increasingly convinced that religious myths, architectural forms, as well as linguistic formations which had been attributed to the Egyptians and Hebrews, had in fact been originated in the third millennium B.C. in Babylon. The founder of the German Orient-Society, professor of Semitic languages in Berlin and founder of German Assyriology, Friedrich Delitzsch (1850-1922), was, if not the most eloquent, the most outspoken of the German “Pan-Babylonists.”13

In a lecture addressed to an audience of theologians and high state officials including Kaiser Wilhelm II in the Berlin Academy of Music in January 13, 1902, Delitzsch interpreted the recent discoveries in Mesopotamia. His aim was to establish that the stories of the Old Testament had their “origins” in the Babylonian codes and legends. He argued that “there existed as early as about 2250 BC a highly developed constitution, together with a state culture” and “when the twelve tribes of Israel invaded Canaan, they came to a land which was a domain completely pervaded by Babylonian culture.”14 The

13

Marchand, Down From Olympus, 223.

14

Friedrich Delitzsch, Babel und Bibel, (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs Buchandlung, first lecture, 1902; second lecture, 1905). The citations are from the English translation, Babel and Bible, (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1903), 37, 39. 180

main “evidence” Delitzsch presented in order to dispute the revelatory content of the Old Testament was the Code of Hammurabi, found by the French archaeologist Marcel Dieulefoy (1844-1920) in the extinct Persian city of Suse.15 Having anticipated the adverse reaction of his conservative audience, Delitzsch added that the “true religious feeling” had nothing to fear from the outcome of the “scientific” excavations:

when freed from ... prejudice, as extolled by the prophets and poets of the Old Testament, and as taught in its most sublime sense by Jesus, also the religious feeling of our hearts, is so little affected, that it may rather be said to emerge from the cleansing process in a true and more sympathetic form.16 Delitzsch later published the lecture together with comparative physiognomies of racial types, which contrast the profile of a Sumerian Priest after an antique sculpture, with highly satirized, supposedly Jewish profiles. Although Delitzsch, a notorious antiSemite, acknowledged that the Sumerians, this “primeval race” of the third millennium might not have been Aryans, he proudly declared that they were not a “Semitic” race. Delitzsch’s lecture reached is patriotic climax in its finale when he projected a slide of the Prussian expedition house in Babylon and when he declared that Germany finally “pitched her tent on the palm-crowned banks of paradise... for Germany’s honor and Germany’s learning.”17

15

See Marcel Dieulafoy, L'acropole de Suse, d'après les fouilles exécutées en 1884, 1885, 1886 (Paris: Hachette, 1890-92). 16

Delitzsch, Babel and Bible, 67.

17

Ibid., 77. 181

Delitzsch’s lecture “Babel-Bible” stirred an immediate controversy in Germany. While the Catholic and Jewish groups renounced the lecture, the reaction of the Evangelical conservatives was not as positive as Delitzsh had anticipated. Unlike most of the audience who strongly protested the lecture, Kaiser Wilhelm was very impressed with Delitzsch’s performance, so much so that he asked the Assyriologist to repeat the lecture on February 1st, this time, in the Royal Palace.

Emboldened by the support of the German monarch, Delitzsch launched a more direct attack on the Old Testament in his second lecture of January 12, 1903. He had just returned home from a brief visit to the German excavation site in Babylon with new “evidence.” He argued that the Biblical “sin,” “paradise,” and the Jewish name for God, “Yahweh” had their precursors in the Babylonian narratives. By focusing on the parallels between the Old Testament and the Koran and comparing them to the Assyrian narratives such as the Deluge Tablets and the Code of Hammurabi,18 Delitzsch argued that the Scriptures were only an imperfect transmission of an original code through the “Semitic” tradition of story-telling: “Hebrew writer has freely altered the Babylonian legend;” “the form in which these truths are clothed is human, altogether and fantastically Oriental.”19

By 1905 Delitzsch’s first lecture had sold sixty thousand copies and inspired one thousand six hundred fifty articles and twenty-eight pamphlets in Germany alone. It was

18

Best-known ruler of the first Babylonian dynasty, who reigned c. 1792-1750 BC.

19

Delitzsch, Babel and Bible, 171. 182

immediately translated into English and distributed in Britain and North America.20 Although Kaiser Wilhelm had to distance himself from Delitzsch’s thesis under increasing pressure by religious conservatives, he found other ways to show his friendship and support. Delitzsch preserved his prestigious academic position until 1921, as an increasingly outspoken anti-Semite.21

An analysis of Delitzsch’s lectures shows that he suffered from persecution complex, shared by the right-wing theorists of the late 19th century (such as Langbehn). Unlike Langbehn, a convert to Catholicism, he sought the true (Germanic) religion in Mesopotamia of the 3rd millennia BC. He went as far as arguing that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures were part of a millennial conspiracy against the “true religious feeling” of the Germans. And yet, neither Delitzsch’s thesis nor his ideological program was innovative: as early as the 1850’s the German philologist and the historian of Oriental religions, Paul de Lagarde had called for an “authentically German, spiritual life.”22 In fact, it is not so much the paranoid nature of Delitzsch’s argument but his ability to clothe an old theory with irrefutable “scientific evidence” from the German excavations in Babylon that made him a celebrity.

20

Reinhard G. Lehmann, Friedrich Delitzsch und der Babel-Bibel-Streit (Göttingen, 1994), 50; see also Delitzsch, Babel und Bibel: Ein Rückblick und Ausblick (Stuttgart, 1904), 3; cf. Marchand, Down From Olympus, 224.

21

Marchand, Down From Olympus, 225.

22

For an analysis of Lagarde’s “Germanic religion” see Stern op. cit. 183

Delitzsch’s intention, however, was hardly a positivist demystification of religion, although he occasionally assumed an anthropologizing tone whenever this fit his purpose. For instance he suggested that “Semitic” people (the Arabs and Bedouins in the region) should be studied anthropologically since their supposedly “fetishist” and “animist” “character” altered the “original” Babylonian code.23 Curiously, according to Delitzsch, the “original” Babylonian code, unlike the “Hebrew legend,” was not the product of a human culture: its revelatory, divine content could not be questioned. Hence hidden behind a supposedly “scientific” project was essentialism: Delitzsch was convinced that the ur-religion of the primeval race (perhaps of the primitive Germans) was buried in the Iraqi desert, under Babylon’s rather unattractive ruins.

It is highly ambiguous, on the other hand, why Delitzsch so specifically targeted the Second Commandment in his second lecture: “Quite specifically Israelitish is the second commandment, the prohibition of every form of image-worship whatever, which seems to have a directly anti-Babylonian point.”24 The prohibition of the graven images is, according to Delitzsch, not only a distortion of the “original” code but also intentionally “anti-Babylonian.” It is possible that Delitzsch sought the original Babylonian language (before the fall of the Tower) as inscribed in hieroglyphics or in some sort of graven pictures: a primeval code that preceded the Assyrian cuneiform.25

23

Delitzsch, Babel and Bible, 68.

24

Ibid., 191.

25

The French philologist Jules Oppert (1825-1905) had decoded the Assyrian script only a few decades earlier. See Jules Oppert, Expédition scientifique en Mesopotamie exécutée par ordre du gouvernement de 1851 à 1854 MM. Fulgence Fresnel, Félix 184

***

Robert Koldewey was an unorthodox choice to lead the excavation in the Ancient Near East, as he was not formally trained as a philologist. Trained as an architect, he often refused to destroy architectural ruins to unearth historical inscriptions underneath: he was more interested in collecting examples of ancient mortar than ancient tablets.26 This suggests that Koldewey excavated the city of Babylon, not simply to produce evidence for Delitzsch’s dubious theological theses, but to achieve a reconstruction of mythic monuments including the Hanging Gardens and the Tower of Babel. As early as 1897, Schöne, the general director of the Royal Prussian Museums, encouraged Koldewey to collect fragments for a museum reconstruction.27 Just like Heinrich Schliemann’s Troy (Hisarlik), the fame of Babylon in modern consciousness had extended far beyond what the extinct city had to offer. Two architects and an army of workers had to work for several years to reconstruct an image of Babylon in Berlin.

Andrae, a twenty-three year old architect, recently graduated from the Technical University of Dresden, started the first reconstruction on the excavation site as early as 1900. The fragments that Koldewey found on the excavation site seemed to indicate the

Thomas et Jules Oppert (Paris : Imprimerie impériale, 1857-63). See also Oppert, Les incriptions commerciales en caractères cuneiforms (Paris, 1866). 26

Svend Aage Pallis, The Antiquity of Iraq: A Handbook of Assyriology (Copenhagen: 1956), 308; also cited in Marchand, Down From Olympus, 213. 27

Walter Andrae, “Das Vorderasiatische Museum zu Berlin,” 74. 185

presence of a lost work of art. The architects identified them as belonging to dragon or bull figures in bas-relief. Koldewey also unearthed fragments of colored brick from the area which was later identified as the Processional Street. The colored fragments and the fragments of bas-relief did not match one another. It was, therefore, Andrae’s job to sort out the possible connections.28 We learn from Andrae’s memories that he found the job particularly difficult: there was no indication of how the colored fragments could be assembled.29 His task consisted of drawing hypothetical animal figures, dividing them into their smallest possible parts and comparing these parts with what the architect had in hand: small fragments of mud-brick.

In the absence of any texts that could guide the reconstruction (no Assyrian architectural treatise has survived), and mindful of his assistant’s education, Koldewey assigned Andrae readings from the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. Besides Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation, Andrae also benefited from reading Immanuel Kant’s “Dreams of a Spirit-seer Illustrated by Dreams of Metaphysics.” Yet, Andrae found his spiritual guide to the reconstruction in Iraq in Goethe’s theory of color. In his own words: By my second year in Babylon a more fundamental and less philosophical light dawned on me: color, which Goethe called ‘the experiences and sufferings of light and form’—the shapes that nature places before our eyes for us to wonder

28

Ernst Walter Andrae and Rainer Michael Boehmer, 114.

29

Walter Andrae, Lebenserinnerungen eines Ausgräbers, 78. 186

at. I felt almost as though this revelation had been bestowed upon me as a complete substitute for religion.30 After a year of carefully piecing the fragments together Andrae produced the first and highly hypothetical prototype of the “lion of Babylon.”

30

The passage was omitted in Andrae’s memoirs, Lebenserinnerungen eines Ausgräbers, and was published posthumously in Ernst Walter Andrae and Boehmer, 120. 187

4. 3. Romantic Reconstruction: in Search of “Organic” Essence

The exhibition of Assyrian sculpture in the Crystal Palace, London, and the opening of the first Mesopotamian rooms in the Louvre had a considerable impact on 19th century architectural theory. This is chiefly due to the writings of the German architect Gottfried Semper, then a refugee in London and Paris. Having observed Botta’s finds from Khorsabad in the 1850’s, Semper formulated his theory of “dressing” [Bekleidung] in which he challenged the classical interpretations of origin of architecture. He argued that the art of building stemmed neither from imitation of nature in Ancient Greece, nor from the “primitive hut” that resulted from the human need for protection. The origin of architecture was the Assyrian textiles, the ornamental surfaces that were subsequently translated into patterns of glazed brick. Once applied to architecture, Assyrian art preserved the vivid colors and ornamental patterns of an earlier medium. Such an interpretation also explained the lack of structural elaboration and the abundance of ornamental patterns in the Ancient Near East. Semper still believed in the superiority of Greek architecture based on its “tectonic” perfection—here he approached the architectural historian Carl Bötticher’s theory of “tectonics.” And yet, Semper’s Bekleidung amounted to nothing less than a revolution in architectural theory by suggesting that Greek architecture was the refined product of a historical development. Semper challenged the fixed taxonomies of architecture with cultural

188

transformism—some four decades after a comparable debate took place in natural sciences—particularly in paleontology in the French academy.31

The most complete reconstruction of Assyrian architecture on paper prior to Andrae’s followed the excavations of the ancient Assyrian city of Dur Sharrukin (modern Khorsabad) in 1852-54 by Victor Place (1818-1875), the French Consul of Mosul and Botta’s successor. A Beaux-Arts architect and the winner of the Prix de Rome, Félix Thomas (1815-1875) accompanied Place to Assyria and undertook a survey and restitution of architectural ruins, published in 1867 in three volumes, Ninive et l'Assyrie.32 Place, like Botta before him, erroneously identified the Assyrian Palace of Sargon II and the surrounding city (built between 717-707 BC) as the biblical city of Nineveh, and hence the confusing title of his publication. The third volume is dedicated to Thomas’s survey of the ruins and to his “essai de restauration,” which restored the palace in a set of drawings.33

No one other than Thomas, the only Beaux-Arts architect to set foot in Mesopotamia, could feel so intensely the absence of a classical treatise about Assyrian monuments. “In

31

See the Cuvier-St. Hillaire debate in the French Academy of Sciences in 1830. François Jacob offers an excellent overview of the debate and its philosophical implications in La logique du vivant: une histoire de l’hérédité (Paris: Gallimard, 1970). 32

Victor Place, Ninive et l'Assyrie. 3 volumes (Paris: Imprimerie impériale, 1867).

33

The authorship of the text “Essais de Restauration” is not clearly stated in the third volume of Ninive et l'Assyrie. However, given the complexity of architectural, technical details and the recognizably Beaux-Arts terminology, we can assume that either the architect wrote it himself or that he closely supervised Place’s text. 189

the restoration of fragments that belong to the orders of classical architecture,” he complained, “imagination [of the restorer] is guided by the existence of previously known monuments. This was certainly not the case for the palace in “Nineveh,” where no previous example, no “Asian Vitruvius” have survived to transmit the rules and the canons. Nor was the archaeological evidence adequate for a systematic study of Assyrian architecture.34

Despite these difficulties, Thomas was determined to discover a “new architectonic order.”35 In the absence of structurally differentiated elements like column, capital, entablature in Assyria, he focused on the system of ornament, what he called “la décoration architectonique.” According to Thomas:

Architectonic decoration, which reinforces the contrasts of shade and light [profiler] on the buildings, is exclusively the result of good ordonnance of the constitutive members of construction [bonne ordonnace des membres constitutifs de la construction] and of the assemblage of the used material… It determines the form from the point of view of exterior beauty…36

Hence all the parts of “architectonic decoration” are subordinate to the “harmony” of the whole. It may seem bizarre to call Thomas’s treatise on Khorsabad “classical,” but, in fact, its only non-classical feature is that “les anciens” are not the Greeks but the Assyrians. (“Les modernes” are, as usual, the French.) Thomas goes on to argue that

34

Place, II: 1.

35

Place, II: 2.

36

Place, II: 44. 190

Assyrians were more honest builders than the other peoples of antiquity: “The Greeks did not escape the weakness” of, for example, imitating primitive wooden prototypes in stone, a failure in providing the unity of material with form. “Absolute calmness [repos], this ideal of architecture,” is embedded in Assyrian walls.37

In contrast to his high-spirited treatise that construes a classical order in Mesopotamia, Thomas curiously restored the ruins into a fantastically Oriental palace from the One Thousand and One Night tales, conspicuously roofed with medieval Islamic domes. Underlining the Oriental character of the ruins, Place also observed imperfections in this ancient art, like the Assyrians’s obvious ignorance of perspective and their occasionally “unnatural” depictions of animal, plant or human figures in wall paintings and sculpture.

At the entrance of an Assyrian temple, which the fantasizing Frenchmen mistook for an Oriental “harem,” the excavators unearthed seven figures—including a lion—which had been constructed out of glazed enamel bricks, and which were surprisingly well preserved—unlike those the German excavators found in Babylon. A paragraph in Ninive et l'Assyrie describes the lion as follows:

The lion ... is a piece of great beauty, the lines are well found, the contours are well established and the proportions are of an attentive exactitude. The members are well attached and depict a natural movement; we see the animal walking. The head has a character of truth. The mouth, as it opens, answers exactly to the general movement that the artist sought to render. Among the pieces that

37

Place, I: 208. 191

antiquity left us, there are few that reveal a better-translated feeling of art, and this alone suffices to give us a high idea of the taste of the Assyrians.38 It is remarkable that for Place truth resides in Assyrian figures to the extent they approach naturalist depiction. Haven mistaken a temple for a harem, the French archaeologists did not take into consideration that the figures might have had religious and ritual significance. Place’s description recalls instead a critique of a 19th century salon painting.

***

Unlike Place and Thomas, the German excavators of Babylon projected a Romantic and decisively non-classical theory of art onto the figures of the Ancient Near East. Having interpreted a dragon figure, which he found on the walls of the Ishtar Gate, Koldewey argued that this animal, or the “walking serpent” as the Babylonians had called it, showed an “organic unity.” The figure was a proof for Koldewey of an “unmistakable self creative genius in this ancient art” as it far exceeded all other fantastic creatures in “the uniformity of its physiological conceptions.” The chimera-figure was so harmoniously assembled that such an animal might have actually existed in nature.39

38

Place, I: 118.

39

Robert Koldewey, Das wieder erstehende Babylon: die bisherigen Ergebnisse der deutschen Ausgrabungen (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1914), 48-49; English translation by Agnes S. Johns, The Excavations at Babylon (London, Macmillan and Co., 1914). 192

Koldewey’s understanding of ancient architecture recalls the theories of the German Romanticism in Jena in the late 18th century. It was August Wilhelm Schlegel who most eloquently defined “organic form” in his Lectures:

Organic form ... is innate; it unfolds (bildet) itself from within, and acquires its determination contemporaneously with the perfect development of the germ. We everywhere discover such forms in nature throughout the whole range of living powers, from the crystallization of salts and minerals to plants and flowers, and from these again to the human body. In the fine arts as well as in the domain of nature, the supreme artist, all genuine forms are organic, that is, determined by the quality (Gehalt) of the work. In a word, the form is nothing but a significant exterior, the speaking physiognomy of each thing, which, as long as it is not disfigured by any destructive accident, gives a true evidence of its hidden essence (Wesen).40 Romantic aesthetics provide the reconstruction with a set of guiding principles: First, as Tzevan Todorov shows in his Theories of the Symbol, the work of art is like nature—it does not imitate nature.41 Just like a work of nature, the work of art is structured by its inner coherence. “Organic form,” unlike “mechanical form” is never arbitrary. Secondly, the exterior form, or physiognomy of a work of art is the consequence of its “hidden essence.” The aim of the architect is not to imitate form, but to capture essence, since the first is subordinate to the second.

***

40

August Wilhelm Schlegel, Vorlesungen über dramatische Kunst und Literatur, vol.II (Stuttgart, 1966); English translation by J. Black, A Course of Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature, (2nd. ed London, 1904), 340; also cited in Tzvetan Todorov, Theories of the Symbol, translated by Catherine Porter, 4th. ed. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995), 179-180. 41

Todorov, 180. 193

The case presented by the Ishtar Gate was of a different order than the Processional Street. Unlike the Processional Street where no lion figure remained intact, Koldewey unearthed a number of dragon (sirrush) and bull figures on the foundations of the gate, which had been stripped of their color and glazing. Koldewey predicted that at least thirteen rows of alternating dragon and bull figures had decorated the structure. The problem here was that there seemed to be no beginning and no end to these rows of figures at top and bottom. Considering that “eight lower rows contained at least forty animals and the upper five rows fifty-one” Koldewey calculated at least five hundred seventy-five animal figures on the wall. At least two of these rows were below the ground water level. Due to technical difficulty, the archaeologists had to stop their excavation once they reached the water level, far from the foundations of the ancient wall. Koldewey concluded that the building was never intended as a single composition. Particularly “the lower rows were not intended to stand out free and meet the eye, at any rate not for any considerable length of time.”42 The building had been sinking throughout Babylonian history and the level of the street pavement had been raised several times to adjust to the rising ground level. The traces of three previous ground levels could be seen in between the rows. Therefore, the Ishtar Gate was not a unified structure but one that had been added to throughout the centuries. This, of course, means the total absence of a circumscribed architectural original—a finished composition—an idea that would appear certainly very disturbing to the Beaux-Arts architect, Thomas. More specifically it meant that composition, the key word of the Beaux-Arts restoration,

42

Koldewey, The Excavations at Babylon, 41-42. 194

was only secondary in importance to production, the key word for the German Romantics.

Equally intriguing was the ornamental pattern of what Koldewey called the “Throne Room Façade.” As shown in the watercolor and crayon drawing by Andrae, the Babylonian bricks had marks on their reverse side indicating their position in the wall. These marks were not in cuneiform writing but consisted of a notation of strokes and dots whose combination resulted in discernible signs, and which guided the assembly of the bricks into an ornamental pattern.43

In all three cases—the Processional Street, the Ishtar Gate and the Throne Room Façade—Koldewey and Andrae did not intend to reconstruct Babylonian architecture in its original state. For there had hardly been a fixed original composition, a self-enclosed and complete work of art in 6th century Babylon. They instead tried to understand the system of production and assembly in ancient architecture. They intended, in other words, to produce Babylonian architecture in Berlin, like speaking an old language through its original grammar in modern times.

***

43

Koldewey writes in the excavation report, “The system of signs can be seen best on the capitals. Here the markings consisted of numerals combined with dots. They are marked on the upper edge of the bricks with a poor, somehow blackened glaze. The signs that distinguish the courses are in the center, those for the vertical arrangement are close to the vertical joints. Each of the latter signs is a counterpart of the sign near the vertical joint of the brick adjoining it.” Ibid., 41-42. 195

In the final analysis, a comparison of Thomas’s drawings of the Assyrian lion of the “Harem Gate” with Andrae’s reconstruction of the lion of Babylon shows some similarities: though he was invested in a Romantic theory of art, the German excavator achieved a restoration which did not depart significantly from Thomas’s drawing of the Assyrian prototype. Their major difference was in their interpretive framework: for Thomas, the Assyrian lion is a product of classical mimesis, while for Andrae (just as for Koldewey) it is the result of an inner essence, which probably would have been incomprehensible to the Beaux-Arts architect. In other words, there seems to be a disjunction between Andrae’s actual reconstruction and the discourse of Romantic aesthetics that accompanied it in Koldewey and Andrae’s texts: the theory does not translate into an artistic form.

In his memoirs, Andrae who, unlike Thomas, did not find a Babylonian lion intact, carefully rules out all artistic influence and attributes the inspiration of his hypothetic reconstruction to his reading of Goethe’s Naturwissenschaft. As late as 1908, however, he was clearly influenced by Thomas’s restoration.

In 1904 Andrae left Koldewey in Babylon in order to excavate the extinct city of Assur (the capital of Assyria) further north in Mesopotamia. During thirteen years, from 1899 to 1912, he left the region only twice. On September 1st, 1908 he attended the gala of the “historical” pantomime play, “Sardanapal” (Assurbanipal), in Berlin, for which he

196

had designed the “historically accurate” costumes and opera-set while he continued to excavate the ancient city.

Kaiser Wilhelm, who strongly empathized with the dynastic problems of Assur, had commissioned Delitzsch with a three-scene play and ordered Andrae to provide the decor ranging from architectural setting to Assyrian hairstyles. As Andrae later recalls in his memoirs, “the play told of a dangerous coalition of Assyria’s enemies, and the fall of both the dynasty and the empire, and there was meant to be a moral here, not just for those with their own dynasties and empires to worry about.” It was as if “the voice of fate” was warning the Kaiser about the future.44 Delitzsch’s play consisted of recitations by allegorical figures, “The Assyrian Past” or “Knowledge,” which unlike his BabelBible lectures bored the audience out of their minds. Despite overwhelmingly negative reviews in Berlin’s newspapers the Kaiser was pleased with the production. He decorated Delitzsch with the Prussian Order of the Red Eagle on the opening night. The following morning the Berlin newspaper, Vossische Zeitung, pronounced: “the Assyrian Ballet ‘Sardanapal’ is so boring that anyone who lasts to the end receives the Order of the Crown, third class.”45

44

Walter Andrae, Lebenserinnerungen, 132; also cited and translated into English in Ernst Andrae and Boehmer, 128. Cf. Wilhelm II’s memoirs Ereignisse und Gestalten aus den Jahren 1878-1918 (1922), 169. 45

Vossische Zeitung, 2.9, 1908, morning edition; cited in E. Andrae and Boehmer, footnote 34, 127. 197

Andrae’s design for the opera deserves attention since it is his first reconstruction of the architecture of the Ancient Near East. The architect designed the stage in three watercolors, which were enlarged to “real” scale by the technicians of the Unter den Linden Opera in Berlin. Andrae’s design of the “Assyrian court” for the “Sardanapal” is practically an adaptation of two restorations by Thomas, the “Harem Gate” and the city gate, onto the stage.

The stage design of 1908 made a permanent imprint on Andrae’s later work. He based his design for the Babylonian section of the Berlin State Museum in 1928 on a set of watercolors and enlarged his paintings into a “full-scale” installation using the help of the technicians of the same opera. Andrae clearly conceived the museum reconstruction as an opera stage, making no significant distinction between an ephemeral décor and a permanent installation.

198

4.4. Symbol, Ornament, Art: Figures of the Counter-Enlightenment

In an unusually bitter critique published in a daily newspaper a week after the opening of the Pergamon museum on September 1, 1930, Lothar Brieger argues that the Pergamon Museum did not fulfill any of the initial expectations. It was not “beautiful” in the traditional sense of the word, nor was it a “modern” museum that could answer the demands of its time. It instead consisted of hypocritical and untrue reconstruction. Brieger found the Ishtar Gate the “dullest” of all the exhibited objects in the museum. The upper part of the gate, in particular, was simply “false, absurd and laughable.”46

Andrae answered the criticism in November 1930 in a short essay, which was most probably intended as a brochure or guide to the Near Eastern Department. The question, Andrae argues, is whether one should reconstruct entire archaeological monuments (Bauwerke), or a large part of them, in the museum. Given the restricted space allocation as well as the material constraints, the Near Eastern Department could not be expected to restore the monuments of Babylon to their original form. Instead the reconstruction aimed at giving an “impression” [Eindruck] of the large “colored surfaces” [Farbenflächen] of Babylon by restoring a large number of the ornamental

46

Lothar Brieger, “Nach der Feier die Kritik: Eine nüchterne Museumsbetrachtung,” in Berliner Zeitung, 8.10.1930. The article was clipped and kept by Walter Andrae (Andrae Archive, Staat Bibliothek, Berlin, document no. 440). 199

reliefs. It was only in the “fantasy” of the observer that a full image of Babylon could be created.47

In a later essay written in 1931, Andrae raises the issues fundamental to reconstruction. The critics of the Babylon room, he argues, did not understand that “compromise was the essence [Wesen] of any museum.” No “artwork” [Kunstwerk], no “functional object” [Gebrauchgegenstand] could be exhibited as a “museum-piece” [Museumsschaustück] without losing their appropriate “setting” [Milieu]. Essential to any museum is the displacement of the works of art from their “organic context” [aus organischem Zusammenhang]. Andrae thus acknowledges that any quest to restore an object literally to its “original” condition is absurd since it contradicts the very concept of the museum. He rather raises the question “how did these objects stand in their past, and how do they stand in their present and future; what did they mean to their creators and what do they mean to us?”48

The subsequent texts that Andrae wrote for the Near Eastern collection, particularly those after 1933, are less apologetic and more ambiguous. The most ambiguous piece was read to a group of visitors to the Babylon Hall on April 4, 1937. In this text, Andrae chooses to introduce his reconstruction to the visitors with the voice of the “Spirit [Geist] of Sumer,” whom he imagines to have been reincarnated for a brief moment

47

Andrae, “Vorderasiatisches Museum,” October 1930, unpublished 4 pages typescript, Andrae Archive, document no. 17. 48

Andrae, “Das Vorderasiatische Museum in Berlin” in Museumskunde, 73. 200

after five thousand years, in order to illuminate the visitors. The Spirit talks with “an understandable language, namely German” and even more surprisingly, uses terminology that recalls that of Schopenhauer:

I admire your gut and strong will! I see through you as I did see through each ancient Sumer man [in the ancient times] when I ruled them. If I were your Spirit, I would expect you to have not only a strong will, but also strong feeling (Empfinden). And I must say you would have to elevate your feeling to the same strength as your will. The will is for you the most natural thing on earth. Yet, I did not remark a strong feeling in you...49 Andrae clearly imagined the Babylon room as the decor of a theatrical presentation of the ancient civilization. His guided tours (in another performance prepared for April 24, 1937, Andrae spoke this time with the voice of the “Spirit of Assur”50) recall the allegorical recitations of Friedrich Delitzsch in the pantomime-play “Sardanapal.”

Andrae’s theory of ornament, on the other hand, shows the author’s increasing involvement in theosophy. In a 1925 text Andrae argues that the stock of decorative motives in architecture originated as divine symbols, the substitution of divinity, and were later transformed into purely formal patterns:

Originally the fruit-bearing … palm, probably the rosette, and the he-goats represented symbolically the cult of the goddess Ishtar. Later these goat-figures, generally on their knees, became simple ornaments with no deeper meaning... In 49

Andrae, “Führung, sumerische un babylonische Säle,” 7.4.1937, unpublished typescript, Andrae Archive, document no. 212. 50

Andrae, “Führung, die assyrischen Säle,” 21.4.1937, Unpublished typescript, Andrae Archive, document no. 213. 201

the same way, the winged genii and bulls, mythological figures with healthgiving power, were first introduced with a definite intention until they deteriorated into meaningless forms.51 This process, for Andrae, is one of spiritual entropy. The architecture of Mesopotamia was the physical testimony of a “process of degradation” through which the formerly sacred symbols were depicted as ornaments. As Andrae explained in his “Symbol in Architecture” (Baukunst), the sacred is the origin of architecture, par excellence. In so far as the symbol preserves its original, divine essence in architecture, the world preserves its meaning. When the symbol freezes into “meaningless ornament,” everything on earth falls into an entropic oblivion; the meaning retreats from the world:

It is a question of tremendous actual importance--as it will always be--whether our present time is capable to create new symbols and, therefore, a new architecture characteristic of our time, or it is at least possible to bring old symbols back to life. We should not ignore either of the possibilities. The entire flow of history, from the Nordic culture, or the ancient Sumer (and perhaps from much earlier times), through Classical Antiquity and through the Middle Ages until our day, is a chain of newly created, reactualized and once again fallen symbols. We know little about the enormous impulsive power of the earliest symbols... Today, they look [to us] different from 2000 or 500 years ago.52

51

Andrae, Farbige Keramik aus Assur und ihre Vorstufen in altassyrischen Wandmalereien: nach Aquarellen von Mitgliedern der Assur-expedition und nach photographischen Aufnahmen von Originalen im Auftrage der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft. (Berlin: Scarabaeus, 1923). The quote is taken from the English translation with some modifications, Coloured Ceramics from Assur and Earlier Ancient Assyrian Wall-Paintings, From Photographs and Water-colours by Members of the Ashur Expedition Organised by the Deutsche Orient-Geselschaft, (London: Kegal Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd. 1925), 6. 52

Andrae, “Symbol in der Baukunst,” in Forschungen und Forschritte Jahrg., Nr. 26, (Berlin, September 10, 1933, pp.373-374, (Andrae Archive, document no. 29). 202

Hence Andrae seems to thematize in the Babylonian section of the museum the age-old enfeeblement of the “original” spirit in architecture. The museum was meant to illustrate not only the process of spiritual entropy, the degradation of the symbol into meaningless ornament, but also embody Andrae’s hope to reactualize the symbol, his attempt to decipher the code, whose secret had long been lost.

In his art historical writing, Andrae argues that the earliest representation of God in human form belongs to the first dynasty in Ur, around 3000 BC. Before this period divine power was visualized in Mesopotamia via symbolic image (Sinnbild). Although the archaeological layers that he excavated in the cities of Babylon and Assur belong to much later periods, Andrae is clearly interested in this earlier age before the 4th millennium, the age of archaic symbols. He focuses his attention not as much on the ornamental motives that he found in Babylon, but on the memory of an earlier symbolic age as they are preserved in these figures. In his lecture of March 16, 1934 in the Pergamon Museum he focused on this point:

How did man come to the point of making for himself a picture [Bild] of the deity? We are brought up with the prohibition: “Thou shalt not make to thyself any image of God! [Du sollst Dir kein Bild von Gott machen!]. The image of God [Gottesbild] is banned as graven image [Götzenbild]... What is the difference between the deity who is signified by a symbol [Sinnbild] and one who figures in human form [Menschenbild]? We would call the first “abstract,” and the second “concrete,” in a quite unsatisfactory [classification]. The second, no doubt demands higher creative power and requires higher knowledge and wisdom, [especially] when one has lost the divine in man [himself]... The question is, whether this is a better condition than the first one. I believe it is not! I see such depiction as the result of a compulsive need [to give an appearance to

203

God]; previously man had been in God and with God. Then, God moved towards [the appearance of] man. Nevertheless, this is the birth [Wurzel] of Art.53 The difficulty of translating Andrae’s text into English consists in the fact that “Menschenbild,” which can be translated literally as “Man-image” or “man’s figuration” means, at the same time, the “conception of man.”54 As its opposite Andrae never uses the word “Symbol,” but “Sinnbild” (literally, meaning/feeling-image) which also means symbol. With the play of words Andrae implies that the mimetic (my word) faculty of representing the deity in man’s form is at the same time the creation of the subjectivity of man as independent of the divine essence. “Menschenbild” refers to the fall of man from the world of the divine essence to the material world, and the secularization of the latter.

The very moment when man depicted himself and his God as a separate man-like image, he asserted his subjectivity in a world of representation. The moment when man represented God in man’s appearance is the moment of inauthenticity. Mimesis, that is, non-identical similitude, replaced meaning, just as ratio reframed the world as the world of man’s domination.55

53

Andrae, “Wintervortrag, Mensch un Gottheit” unpublished lecture, professed in the Pergamon Museum in March or April 1934. Andrae Archive, document no. 142 Nr.3.1., 3. 54

The Oxford-Duden German Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, reprinted with corrections in enlarged format, 1995). 55

Cf. Andrae’s terminology with Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno’s analysis of “mimesis” and of the origins of Anti-Semitism in Dialectic of Enlightenment. See also Rabinbach’s essay “The Cunning of Unreason: Mimesis and the Construction of AntiSemitism in Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialetic of Enlightenment,” In the Shadow of 204

In the light of Delitzsch’s ideological program, which initiated the excavations of the German Orient Society in 1899, Andrae’s theosophy of the 1920’s is significant. In contrast to Delitzsch’s simplistic attack on the Second Commandment as “antiBabylonian,” and his search for a picture-code that would reveal the true religion, Andrae’s account of the origin of art and architecture in Babylon is remarkably iconoclastic. Art (by which Andrae means mimesis) is born only when the original meaning retreats from the world. Unlike Delitzsch who was in search of a revelation, one that would expose the millennial conspiracy, Andrae does not seem to believe that the retreat of meaning from the world in the 3rd millennium can be reversed in modernity.

***

Hence both archaic and modern, the Babylonian walls in Berlin present a fascinating case. On the one hand, the Babylon expedition of the German Orient-Society was motivated by the search for the original code of an ur-religion that preceded—what

Catastrophe: German Intellectuals between Apocalypse and Enlightenment,” (Berkley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1997): “Enlightenment [in the sense used by Horkheimer and Adorno] occurs at the intersection of two decisive processes: the prohibition of the image and its displacement into the abstract system and the need to differentiate self from nature. The Jewish proscription on images, the Bilderverbot, is the origin of enlightenment and at the same time provides its redemptive moment... Mythic mimesis, as Andrew Hewitt has argued, is already a step beyond archaic images, a step toward the symbolic, to the point where ‘mimesis feeds into rationality’. To fall back into the premythic world is to enter a matriarchal, magical world populated by ‘ancient heroines’ and by Odysseus’ own mother; to fall back into the ‘nondifferentiation of nature,” 179. 205

Delitzsch believed—its “distortion” in the “Hebrew legend”: the ur-religion of Babylon, was supposed to match the inner “religious feeling” of the Germans. Driven by Delitzsch’s dubious ideological program, the archaeological expedition was conceived as the “return” of the German “spirit” into a landscape of entropy where the most distant religion had been frozen, and was available only in broken symbols. Ornaments of Babylon in the museum are not “works” that stand for themselves in front of an experiencing subject. They are not objects of aesthetic experience but a sort of redundancy, the traces left behind after the withdrawal of the original meaning from the world. Just as “art” is, for Andrae, the fallen memory of the ur-religion, ornament is the entropic ruin of the primordial “symbol.”

It is therefore little wonder that the German architects and theosophists, Koldewey and Andrae believed that they were searching for something fundamentally different from what the French and British archaeologists had looked for. Having immersed themselves in pre-history, they had hoped to excavate spiritual origins of the “self” in the fields of the “other.”

On the other hand, Andrae’s reconstruction in Berlin thematized not so much the spiritual rootedness of Germany in the ur-religion of Babylon, but the displacement of man in a modern world with no original meaning and with no hope of recovery. Unlike the ultra-conservative theorists of “German Ideology,” Largarde and Langbehn, Andrae offers no hope of redemption for contemporary Germans in religion or art. Instead, the museum reconstruction of Babylon draws parallels between the impersonality of the

206

mechanical modes of production in industrialized modernity, and the architectural production of an archaic culture which flourished prior to the introduction of man as an experiencing subject—prior to the “figuration of man” as the “concept of man” [Menschenbild]. Hence Babylon, a city, which had little to offer in terms of physical ruins, was made in Berlin to provide archaic images to modernity.

207

Conclusion _________________________________________________________________ On the Modern Cult of Authenticity

208

… Once tradition is no longer animated by a comprehensive, substantial force but has to be conjured up by means of citations because ‘It’s important to have tradition’, then whatever happens to be left of it is dissolved into a means to an end. An exhibition of applied art only makes a mockery of what it pretends to conserve. Anyone who thinks that art can be reproduced in its original form through an act of the will is trapped in hopeless romanticism. … Works of art can fully embody the promesse du bonheur only when they have been uprooted from their native soil and have set out along the path to their own destruction. Theodor W. Adorno, “Valéry Proust Museum.”1

Let me, then, revisit two questions I have raised at the beginning of this dissertation: what is the “object” of the Pergamon Museum, a “museum of ancient architecture”? If the museum’s exhibits are “works of architecture,” where does the frame of the museum end, where does its exhibit, the “work,” begin?

As I have shown in Part 2, the integration of architectural elements with painting and sculpture was a central component of Bode’s reform in museology. Responding to a finde-siècle critique of museums as “mausoleums” of dead art, and building upon a general disenchantment with 19th century “pedantic” Bildung, Bode’s living museum recontextualized the masterpieces of ancient art in the fictive architectural ensembles of “style rooms.” Combining collections of painting and sculpture with those of decorative arts, Bode aimed as much at restoring the original expressive content of “art” by relocating it in a semblance of a historical, cultural setting, as at creating an ideal—therefore, distinctively modern—setting for art’s experience. Architecture and

1

In Adorno, Prisms, 175-76, 185. 209

other decorative, applied arts were far from being the object of the museum: Bode upheld a clear hierarchy in the arts, distinguishing oeuvre (ergon) from hors-d’oeuvre (parergon), works of art from fictive architectural frames. Hence Bode’s museology presents a fatal contradiction: he was only interested in architecture (parergon) in so far as it enhanced the effect of the masterpiece (usually painting), hence ensuring the autonomy of ancient painting as pure art. But in the very act of displaying painting in “context” he was giving support to the German Art Nouveau—Jugendstil—belief that “work” and frame—ergon and parergon—formed an inseparable totality, hence effectively destroying the autonomy of the “work of art.”2 It is not a mere coincidence that Bode’s displays in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum correspond in time with the rise of curatorial connoisseurship in Germany, which severed the museum’s ties with the academy, as well as with an equally paradoxical cult of the original, which eventually banned the display of copies and plaster casts in museums.

Marrying Bode’s reform in museology with the colonial daydreams of the Kaiserreich, Messel’s project for the Royal Prussian Museum of 1907 was a significant departure from its 19th century precedents, particularly from Berlin’s Neues Museum, in its ordering and display of “art.” While the architecture of the Neues Museum was conceived as a metaphor for Hegel’s philosophy, displaying art as the hieroglyphics of the history of the Mind, Messel’s museum intended to map the world’s geography of original works and authentic contexts in its interiors. As is evident in Messel’s Gothic, Romanesque and Baroque interiors, the fictive architectural décor was essential in

2

I am grateful to Alan Colquhoun for bringing this contradiction to my attention. 210

conveying the idea of the context and, yet, subsidiary to the experience of the masterpieces of ancient art.

The transformation between 1907 and 1930 of Bode and Messel’s imperial museum—including Bode’s brainchild, the “Museum of Ancient German Art”—into a “museum of ancient architecture” presents, in this sense, a fascinating case. For it was not only the object of the museum but also the relation of this object with its museal frame that changed.

I have surveyed this transformation in Parts 3 and 4 by tracing the history of the museum reconstructions of Pergamon and Babylon. In the final analysis, the museum achieved three different types of “works”—though these are not necessarily “objects.”

The museum-reconstruction of the Great Altar of Pergamon was initially conceived in 1899, in Wolff’s interim Pergamon Museum, as a hypothetic architectural setting, which enhanced the display of the Hellenistic frieze, the Gigantomachy. In his project of 1907 Messel redesigned the West Façade of the “altar” as the central décor of a sublime and phantasmagoric interior, the Altar-Raum. By 1930, the “altar” had curiously been transformed into the chief exhibit of the museum: a process that paradoxically objectified—as well as commodified—Messel’s décor without, however, restoring the historic monument into a freestanding building. So much so that the overbearing effect of the architectural exhibit came to overshadow the original pieces of antique sculpture, instead of merely providing an architectural frame for their display. Even though the

211

museum’s critics in the late 1920’s and 30’s—archaeologists and art historians— dismissed the museum’s presentation of Pergamon as “fake” or, in one instance, as “kitsch,” it quickly became the most popular museum-display in Germany only a year after the museum’s opening in 1930. Hence the “Great Altar” in the museum presents a unique case: it was constructed in the museum based on a fanciful proportional relationship with the Gigantomachy Frieze in order to provide an ideal context for viewing Hellenistic sculpture, and was subsequently authenticated into an “antique monument.”

Wiegand’s architectural exhibits, including the Market Gate of Miletus, on the other hand, present a significantly different case. Here the intention was to piece fragments together into a “monument” on the evidence of the archaeological fragments themselves, even though the archaeological evidence was scarce. Similarly, Wiegand’s exhibits were not initially conceived as a museal context for sculpture, but as a comparative architecture collection. Unlike the plaster casts or fragments of antique architecture in 19th century Beaux Arts academies, however, the pedagogical function of these exhibits, if any, is highly ambiguous. Far from being models of ancient orders, Wiegand’s exhibits can best be characterized as a modern pastiche of ancient architecture—I use the word here in two senses: Wiegand produced the exhibits out of heterogeneous, composite materials, mixing a small quantity of antique fragments with brick, cement, steel reinforcements and stucco that gave them the appearance of aged marble; secondly, they are for the most part citations from hypothetic reconstructions of utilitarian, provincial structures in Roman Anatolia. As Wiegand’s most eloquent critic, Scheffler,

212

did not fail to notice in the 1920’s, Wiegand’s partial “reconstruction” of the Market Gate of Miletus actually fabricated a masterpiece out of a relatively insignificant, utilitarian building. Such practice is perhaps not unusual, for a museum of ancient art often produces “art” out of pre-Renaissance, utilitarian objects by framing them in the museum. Yet, what makes Wiegand’s museum of ancient architecture problematic is precisely this: he not only displaced ancient fragments from antique cities in Turkey but also sought to create the effect of an architectural ensemble, which, he claimed, reenacted in the museum the original visual experience [Total Anschauung] of the ancients who had built the monuments. And yet, such a picturesque-sublime idea of antique architecture as “living-experience” [Erlebnis] seems, in retrospect, a distinctive product of German modernity.

The reconstruction of the architecture of Babylon, on the other hand, is different from the museum display of both the Pergamene and Milesian monuments. Andrae did not intend to recover a lost historical object in the museum: he had merely an ornamental pattern from 6th century B.C. Babylon to imitate. The Ishtar Gate and the Processional Street of Babylon in the Pergamon Museum are decorative reenactments of much larger structures whose proportions and size were freely altered to fit the modern space of the gallery. As such, the Babylonian reconstruction recalls an Art Nouveau interior: a modern constellation of antique fragments. Andrae’s production of the “Lion of Babylon” in large numbers—many decorate the South Wing of the Pergamon Museum, others were acquired by museums around the world—effectively transformed the

213

specimens of an archaic system of mass production into unique works of art, by reproducing them in the museum.

Hence, although distinct from one another, these three groups of architectural exhibits make one point clear: archaeological reconstruction in the museum transforms the “original” meaning of ancient architecture, instead of merely restoring it. The exhibits’ authenticity, so central to their presentation in the museum today, depends neither on their material duration, nor on their being unique in the place where the antique architecture—now lost—had been originally built. Quite on the contrary, the exhibits derive their authenticity from the very condition of their modern displacement into the museum.

The translation of the lost monuments of antiquity into the exhibits of the modern museum can perhaps best be characterized as a process of reproduction and authentication, which manifests itself in two distinct and yet complementary spheres: firstly, the phantasmagoric interiors of the museum transport viewers into another time, and another place, reproducing, as it were, the experience of antique monuments from a distance, had they remained intact as they “actually were” in history; secondly, the hypothetic, partial reconstructions of lost monuments pose in the museum as “originals” to be photographed. Perhaps more than the sublime effect of the actual interiors, the dissemination of the photographic reproductions of “antique monuments”—in a wide sphere ranging from art history surveys to Berlin souvenirs—effectively authenticate the museum’s exhibits.

214

Here, it may be useful to open a parenthesis: by redefining the archaeological reconstruction in the museum as a double process of reproduction and authentication, I depart from the literary critic Walter Benjamin’s thesis in his “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technical Reproducibility.” Far from shattering uniqueness or autonomy of the work of art, the reproduction of antique monuments in the museum, I contend, has effectively constructed the “aura” of the work of art around the hypothetic models. (Hence, the subtitle of my discussion of Andrae’s reconstruction of Babylon parodies Benjamin’s title by reversing his thesis: “The Lion of Babylon in the Age of the Work of Art.”)

***

It must also be clear that I have not aimed in this dissertation at a history of reception of the antique monuments in the museum—an excellent and provocative history of the reception of the Pergamene Altar was provided by Hans-Joachim Schalles—but at a history of construction of antique “work” in the museum. By the same token, I disagree with the common view that the Great Altar of Pergamon was “exploited,” “abused,” or wrongly “appropriated” by 20th century German regimes, and above all the Nazis, who made it a model of their official, ceremonial architecture. Such a view assumes that there exists an antique “work,” an interior, a fixed expressive content whose meaning is independent of the frames, demands and uses of modernity. And yet I have tried to show that the “work” itself was shaped by the historical, artistic and ideological concerns of

215

the present that excavated and reconstructed it. The “monuments” of antiquity could not have found their present forms anywhere other than Berlin in 20th century Germany.

By acknowledging that the “monuments” of antiquity in the museum are contingent with the specific conditions of modern Germany, I do not mean to devalue the museum’s exhibits, nor do I intend to dispute their status as achievements of past scientific research. I do not follow the radical relativism of Paul Feyerabend, who, denying the very possibility of critical hermeneutics, claims that all attempts to understand antiquity is merely modern storytelling and as such, false “realism.” This study, in many ways, underwrites Karl Popper’s counter-thesis: what makes museum exhibits problematic is not the fact that they are (like all science) imperfect rapprochements with the truth of antiquity, but, instead, their claim to certainty—in this case, the cult of authenticity that the museum has nurtured. In the Pergamon Museum the uncertainties of the modern science of archaeology were replaced with a sublime and highly phantasmagoric spectacle of antiquity.

Delitzsch’s search for “archaeological evidence” in Babylon, and the political controversy his attacks on the Old Testament stirred, or Wiegand’s unsubstantiated claim that he reenacted the “original,” intuitive experience of the ancients in the museum, which paved the way for the official representations of the “Nazi Olympics” of 1936, further support my thesis: hidden under the aegis of a positive science was the myth of the unique calling of the Germans: a modern essentialism. In fact, as Wiegand’s opening speech of 1929 makes clear, this phantasmagoria of antiquity, a spectacle of the

216

sublime for the masses, was intended to induce a sense of collective destiny among viewers rather than present the merely scientific display of the “evolution” of architecture, which Wiegand argued for elsewhere.

Reflecting on the ramifications of such a strategy on the vocation of the museum, it is clear that Berlin’s “museum of ancient architecture” put a decisive end to the muchembattled, humanistic Bildung that had fuelled the Prussian Museum a century earlier. The aim was not, by any means, the education of the urban bourgeoisie with “disinterested” art, but to “shock and awe” the most impressionable crowds with the immediacy of a spectacle and towards no productive ends.

***

I shall conclude my remarks by revisiting the problem of “repatriation.” Admittedly, by showing that the “monuments” of antiquity in the museum are constructions of modern Germany—that is, the distinction between the “work” and its museal frame is fictive—I stop short of invalidating the claims of restitution. For, as Tas- kIn elaborates in his Sürgündeki Zeus [Zeus in Exile], the aim of such a campaign is not only to return the “original” Zeus Altar, but also to remedy the violence inflicted on the “heritage” of a local community by19th century cultural imperialism.

The risk of a campaign of “repatriation,” however, is precisely to underwrite the German cult of authenticity while seeking to reverse the effects of German cultural imperialism. 217

For Tas- kIn’s definition of “exile” is invested in, not the presence, but rather the conspicuous absence of a “monument” in its “original place.” Perhaps one of the most intriguing outcomes of this present study is the suggestion that the “original place,” the irreducible experience of “work” “under Mediterranean skies,” is an outcome of the modern discourse on the museum. From Conze’s first remarks on Pergamon in the 1880’s to Wiegand’s triumphal opening speech of 1929, the discourse was marked by lamentations for the lost “context” of art. This, however, should not come as a surprise, for the very condition of the “work of art,” as Adorno has shown, is its being in permanent exile.

218

Selected Bibliography _________________________________________________________________

219

Adorno, Theodor, W. Prisms, trans. Samuel and Shierry Weber. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press 1997, 9th printing.

Akin, Nur. “Osman Hamdi Bey, Âsâr-i Atika Nizamnamesi ve Dönemin Koruma Anlayisi Üzerine Düsunceler.” In Osman Hamdi Bey ve Dönemi Sempozyumu, edited by Zeynep Rona. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfi Yurt Yayinlari, 1993.

Albenda, Pauline. Monumental Art of the Assyrian Empire: Dynamics of Composition Styles. Monographs of the Ancient Near East, vol. 3, fasc. 1. Malibu: Undena Publications, 1998. Albenda, Pauline. The Palace of Sargon, King of Assyria: Monumental Wall Reliefs at Dur-Sharrukin, from Original Drawings Made at the Time of Their Discovery in 1843-1844 by Botta and Flandin. Paris: Editions Recherches sur les Civilizations, 1986. Aldo Rossi: Deutsches Historisches Museum, 1989. Berlin, 1989. Alexanderplatz: Städtebaulicher Ideenwettbewerb/Urban Planning Ideas Competition. Berlin: Ernst & Sohn, 1994. Alfred Messel. 2 vols. Berlin: E. Wasmuth, 1905-11. Amtliche Berichte aus den Preußichen Kunstsammlungen 51. 1930.

220

Anderson, Stanford. Introduction to Style-architecture and Building-art: Transformations of Architecture in the Nineteenth Century and Its Present Condition, by Hermann Muthesius. Translated by Stanford Anderson. Santa Monica: The Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1994, 6. Anderson, Stanford. Peter Behrens and a New Architecture for the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2000. Andrae, Ernst Walter, and Rainer Michael Boehmer. Bilder Eines Ausgräbers: Die Orientbilder von

Walter Andrae 1898-1919; Sketches by an Excavator. 2nd

enlarged edition in German and English, Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1992.

Andrae, Walter. "Altkleinasiatischer zügelring." Berliner Museen: Berichte aus den Preussischen Kunstsammlungen, Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch der Preussischen Kunstsammlungen 50, 4 (1929): 68-71. Andrae, Walter. Babylon. Die versunkene Weltstadt und ihr Ausgräber Robert Koldewey. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1952Andrae, Walter, ed. Coloured Ceramics from Ashur, and Earlier Ancient Assyrian Wall-paintings, from Photographs and Water-colours by Members of the Ashur Expedition Organised by the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd. 1925. Originally published as Farbige Keramik aus Assur und ihre Vorstufen in altassyrischen Wandmalereien: nach Aquarellen Mitgliedern der Assur-expedition und nach photographischen Aufnahmen von Originalen im Auftrage der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. Berlin: Scarabaeus, 1923. 221

Andrae, Walter. “Das Vorderasiatische Museum in Berlin,” Museumskunde. Neue Folge III, Heft 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1931. Andrae, Walter. Das Wiedererstandene Assur. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1938. Andrae, Walter. Die ionische Säule: Bauform oder Symbol? Berlin: Verlag für Kunstwissenschaft, 1933. Andrae, Walter. "Die neuen säle für altorientalische kunst im Vorderasiatischen museum." Berliner Museen: Berichte aus den Preussischen Kunstsammlungen, Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch der Preussischen Kunstsammlungen 55, 3 (1934): 45-56. Andrae, Walter. "Die vollendung der ausstellungsräume der Vorderasiatischen abteilung." Berliner Museen: Berichte aus den Preussischen Kunstsammlungen, Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch der Preussischen Kunstsammlungen 57, 4 (1936): 78-80. Andrae, Walter. Lebenserinnerungen eines Ausgräbers. Stuttgart: Verlag Freies Geistesleben, 1988. Second edition; First edition Berlin: Verlag de Gruyter, 1961. Andrae, Walter. "Steinbecher." Berliner Museen: Berichte aus den Preussischen Kunstsammlungen, Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch der Preussischen Kunstsammlungen 51, 1 (1930): 2-4. Andrae, Walter. “Symbol in der Baukunst.” Forschungen und Forschritte Jahrg., Nr. 26 (Berlin, September 10, 1933): 373-374.

222

Andrae, Walter. "Vorderasiatische abteilung." Berliner Museen: Berichte aus den Preussischen Kunstsammlungen, Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch der Preussischen Kunstsammlungen 58, 2 (1937): 30-5. Andrae, Walter. “Von der Arbeit an den Altertümern aus Assur und Babylon.” Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 66 (1928): 19-28. Appadurai, Arjun, ed. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Aulanier, Christiane. Histoire du palais et du Musée du Louvre. Paris : Editions des Musées nationaux, [1947?]-1971. (Vol. 1: Grande Galerie du bord de l'eau. Vol. 2: Salon Carré. Vol. 3: Trois Salles des Etats. Vol. 4: Nouveau Louvre de Napoléon III. Vol. 5: Petite Galerie, appartement d'Anne d'Autriche. Vol. 6: Salle des Caryatides, les salles des antiquités grecques. Vol. 7: Pavillon du Roi et l'appartement de la Reine. Vol. 8: Musée Charles X et le Département des antiquités égyptienes. Vol. 9: Pavillon de l'horloge et le Département des antiquités orientales. Vol. 10: Pavillon de Flore. Index: Index général des tomes. Baker, Malcolm. “Bode and Museum Display: The Arrangement of the KaiserFriedrich-Museum and the South Kensigton Response.” Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen (1996): 144. Balanos, Nicolas [Obituary for]. American Journal of Archaeology 47 (1943): 331. Balanos, Nicolas. "L'anastylose des monuments de l'Acropole." Deutsch. Archäol. Inst. Jahrb. 50 (1935): col. 633-8. 223

Balanos, Nicolas. "Le relèvement des monuments de l'Acropole, with an English summary." Revue de l'Art 59 (March 1931): 97-116. Balanos, Nicolas. "Le relèvement des monuments de l'Acropole." Mouseion 6, 3 (1932): 135-40. Balfour, Alan. Berlin: The Politics of Order, 1737-1989. New York: Rizzoli, 1990. Bammer, Anton. "Geschichte - neu geschrieben: Mykene im Artemision von Ephesos." Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 63 (1994): 31-40. Bammer, Anton. "Wien und Kreta: Judgendstil und minoische Kunst." Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien, 60. Baden bei Wien: Rudolf M. Rohrer Verlag 1990, 129-152. Bammer, Anton. Architektur als Erinnerung: Archäologie u. Gründerzeitarchitektur in Wien. Wien: Österr. Ges. f. Archäologie, 1977. Bammer, Anton. Die Architektur des jüngeren Artemision von Ephesos. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1972. Bann, Stephen. The Clothing of Clio: A Study of the Representation of History in Nineteenth-Century Britain and France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Bauerman, Volker. "Reliefs: Formprobleme zwischen Malerei und Skulptur im 20. Jahrhundert." Das Kunstwerk 33 (1980): 81-82. 224

Beeh, Wolfgang, ed. Das Darmstädter Landesmuseum von Alfred Messel: Skizzen, Entwürfe, Fotografien, 1891-1906, Ausstellung 4 December 1986-1 March 1987. Darmstadt: Hessisches Landesmuseum, 1986. Behne, Adolf. "Berliner Bericht: Die Museumsinsel - eine Tragödie Berliner Städtebaues." Das neue Frankfurt 4 (1930): 211-13. Behne, Adolf. "Braucht Berlin eine Städtische Galerie?" Die Weltbühne 21 (1925): 2, Nr. 52, 994-96. Behne, Adolf. "Das auf dem Pergamon-Altar geopferte Deutsche Museum." Die Weltbühne 26 (1930): 2, Nr. 42, 583-585. Behne, Adolf. "Der neue Stadtbaurat." Das Tagbuch 6: 277-78. Behne, Adolf. "Der neue Stadtbaurat: Monumentalkünstler oder Stadtbildgestalter?" Die Welt am Abend (Berlin) 7 (April 1925): Nr. 82, Beilage (Supplement) 1. Behne, Adolf. "Der Stadtbaurat." Die Weltbühne 21 (1925): 2, Nr. 40, 529-31. Behne, Adolf. "Die Hauptstadt der Republik." Sozialistisch Monatshefte 31 (1925): Bd. 62, H. 7, 13.7.25, 410-13. Behne, Adolf. “Die Museumsinsel eine Tragödie Berliner Städtebaues.” Das neue Frankfurt 4 (1930): 211-13. Behne, Adolf. "Die Volkswohnung." Weltkunst 28 (September 1930): 22. Behne, Adolf. "Ein neues Museum." Die Welt am Abend 25 (October 1930): Nr. 250, 4. 225

Behne, Adolf. "Karl Scheffler und das Kronprinzenpalais." Die Weltbühne 26 (1930): 2, Nr. 24, 882-83. Behne, Adolf. "Kunstpolitik." Sozialistisch Monatshefte 36 (1930): Bd. 71, H. 7, 679-80. Behne, Adolf. "Ludwig Hoffmann oder zum Thema Architektur-Kritik." Wasmuths Monatschefte für Baukunst 9 (1925): H. 8: 352-58. Behne, Adolf. "Vernunft oder Repräsentation im Städtebau?" Sozialistische Monatshefte 31 (1925): Bd. 62, H. 6, 15.6.25, 352-54. Behne, Adolf. "Von Bode." (1926): 116-17. Behne, Adolf. Für und gegen Schinkel. (1931): 435-437. Behne, Adolf. Hoffmann, Taut, Gropius, Merz. 1924, 471-73, Bauhaus-Archiv Berlin, 1997/36.319. Behne, Adolf. Kunstgewerbe. 1924, 806-808, Bauhaus-Archiv Berlin, 1997/36.321-22. Behne, Adolf. Neubauten und Antiquitäten. 1924, 625-26, Bauhaus-Archiv Berlin, 1997/36.285. Behrendt, Walter Curt. Alfred Messel. Berlin: Bruno Cassirer, 1911. Behrendt, Walter Curt. Modern Building; its Nature, Problems and Forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1937. Benjamin, Walter. The Arcades Project, trans. Howard Eiland and Kevin McLaughlin. Massachusetts and London: Harvard University Press, 1999. 226

Benjamin, Walter. The Origin of German Tragic Drama, trans. John Osborne. London and New York: Verso, 1985. Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” Edited by Hannah Arrendt. Illuminations. New York: Schocker Books, 1968. Berlin und seine Bauten, vol. I and II. Berlin: Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, 1896. Berlin und Seine Bauten. X, B. Anlagen und Bauten für den Verkehr. Städtischer Nahverkehr. Berlin: Verlag von Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, 1979. Berlins Museen: Geschichte und Zukunft. Munich and Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1994. Bernal, Martin. Black Athena: the Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1987-. Bernau, Nikolaus, and Nadine Riedl. "Für Kaiser und Reich: Die Antikenabteilung im Pergamonmuseum." In Alexis Joahimides et al. eds. Museumsinszenierungen: Zur Geschichte der Institution des Kunstmuseums. Die Berliner Museumslandschaft 1830-1990. Dresden and Basel: Verlag der Kunst, 1995, 171-189. Bernau, Nikolaus, and Susanne Härth. "100 Jahre Grundsteinlegung des Märkischen Museums: Zur Geschichte und Typologie des Bauwerks von Ludwig Hoffmann." Museums Journal (Berlin) 13 (October 1999): 4, 26-29.

227

Bernau, Nikolaus. “Zurück zur Grundfrage!: Das Pergamonmuseum wird von O. M. Ungers saniert und umgebaut,” Deutsche Bauzeitung 134, 7 (July 2000): 22. Bernhard, Armin. Kultur, Ästhetik und Subjektentwicklung: Edukative Grundlagen und Bildungsprozesse in Peter Weiss' 'Die Ästhetik des Widerstands'. Frankfurt am Main: dipa-Verlag, 1994. Bilsel, S. M. Can. “Zeus in Exile: Archaeological Reconstritution as Politics of Memory,” Working Papers Series, no. 14. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, 2000. Blanc, Charles. Grammaire des arts décoratifs, décoration intérieure de la maison. Paris: Renouard, H. Loones, succ. 1882. Blanc, Charles. Grammaire des Arts du Dessin: Architecture, Sculpture, Peinture… 5th Ed. Paris: Librairie Renouard, 1883. Blau, Eve, and Edward Kaufman. Architecture and its Image: Four Centuries of Representation: Works from the Collection of the Canadian Centre for Architecture. Montreal: Centre Canadien d'Architecture, 1989. Bode, “Alfred Messels Pläne für die Neubauten der Königlischen Museen.” In Berlins Museen: Geschichte und Zukunft, edited by Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte München, 244-246. Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1994. First published in Jahrbuch der Königlich Preußichen Kunstsammlungen 31, Berlin (1910): 59-63.

228

Bode. “Denkschrift Erweiterungs- und Neubauten bei den königlichen Museen in Berlin.” In Mein Leben. Bd. 2. Berlin: Verlag Hermann Reckendorf, 1930, 239248. First published in 1907. Bode. Mein Leben. Bd. 2. Berlin: Verlag Hermann Reckendorf, 1930. Bode. “Rembrandt als Erzieher von einem Deutschen.” Preussische Jahrbücher, LXV:3 (March, 1890): 301-314. Bode. “The Berlin Renaissance Museum.” Fortnightly Review, 50 (1891): 506-15. Boëthius, Axel. Roman and Greek Town Architecture. Göteburg: Wettergren & Kerbers Förlag, 1948. Bohrer, Frederick N. "The Times and Spaces of History: Representation, Assyria, and the British Museum," Museum/Culture, Histories, Discourses, Spectacles. Edited by Daniel Sherman and Irit Rogoff. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994, 197-222. Bond, D. G. "Aesthetics and Politics - Peter Weiss, Die Ästhetik des Widerstands as a chronicle of horror." Journal of European Studies 19, no. 75 (1989): 223-44. Bonomi, Joseph. Nineveh and its palaces. The discoveries of Botta and Layard, applied to the elucidation of Holy Writ. By Joseph Bonomi. London: Office of the Illustrated London library, pref. 1852.

229

Bopp, Franz. Analytical Comparison: Of the Sanskrit, Greek, Latin and Teutonic Languages, Shewing the Original Identity of their Grammatical Structure, ed E. F. K. Koerner. Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V. 1974. Originally published as Vergleichende grammatik des sanskrit, send, armenischen, griechischen, lateinischen, litauischen, altslavischen, gothischen und deutschen. Berlin: F. Dümmler, 1857. Borrmann, R. Die Antiken-Sammlung im Neubau auf der Museumsinsel in Berlin 16 (1926) n.p. Botta, Paul Emil. Monument de Ninive, découvert et décrit par M.P.E. Botta... Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1849-50. Bötticher, Carl [Karl] Gottlieb Wilhelm. Der Baumkultus der Hellenen nach den gottesdienstlichen Gebräuchen und den überlieferten Bildwerken dargestellt von Carl Bötticher. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1856. Bötticher, Carl [Karl] Gottlieb Wilhelm. Die Tektonik der Hellenen. Postdam: Ferdinand Riegel, 1852. Boucher, Henri. "Louis-François Cassas: Premier Article." Gazette des Beaux-Arts (1926): 27-53; and ibid. "Louis-François Cassas: Deuxième et Dernier Article." Gazette des Beaux-Arts (1926): 209-230. Bourdieu, Pierre. Alain Darbel and Dominique Schnapper. The Love of Art: European Art Museums and their Public, trans. Caroline Beattie and Nick Merriman. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1991. 230

Boyer, M. Christine. Dreaming the Rational City: The Myth of American City Planning. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1983. Boyer, M. Christine. The City of Collective Memory: Its Historical Imagery and Architectural Entertainments. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1994. Brands, Gunnar. “Zwischen Island und Athen: Griechische Kunst im Spiegel des Nationalsozialismus.” In Bazon Brock and Achim Preiß eds. Kunst auf Befehl? Dreiundreißig bis Fünfundvierzig. Munich: Klinkhardt u. Biermann, 1990. Bressani, Martin. "Notes on Viollet-le-Duc's Philosophy of History: Dialectics and Technology." Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 48, 4 (1989): 327-350. Bressani, Martin. "Opposition et équilibre: le rationalisme organique de Viollet-le-Duc." Revue de l'art 112 (1996): 28-37. Brieger, Lothar. “Nach der Feier die Kritik: Eine nüchterne Museumsbetrachtung.” In Berliner Zeitung, 8.10.1930. Brock, Bazon, and Achim Preiss. Kunst auf Befehl?: Dreiunddreissig bis Fünfundvierzig. München: Klinkhardt & Biermann, 1990. Brown, Ann Cynthia. Artur Evans and the Palace of Minos. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum, 1983. Brown, Marshall. "The Classic Is the Baroque: On the Principle of Wölfflin's Art History." Critical Inquiry 9, 2 (December 1982): 379-404. 231

Brunn, Heinrich. "Über die Kunstgeschichtliche Stellung der Pergamenischen Gigantomachie." Jahrbuch des Königlich Preussischen Kunstsammlungen 5 (1884): 231-292. Brunn, Heinrich. Griechische Kunstgeschichte: Die anfänge und die älteste Decorative Kunst. Munich: F. Bruckmann, 1893. Brunn, Heinrich. Griechische Kunstgeschichte: Die Archaische Kunst. Munich: F. Bruckmann, 1897. Buddemeier, Heinz. Panorama, Diorama, Photographie: Entstehung und Wirkung neuer Medien im 19. Jahrhundert. Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1970. Buddensieg, Tilmann. Berlin 1900-1933: Architecture and Design. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1987. Bunnell, Peter C., and Robert A. Sobieszek, eds. Animal Locomotion: The Muybridge Work at the University of Pennsylvania. New York: Arno Press, 1973. Burckhardt, Jacob. The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy. New York: Phaidon, 1950, 104. Burckhardt, Jacob. Gesamtausgabe. Edited by Emil Dürr. Basel: Benno Schwabe, 1933. Burckhardt, Jacob. Weltgeschichtliche Betrachtungen, lectures published posthumously by Jakob Oeri. Berlin; Stuttgart: Verlag von Spemann, 1905, 52. Burg, Annegret, and Maria Antonietta Crippa. Berlino: gli anni '80 tra modernità e tradizione. Milan: Jaca Book, 1991. 232

Bürger, Peter. Theory of the Avant-Garde. Translated by Jochen Schulte-Sasse. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984, 44-45. Bushart, Magdalena, ed. Adolf Behne: Essays zu seiner Kunst- und Architektur-Kritik. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 2000. Calder, William, M. "Suzanne Marchand's Down from Olympus [book review]." American Journal of Archaeology 102 (1998): 214-15. Cassirer, Ernst. The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. Translated by Ralph Manheim. New Haven: Yale University Press 1953-57. Caubet, Annie, and Musée du Louvre. Khorsabad, le Palais de Sargon II, Roi d'Assyrie: Actes du Colloque Organisé au Musée du Louvre par le Service Culturel les 21 et 22 Janvier 1994. Paris: Documentation Française, 1995. Cêtre, Jean-Pierre. "Neue Nationalgalerie recto verso." Faces: Journal d'architectures 47 (hiver 1999-2000): 34-40. Châtelet-Lange, Liliane. "La fontaine du 'Vater Rhein' D'Adolf von Hildebrand." Cahiers Alsaciens d'Archéologie d'Art et d'Histoire 30 (1987): 211-224. Choay, Françoise. The Invention of the Historic Monument, trans. Lauren M. O'Connell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2001; Translation of L'Allégorie du Patrimoine. France: Éditions du Seuil, 1992. Choisy, Auguste. Histoire de l'Architecture, I & II (1899). Genève and Paris: Slatkine Reprints, 1987. 233

Cifarelli, Megan. "Gesture and Alterity in the art of Ashurnasirpal II of Assyria." Art Bulletin 80, 2 (June 1998): 210-228. Colquhoun, Alan. Modernity and the Classical Tradition: Architectural Essays 19801987. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1989. Colquhoun, Alan. “Newness and Age Value in Alois Riegl.” In Modernity and Classical Tradition: Essays in Architectural Criticism 1980-1987. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1989. Conze, Alexander. Letter to Humann, 16 July 1878. Chronik der Ausgrabung von Pergamon 1871-1886, edited by Eduard Schulte. N.p., n.d. Conze, Alexander. "Pro Pergamo." Entdeckungen in Hellas: Reisen deutscher Archäologen Griechenland. Berlin: Verlag der Nation, 1984. Conze, Alexander. "Über das Relief bei den Griechen." Sitzungsberichte der königlich preussischen Akademie des Wissenschften zu Berlin 1 (January-May 1882): 563577. Conze, Alexander. Altertümer von Pergamon: Stadt und Landschaft. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1912. Courajod, Louis. Alexandre Lenoir: son Journal et le Musée des Monuments Francais. Paris: H. Champion, 1878-1887.

234

Creuzer, Georg Friedrich. Symbolik und Mythologie der alten Völker, 6 volumes. Reprinted after the third revised edition of Leipzig and Darmstadt: Carl Wilhelm Leske 1810-23. Hildesheim, New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 1973. Crimp, Douglas. "The End of Art and the Origin of the Museum." Art Journal 46 (Winter 1987): 261-66. Crimp, Douglas. On the Museum's Ruins, with photographs by Louise Lawler. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1993. Curtius, Ernst, and Friedrich Adler. Olympia: Die Baudenkmäler von Olympia. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1966. Dal Co, Francesco, and Sergio Polano. "Interview with Albert Speer." Oppositions 12 (Spring 1978): 39-52. Dal Co, Francesco. Figures of Architecture and Thought: German Architecture Culture, 1890-1920. New York : Rizzoli, 1990. Dal Co, Francesco. "The Stones of the Void." Oppositions 26 (Spring 1984): 99-116. Damisch, Hubert. "L'architecture, au musée?." Cahiers du Musée national d'art moderne 42 (Winter 1992): 63-78. Damisch, Hubert. The Origin of Perspective. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press 1994. Originally published as L'Origine de la Perspective. Paris: Flammarion, 1987. Das Darmstädter Landesmuseum von Alfred Messel: Skizzen, Entwürfe, Fotografien, 1891-1906. Exhibition catalog. Darnstadt: Hessisches Landesmuseum, 1986. 235

de la Torre, Marta, ed. The Conservation of Archaeology Sites in the Mediterranean Region. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1997. Decker, Elisabeth. Zur künstlerischen Beziehung zwischen Hans von Marées, Konrad Fiedler und Adolf Hildebrand: Eine Untersuchung über due Zusammenhänge von Kunsttheorie und Kunstwerk. Ph.D Dissertation, Universität Basel, 1967. Delitzsch, Friedrich. Assyrian grammar with paradigms, exercises, glossary, and bibliography; trans. Archd. R.S. Kennedy. Berlin: H. Reuther; New York: B. Westermann, 1889. Delitzsch, Friedrich. Babel and Bible. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1903. Originally published as Babel und Bibel, (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs Buchandlung, first lecture, 1902; second lecture, 1905).

Delitzsch, Friedrich. Babel und Bibel: Ein Rückblick und Ausblick. Stuttgart, 1904.

Delitzsch, Friedrich. Mehr Licht die Bedeutsamsten Ergebnisse der BabylonischAssyrischen Grabungen für Geschichte Kultur und Religion: ein Votrag. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1907. Denslagen, Wim. Architectural Restoration in Western Europe: Controversy and Continuity. Translated by Jane Zuyl-Moores. Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura Press, 1994.

236

Déotte, Jean-Louis. Le Musée, l'origine de l'esthétique. Paris: Editions L'Harmattan, 1993. Derenthal, Ludger and Annette Philip. "Walter Heges heroische Sinnbilder." Dom Tempel Skulptur: Architekturphotographien von Walter Hege, eds. Angelika Beckmann and Bodo von Dewitz. Köln 1993, 60-67. Deutsches Museum. 100 Jahre Deutsche Ausgrabung in Olympia, ed. Berthold Fellman and Helga Scheyhing. München: Prestel-Verlag, 1972. Dewitz, Bodo von, ed. Das Land der Griechen mit der Seele suchen. Photographien des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts. (Ausstellungskatalog). Köln: Agfa-Foto-Historama, 1990 Die Museumsinsel zu Berlin. Berlin: Henschelverlag, 1987. Diebold, William J. "The Politics of Derestoration: The Aegina Pediments and the German Confrontation with the Past," Art Journal 54 (Summer 1995) 60-66. Dieulafoy, Marcel. L’Acropole de Suse d'apres les Fouilles exécutées en 1884, 1885, 1886 sous les auspices du Musée du Louvre. Paris: Librairie Hachette, 18901892. Dilthey, Wilhelm. Das Erlebnis und die Dichtung: Lessing, Goethe, Novelis, Hölderlin (1905). Leipzig: Verlag B. G. Teubner 1916, translated as Poetry and Experience, edited by Rudolf A Makkreel and Fithjof Rodi. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985. 237

Dixon, John Morris. "Sir Banister Fletcher's A History of Architecture [book review]." Progressive Architecture 69 (February 1988): 7. Dolff-Bonekämper, Gabi. "Denkmalschutz für die Mauer." Die Denkmalpflege 1 (2000): 33-40. Donahue, Neil H. Invisible Cathedrals: The Expressionist Art History of Wilhelm Worringer. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995. Donath, Adolph. "Bode und Das Berliner Museumschaos." Der Kunstwanderer 1/2 (May 1926): 353-357. Dorgerloh, Hartmut. Die Nationalgalerie in Berlin: zur Geschichte des Gebäudes auf der Museumsinsel, 1841-1970. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1999. Dorrell, Peter G. Photography in Archaeology and Conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Doxiadis, K. A. Raumordnung im griechischen Städtebau. Heidelberg: Kurt Vowinckel Verlag 1937. Translated as Architectural Space in Ancient Greece. Translated and edited by Jacqueline Tyrwhitt. Cambridge Mass.: The MIT Press, 1972. Dreyfus, Renée, and Ellen Schraudolph. Pergamon: The Telephos Frieze from the Great Altar. 2 vols. San Fransisco: Fine Arts Museums of San Fransisco, 1996-97. Dube, Wolf-Dieter. “Große Pläne für Berline schönste Schätze,” Berliner Illustrierte 13-14 (March 1993).

238

Ducrot, Oswald, and Tzvetan Todorov. Dictionnaire encyclopédique des sciences du language. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1972. Dufrourny, M. Léon. Catalogue d'antiquités Égyptiennes, Grecques et Romaines.... Paris, 1819, iii-xvi. Dumont, Louis. German Ideology: From France to Germany and Back. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Duncan, Carol. Civilising Rituals. Inside Public Art Museums. London: Routledge, 1995. Eck, Caroline van. Organicism in Nineteenth-Century Architecture: an Inquiry into its Theoretical and Philosophical Background. Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura Press, 1994 Ecole Nationale Supérieur des Beaux-Arts, Ethnike Pinakotheke, Mouseion Alexandrou Soutsou, and Museum of Fine Arts, Houston. Paris, Rome, Athènes: le Voyage en Grèce des Architectes Français aux XIXe et XXe Siècles: Ècole Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts, 12 Mai-18 Juillet 1982, Pinacothèque Nationale d'Athènes, Musée Alexandre Soutzos, 15 Octobre-15 Décembre 1982, the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 17 Juin-4 Septembre 1983. Paris: L'École Nationale, 1982. Elias, Norbert. The Civilizing Process: The History of Manners. Translated by Edmund Jephcott. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1978.

239

Erbel, Kunibert. Sprachlose Körper und körperlose Sprache: Studien zu 'innerer' und 'äusserer' Natur in 'Die Ästhetik des Widerstands' von Peter Weiss. St. Ingbert: Werner J. Röhrig Verlag, 1991. Ereignisse und Gestalten aus den Jahren 1878-1918. N.p., 1922, 169. Esche-Braunfels, Sigrid. Adolf von Hildebrand: 1847-1921. Berlin: Deutscher verlag für Kunstwissenschaft, 1993. Etlin, Richard, A. "Aesthetics and the Spatial Sense of Self." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 56, 1 (Winter 1998): 1-19. Etlin, Richard, A. "Le Corbusier, Choisy, and French Hellenism: The Search for a New Architecture." The Art Bulletin 69 (June 1987): 264-78. Evans, Robin. The Projective Cast: Architecture and its Three Geometries. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1995. Evans, Robin. Translations from Drawing to Building and Other Essays. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1997. Evely, Don, Helen Hughes-Brock, and Nicoletta Momigliano. Knossos, a labyrinth of history: papers presented in honour of Sinclair Hood. Athens: British School at Athens, 1994. Fergusson, James. History of Indian and Eastern Architecture. London: Murray, 1891. Fergusson, James. History of the Modern Styles of Architecture: Being a Sequel to the Handbook of Architecture. London: J. Murray, 1862. 240

Fergusson, James. The Mausoleum at Halicarnaassus Restored. London: J. Murray, 1862. Fergusson, James. The Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis Restored: An Essay on the Ancient Assyrian and Persian Architecture. Delhi: Goyal Offset Printer. First reprint 1981. Festschrift zur Feier ihres 50 jährigen Bestehens am 2.8. 1880: Zur Geschichte der Königlichen Museen in Berlin. Berlin, 1880, 56, Feustel, Jan. "'Wilhelminisches Lächeln': Bauten von Hoffmann und Messel in Bezirk Friedrichshain: 18. September 1994 bis 1. April 1995." Museums Journal (Berlin) 9, 1 (January 1995): 86-87. Feyler, Gabrielle. "Contribution à l'histoire des origines de la photographie archéologique: 1839-1880." Mélanges de l'École Français de Rome - Antiquité 99, 2 (1987): 1019-1047. Fiedler, Conrad. On Judging Works of Visual Art, trans. Henry Schaefer-Simmern and Fulmer Mood. Berkeley: University of California Press 1978. Originally published as Über die beurtheilung von Werken der Bildenden Kunst. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1876. Finn, David. How to Look at Sculpture. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1989. Flandin, E. "Voyage Archéologique à Ninive." Revue des Deux Mondes (2 September 1861): 49-80. 241

Fletcher, Banister Sir. A History of Architecture on the Comparative Method for the Student Craftsman, and Amateur, 16th edition. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd.. 1954. Forster, Kurt, W. "Monument/Memory and the Morality of Architecture." Oppositions 25 (Fall 1982): 2-19. Forster-Hahn, Françoise, ed. Imagining Modern German Culture: 1889-1910. Hanover and London: National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1996. Foucart, Bruno. "La fortune critique d'Alexandre Lenoir et du premier musée des monuments français." L'Information d'histoire de l'art, 14 (1969): 223-232. Frankfort, Henri. The Art and the Architecture of the Ancient Orient. Fourth edition New Haven and London: Yale University Press 1970; first published by Penguin 1954. Fruitema, Evelyn J., and Paul A. Zoetmulder, eds. The Panorama Phenomenon: Subject of a Permanent Exhibition, Organized on the Occasion of the Centennial of the Mesdag Panorama in The Hague, which was Inaugurated on the 1st of August 1881: Catalogue in the Shape of an Illustrated Historiography. The Hague: Foundation for the Preservation of the Mesdag Panorama, 1981. Führer durch das Pergamon-Museum. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1902. Furtwängler, Adolf. Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture: A Series of Essays on the History of Art, ed. Al N. Oikonomides. Chicago: Argonaut, 1964.

242

Füsslin, Georg, et al. Der Guckkasten: Einblick, Durchblick, Ausblick. Stuttgart: Füsslin Verlag. 1995. Fyfe, Theodore. Hellenistic Architecture: an Introductory Study. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider. 1965. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Kleine Schriften I. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr. 1965. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method, trans. revised J. Weinsheimer and D. G. Marshall. New York: Continuum. 1995. Gaehtgens, Thomas W. Die Berliner Museumsinsel im Deutschen Kaiserreich: Zur Kulturpolitk der Museen in der wilhelminischen Epoche. Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1987. Gaehtgens, Thomas, W. "The Museum Island in Berlin." In Gwendolyn Wright ed., The Formation of National Collections of Art and Archaeology (Series: Studies in the History of Art, 47). Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art 1996, 53-77. Gelernter, Mark. "Drawing Lessons from Banister Fletcher: Illustration from Fletcher's History of Architecture." The Architectural Review 181 (May 1987): 86-88. Gerkan, Armin von. Das Theater von Priene: als Einzelanlage und seiner Bedeutung für das Hellenistische Bühnenwesen. Munich: Verlag für Praktische Kunstwissenschaft, 1921. Gerkan, Armin von. Griechische Städteanlagen; Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung des Städtebaues im Altertum. Berlin: W. de Gruyter & co., 1924. 243

Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. Farbenlehre: theoretische Schriften. Tübingen: Wissenschaftliche Buchgemeinschaft e. V., 1953. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. Goethe's Color Theory. Arranged and edited by Rupprecht Matthaei. american ed. translated and edited by Herb Aach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1971. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. Goethes morphologische schriften, ausgewählt und eingeleitet von Wilhelm Troll. Jena, E. Diederich, 1932. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. Goethe's theory of colours. Translated by Charles Lock Eastlake. London: Cass, 1967. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. Schriften zur Morphologie. Edited by Dorothea Kuhn. Frankfurt am Main: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, 1987. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. Scientific studies. Edited and translated by Douglas Miller. New York: Suhrkamp Publishers New York, 1988. Goldhill, Simon, and Robin Osborne, eds. Art and Text in Ancient Greek Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994 Gombrich, Sir Ernst H. “In Search of Cultural History,” Ideals and Idols: Essays on Values in History and in Art. Oxford: Phaidon, 1979. Greene, Christopher M. "Alexandre Lenoir and the Musée des monuments français during the French Revolution." French Historical Studies XII, 1 (Spring 1981): 200-222. 244

Greenhalgh, Michael. "Quatremère de Quincy as a Popular Archaeologist." Gazette des Beaux-Arts LXXI (April 1968): 249-256. Grothe, Hugo. "Die asiatische Türkei und der deutschen Interessen." Der Orient 9. Halle: Gebauer-Schwetschke Druckerei und Verlag, 1913. Guigniaut, J. D. Religions de l'antiquité, considérées principalement dans leurs formes symboliques et mythologiques ouvrage traduit de l'allemand du dr Frédéric Creuzer, refondu en partie, complété et développé par J.D. Guigniaut. 4 vols. Paris: Treuttel et Würtz 1825-1851. Expanded from Creuzer, Georg Friedrich. Symbolik und Mythologie der alten Völker, 6 volumes. Reprinted after the third revised edition of Leipzig and Darmstadt: Carl Wilhelm Leske 1810-23. Habermas, Jürgen et al. Hermeneutik und Ideologiekritik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1971. Habermas, Jürgen. Erkentnis und Interesse. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1968. Habermas, Jürgen. Hermeneutik und Dialektik. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1970. Hadas, Moses. Hellenistic Culture: Fusion and Diffusion. New York: Columbia University Press, 1959. Halbwachs, Maurice. La Mémoire collective. Edited by Gérard Namer. Paris: Albin Michel, 1997 (First published in 1950). Halbwachs, Maurice. Leibniz. Paris: Éditions Mellottée, 1950. Halbwachs, Maurice. Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire. Edited by Gérard Namer. Paris: Michel Albin, 1994 (First published in 1925). 245

Halbwachs, Maurice. On Collective Memory, ed. and trans. Lewis A. Coser. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Hannah, Robert. "Et in Arcadia ego?: The Finding of Telephos." Antichthon 20 (1986): 86-105. Harlow, Barbara. "Realignment: Alois Riegl's Image of the Late Roman Art Industry." Glyph 3 (1978): 118-136. Hass, Angela. Adolf von Hildebrand: Das plastische Portrait. Munich: Prestel, 1984. Hatfield, Gary. The Natural and the Normative: Theories of Spatial Perception from Kant to Helmholtz. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1990. Hauptstadt Berlin/Capital Berlin: Stadtmitte Spreeinsel/Central District Preeinsel. Berlin: Bertelsmann Fachzeitschriften, 1994. Heckscher, Morrison H. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. An Architectural History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1995. Hege, Walter, and Gerhart Rodenwaldt. Griechische Tempel: aufgenommen von Walter Hege; beschrieben von Gerhadt Rodenwaldt. Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1936. Hege, Walter, and Gerhart Rodenwaldt. Olympia: aufgenommen von Walter Hege; beschrieben von Gerhadt Rodenwaldt. Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1936. Hege, Walter. "Die untergehenden werke des Parthenonfrieses zu Athen: ein Notruf."Die Kunst 59 (1929): 288-96. 246

Hege, Walter. Die Akropolis: aufgenommen von Walter Hege; beschrieben von Gerhart Rodenwaldt. Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1930. Hege, Walter. Walter Hege: der Meister der Lichtbildkunst. Zum sechzigsten Geburstag am 12. November 1953 und zu seiner dreißigjährigen Zusammenarbeitn mit dem Deutschen Kunstverlag. Muncih: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1953. Hegel, G.W.F. Aesthetics. Lectures on Fine Art. 2 vols. Translated by T.M. Knox. London: Oxford University Press, 1974-75. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, and Wolfhart Henckmann. Einleitung in die Ästhetik. München: Fink, 1967. Heilmeyer, Alexander. Adolf Hildebrand. Bielefeld and Leipzig: Velhagen & Klasing, 1902. Hellmann, Marie-Christine. "The Great German and French Excavations in Greece and Asia Minor in the Late 19th Century." Rassegna 55, 3 (September 1993): 60-67. Henderson, Linda Dalrymple. The Fourth Dimension and Non-Euclidean Geometry in Modern Art. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1983. Hildebrand, Adolf von. Das Problem der Form in der Bildenden Kunst (1893). Strassburg: Heitz & Mündel 1908. Reprinted in Kunsttheoretische Schriften; das Problem der Form in der Bildenden Kunst. Baden-Baden: Heitz, 1961.

247

Hoepfner, Wolfram, and Fritz Neumeyer. Das Haus Wiegand von Peter Behrens in Berlin-Dahlem: Baugeschichte und Kunstgegenstände eines Herrschaftlichen Wohnhauses. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1979. Hoepfner, Wolfram. "Bauliche Details am Pergamonaltar." Archäologischer Anzeiger (Berlin) 2 (1991): 189-202. Hoepfner, Wolfram. "Der vollendete Pergamonaltar." Archäologischer Anzeiger (Berlin) 1 (1996): 115-134. Hoepfner, Wolfram. “Model of the Pergamon Altar (1:20).” In Pergamon: the Telephos Frieze from the Great Altar, edited by Renée Dreyfus and Ellen Schraudolph, vol. II: 59-67. San Francisco: Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, 1997. Hoepfner, Wolfram. "Siegestempel und Siegesaltäre: Der Pergamonaltar als Siegesmonument." Die Griechische Polis Architektur und Politik, eds. Wolfram Hoepfner and Gerhard Zimmer. Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag 1993, 111125. Hofmann, Michael. Ästhetische Erfahrung in der historischen Krise: Eine Untersuchung zum Kunst- und Literaturverständnis in Peter Weiss' Roman 'Die Ästhetik des Widerstands'. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag, 1990. Holliday, Peter J., ed. Narrative and Event in Ancient Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

248

Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno. Dialect of Enlightenment. Translated by John Cumming. New York: Herder and Herder, 1972. Huber, Andreas. Mythos und Utopie: Eine Studie zur 'Ästhetik des Widerstands' von Peter Weiss. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 1990. Hübner, Gerhild. "Bild als Botschaft. Das antike Erbe Athens in fotografischen Zeugnissen des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts." Fotogeschichte 8, 29 (1988): 3-32. Hübner, Gerhild. "Walter Heges Blick auf die griechische Antike." Dom Tempel Skulptur: Architekturphotographien von Walter Hege, eds. Angelika Beckmann and Bodo von Dewitz. Köln 1993, 41-52. Hübsch, Heinrich, ed. In What Style Should We Build?: The German Debate on Architectural Style. Los Angeles: The Getty, 1992. Humann, Carl. Chronik der Ausgrabung von Pergamon 1871-1886, aus Berichten und Briefen des Humann-Kreises, ed. Eduard Schulte. Dortmund: Ardey, 1959. Humann, Carl. Der Pergamon Altar: Entdeckt, Beschrieben und Gezeichnet, ed. Eduard Schulte. Dortmund: Ardey, 1959. Humann, Carl. “Die Ausgrabungen zu Pergamon. Geschichte der Untersuchung. Vorläufiger Bericht.” Jahrbuch der Königlich Preussischen Kunstsammlungen I (1880): 129-56.

249

Humann, Carl. Letter to Conze, 22 July 1879. Der Pergamon Altar: Entdeckt, Beschrieben und Gezeichnet von Carl Humann, edited by Eduard Schulte. Dortmund: Ardey Verlag, 1959. In Von Pergamon zum Nemrud Dag: Die archäologischen Entdeckunken Carl Humanns, edited by Friedrich Karl and Eleonore Dörner. (Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1989). Hürlimann, Martin, ed. Orbis Terrarum: Deutschland, Landschaft und Baukunst. Berlin: Atlantis Verlag, 1934. Huyssen, Andreas. "Monumental Seduction." Act of Memory: Cultural Recall in the Present, eds. Mieke Bal, Jonathan Crewe and Leo Spitzer. Hannover and London: University Press of New England 1999, 191-207. Images et Imaginaires d'architecture: Dessin, peinture, photographie, arts graphiques, théâtre, cinéma en Europe aux XIXe et XXe siécles. Paris: Centre Georges Pompidou, 1984. Ingarden, Roman. Ontology of the Work of Art: The Musical Work, The Picture, The Architectural Work, The Film, trans. Raymond Meyer and John T. Goldthwait. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1989. Iversen, Margaret. Alois Riegl: Art History and Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1993. Jachmann, Günther, ed. Adolf von Hildebrands Briefwechsel mit Conrad Fiedler. Dresden: Wolfgang Jess [1927].

250

Jammer, Max. Concepts of Space: The History of Theories of Space in Physics, forward by Albert Einstein. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1954. Jarzombek, Mark. The Psychologizing of Modernity: Art, Architecture, History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Jelavich, Peter. "Suzanne Marchand's Down from Olympus [book review]." The Art Bulletin80, 2 (June 1998): 382-4. Joachimides, Alexis, et. al. eds. Museuminszenierungen: zur Geschichte der Institution des Kunstmuseums, die Berliner Museumslandschaft 1830-1990. Dresden: Verlag der Kunst, 1995. Joachimides, Alexis. “The Museum’s Discourse on Art: the Formation of Curatorial Art History in Turn of the Century Berlin.” In Museums and Memory, edited by Susan A. Crane, 200-19. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2000. Johanning, Klaus. "Der Bibel-Babel-Streit: Eine forschungsgeschichtliche Studie." Europäische Hochschulschriften Reihe, XXIII, 343. Frankfurt am Main: PeterLang, n.d. Junod, Philippe. Ruines anticipées ou l'histoire au futur anterieur. Lausanne: Payot, n.d. Junod, Philippe. Transparence et Opacité: Essai sur les fondements theoriques de l'art moderne. Lausanne: Editions L'Age d'Homme, 1976. Junod, Phillipe. "Future in the Past." Oppositions 26 (Spring 1984): 43-63.

251

Kammel, Frank Matthias. "'Neuorganisation unserer Museen' oder von Prüfstein, an dem sich die Geister Scheiden: eine Museumspolitische Debatte aus dem Jahre 1927." Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 34 (1992): 121-136. Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Aesthetic Judgement. Translated by James Creed Meredith. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911. Karl, Friedrich, and Eleonore Dörner. Von Pergamon zum Nemrud Dag: Die archäologischen Entdeckungen Carl Humanns. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp con Zabern, 1989. Kästner, Ursula. “Excavation and Assembly of the Telephos Frieze.” In Pergamon: the Telephos Frieze from the Great Altar, edited by Renée Dreyfus and Ellen Schraudolph, vol. I: 25. San Francisco: Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, 1997. Kästner, Volker. “The Architecture of the Great Altar and the Telephos Frieze.” In Pergamon: the Telephos Frieze from the Great Altar, edited by Renée Dreyfus and Ellen Schraudolph, vol. II: 68-82. San Francisco: Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, 1997. Kästner, Volker. “Das alte Pergamonmuseum Berliner Museumsbaupläne gegen Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts.” In Staatliche Museum zu Berlin Forschungen und Berichte 26. Berlin, DDR: Henschelverlag, Kunst un Gesellschaft, 1987.

252

Kästner, Volker. “Der Pergamonaltar als Bauwerk.” In ‘Wir Haben eine ganze Kunstepoche gefunden!’ Ein Jahrhundert Forschungen zum Pergamonaltar. Exhibition catalog. Berlin, DDR: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 1986. Kauffmann, Hans. “Zweckbau und Monument: Zu Friedrich Schinkels Museum am Berliner Lustgarten,” Eine Freundesgabe des Wissenschaft für Ernst Hellmut Vits, ed. Gerhard Hess. Frankfurt am Main, 1963. Kehr, Wolfgang, and Ernst Rebel. Zwischen Weltern: Adolf von Hildebrand (1847 bis 1921): Person, Haus und Wirkung. Munich: A1 Verlag, 1998. Keller, Judith. "A Modern Means to Accurate Knowledge." Visual Resources: An International Journal of Documentation VIII, 4 (1992): 325-333. Kemp, Wolfgang. "Alois Riegl (1858-1905): Le Cult moderne de Riegl." Revue Germanique Internationale 2 (1994): 83-105, 252-53. Kern, Stephen. The Culture of Time and Space 1880-1918. Cambridge Ma.: Harvard University Press, 1983. Kestel, Friedrich. "Walter Hege (1893-1955): 'Race Art Photographer' and/or 'Master of Photography'?" Art History through the Camera's Lens, ed. Helene E. Roberts. Amsterdam 1995. Translation by Judith Supp of Kestel, Friedrich, "Walter Hege (1893-1955). 'Rassekunst photograph' und/oder 'Meister der Lichtbildkunst'?" Fotogeschichte 8, 29 (1988): 65-75.

253

Kestel, Friedrich. "Walter Hege (1893-1955): 'Rassekunst photograph' und/oder 'Meister der Lichtbildkunst'?" Fotogeschichte 8, 29 (1988): 65-75. Kleiner, Gerhard. Das Nachleben des Pergamenischen Gigantenkampfes. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter and Co., 1949. Klinger, Max. Malerei und Zeichnung. Leipzig 1891. Koldewey, Robert. Das Ishar-Tor in Babylon. Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung Der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 32. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1918. Koldewey, Robert. Das wieder Erstehende Babylon, die bisherigen Ergebnisse der deutschen Ausgrabungen. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1913. Koldewey, Robert. Die Königsburgen von Babylon. Vol. 1 of Die Südburg. 1931. Reprint. Osnabrück: Otto Zelner, 1969. Koldewey, Robert. Die Südburg: Die Königspaläste von Babylon I.. Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichung Der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft, 54, Leipzig 1930. Koldewey, Robert. Heitere und ernste Briefe aus einem deutschen Archäologenleben, Carl Schuchhardt, ed.. Berlin: Grote, 1925. Koldewey, Robert. The Excavations at Babylon. Translated by Agnes S. Johns. London: Macmillan and Co., 1914. Koldewey-Gesellschaft. Die Jubiläumstagung der Koldewey-Gesellschaft in Stuttgart: vom 31. Juli bis zum 5. August, 1951. Stuttgart: Koldewey-Gesellschaft, 1951.

254

Königliche Museen zu Berlin. Beschreibung der antiken Skulpturen mit Ausschluss der Pergamenischen Fundstücke. Berlin: W. Spemann, 1891. Königliche Museen zu Berlin. Beschreibung der Pergamenischen Bildwerke. Berlin: W. Spemann, 1885. Königliche Museen zu Berlin. Beschreibung der Skulpturen aus Pergamon: I. Gigantomachie. 2nd edition. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1902. Königliche Museen zu Berlin. Guide to the Pergamon Museum. Translated for the Board of Directors of the Royal Museums of Berlin by Mary McMahon Honan. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1904. Koselleck, Reinhart. Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time, trans. Keith Tribe. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1985. Koshar, Rudy. Germany’s Transient Pasts: Preservation and National Memory in the Twentieth Century. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998. Krauss, Rosalind. "The Cultural Logic of the Late Capitalist Museum," October 54 (Fall 1990) 3-17. Krier, Leon, ed. Albert Speer: Architecture, 1932-1942. Bruxelles: Archives d'Architecture Moderne, 1985. Kroeber, A.L., and Clyde Kluckhohn. Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Milwood, N.Y. Krauss Reprint Co., 1978.

255

Kroll, Frank-Lothar. "Ornamental theroy and Practice in the Jugendstil." Rassegna 12, 41/1 (March 1990): 58-65. Kuklick, Bruce. Puritans in Babylon: The Ancient Near East and American Intellectual Life, 1880-1930. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1996. Kunze, Max. "Wir haben eine ganze Kunstepoche gefunden!" Ein Jahrhundert Forschungen zum Pergamonaltar. Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 1985. Kunze, Max. The Pergamon Altar: Its Rediscovery History and Reconstruction. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1995. Lackenbacher, Sylvie. Le palais sans rival: le récit de construction en Assyrie. Paris: La Découverte, 1990. Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe and Jean-Luc Nancy. The Literary Absolute: The Theory of Literature in German Romanticism. New York: New York State University Press 1988; originally published as L'Absolu Litteraire. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1978. Lähn, Peter. "Zwischen Kunstwollen und Naturschönem: Walter Heges Kulturfilmarbeit im Dritten Reich." Dom Tempel Skulptur: Architekturphotographien von Walter Hege, eds. Angelika Beckmann and Bodo von Dewitz. Köln 1993, 53-59. Lampugnani, Vittorio Magnago, ed. Museum Architecture in Frankfurt: 1980-1990. Munich: Prestel, 1990. Lane, Barbara Miller. Architecture and Politics in Germany: 1918-1945. Cambridge, Mass. And London: Harvard University Press, 1985. 256

Lang, Karen. "The Dialectics of Decay: Rereading the Kantian Subject." The Art Bulletin LXXIX, 3 (September 1997): 413-439. Lang, Karen. "The German Monument, 1790-1914: Subjectivity, Memory, and National Identity." PhD Dissertation, Art History Department, University of California, Los Angeles 1996. Langbehn, Julius [signed: a German]. Rembrandt als Erzieher. Weimar: Alexander Duncker Verlag, 1922. Lefkowitz, Mary R., and Guy MacLean Rogers eds. Black Athena Revisted. Chapel Hill and London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1996. Lehmann, Reinhard G. Friedrich Delitzsch und der Babel-Bibel-Streit. Göttingen, 1994. Leniaud, Jean-Michel. Viollet-le-Duc, ou, les délires du système. Paris: Mengès, 1994. Lepsius, Richard. Die Chronologie der Ägypter. Berlin: Nicolaische Buchhandlung, 1849. Lepsius, Richard. Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien. Berlin: Nicolaische Buchhandlung, 1849-1856. Les Cahiers du Musée National d'Art Moderne: L'Art Contemporain et le Musée. Paris: Centre Georges Pompidou, 1989. Lichtenstern, Christa. "Die Wirkungsgeschichte der Metamorphosenlehre Goethes." Metamorphose in der Kunst des 19. und 20 Jahrhunderts. Weinheim: VCH Verlagsgesellschaft, 1990. 257

Lichtenstern, Christa. Metamorphose in der Kunst des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts. Weinheim: VCH, Acta Humaniora, 1990-1992. Lindström, Gunvor. "Historismus als Ordungsprinzip: Die Abgußsammlung im Neuen Museum." Museumsinszenierungen: Zur Geschichte der Institution des Kunstmuseums. Die Berliner Museumslandschaft 1830-1990, edited by Alexiws Joahimides, 67-80. Dresden and Basel: Verlag der Kunst, 1995. Loos, Adolf. “Ornament and Crime” (1929). In Ornament and Crime: Selected Essays. Translated by Michael Mitchell. Calif.: Ariadne Press, 1998.

MacAskill, Ewen. “Iraq appeals to Berlin for Return of Babylon Gate,” The Guardian (May 4, 2002). Mallgrave, Harry Francis, and Eleftherios Ikonomou eds.. Empathy, Form and Space: Problems in German Aesthetics 1873-1893. Santa Monica: Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1994. Malraux, André. Le Musée imaginaire. France 1965. Marchand, Suzanne L. Down from Olympus: Archaeology and Philhellenism in Germany, 1750-1970. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1996. Marchand, Suzanne, L. "The Rhetoric of Artifacts and the Decline of Classical Humanism: The Case of Josef Strzygowski." History and Theory (1994): 106130. 258

Marchand, Suzanne L. “The quarrel of the ancients and moderns in the German museums.” In Museums and Memory, edited by Susan A. Crane. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2000. Marcuse, Herbert. "The Affirmative Character of Culture (1937)," Negations. Essays on Critical Theory, translated by Jeremy J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press 1968, 88-133. Marzahn, Joachim. Babylon und das Neujahrsfest. Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Vorderasiatisches Museum, 1981. Marzahn, Joachim. The Ishtar Gate. Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Vorderasiatisches Museum, 1995. Matteoni, Dario. "Introduction." Rassegna 55, 3 (September 1993): 4-7. Matthes, Olaf. The Pergamon Museum. Translated by Nina Hausmann. Berlin: Berliner Ansichten, 1998. Matthews, S. K. Photography in Archaeology and Art. New York: Humanities Press, 1968. McClellan, Andrew. "The Politics and Aesthetics of Display: Museums in Paris, 17501800," Art History 7 (December 1984) 4, 438-464. McClellan, Andrew. Inventing the Louvre: Art, Politics, and the Origin of the Modern Museum in 18th Century Paris. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. McGee, Mark R. Berlin: 1925-1946-2000. Berlin: Nicolai, 2000. 259

McGrath, William. Dionysian Art and Populist Politics in Austria. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. Mellon, Stanley. "Alexandre Lenoir: The Museum Versus the Revolution." Consortium on Revolutionary Europe, 1750-1850. Proceedings 9 (1979): 75-91. Menant, M. Joachim. Bibliothèque des Merveilles: Ninive et Babylone. Paris: Librairie Hachette, 1888. Messling, Guido. "Historismus als Rekonstruktion. Die Ägyptische Abteilung im Neuen Museum." Museumsinszenierungen: Zur Geschichte der Institution des Kunstmuseums. Die Berliner Museumslandschaft 1830-1990, edited by Alexis Joahimides, 51-66. Dresden and Basel: Verlag der Kunst, 1995. Meyer, Gerhard R. Berlin Museums Insel. Leipzig: E. A. Seemann, 1980. Michaud, Eric. Un Art de l’Eternité: l’image et le temps du national-socialisme. Paris: Gallimard, 1996. Mitter, Partha, and Craig Clunas. "The Empire of Things: Engagement with the Orient." A Grand Design: the Art of the Victoria and Albert Museum (1997) 221-229. Mitter, Partha. Much Maligned Monsters: History of European Reactions to Indian Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press,, 1977. Momigliano, A. D. Studies on Modern Scholarship, eds. G. W. Bowersock and T. J. Cornell. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.

260

Moyano, Steven. "Quality vs. History: Schinkel’s Altes Museum and Prussian Arts Policy,” The Art Bulletin. LXXII (December 1990) 4, 585-608. Müller, Karl-Josef. Haltlose Reflexion: Über die Grenzen der Kunst in Peter Weiss' 'Die Ästhetik des Widerstands'. Germany: Verlan Königshausen & Neumann, 1992. Müller, Werner. Der Pergamon-Altar. Leipzig: E. A. Seemann, 1973. Münch, Marc-Mathieu. Joseph-Daniel Guigniaut et sa Traduction de la Symbolique de Creuzer. France, 1978. Murphy, Kevin D. Memory and Modernity: Viollet-le-Duc at Vézelay. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000. Musée du Louvre. De Khorsabad à Paris: la Décourverte des Assyriens. Paris: Réunion des Musés Nationaux, 1994. Musée National des Monuments Français. Photograhier l'Architecture, 1851-1920: Collection du Musée des Monuments Français. Paris: Editions de la Réunion des Musées Nationaux: Distribution Seuil, 1994. Muséographie: Architecture et Aménagement des Musées d'Art: Conférence Internationale d'Etudes. Madrid 1934 II. Museumsinsel Berlin: Wettbewerb zum Neuen Museum/Competition for the Neues Museum. Stuttgart: Avedition, 1994. “Museuminsel,” l’Architecture d’aujourd’hui 297 (February 1995): 80-83.

261

Nalbantoglu, Gülsüm Baydar. "Toward Postcolonial Openings: Rereading Sir Banister Fletcher's History of Architecture." Assemblage 35 (April 1998): 7-17. Nickel, Heinrich L. Fotografie im Dienste der Kunste: die Anwendung der Fotografie in der Kunstwissenschaft, Archäologie und Vorgeschichte. Halle (Saale): Fotoinoverlag Halle, 1959. Nietzsche, Friedrich. “On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life” (1874). Untimely Meditations, translated by R. J. Hollingdale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Birth of Tragedy. Translated by Douglas Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. O'Doherty, Brian. Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. Oettermann, Stephan. The Panorama: History of a Mass Medium, trans. Deborah Lucas Schenider. New York: Zone Books, 1997. Office International des Musées. "Les reconstitutions architectoniques dans les musées," Mouseion 29-30, I-II (1935): 59-72. O'Hear, Anthony. "Historicism and Architectural Knowledge." Philosophy: The Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy 68, 264 (April 1993): 127-44. Ohlsen, Manfred. Wilhelm von Bode, Zwischen Kaisermacht und Kunsttempel, Biographie. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1995. 262

Olin, Margaret Rose. Forms of Representation in Alois Reigl’s Theory of Art. University Park, Penn.: Pennsylvania State University, 1992. Olin, Margaret. "Self Representation: Resemblance and Convention in Two Nineteenth Century Theories of Architecture and the Decorative Arts." Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 49, 3 (1986): 376-397. Ong, Walter, J. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: 1982. Oppeln-Bronikowski. “Pro Pergamo.” Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, Abend-Ausgabe (10 February 1931). Oppert, Jules. Expédition scientifique en Mesopotamie exécutée par ordre du gouvernement de 1851 à 1854 MM. Fulgence Fresnel, Félix Thomas et Jules Oppert. Paris : Imprimerie impériale, 1857-63. Oppert, Jules. Les incriptions commerciales en caractères cuneiforms. Paris: n.p., 1866. Ortelli, Luca. "A propos de quelques projets de Josef Hoffmann et Erik Gunnar Asplund: Réflexions dur la tectonique à l'intention des étudiants en architecture." Faces: Journal d'architectures 47 (Winter 1999-2000): 28-33. Özmakas, Hacer, and Yavuz Özmakas. Bergama Kaynakçası [Bibliography of Bergama]. Bergama Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları. Izmir: Özgen Ofset, 1993. Paecht, Otto. "Art Historians and Art Critics-VI: Alois Riegl." Burlington Magazine 105, 2 (1963): 188-193.

263

Paksoy, I. Günay.“Bazi Belgeler IsIgInda OsmanlI Devleti’nin Kültür Mirasi PolitikasI Üzerine Düsünceler.” In Osman Hamdi Bey ve Dönemi Sempozyumu, edited by Zeynep Rona. Istanbul: Tarih VakfI Yurt YayInlarI, 1993. Pallis, Svend Aage. The Antiquity of Iraq: A Handbook of Assyriology. Copenhagen, 1956. Panofsky, Erwin. "The Concept of Artistic Volition." Critical Inquiry 8, 1 (Autumn 1981): 17-33. Panofsky, Erwin. "What is Baroque? (1934)" Three Essays on Style, ed. I. Lavin. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press 1995, 19-88. Panofsky, Erwin. Idea; ein Beitrag zur Begriffsgeschichte der älteren Kunsttheorie. Berlin: B. Panofsky, Erwin. Perspective as Symbolic Form, trans. Christopher Wood. New York: Zone Books, 1997. Papadopoulos, John K. “Knossos." The Conservation of Archaeological Sites in the Mediterranean Region. Edited by Marta de la Torre. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1997. Papastamos, Demetres. Asklipios-Epidauros and their Museum. Athens: Apollo Editions, 1997. Paret, Peter. Art as History: Episodes in the Culture and Politics of Nineteenth-Century Germany. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1988. 264

Paret, Peter. The Berlin Secession: Modernism and its Enemies in Imperial Germany. Massachusetts and London: Harvard University Press, 1980. Paris, Rome, Athènes: le voyage en Grèce des architectes français aux XIXe et XXe siècles. Paris: L'École nationale, 1982. Parrot, André. "Centenaire de la Fondation du Musée Assyrien au Musée du Louvre." Syria 25 (1946-48): 173-84. Pavan, M. "Antonio Canova e la discussione sugli Elgin Marbles," Rivista dell'Istituto Nazionale d'Archeologia e Storia dell'Arte, n.s., XXI-XXII (1974-75) 219-344. Pearce, Susan, ed. Museums and Europe 1922. London and New Jersey: The Athlone Press, 1992. Perego, Francesco, ed. Anastilosi: l'antico, il restauro, la città. Roma: Laterza, 1987. Pergamon Museum. Die Skulpturen des Pergamon-Museums in Photographien. Berlin: Reimer, 1903. Peschken, Goerd, and Tilmann Heinisch. "Berlin at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century." Berlin: An Architectural History (Series: Architectural Design profile) 53, 11/12 (1983): 40-47. Peschken, Goerd. “Der Messel-Bau.” In Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte München, Berlins Museen: Geschichte und Zukunft. Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1994, 239-246.

265

Petras, Renate. Die Bauten der Berliner Museumsinsel. Berlin: Verlag für Bauwesen, 1987. Peukert, Detlev J. K. The Weimar Republic: The Crisis of Classical Modernity. Translated by Richard Deveson. New York: Hill and Wang, 1989. Pevsner, Nikolaus et al. The Future of the Past: Attitudes to Conservation, 1174-1974. Edited Jane Fawcett. New York: Whitney Library of Designs 1976. Pevsner, Nikolaus. The History of Building Types. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1976. Pietsch, Ludwig. "Die Berliner Jubiläums: Ausstellung; Austellungsbriefe." Die Gartenlaube (1886). Pinelli, Orietta Rossi. "'Se per assurdo...una stessa opera e tre restauratori...': integrazione o culto del frammento?," La reintegrazione nel restauro dell'antico: la protezione del patrimonio dal rischio sismico, ed. Maria Margarita Segarra Lagunes. Roma 1997, 73-78; Pinnau, Peter. "Ein Bildhauer als Architekt: Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des MartiusMausoleums von Adolf von Hildebrand in Kiel 1915-1919." Nordelbingen: Beiträge zur Kunst- und Kulturgeschichte 60 (1991): 171-219. Pinon, Pierre. "A Career for Archaeology. The Case of Pierre-Adrien Pâris." Rassegna 55, 3 (September 1993): 28-43.

266

Pinon, Pierre. "L'architetto e l'archeologo: la Villa di Emmanuel Pontrémoli per Théodore Reinach/The Architect and the archaeologist: the villa by Emmanuel Pontrémoli for Théodore Reinach." Lotus International 60(1989): 112-27. Place, Victor. Ninive et l'Assyrie. Paris: Imprimerie impériale, 1867. Podro, Michael. "Are works of art provisional or canonical in form? Fiedler, Hildebrand and Woelfflin," Kunst und Kunsttheorie: 1400-1900, eds. Peter Ganz, Martin Gosebruch, Nikolaus Meier and Martin Warnke. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz: 1991, 405-13. Podro, Michael. The Critical Historians of Art. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982. Podro, Michael. The Manifold in Perception: Theories of Art from Kant to Hildebrand. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. Pogacnik, Marco. "La dissolution de la grande forme." Faces: Journal d'architectures 47 (Winter 1999-2000): 14-23. Pohl, Klaus, Deutscher Werkbund, and Hessisches Landesmuseum. Ansichten der Ferne: Reisephotographie 1850-heute. Giessen: Anabas, 1983. Pollitt, J.J. Art in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Pomian, Krzysztof, and Musé National d'Art Moderne. L'Art Contemporain et le Musée. Paris: Editions du Centre Georges Pompidou, 1989. Pontremoli, Emmanuel. Didymes: fouilles de 1895 et 1896. Paris: E. Leroux, 1904. 267

Pontremoli, Emmanuel (Restauration), and Maxime Collignon (Texte). Pergame: Restauration et Description des Monuments de l'Acropole. Paris: Société Français d'Édtions d'Art, 1900. Posener, Julius. Berlin auf dem Wege zu einer neuen Architektur: Das Zeitalter Wilhelms II. Munich: Prestel, 1979, esp. 454-58. Posener, Julius. From Schinkel to the Bauhaus: Five Lectures on the Growth of Modern German Architecture. London: The Architectural Association, 1972. Potts, Alex. Flesh and the Ideal: Winckelmann and the Origins of Art History. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1994. Potts, Alex. The Sculptural Imagination: Figurative, Modernist, Minimalist. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2000. Poulot, Dominique. "Modelli d'architettura: La nascita del museo di architettura in Francia all'epoca della Rivoluzione/Architectural models: The birth of the museum of architecture in France during the Revolution." Lotus International 35, II (1982): 32-35. Pousin, Frédéric. "A Discourse on Ruins." Rassegna 55, 3 (September 1993): 8-17. Preminger, Alex, ed. Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974. Preziosi, Donald, ed. The Art of Art History: a Critical Anthology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, 104. 268

Puchstein, Otto. Bescreibung der Gigantenfriese aus Pergamon. Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1930. Pundt, Hermann, G. Shinkel's Berlin: A Study in Environmental Planning. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972. Quatremère de Quincy, A. C. Considérations morales sur la destination des ouvrages de l'Art(1815). Paris 1989. Translated as The Destination of Works of Art. Translated by H. Thompson. London 1821. Quatremère de Quincy, A. C. Lettres sur le déplacement des monuments des arts de l'Italie (1796). Paris: E. Pommier, 1989. Quatremère de Quincy. M. Essai sur l'Idéal dans ses Applications Pratiques aux Oeuvres de l'Imitation Propre des Arts du Dessin. Paris: A. Le Clère et cie., 1837. Rabinbach, Anson. “The Cunning of Unreason: Mimesis and the Construction of AntiSemitism.” In In the Shadow of Catastrophe: German Intellectuals between Apocalypse and Enlightenment. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. Rabinbach, Anson. The Human Motor: Energy, Fatique, and the Origins of Modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. Rampley, Matthew. "Spectatorship and the historicity of art. Re-reading Alois Riegl's Historical Grammar of the Fine Arts." Word & Image 12, 2 (April-June 1996): 209-217. 269

Ranfft, Erich. "Sigrid Esche-Braunfels' Adolf von Hildebrand (1847-1921) [book review]." Burlington Magazine 136 (July 1994): 464-465. Rauprich, Susanne. Aspekte der Betrachtung und Rezeption von Plastik in der deutschen Kunstwissenschaft des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts. Weimar: Verlag and Datenbank für Geisteswissenschaften, 1995. Reade, Julian Edgeworth. "Assyrian Architectural Decoration: Techniques and SubjectMatter." D.A.I. Baghdader Mitteilungen 10 (1979): 17-49. Reade, Julian. "The Palace of Sargon, King of Assyria, by Pauline Albenda [book review]." Antiquaries Journal 67, 2 (1987): 408-409. Reichhardt, Hans J., and Wolfgang Schäche. Ludwig Hoffmann in Berlin: Die Wiederentdeckung eines Architekten. Berlin: Transit, 1986. Reichhardt, Hans J. Berlin auf dem Wege zu einer neuen Architektur: das Zeitalter Wilhelms II (Series: Studien zur Kunst des 19. Jahrhunderts). München: Prestel, 1979. Reuther, Hans. Die Museuminsel in Berlin: Propyläen. Frankfurt am Main: Ullstein, 1978. Reynolds, Diana Graham. "Alois Riegl and the Politics of Art History: Intellectual Traditions and Austrian Identity in "Fin-de-Siècle" Vienna." PhD Dissertation. University of California, San Diego, 1997.

270

Ricoeur, Paul. Hermeneutics and Human Sciences, edited and translated by John B. Thompson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Ricoeur, Paul. Time and Narrative. Translated by Kathleen McLaughlin and David Pellauer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984-1988. Riegl, Alois. "Excerpts from Alois Riegl, The Dutch Group Portrait," October 74 (Fall 1995): 3-35. Riegl, Alois. "Late Roman or Oriental?" German Essays on Art History, ed. Gert Schiff. New York: Continuum 1988, 173-190. Riegl, Alois. Die spätrömische Kunst-Industrie nach den Funden in Österreich-Ungarn in Zusammenhange mit der Gesammtentwicklung der bildenden Künste bei den Mittelmeervölkern. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1973, originally published Wien: Kaiserlich-Königlichen Hof- und Staatsdruckerei 1901. Translated as Late Roman Art Industry, translated by Rolf Winkes. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider, 1985.

271

Riegl, Alois. Gesammelte aufsätze. Augsburg-Wien: Benno Filser 1929. Translated as “The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Its Origin,” translated by Kurt W. Forster and Diane Ghirardo. Oppositions 25 (Fall 1982); and “The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Essence and Development,” translated by Karin Bruckner and Karen Williams. Readings in Conservation: Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, eds. Stanley Price, N., M. Kirby Talley Jr., and A. Melucco Vaccaro. Los Angeles: The Getty, 1996. Riegl, Alois. Problems of Style: Foundations for a History of Ornament. Translated by Evelyn Kain. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1992. Rodenwaldt, Gerhart. The Acropolis, Photographed by Walter Hege. . Norman: University of Oklahoma Press 1957. Translation of Die Akropolis, Aufgenommen von Walter Hege Beschrieben von Gerhardt Rodenwaldt. Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1930. Rohde, Elisabeth. Union Académique Internationale, and Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Antikensammlung. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1990-. Rößler, D., and V. Stürmer. Modus in Rebus: Gedenkschrift für Wolfgang Schindler. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1995. Russell, John Malcolm. "The Program of the Palace of Assurnasirpal II at Nimrud: Issues in the Research and Presentation of Assyrian Art." American Journal of Archaeology 102, 4 (October 1998): 655-715. 272

Rykwert, Joseph. The Dancing Column: on Order in Architecture. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1996. Salis, Arnold von. Der Altar von Pergamon: ein Beitrag zur erklärung des Hellenistischen Barockstils in Kleinasien. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1912. Sassure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye with the collaboration of Albert Riedlinger. Translated and annotated by Roy Harris. LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1986. Schäche, Wolfgang. "Nazi Architecture and its Approach to Antiquity." Berlin: An Architectural History (Series: Architectural Design profile) 53, 11/12 (1983): 8188. Schaeffer, Emil, ed. Attische Kultstätten. Schaubücher 20. Zurich, Leipzig: Orell Füssli Verlag, 1931. Schäfer, Heinrich. Die kunst des alten Orients, von Heinrich Schäfer und Walter Andrae. Berlin: Propyläen-verlag, 1925. Schalles, Hans-Joachim. "Rezeptionsgeschichtliche Nachlese zum Pergamonaltar." Modus in Rebus: Gedenkschrift für Wolfgang Schindler, edited by D. Rößler und V. Stürmer, 189-200. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag 1995. Schalles, Hans-Joachim. Der Pergamonaltar: Zwischen Bewertung und Verwertbarkeit. Frankfurt-am-Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 1986.

273

Scheer, Thorsten, Josef Paul Kleihues and Paul Kahlfeldt, eds. City of Architecture of the City: Berlin 1900-2000. Berlin: Nicolai, 2000. Scheffler, Karl. "Das Berliner Museumschaos." Kunst und Künstler XXIV, VII (April, 1926): 261-272. Scheffler, Karl. Berliner Museumskrieg. Berlin: Bei Bruno Cassirer, 1921. Schiller, Friedrich. On the Aesthetic Education of Man. Translated by Reginald Snell. New York: Friedrich Ungar Publishing Co., 1965, 38. Schindler, Wolfgang, Detlef Rössler, Veit Stürmer, and Winckelmann-Institut. Modus in Rebus: Gedenkschrift für Wolfgang Schindler. Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1995. Schlegel, August Wilhelm. A Course of Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature. Translated by J. Black. 2nd edition. London, 1904. Schmarsow, August. Beiträge zur Aesthetik der bildenden Künste. Leipzig: S. Hirzel 1896-99. Schmarsow, August. Grundbegriffe der Kunstwissenschaft: am übergang von Altertum zum Mittelalter Kritisch erörtert und in Systematischem zusammenhange dargestellt. Leipzip & Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1905. Schmarsow, August. Plastik Malerei und Reliefkunst in ihrem gegenseitigen verhältnis untersucht. Leipzip: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1899. Schmarsow, August. Zur Frage nach dem Malerischen sein Grundbegriff und seine entwicklung. Leipzip: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1896. 274

Schmidt, Evamaria. The Great Altar of Pergamon. Boston: Boston Book and Art Shop, 1965. Schmidt, Hartwig. "Das 'Wilhelminische' Athen. Ludwig Hoffmanns Generalbegauungsplan für Athen." Architectura 9, 1 (1979): 30-44. Schmidt, Paul F. “Das Pergamon-Museum: Eine künstleriche Barbarei der Archäologie.” Dresdner Nachrichten 20 (April 1929). Schmitt, Carl. The Concept of the Political, trans. George Schwab. London and Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Schmitz, Robert. Rodin und die Fiedler - Hildebrand'sche Kunsttheorie. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universität Bern 1929. Schneider, R. "Un ennemi du Musée des monuments français." Gazette des Beaux-Arts, II (1909): 353-370. Scholz, Dieter. "Max Liebermann und Karl Scheffler." Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 39 (1997): 157-67. Schopenhauer, Arthur. The World as Will and Representation, vol. I, trans. E. F. J. Payne. New York: Dover, 1969. Schorske, Carl. “Museum in Contested Space: the Sword, the Scepter, and the Ring.” Thinking with History. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998, 105124.

275

Schrader, Hans. “Die Anordnung und Deutung des pergamenischen Telephos-frieses.” Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 15 (1900): 97-135. Schrader, Hans. “Die Opferstätte des pergamenischen Altars.” Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 6 (July 1899): 612-25. Schrammen, Jakob. Altertümer von Pergamon: Der Grosze Altar der Obere Markt. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1906. Schrammen, Jakob. Der Grosze Altar, der Obere Markt. Band 3, vol.1 of Altertümer von Pergamon. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1906. Schubert, Franz, and Susanne Grunauer-von Hoerschelmann. Archäologie und Photographie: fünfzig Beispiele zur Geschichte und Methode. Mainz: P. von Zabern, 1978. Schuchhardt, Walter Herwig. Die Meister des Grossen Frieses von Pergamon. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1925. Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime. Platon et l'art de son temps. Paris: Universitaires de France, 1952. Schulte, Edward. "Carl Humann." Neue Deutsche Biographie. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1953-, 10, 32-33. Schulz, Bernhard. “Museumsinsel Berlin: Entscheidung für Chipperfield,” Baumeister 95, 1 (January 1995): 13 276

Schulz, Bernhard. “Plötzlich is das Glasdach nicht mehr nötig: die Architektenwettbewerb für den Umbau des Pergamonmuseums ist entschieden,” Der Tagespiegel (26 May 2000). Schulz, Genia. 'Die Ästhetik des Widerstands': Versionen des Indirekten in Peter Weiss' Roman. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche, 1986. Schwanzer, Berthold. Modell und Wirklichkeit: Jugendstilbauten im Vergleich: empirische Untersuchung von Architekturmodellen und Originalgebäuden. Wien: Modulverlag, 1987. Schwarzer, Mitchell, "Myths of Permanence and Transcience in the Discourse on Historic Preservation in the United States," Journal of Architectural Education 48, 1 (September 1994): 2-11. Schwarzer, Mitchell. "Gathered this Unruly Folk: the Textural Colligation of Historical Knowledge on Architecture." Journal of Architectural Education (May 1991): 144-149. Schwarzer, Mitchell. "Heinrich Huebsch and German Architectural Nationalism." Architronic: The Electronic Journal of Architecture 2, 1 (1993). Schwarzer, Mitchell. "Ontology and Representation in Karl Bötticher's Theory of Tectonics." Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 52, 3 (September 1993): 267-280.

277

Schwarzer, Mitchell. "The Emergence of Architectural Space: August Schmarsow's Theory of Raumgestaltung." Assemblage 15 (August 1991): 48-61. Schwarzer, Mitchell. German Architectural Theory and the Search for Modern Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Scranton, Robert L. Greek Architecture. New York: Braziller, 1992. Scully, Vincent. The Earth, the Temple and the Gods: Greek Sacred Architecture, revised edition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979. Sedlmayr, Hans. Kunst und Wahrheit: zur Theorie und Methode der Kunstgeschichte. Mittenwald: Mäander, 1978. Sedlmayr, Hans. Verlust der Mitte: die bildende Kunst des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts als Symptom und Symbol der Zeit. Salzburg: Ullstein Bücher, 1955. Sheehan, James, J. Museums in the German Art World: From the End of the Old Regine to the Rise of Modernism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Silberman, Neil Asher. Between Past and Present: Archaeology, Ideology, and Nationalism in the Modern Middle East. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1989. Smith, Charles Saumarez. "Museums, Artifacts, and Meanings," The New Museology. Edited by Peter Vergo. London: Reaktion Books 1989, 6-21. Snyder, Joel. "Picturing Vision." Critical Inquiry 6, 3 (Spring 1980): 499-526.

278

Speer, Albert. Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs of Albert Speer. Translated Richard and Clara Winston. New York: Macmillan Co. 1970. Originally published in German, Erinnerungen. Germany: Ullstein, 1969. Spemann, Wolf. Plastisches Gestalten: Anthropologischen Aspekte. Hildesheim, Zürich and New York: Gerog Olms, 1984. Spengler, Oswald. The Decline of the West. An abridged edition by Helmut Werner. English edition by Arthur Helps from the translation by Charles Francis Atkinson. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1991. Originally published as Der Untergang des Abendlandes, Gestalt und Wirklichkeit. Munich: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1918. Staniszewski, Mary Anne. The Power of Display: A History of Exhibition Installations at the Museum of Modern Art. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1998. Stanley Price, N., M. Kirby Talley Jr., and A. Melucco Vaccaro, edd. Readings in Conservation: Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage. Los Angeles: The Getty, 1996. Steele, James. Hellenistic Architecture in Asia Minor. London: Academy Editions, 1992. Stein, Georg. “Magazin Statt Museum.” Berliner Börsen-Courier (17 April 1929). Stern, Fritz Richard. The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of Germanic Ideology. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963, esp. 150-152.

279

Steve, Michel. "Néo-grec à Kerylos." Monuments Historiques 175 (July-August 1991): 28-30. Stewart, Andrew. "Pergamo Ara Marmorea Magna: On the Date, Reconstruction, and Functions of the Great Altar of Pergamon." From Pergamon to Sperlonga: Sculpture and Context, edited by. de Grummond, Nancy, T. and Brunilde S. Ridgway, 32-57. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Stewart, Susan. On Longing: Narratives of the Miniature, the Gigantic, the Souvenir, the Collection. Durham: Duke University Press, 1993. Stözl, Christoph. Deutsches Historisches Museum: Ideen, Kontroversen, Perspectiven. Berlin: Propyläen, 1988. Stradonitz, Kekule von. Beschreibung der Gigantenfriese aus Pergamon. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1930. Strommenger, Eva, and Kay Kohlmeyer. Wiedererstehendes Babylon. Exhibition catalog. Berlin: Museum für Vor und Frühgeschichte, 1991, 53.

Strzygowski, Josef. Orient oder Rom: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Spätantiken und Frühchristlichen Kunst. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1901.

280

Sturgeon, Mary C. "Pergamon to Hierapolis: From Theatrical "Altar" to Religious Theater." From Pergamon to Sperlonga: Sculpture and Context, eds. de Grummond, Nancy, T. and Brunilde S. Ridgway. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000, 58-77. Szambien, Werner. Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand 1760-1834: De l’imitation à la norme. Paris: Picard 1984. Szambien, Werner. Le Musée d'architecture. Paris: Picard, 1988. Tafuri, Manfredo. The Sphere and the Labyrinth: Avant-Gardes and Architecture from Piranesi to the 1970's, translated from Italian by Pellegrino d’Acierno and Robert Connoly. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1990. Tafuri, Manfredo. Theories and History of Architecture. London: Granada 1980. Taskın, Sefa. Sürgündeki Zeus: Bergama’dan Berlin’e, Berlin’den Bergamaya. [Zeus in Exile: From Bergama to Berlin, From Berlin to Bergama]. Bergama Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları No. 4. Izmir: Altında Matbaacılık, n.d. “Tausend Archäologen im Pergamon-Museum.” Danziger Neueste Nachrichten, (23 April 1929). Tesar, Heinz. Wege zum Masterplan: Museumsinsel Berlin 1998-2000. Berlin: G & H, 2000. Teyssot, George. "La Liberté d'Errerer: Notes on the Problematic of a Museum of (Modern) Art." Any 13 (1996): 22-27. 281

Teyssot, Georges. "The Simple Day and the Light of Sun: Lights and Shadows in the Museum." Assemblage 12 (August 1990): 59-83. Todorov, Tzvetan. Theories of the Symbol. Translated by Catherine Porter. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982. Originally published as Théories du symbole (Paris: Seuil, 1977). Tournikiotis, Panayotis. The Historiography of Modern Architecture. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1999. Treus, Georg. Das Albertinum von hundert Jahren: die Skulpturensammlung. Dresden: Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, 1994. Turgenev, Ivan. "Pergamos Excavations: A Letter to the Editor of European Herald." Literary Reminiscences and Autobiographical Fragments. New York: Farrar, Straus and Company, 1958. “Umbau und Erweiterung des Pergamonmuseums, Berlin,” Bauwelt 92, 22 (9 June 2000): 10. Vahrson, Viola. "Die Krise des historischen Kunstbetrachtung. Die Berliner Abgußsammlung zwischen Enzyklopädie und Aura." Museumsinszenierungen: Zur Geschichte der Institution des Kunstmuseums. Die Berliner Museumslandschaft 1830-1990. Dresden and Basel: Verlag der Kunst 1995, 8191.

282

Vance, Kathleen A. The Theme of Alienation in the Prose of Peter Weiss. Las Vegas: Peter Lang, 1981. Vergo, Peter. "The Reticent Object," The New Museology. Edited by Peter Vergo. London: Reaktion Books, 1989, 41-59. Vidler, Anthony. "La tettonica dello spazio/The Tectonics of Space." Lotus 98 (1999): 49-55. Vidler, Anthony. The Writing of the Walls: Architectural Theory in the Late Enlightenment. Princeton Architectural Press, 1987. Viergutz, Volker. "Der Nachlass Ludwig Hoffmann: Stadtbaurat für Hochbau in Berlin von 1896-1924." Museums Journal (Berlin) 8, 1 (January 1994): 48-51. Viergutz, Volker. “Berliner Museumskrieg: ein unveröfentlichtes Kapitel der Lebenserinnerungen Ludwig Hoffmanns.” In Berlin Geschichte und Gegenwart, edited by Jürgen Wetzel, 85. Jahrbuch des Landesarchivs Berlin. Berlin: Landesarchiv, 1993. Viollet-le-Duc, Eugène-Emmanuel. The Foundations of Architecture: Selections from the dictionnaire raisonne. Translated by Kenneth D. Whitehead. New York: G. Braziller, 1990. Vogtherr, C. M. “Berlin Königliche Museum,” Jahrbuch des Berliner Museen 39 (1997): 7-302.

283

Waetzoldt, Stephan. “Bauten der Museumsinsel.” In Berlin und die Antike, edited by Wilmuth Arenhövel, 361-74. Exhibition catalog. Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 1979. Waetzoldt, Stephan. “Pläne und Wettbewerbe für Bauten auf der Berliner Museumsinsel 1873 bis 1896.” Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 35, Beiheft (1993): 7-184. Waetzoldt, Stephan. Speech. Hunderdtjahrfeier des Archäologischen Institut, (Berlin, 1930): 112. Waetzoldt, Wilhelm von. “Die Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin 1830-1930.” Jahrbuch der Preuszischen Kunstsammlungen 51 (1930): 25-204. Waldmann, Emil, Walter Hege, and Emil Schaeffer. Attische Kultstätten. Zürich: O. Füssli, 1931. Ward-Perkins, J. B. Cities of Ancient Greece and Italy: Planning in Classical Antiquity. New York: Braziller, 1974. Watzinger, Carl, and Karl Wulzinger: Damaskus: Die Antike Stadt, heft 4. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1921.

Watzinger, Carl. Theodor Wiegand: ein deutscher Archäologe 1864-1936. Munich, C.H. Beck, 1944, 351-56. Weis, Helene. " Fletcher, Sir Banister, A History of Architecture [review]." Stained Glass Quarterly 82 (Summer 1987): 116ff. 284

Weiss, Peter. Die Ästhetik des Widerstands. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1975. Weizsäcker, Heinrich. Kunstwissenschaftliche Beiträge, August Schmarsow Gewidmet zum Fünfzigsten Semester seiner Akademischen Lehrtätigkeit von H. Weizsäcker [u.a.] Leipzig: K. Hiersemann, 1907. Wenk, Silke. Auf den Spuren der Antike: Theodor Wiegand, ein deutscher Archäologe. Bendorf, Rhein: Stadtverwaltung Bendorf, 1985. Westphal-Hellbusch, Sigrid. “Hundert Jahre Museum für Völkerkunde Berlin: Zur Geschichte des Museums.” Baessler-Archiv, Beiträge zur Völkerkunde, Neue Folge 21 (1973): 4. Wickhoff, Franz. Abhandlungen, Vorträge und Anzeigen. Berlin: Meyer & Jessen, 1913. Wickhoff, Franz. Römische Kunst: die Wiener Genesis. Berlin: Meyer & Jessen 1912. Translated as Roman Art: Some of its Principles and their Application to Early Christian Painting. Translated and edited by Mrs. S. Arthur Strong. London: W. Heinemann, 1900. Wiedererstehendes Babylon: Eine antike Weltstadt im Blick der Forschung. Berlin: Enka, 1991. Wiegand, Theodor. "Das Pergamon Museum." Berliner Museen: Berichte aus den Preussischen Kunstsammlungen, Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch der Preussischen Kunstsammlungen LI, 5 (1930): 94-100. 285

Wiegand, Theodor. Der Entdecker von Pergamon Carl Humann, ein Lebensbild. (another version was published in 1930 in which Carl Schuchhardt appears as the first editor) Berlin: G. Grote, 1930. Wiegand, Theodor. Sinai. The First volume of the series Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen des Deutsch-Türkischen Denkmalschutz-Kommandos. Berlin and Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1920. Wiegand, Theodor. The Pergamon Museum. Reichsbahnzentrale für den Deutschen Reiseverkehr, Berlin. (Distributed in several languages in the 1930’s from German tourism bureaus, the exact date of publication cannot be determined). Wilhelm, Gernot, ed. Zwischen Tigris und Nil: 100 Jahre Ausgrabungen des Deutschen Orient-Geselleschaft in Vorderasien and Ägypten. Mainz am Rhein: Philip von Zabern, 1998. Wilhelm von Bode: Museumsdirektor and Mäzen. Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 1995. Winnefeld, Hermann. Altertümer von Pergamon: Die Friese des Groszen Altars. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1910. Wiplinger, Gilbert and Gudrun Wlach. Ephesus: 100 years of Austrian Research. Vienna: Böhlau, 1996. Wise, Michael Z. Capital Dilemma: Germany's Search for a New Architecture of Democracy. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998. 286

Wittkower, Rudolf. Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism. New York: W. W. Norton, 1971. Wölffing, Siegfried. "Die Altertums- und Orientwissenschaft im Dienst des deutschen Imperialismus." Wissenshaftliche Zeitschrift der Universitat Halle XX, 2 (1971): 85-95. Wölfflin, Heinrich. Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Das Problem der stilentwicklng in der neueren Kunst. Munich: Hugo Bruckmann, 1920. Wölfflin, Heinrich. Principles of Art History: The Problem of the Development of Style in Later Art. Translated by M. D. Hottinger. New York: Dover, 1950. Wölfflin, Heinrich. Renaissance and Baroque, trans. Kathrin Simon. London: Collins, 1964. Wolzogen, Alfred von, ed. Aus Schinkels Nachlass: Reisetagebücher, Briefe und Aphorismen. Berlin, 1863. Wright, Gwendolyn, ed. The Formation of National Collections of Art and Archaeology. Hanover and London: National Gallery of Art, 1996. Zehrfuss, B. H. "Obituary: Emmanuel Pontremoli." Architecture d'aujourd'hui 27, 66 (July 1956): 5.

287