Anthropology, ethnography and prehistory – a hidden thread in the history of German archaeology

German archaeology before WWII is normally seen as dominated by the chauvinist "settlement archaeology" of Gustaf Kossinna and his pupils, or by Gero von Merhart's strictly typological approach. There is another, older school of thought though, going back to Rudolf Virchow, who in 1869 founded the German Society for Anthropology, ethnology and prehistory (DAG). This remained the most influential prehistoric society in Germany right up to the First World War. The first university chairs normally combined physical anthropology/anatomy and prehistory, and often ethnology was taught as an integral part of the curriculum. I am going to look at the work of Karl Weule (1824-1926), who in 1902 became the first German chairholder in ethnology. He was also the director of the Leipzig Museum of Ethnology, where he amassed an amazing collection of artefacts, aiming to cover all parts of the globe. Weule was influenced by Friedrich Ratzel, and, to some extent by the Viennese "Kulturkreislehre". His aim was to look at the development of human culture in general in an universal perspective. This made prehistory an integral part of ethnology. In numerous publications, Weule studied different areas of human existence – subsistence, technology, habitation, war etc. and tried to trace the origin and spread of inventions. Even today, his publications remain a great source for an ethnography of materials (Sachvölkerkunde). Weule's approach lost its attraction after WWI with the loss of Germany's colonies and an increasingly bitter revanchism, leading to racist views on Germanic superiority, which made the comparative approach of Weule's generation appear obsolete. The severed connection between archaeology and ethnology was never really overcome even after WWII, and ethnographic analogies, let alone theories remained deeply suspect.