|
Archival Reports |
The Centre for the Preservation of Historico-Documentary Collections (TsKhIDK) or the late secret Osobyi Archive in Moscow has recently published a small brochure1 on its holdings of Belgian origin. The texts are based on the introductions of the inventories. The introduction of the issue itself provides no further information on the origins and acquisition of these records by the TsKhIDK. In general terms it says that the Belgian documents have been taken away from Wolfelsdorf, near Habelschwerdt (Silesia) by the Red Army in Autumn 1945.
A search on the spot already reveiled more fundamental information on the Belgian archives than the introduction in the brochure of the TsKhIDK does2. Still, this partial presentation of its collections - with a modest circulation of 200 copies - is significant. It confirms and makes more explicit a policy of openness which started only a few years ago.
Meanwhile, a number of the archives described in the brochure are being microfilmed. It was the Archive and Museum of the Socialist Labour Movement (AMSAB) of Ghent that took this initiative last year. This way important material on social history should be available to research in Belgium. Among other things, it concerns the personal papers of the socialist politicians Louis Bertrand and Arthur Wauters, and those of the progressive liberal Ernest Mahaim. There is also the paper patrimony of socialist organizations such as the freethinkers organization "L'Affranchissement" (1873-1919) and the records of the party newspaper "Le Peuple". But above all, there are the documents of the National Institute of Social History, which started its activities in 1937, but gathered an important collection in only a few years. Last but not least, we have to mention the records of the Council for the Prosecution (Brussels) with interesting files on anarchist, communist, and socialist organizations and activities during the inter bellum period.
All in all, this microfilm project concerns hardly a tenth of the whole substantial Belgian archive treasure conserved in Moscow. Given the present silence on this matter, it is obvious there is no question of any kind of restitution of the original material in the near future. Reproducing the Belgian archives in order to answer the research questions only emphasizes the historical value of the documents and confirms the necessity of the restitution of the originals.
Wouter Steenhaut, Michel Vermote,
1 Fondy Bel'giiskogo Proiskhozhdeniia: Annotirovannyi ukazatel, compiled by T. A. Vasil'eva and A. S. Namazova; edited by M. M. Mukhamedzhanov, Moscow, Rosarkhiv, TsKhIDK, 1995.
THE RETURN OF THE LUTHER MANUSCRIPT "WIDER HANS WORST" (AGAINST HANS WORST) TO GERMANY
Thinking of spoils of war you may have the idea of destroyed, looted or hidden art treasures or stolen goods. But the recovery and the return of the Luther manuscript "Wider Hans Worst", written 1541, has nothing to do with anybody's interest in making money with stolen objects. It rather is an example of honesty and a noble attitude towards history.
It was early in June 1995 that the "Kulturhistorisches Museum Magdeburg" (Museum of Cultural History), the former "Kaiser Friedrich Museum Magdeburg", received the first hints of a story which has now come to a fairytale ending. The German Ministry of the Interior asked the director of the museum, Matthias Puhle, to prove the ownership of the Luther manuscript "Wider Hans Worst". As we had been working on a documentation of the Magdeburg spoils of war we could tell the ministry that despite the loss of the inventory we could provide copies of insurance documents. We also had various museum documents and lists of those objects which were brought into a salt mine 30 kilometers south of Magdeburg in order to protect them against air-raids.
Each of these files mentions three Luther manuscripts owned by the museum of Magdeburg. The other manuscripts mentioned were "Vom Abendmahl. Christi Bekenntnis" (About Communion. Confession of Christ), 1528, and "Bericht von beider Gestalt des Sakraments" (Report on the two Forms of the Sacrament), 1528.
When Matthias Puhle was asked to give reasons why the manuscripts should return to Magdeburg he stressed their importance for the Federal State of Sachsen-Anhalt. After decades of censorship Luther's writings would help to remind the citizens of their religious and spiritual roots.Finally, a government official came to Magdeburg to reveal the fate of the Luther manuscript. We learned that in 1950 Pastor Theodore P. Bornhoeft of the Trinity Lutheran Church had written to the Concordia Historical Institute in St. Louis: "Under separate cover per registered mail, I am sending you a valuable original manuscript written by Martin Luther, entitled 'Wider Hans Worst'". Bornhoeft also wrote that it was given to him by a Baptist chaplain who had found it on a factory floor. "I am sending it to you for safekeeping." Stating that he would send the manuscript to the Lutheran Research Institute and its archives to keep it in a safe place he suggested to put the following notice into the book: "Presented to the Concordia Historical Institute for safekeeping, by former U.S. Army Chaplain Theo. P. Bornhoeft until the opportunity presents itself when he can safely return and present it to the City of Magdeburg, which is now occupied by the USSR".
Professor Pollock of the Lutheran Research Institute agreed with this by promising that he would follow the instructions. He added: "I pray that nothing will happen to it during the time we hold it for you."After the reunification of Germany forty years later, the present director of the Concordia Historical Institute, Reverend Daniel Preus, remembered this promise. He got in contact with the German consulate in Chicago. Meanwhile the museum in Magdeburg also followed the official diplomatic way under direction of the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
On February 20th, 1996 a solemn return ceremony took place in the exhibit hall of the Concordia Historical Institute. The German government probably was afraid of negatively affecting the friendship of the two countries because of the German claims on spoils of war. The very clear attitude towards ownership rights and moral values, however, led to a common interest in this matter. The speech of the former director of the Institute, Reverend Suelflow, characterized this attitude when he proudly proclaimed: "The privilege is ours, under God's blessings to return our special friend Luther to his homeland".
While Preus referred to the theological content, particularly to the difference between the true ancient and the false new church, Puhle underlined the historical meaning of Luther's response. In his defense of the Protestant Elector Johann Friedrich of Saxony against the Duke Heinrich of Braunschweig and Wolfenbüttel - whom he called "Hans Worst" ("Hans Worst" was the name of the medieval clown characterized by a sausage around his neck) - Luther articulated the reasons for the War of Schmalkalden. Puhle expressed his gratitude towards the Concordia Historical Institute and the late chaplain Bornhoeft for the return of the manuscript.
Mark Scheland, responsible for German affairs within the U.S. State Department, also thanked the institute "for its very admirable contribution to the American-German relations". The representative of the German government, Consul General Gabriele von Malsen-Tilborch, focused on the heart of the matter: "There were and still are other people in other countries who consider it a quite legitimate punishment and a rightful compensation for their losses to keep for themselves cultural treasures taken away from a country that had started the war". She continued: "On the other hand, to deprive a country of the better parts of its identity means to deprive it of its chance to improve, to heal, to become a valuable member of the family of man and to make its contribution to it."A few days later the events came to a happy ending in the town hall of Magdeburg.
The lord mayor, Willi Polte, presented all three Luther manuscripts to the public. The two other writings had been handed back in connection with an exchange of cultural objects between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic shortly before the radical change in Europe in 1989. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the following events they simply had been forgotten. German news reports on the return of "Wider Hans Worst" reminded a librarian of the other manuscripts so they could return to Magdeburg as well. It underlines the importance of the writings that they were shown in the Luther exhibition organized by the "Berliner Staatsbibliothek" in March 1996.
We are aware of the fact that the story of these manuscripts is exceptional. However, it certainly is a crucial example to encourage legal and just behaviour. The team of the museum continues the research on the lost picture gallery and other losses of war and resulting damages. More than 350 copies of the war loss catalogue - "Alles verbrannt?" (All Burnt?) - have therefore been sent out worldwide to museum directors and art dealers. In addition we asked the International Foundation for Art Research (IFAR) and its London based equivalent, the Art Loss Register, for further investigations.
As we know that not everything was burnt we still hope to find witnesses who can give evidence of what had happened to the museum's storeroom in the saltmine Neustaßfurt in April 1945. That is the reason for our article in the newsletters of the U.S. veterans and for our question to the Dutch "Vereniging ex-Dwangarbeiders" (Union of former compulsory workers) asking them for assistance: "Did the Dutch who were forced to work in Neustaßfurth remember the stored objects?".
Finally, there are clues that German civilians have taken away art objects in the turmoil of the end of the war. We also want to overcome the silence of the old German witnesses. Of course it is uncertain whether more cultural treasures from Magdeburg will turn up in the future. But we think the research is worth the effort, because it helps us to enlighten and to understand the Magdeburg history.
Tobias von Elsner,
RESTITUTION BY THE MUSEUM OF PRE- AND EARLY HISTORY IN BERLIN. TWO EXAMPLES
In the 60ies, the Museum for Pre- and Early History (MVF) 'through official channels' received gold finds of the Archaeological Museum in Poznan to be held in trust. These objects were considered missing since 1945, i.e. war losses.
On a yearly basis, the former director of the MVF tried - also through official channels - to be granted permission to inform the Polish colleagues, with whom one had closely been working together in many fields, about the existence of the finds - without success. Only after the opening of the borders in 1992, these finds were sent back to Poznan, and thanks to a new publication (see bibliography) they are now accessible for science.
In 1980 and 1985, the Museum of Pre- and Early History acquired a group of historical objects, mainly finds from the Bronze Age in the region of the Black Sea, from a private collection in Berlin. During a guided tour through the museum in 1988, the prehistorian Professor Alexander Leskow identified one of these objects. With joint efforts the MVF and Professor Leskov succeeded in discovering the place where the items originated from, namely the Ukrainian Historical Museum in Cherson at the lower reaches of the Dnepr river.
Already in 1989, the author had access to original documents from a Soviet special archive, which prove the confiscation of the group of objects by a special unit of the SS. Only in 1994, the objects could be returned to the original owner during a ceremonial hour by the President of the foundation "Preußischer Kulturbesitz", Werner Knopp, and in the presence of the Ukrainian Ambassador. Maybe the delay since their identification was crucial for their successful return to the Ukraine.
It can also be proved that Ukrainian cultural treasures found in the Soviet and West-Allied Occupation Zones in Germany were returned to the USSR, but until today, a number of objects have still not returned to the Ukrainian museums to which they belong.In the same ceremony, the "Märkisches Museum Berlin" (now Townmuseum Berlin) received from the Ukraine finds of the so-called Kablov excavation. This excavation was led by the German museum in the years 1938-1942. The finds were evacuated to Silesia and found by the Soviet army. A part of the objects was given to Riga, the other part to Kiev (Academy of Sciences). The part from Kiev returned to Berlin in1994.
Klaus Goldmann,
COMMENT ON THE SOVIET RETURNS OF CULTURAL TREASURES MOVED BECAUSE OF THE WAR TO THE GDR
As far as figures in the context of cultural treasures are meaningful, it should be stressed that during the early 50ies until the late 80ies all in all 1.9 million cultural objects belonging to German owners have been returned by the USSR to the GDR. The beginning of the returns to the GDR was the time just after Stalin's death, a time of political relaxation and the time when, parallel with the transfer of extended foreign sovereignty rights, the GDR was being integrated into the Eastern system of alliances.
In 1955, a party decision followed by a government resolution led to the handing over of 1,240 objects of the Picture Gallery in Dresden and of extensive archival material on foreign politics of the German Reich and Prussia (200 tons). According to this decisions in 1956/57 books, e.g. from Gotha, the "Staatsbibliothek Berlin" and the "Sächsische Landesbibliothek", were also given back.Some more detailed comments shall be made on the most extensive and most valuable returns of 1,574,106 cultural objects carried out in 1958/59, which were examplary for all following restitutions of cultural treasures from the USSR to the GDR. As a result of negotiations conducted by a governmental delegation of the GDR in Moscow (January 3rd-8th 1957), a joint declaration was formulated. Both parties expressed their willingness to "examine all questions arising in the context of mutual returns of cultural treasures (art objects, archival material etc.) in order to bring to an end the resolution - initiated by the government of the Soviet Union - of the specific problems deriving from the war times." From May until October 1957, with reference to this declaration, the GDR presented lists of moved cultural treasures of public collections of which "the Soviet organs had taken possession due to conclusions the corresponding organs of the GRD had come to".
These partly quite detailed lists had been drawn up within a short period of time and were the result of comparisons between inventory lists, lists of transferred treasures, and accounts of eyewitnesses. It was even possible to partly use acknowledgments of receipts signed by Soviet officers. According to the instructions of the GDR authorities involved (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Cultural Affairs, and the Office of State for Higher and Special Education) private claims as well as losses "due to war fightings" were not to be included in these lists of missing cultural treasures. The demands of the GDR tried to take up the Soviet argument of the saving and protection of German cultural treasures; the reports of some museums and collections were altered in this sense by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the GDR.
Nevertheless, the archival documents show that the GDR quite possibly had the sincere intention to settle the matter once and for all. Once again in 1957, all public collections of the GDR were asked to check their inventory for cultural treasures transferred from the Soviet Union. The result of this investigation was that despite intensive research "no cultural treasures of the USSR are situated in the GDR" (GDR note, October 16th, 1957). This conclusion should not have been a surprise for Soviet specialists.The handing over of the notes was followed by a process of formation of opinion by the Soviet side, which took a couple of months. The return of archival and library material from April 1957 until March 1958 (ca. 250,000 records and books), however, was not affected by this process.
Up until May 1958, the GDR urged its Soviet partners, by means of verbal notes and discussions on various levels, to enter negotiations on the procedures of the return of cultural treasures. The Soviet side declared that a considerable part of the cultural objects searched for were found and a definite handing over was being prepared. Eventually on May 15th, 1958, Chrushtshov replied to a letter from the GDR Prime Minister Grotewohl with the announcement of a decision of the Soviet government "to return artistical and historical valuables" to the GDR. As a result of government negotiations from June 26th until July 2nd, 1958, conducted by the deputy Ministers of Culture, a mutual report was agreed upon which stated that the handing over was to begin on October 15th and to be completed by January 1959.
Before the official handovers in Moscow, Leningrad and Kiev, representative exhibitions were organized at the Hermitage Museum and the Pushkin Museum in Moscow which were received enthusiastically by the public. Between August and December 1958, a group of 26 German experts, staff members from museums, libraries, and archives, obtained objects from 24 museums, authorities, and state institutions in Moscow, Leningrad, and Kiev. All items were registered in Russian lists. Later, copies of these lists were included into the archives of the larger museums in the GDR. Among the cultural treasures received there also were objects of private ownership as well as isolated objects of West German public collections (they could be returned due to German-German agreements until 1990 or afterwards).
The GDR received no information to which extent the Soviets had used their right to produce reproductions, photographs, plaster casts, etc. All costs in connection with the return of the cultural treasures including those for restoration, packing, and transport were calculated by the Soviet Union and added up to 4,193,137 rubels and 28 copecks. They were payed by the GDR. After the returned objects were reintegrated into the museums, libraries, and archives of the GDR, it was noticed that the return obviously had been carried out only partially and that some of the most valuable items still remained in the Soviet Union. No specific criteria could be found by which certain objects were sent to the GDR and others were not. It became more and more apparent that considerable amounts of objects had not been given back.
However, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the GDR renounced any consultation initially taken into consideration.Even after a mutual government report, on July 29th, 1960, which states the end of the returns of 1957/58, the Soviets initiated further, though less spectacular, returns during the following years. Those concerned, for example, a botanic collection (1963), archival material (1964), paintings and drawings (1967), as well as a scientific-technical library containing about 24,000 volumes. The notes which announced the handing over of these objects always referred to the return agreements of the USSR government dating back to the 50ies.The restitution of collections from Leningrad to Leipzig which ended in 1978 was "a masterly performance of logistics and secrecy". 45,000 ethnographic and pre- and early historic objects were given back. A linguistic ruling was agreed upon in case of questions arising about the origin of the collections or the time of their return to the GDR which should not allow any conclusion on actual facts such as e.g. the claim of ownership of museums situated in West Germany.
Besides the restitutions organized on a diplomatic level, there were other examples of less complicated returns, e.g. a painting of the school of Rubens which was wrapped in brown paper and was handed over to a representative of the Ministry of Cultural Affairs of the GDR in 1986. Up until the late 80ies the USSR did not consider any reparations or compensations.Historians, art historians, and librarians received more and more information about valuable German cultural treasures still remaining in the USSR. Also first signs of political changes could be noted. According to this the GDR party leaders agreed by the mid 80ies to the proposal to initiate new talks with the USSR on the subject of cultural treasures moved due to the war, hoping to "achieve the restitution of further objects in the long term".
The GDR went by former experiences that "in correspondence with the interpretation of the law and the practice of the USSR with regard to the treatment of cultural treasures after World War II" the USSR since 1953 had returned objects successively to the GDR. However, until the far-reaching changes in the year of 1989, this subject (with the exception of archival material) was tackled quite hesitantly. Only later, during the last months of the existence of the GDR, general and specific claims for restitutions were articulated to the Soviet Ministries of International Relations and Cultural Affairs. Obviously, at the same time also other countries formerly belonging to the Eastern bloc were making similar requests. The head of the cultural department of the Soviet Ministry for Foreign Affairs gave the stalling explanation that existing demands (including the ones of the USSR) could only be resolved to everybody's satisfaction by means of an all-encompassing approach through a group of experts.
Petra Kuhn,
This article is based on documents left by the Ministries of Cultural and Foreign Affairs of the former GDR.
The threats to the world's cultural objects have increased greatly in recent years. They include the pillaging of archaeological sites, the illegal export of objects protected by national legislation, the theft of individual works of art, and looting, damage, and destruction in times of war and civil disorder.
Recent military conflicts have exacted a heavy toll on the cultural heritage. The catalogue of losses includes the museums and monasteries, and religious shrines in Cambodia which were destroyed deliberately by the Khmer Rouge; the National Museum in Kabul, Afghanistan (devastated and looted); the Musée de Beruit, Lebanon (reduced to a burnt-out shell by 15 years of civil war); and the World Heritage Site of the city of Dubrovnik, Croatia (badly damaged by bombardment).
In 1992 the Croatian government reported that 470 monuments (121 of which are of national or international importance) had sustained damage in the war with Serbia. Religious buildings were the worst affected category of monuments. Of the 241 churches and monasteries listed as casualties, 61 were destroyed and 75 heavily damaged. The conflict in Bosnia has been even more devastating, with recent reports claiming that 1,470 mosques have been damaged or destroyed in what has been described as a campaign of 'cultural cleansing'. During the Gulf War Kuwait notified UNESCO of the removal of thousands of cultural objects by the occupying Iraqi forces. Iraq, in turn, has circulated lists of objects taken from a number of its regional museums. Fifty years after its end, World War II continues to cast a shadow over the cultural property debate. Recent disclosures that major works of art taken from Germany by the Red Army have been stored in Russian museums - coupled with revelations about the scale of the organized looting carried out by the Nazis in occupied Europe - have brought the impact of war on cultural objects back into the public eye.
Those engaged in combatting the illicit trade in cultural objects point out that an object that has been stolen or illegally exported is not likely to be recovered unless it has been photographed and adequately described. Even assuming that such precautions have been taken, it is then essential to circulate details effectively to organizations that might be able to assist in an object's recovery. Ideally, the information should be able to travel as fast or faster than the object, crossing national borders and circulating to numerous organizations.
Recognizing these needs, the Getty Information Institute has initiated a collaborative project - "International Documentation Standards for the Protection of Cultural Objects" - which encourage the compilation of adequate descriptions of objects in standardized forms. Agreement on the information content of descriptions of objects is an essential precondition to the development of the efficient information networks that are needed to combat the illicit trade. One of the problems is that the information needs of different organizations vary.
For instance, police agencies will require different information from museums, but both need descriptions that will enable the object to be identified. Examples of this essential, or 'core' information might include the material an object is made of, its measurements, any distinguishing features, and the date of its creation.
The first step towards building a consensus on the 'core' has been to identify the categories of information regarded as essential by the various communities that have a role to play in the protection of cultural objects (e.g. museums, law-enforcement agencies, the insurance industry, and the art trade). These categories have been identified by a combination of background research, interviews, and, most importantly, by international questionnaire surveys.
The first of these surveys was carried out between July and December 1994 by the Getty Information Institute and was endorsed by the Council of Europe, the International Council of Museums, and UNESCO. The respondents from 43 countries included many major museums and galleries, heritage documentation centers, INTERPOL, and a number of national law-enforcement agencies.
The results of the survey demonstrated that there exists a broad consensus on many of the categories of information which are candidates for inclusion in the proposed 'core' standard (the findings of the survey have been published in "Protecting Cultural Objects Through International Documentation Standards", The Getty Art History Information Program, 1995).
Since then two further questionnaire surveys have been conducted, the first of art insurance specialists (1995) and the second of appraisers of art and antiques (1996). These surveys show that the consensus identified by the 1994 questionnaire also exists in these two key private sector communities.
At an early stage in the project it was recognized that an object's physical condition provides one of the best means of identifying it uniquely. A mutual recognition of the value of condition information led to a collaboration between the Getty Art History Information Program and the Getty Conservation Institute. The two Getty programs organized a Conservation Specialists Working Group that has examined ways in which the recording of physical characteristics can assist the process of identification. One recommendation of this group has been that the proposed 'core' should include a category called 'Distinguishing Features', the purpose of which would be to record information about any features on an object that could uniquely identify it (e.g. damage, repairs, defects introduced in the manufacturing process). Taking this thought a stage further, one member of the group has been commissioned to develop an approach to making visual documentation of distinguishing features.
Visual documentation is of great importance to the process of uniquely identifying cultural objects. Law-enforcement agencies, in particular, assert that, without an image, a stolen object is unlikely to be recovered and returned to its rightful owner. There is general agreement that images of objects should form a part of 'core' records. With this in mind, the Getty Information Institute and the Getty Conservation Institute are collaborating on the preparation of a guide to photographing cultural objects, a publication that will place particular emphasis on the making of images that can be used for the purpose of assisting in uniquely identifying individual objects.
The results of the questionnaire surveys are being used to brief a series of roundtable meetings of experts drawn from the communities concerned. The first of these was a meeting of museum documentation experts, held in Edinburgh in November 1995. This was followed by a meeting of specialist art insurers, held at Lloyd's of London in March 1996. Future meetings will consult with law-enforcement agencies, the art trade, and organizations representing appraisers of art and antiques.
There has been a strong agreement on the content of the 'core'. So far, the following categories of information have been agreed upon:
Having identified the 'core', the next task will be to put it to work. The project has identified a number of ways in which use of the 'core' can be encouraged, including the following:
Robin Thornes, For further information about the project please contact: Dr. Robin Thornes, Getty Information Institute, PO Box 2038, Frome, BA 11 3YD, United Kingdom.
|
