Archaeology as a Propaganda Tool in Service of Nazism

By Manon Meyer-Hilfiger

In his novel 1984, George Orwell imagined an employee tasked with rewriting archives to align them with Big Brother’s projects. Similarly, in the 1930s and 1940s, Nazi Germany employed the same tactics. Archaeologists, the backbone of this historical falsification, constructed a tailored past.

Hitler had the means to support such ambition: around 90% of archaeologists at the time were members of the Nazi party. They benefited from significantly increased resources under the new regime, allowing them to manipulate archaeological findings to align with the regime’s narrative. These findings were widely publicized through radio broadcasts and magazines, promoting the idea that a “Germanic race” had colonized Europe in the past, leaving behind impressive structures.

It is worth reiterating that the concept of “human races” is scientifically baseless. The notion that the Germanic people colonized the world is equally unfounded. However, for the Nazi regime, it was necessary to justify the invasion of neighboring countries and the exclusion and extermination of the “Other,” the “inferior” who had no place in the new national narrative.

Why did Nazism need archaeology?

Nazism aimed to revolutionize society, not merely change it. They sought to replace it with a world dominated by the so-called “superior Germanic race.” To legitimize their project, they relied on two disciplines: biology, to attempt to demonstrate the physical existence of races, and archaeology. The latter was tasked with proving the dominance of the “Germanic race” over the European continent from the beginning of human history, justifying their ethnic cleansing project. For example, in Ukraine and Poland, where Slavic populations resided, the Nazis aimed to show that these territories were previously occupied by people of “Germanic race.” According to this pseudo-demonstration, it became legitimate to eliminate all non-Germans, as they were considered intruders in their history.

Since the 19th century, archaeology has demonstrated that it was not the Germanic people, but Mediterranean civilizations—the Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans—that had a profound cultural influence in Europe. This was unacceptable to the Nazis. According to their racial ideology, it was impossible for “Germanic” Europe to have been dominated or educated by Mediterranean cultures, which they considered “inferior races.” Therefore, the Nazis constructed a counter-history of humanity.

How did the Nazis alter history?

For them, the form and style of objects from past societies were evidence of the ethnic and racial identity of the people who produced them—a completely unrealistic assumption. They sought houses, cemeteries, vases, monumental constructions, and tombs of chiefs “made by the Germanic people.”

For example, in Germany, between the 13th and 10th centuries BCE, “urnfield” cemeteries were found. People from the Bronze Age were cremated, their ashes placed in vases and buried in small pits. The Nazis discovered similar cemeteries in eastern France and as far as Spain, concluding that this was undeniable evidence of a large-scale Germanic colonization.

However, it must be stated clearly: material culture is not evidence of ethnic or “racial” identity. Consider, for instance, the Gothic architecture of the late Middle Ages. Gothic cathedrals can be found from northern Italy to Great Britain and Northern Europe. Yet, there is no “Gothic people” or “Gothic race.” It was Christianity that united people speaking different languages, with different institutions—living in different ways.

Nazi archaeology had grand ambitions. How did it differ from the way the discipline was practiced before?

Before the Nazis came to power, archaeologists were scholars with limited resources. Most hired a few workers to conduct necessarily limited excavations. They shared their research findings within highly specialized scientific circles, not reaching the general public. With Nazism, archaeology became a state project: to restore the grandeur of the “Germanic race’s” history. The Nazis ensured the dissemination of discoveries through radio, cinema, and even sports and women’s magazines. Additionally, the teaching of Germanic archaeology at universities reached unprecedented levels, especially in newly annexed territories like Alsace-Moselle.

Regarding European archaeologists, such as the French, they were at the forefront of research at the end of the 19th century but regressed during the interwar period. Archaeology remained primarily an amateur practice, as many professionals died during World War I. The discipline was hardly taught at universities. Field research was conducted by teachers, priests, workers, and farmers who dedicated their free time to it. When confronted with German archaeologists interested in their discoveries, these amateur researchers did not always realize the enormity of the ideological project underlying German archaeology. They were flattered by the attention and resources provided. However, this does not absolve them of responsibility: by putting their discoveries at the service of the “Germanization” of French archaeology, their culpability remains undeniable.

In the 1930s and 1940s, 86% of German archaeologists joined the Nazi party. It was one of the most “Nazified” professions in Germany. How can this be explained?

Since 1933, there were job opportunities and resources in archaeology. Thanks to the new regime, German archaeologists benefited from an unprecedented increase in funding and positions, which more than quintupled. In some regions, financial resources were multiplied by ten. Researchers saw the possibility of undertaking prestigious excavations abroad. Archaeology became a recognized and valued profession, creating a significant demand for a young generation. In summary, it attracted a number of opportunists who turned a blind eye to the most disturbing aspects of Nazi politics.

However, there was also a significant portion of individuals ideologically convinced of the righteousness of the Nazification of German archaeology. More than a quarter of archaeologists were also members of the SS elite organization. For example, the prehistorian Gustav Riek held responsibilities in a concentration camp while also directing archaeological excavations. The boundary between the two roles was so blurred in his mind that he used his SS officer’s cap to provide scale in his field photographs at one of his excavation sites…

What about archaeologists who resisted?

Some refused this logic and did not join the Nazi party, at the expense of their careers—the remaining 14%. Those of Jewish origin were forced into exile by the Nazis. Outside of Germany, everyone seemed paralyzed. For instance, an American art historian, Alfred Barr, attended the first public meeting of the “Combat League for German Culture,” a Nazi organization aiming to monopolize art and culture, in 1933. No major American magazine would publish his report, as the situation described by Barr seemed inconceivable at the time. It was only in 1945 that it became clear that Barr had merely reported on elements of the program methodically implemented by the Nazis.

After the war, many of these Nazi archaeologists slipped through the cracks of denazification. Why?

Because it was not a priority for the Allies in 1945. American and French authorities initially sought war criminals—those with blood on their hands. Moreover, they did not fully grasp how the work of archaeologists had served as ideological legitimation for the regime. Above all, they had limited knowledge of what had transpired and lacked access to the archives.

As a result, many archaeologists quickly regained university positions and ended their careers in the 1970s or 1980s, showered with honors. They trained students and could be excellent professors. No one spoke of these stories, and for many, it seemed inconceivable that they had served National Socialism. When these archaeologists died, their biographers omitted the part of their lives during the war and under Nazism.

What events shed light on this history?

The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 revealed the Nazi party and SS archives preserved in the East. These archives were well-maintained, containing documents necessary for joining the Nazi party—CVs, letters of intent—written by archaeologists, as well as evaluations from their superiors throughout their careers under the regime.

This allowed us to gradually piece together the puzzle during the 1990s. It was only at the beginning of the 2000s that it became truly possible to reconstruct this suppressed history, thanks to a generational shift, particularly in Germany. When one is too close to the events, it is difficult to approach the subject as a historian. Generally, the generation of actors says nothing, and the generation of their children does not ask questions. It is only with the generation of grandchildren that a genuine effort is made to understand what happened.

What is the legacy of Nazi archaeology on the discipline?

The archaeology invented by the Nazis, with its known magnitude, produced an immense documentary base. After the war, archaeologists continued to work with this data until the 2000s! Such documentation is biased, as the Nazis primarily sought elements that supported their ideology: lavish tombs of warrior chiefs, vast dwellings, powerful fortifications…

This reflected only a small part of reality. The development of preventive archaeology excavations renewed this significantly compromised documentary base. In this context—excavating before building a highway, for example—one does not choose what is found, resulting in a much more representative image of what is truly in the ground.

In conclusion, the example of Nazism shows that archaeology can be a weapon of mass destruction, used to create a history that excludes the “Other.” This opens the door to segregation and, ultimately, the extermination of all those denied the right to be part of this history. Even today, we see the rise of such discourse, which falsely relies on history to claim the existence of “pure” origins. Archaeologists, therefore, have an ethical responsibility, like doctors who take the Hippocratic Oath. We must ensure that our work cannot be used for discriminatory purposes. Today, we can no longer pretend not to know.