Kohl y Perez Gollán 2002

C u r r e n t A n t h r o p o l o g y Volume 43, Number 4, August–October 2002
䉷 2002 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved 0011-3204/2002/4304-0002$3.00
publications include “The Balance of Trade in Southwestern

Asia in the Mid-Third Millennium b.c.” (current anthro-
Religion, Politics, and pology 19:463–92), “The Use and Abuse of World Systems
Theory” (Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 11:
1–35), and “Nationalism and Archaeology” (Annual Review of
Prehistory Anthropology 27:223–46).
j . a . p é r e z g o l l á n is Director of the Ethnographic Mu-

seum and Professor in the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters
at the University of Buenos Aires and a researcher at the Na-
Reassessing the Lingering tional Council for Scientific and Technical Research. He was
born in 1937 and educated at the National University of Cór-
Legacy of Oswald Menghin1 doba (Ph.D., 1977). Among his publications are “Los suplican-
tes: Una cartografı́a social” (Temas de la Academia Nacional
de Bellas Artes 2[2]:21–48) and “El jaguar en llamas: La reli-
gión en el antiguo Noroeste argentino,” in Nueva historia ar-
gentina, vol. 1, Los pueblos originarios y la conquista, edited
by Philip L. Kohl and by Myriam N. Tarragó (Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamericana,
2000).
J. A. Pérez Gollán
The present paper was submitted 26 vii 01 and accepted 5 ix 01.
The writings and career of Oswald Menghin are rarely

treated in Anglo-American archaeological publications;
This article illustrates the dangers of mixing religious certi- he is not even mentioned in Trigger’s magisterial History
tudes and political activities with the study of the remote of Archaeological Thought (1989), nor is he provided a
prehistoric past by critically reviewing the works of one of
biographical sketch in the monumental Encyclopedia of
the 20th century’s most prolific and (once) influential prehis-
torians, Oswald Menghin. Menghin’s reconstructions of the Archaeology (Murray 2001). In contrast, major studies of
past were inspired by a moral crusade against the perceived his career have been published in German (e.g., Urban
evils of materialist evolutionism, an agenda that during the 1996), and he is one of the 50 non-Spanish archaeologists
1930s assumed an explicitly political dimension consistent highlighted in the authoritative Diccionario de arqueo-
with Nazi ideology. His subsequent exile to Argentina was
not a simple retreat to a safe haven but an opportunity for logı́a, recently published in Madrid (Franch 1998).
him to confirm a universal world history extending back into Menghin’s students, many of whom were passionately
the Palaeolithic that purported to link major cultural develop- devoted to their mentor, have greatly influenced subse-
ments in the New World with earlier developments in the quent generations of archaeologists in Austria, Germany,
Old. Menghin’s theories, which today appear dated and mis-
Argentina, and, less directly, in other countries still
taken, were once widely accepted and developed by scholars
of the Vienna culture-historical school of ethnography, one of strongly committed to the culture-historical approach.
the main theoretical sources for culture-historical archae- Recent references in English to Menghin’s work are
ology. The latter approach, the dominant archaeological prac- often misleading or incorrect. Thus, Menghin has been
tice in many European and Latin American countries, is here mistakenly dismissed as a Nazi who was summarily re-
reevaluated in the light of this mistaken legacy, and it is ar-
gued that “peoples without prehistory” deserve to have theirs moved from his position as Austrian minister of cul-
rediscovered and reconstructed through archaeological re- ture and education in 1945 (Arnold 1996:558–59), even
search. The paper concludes by discussing the constraints of though he was never formally admitted to the party and
archaeological evidence for identifying correct readings of the left his ministerial position in spring 1938, less than two
past and by calling attention to the difference between relig-
months after he had assumed office. Paradoxically,
ious and political convictions and scientific theories that are
openly subjected to testing and empirical refutation. Menghin’s career, which demonstrates strikingly the
dangers of combining politics, religion, and prehistory,
p h i l i p l . k o h l is Professor of Anthropology and Kathryn should elicit greater interest in contemporary Anglo-
W. Davis Professor of Slavic Studies at Wellesley College American archaeology, given this tradition’s proper em-
(Wellesley, Mass. 02481-8203, U.S.A. [[email protected]]). phasis on socially contextualizing an archaeologist’s
Born in 1946, he was educated at Columbia University (B.A.,
1969) and Harvard University (M.A., 1972; Ph.D., 1974). His
ideas and activities. By presenting and evaluating
Menghin’s life and works, we hope to foster a dialogue
among archaeologists from different scholarly traditions
1. This paper was written largely during Kohl’s visit to Argentina
on a Fulbright fellowship in spring 2000; he thanks the Fulbright who are concerned with issues such as the appropriate
Foundation and Wellesley College for this support during his sab- role of prehistory in addressing contemporary political
batical leave. The Fundación Antorchas provided financial support and social issues and the value of detailed culture-his-
for the Spanish translation of Geist und Blut, and the Rockefeller torical reconstructions of the remote past.
Program at the Museo Etnográfico in Buenos Aires also gave funds
to support research for this paper. We wish to acknowledge the There are several ways to account for Menghin’s obliv-
useful information, suggestions, criticisms, and references provided ion in the Anglo-American literature. First and foremost,
by M. A. Caggiano, A. Gramsch, O. Kohl, C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, his archaeological interpretations have not withstood the
M. Luz Endere, M. I. Martı́nez Navarrete, I. Podgorny, G. Politis, test of time. His ambitious worldwide reconstruction of
I. Sergatskov, V. Shnirelman, and the anonymous reviewers for cur-
rent anthropology, which improved our essay considerably. We
the Palaeolithic, Weltgeschichte der Steinzeit (1931), is
also thank the editor, Ben Orlove, for his numerous thoughtful of only historical interest as a monumental failure to
suggestions. We remain responsible for the final version. define “culture circles” (Kulturkreise) or durable areal
561
562 F c u r r e n t a n t h ro p o l o g y Volume 43, Number 4, August–October 2002
traditions of cultural development in the Lower Palaeo- man-speaking peasantry never diminished even during
lithic. His attempts to document significant contacts be- his long Argentine exile.3
tween the Old and New Worlds from the earliest times Menghin attended the University of Vienna from 1906
to the rise of pre-Columbian civilizations appear even to 1911, receiving his Ph.D. in prehistoric archaeology
more contrived and at odds with the current stress on in 1910. In 1914 he founded the Wiener Prähistorische
the independent evolution of complex states in the New Gesellschaft and became the editor of the Wiener Prä-
World. His adoption of the theories and methods of the historische Zeitschrift, a position that he held for nearly
Viennese culture-historical school of ethnography pro- 30 years while writing scores of articles and reviews for
moted the development of culture-historical archae- the journal. He was appointed professor of prehistoric
ology, which is still the dominant paradigm in conti- archaeology at the University of Vienna in 1918, ten
years before the first chair in prehistory was established
nental Europe and Latin America although it has long
in Germany (Arnold and Hassman 1995: 76), and served
been summarily dismissed by adherents of the proces-
as dean of the philosophy faculty at the university during
sual and postprocessual approaches of Anglo-American
1927–28. He then taught in Cairo as a professor in res-
archaeology. Finally, most Anglo-American archaeolo- idence at the University of Egypt from 1930 to 1933,
gists do not read continental European and Latin Amer- during which time he directed important archaeological
ican writings, particularly earlier works that they incor- excavations at the predynastic site of Maadi. His major
rectly characterize as atheoretical. prehistoric synthesis on the Palaeolithic, Weltgeschichte
We shall review Menghin’s life and works in the hope der Steinzeit, appeared in 1931, while he was in Egypt,
of partially bridging the linguistic and conceptual chasm and was reissued in 1941; this study applied the Kultur-
that separates the continental European and Anglo- kreis concept of the Vienna ethnographers to Palaeolithic
American archaeological traditions. In a sense, his writ- materials and attempted to write a universal history of
ings and those of the hyperdiffusionist school that he the Old Stone Age. Adherents of this school lavishly
championed gave culture-historical archaeology an un- praised it (for example, see the citations in Narr 1958:
deservedly bad name. We will attempt to redress this 77). Particularly after the publication of his magnum
situation and argue that “prehistoric peoples without opus, Menghin was appointed to many international
history” should have theirs reconstructed as painstak- honorary societies, becoming a corresponding fellow of
ingly and specifically as possible and not just be pigeon- the Prehistoric Society of Great Britain in 1937, two
holed into preconceived neoevolutionary stages or for- years after V. G. Childe had respectfully critiqued his
mulations. Menghin’s career also vividly illustrates the study for this body in his presidential address.4
pitfalls of emphasizing the relevance of a specialist’s
knowledge of prehistory for solving contemporary social 3. See the loving eulogy written on the centenary of his father’s
birth (Menghin 1956). Menghin not only assiduously collected the
and political problems. We will show how his ideological local Volkskunde and excavated local remains from prehistoric
rigidity led him to engage in reprehensible political ac- through medieval times but also wrote fiction and composed poetry
tivities and to distort and tendentiously interpret the on the native peasants (Narr 1958:76); during the war years, he even
archaeological record. returned to the Tirolean countryside to conduct field investigations.
His romantic attachment to these peasant roots and German peas-
antry (Bauerntum) in general had a rapturous, almost mystical qual-
ity: “The economy over which the peasant presides has a marvel-
ously stable internal structure. It has everything a family needs to
Menghin’s First Career sustain itself. . . . It is the land on which the peasant lives . . . with
which he feels one and what he loves”(“Das wirtschaftliche Ge-
bilde, an dessen Spitze er steht, ist von einem wunderbar ausge-
Oswald Menghin was born in Meran, then a small town glichenden inneren Gefüge. Es ist alles da, was eine Familie
in the southern Tirolean part of the Austro-Hungarian braucht, um sich selbst zu genügen. . . . Es ist die Erde, von der
Empire (now Merano in northern Italy), in 1888.2 He Bauer lebt . . . er fühlt sich eins mit ihr und liebt sie”). Strengthened
by divine Christian grace, “the peasant is the ultimate source of
completed all his preuniversity training, including eight
energy for the struggling people of higher culture, resembling a force
years in a Benedictine gymnasium, in Meran. His first of nature which appears invincible” (“die letzte Kraftquelle rin-
collections and publications of folk art, customs, and gender Völker höherer Kultur, ist der Bauer einer Naturgewalt
songs (Volkskunde), as well as his first archaeological gleich geworden, die überwindlich scheint”) (Menghin 1934:
109–11, our translation). Such a bond with his people and homeland
excavations (1908–14), conducted with his father, Alois might be more appealing had not Menghin argued in the same essay
(the son of impoverished peasants who had become the that it was the peculiar attachment of the Germans to their peas-
principal of a local Grundschule), were all undertaken antry and their soil that made life with the unsettled urban Jews
within his beloved Tirolean homeland. Menghin’s strong impossible (see below).
4. Childe’s scientific and personal relationship to Menghin is un-
emotional attachment to this countryside and its Ger- clear, though they certainly were aware of each other’s major ar-
chaeological works. Menghin, for example, wrote highly positive,
informed reviews (1933a, 1939a) of Childe’s The Danube in Pre-
history and The Prehistory of Scotland. In his presidential address
to the Prehistoric Society in 1935, Childe respectfully referred to
2. For another recently published detailed account of Menghin’s life Menghin’s works three times. He was skeptical of Menghin’s ap-
and scholarly and political activities during his first academic life plication of the Vienna culture-historical school’s Kulturkreis con-
in Austria, see Urban (1996). cept to the Palaeolithic in the latter’s monumental Weltgeschichte
k o h l a n d p é r e z g o l l á n Religion, Politics, and Prehistory F 563
Menghin published a small but influential book in themselves with such intensity that they can beget
1934 entitled Geist und Blut: Grundsätzliches um the most profound spiritual need. Many hope that
Rasse, Sprache, Kultur und Volkstum, in which he em- prehistory will provide the redeeming word [erlö-
phasized the social and political value of prehistory and, sende Wort], though that is expecting too much.
to a lesser extent, ethnography, its complementary allied Neither can it provide ultimate solutions. But at
discipline, for confronting and solving the pressing issues least it is able to show that the doctrines of materi-
of the day (1934:16–17, our translation):5 alist evolutionism—as well as some others—have no
scientific validity.
To a greater degree than any other discipline, prehis-
tory is the focal point [Brennpunkt] of the most im- Armed with his specialist knowledge about race, lan-
portant spiritual battle of our time and could be- guage, and culture (concepts which, for Menghin, were
come still more so. I believe that I am not mistaken never completely decoupled), the prehistorian is consid-
when I assert that prehistory together with physics ered uniquely qualified and morally obliged to combat
will become the leading science of coming genera- the evil of godless evolutionism and, as the essay con-
tions. Although the metaphysical requirements of cludes, address the most pressing social issue of the day:
humanity have appeared to be asleep for some time the Jewish Question.
because of the opiate of materialism and positivism, Menghin’s only foreseeable solution, in 1934, for the
they have returned with great force and imposed “newly enflamed battle” (des neu entflammten Kamp-
fes) between the German people and Judaism was to sup-
der Steinzeit (1931) and believed that Menghin’s approach tended port the Zionists, since assimilation was unacceptable.
to isolate cultures from their environment, ignoring function: The moral imperative was clear: “Every people has not
“Menghin insists so strongly on an axe as an expression of a his- only the right but also the moral duty to defend its na-
torical tradition that the reader may forget that it is an implement tionality” (1934:171),6 a theme which he reiterated in
for felling trees” (1935:14). Nevertheless, Childe explicitly ac-
even starker terms in “Die wissenschaftlichen Grundla-
knowledged the potential significance of Menghin’s great work:
“The culture-cycle as a methodological device deserves most se- gen der Judenfrage,” an article submitted to the Nazi
rious consideration by archaeologists. It may be a revolutionary periodical Der Weg (cf. Geehr 1986:20). According to
innovation, but it is still very much on trial” (p. 15). Menghin, the Jews threatened the integrity of the
It is useful to recall that in a short essay published in Antiquity German people because their language, Yiddish, was too
in 1933 Childe argued that the main value of “objectively studied
prehistory” was to show the continuous intercourse and diffusion close to German, making it possible for them “to pen-
of ideas and technologies from one culture and people to another etrate into the German spiritual world” (i.e., their assim-
throughout prehistoric times and to insist that no single group was ilation had already proceeded too far) and because they
responsible for the development of this constantly growing, shared were urbane and cosmopolitan (as well as having “an
tradition. He sharply distinguished biological from cultural evo-
exaggerated intellectual life and an extremely acquisitive
lution and explicitly criticized the theory of the racial superiority
of the Aryans that had then revolutionized the whole structure of cupidity”) whereas the German people were still
society “in one great country” (1933:410). Given the sharpness of uniquely bonded to their soil. The positive values of the
his critique of Nazi racist ideology in this essay and the critical German peasantry were undermined by Jewish city
respect he accorded Menghin in his Prehistoric Society address, it dwellers. Menghin’s prejudices are manifest throughout
is obvious that Childe had not read Menghin’s Geist und Blut
(1934). He also apparently did not perceive the tendentious, reli- the work. Cultural differences are said to have a racial
giously inspired dogmatism in Menghin’s works and, indeed, that (biological) basis that can be observed “in the eminent
of the entire Vienna culture-historical school. The two eminent aptitude for cultural creativity among Europeans, for te-
prehistorians met at a conference on early man in Philadelphia in nacity and cruelty among Mongolians, and musical pre-
1937 (Childe 1937; see their papers in MacCurdy 1937), but, un-
dispositions among Negroes” (1934:67).
fortunately, it has been impossible to determine whether they
maintained an active personal correspondence. Intriguingly, the Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that this
Spanish archaeologist Carlos Alonso del Real Ramos (1991:166, 168) work does not advocate the Nazi myth of Aryan racial
claims that Childe personally intervened with the Russians to save superiority, and Menghin himself was critical of the In-
Menghin’s life in 1945 after the occupation of Vienna, though this dogermanen theories and identifications of Gustaf Kos-
account seems implausible because Menghin was resting on the
Mattsee near Salzburg and not in Vienna at the end of World War sinna (Menghin 1922a, b) and of particular works on the
II (Urban 1996:9). primeval Aryans (e.g., Menghin 1935) and treatments of
5. “Stärker als jede andere Disziplin ist die Urgeschichte in den culture and race (1939b) that struck him as scientifically
Brennpunkt der geistigen Kämpfe unserer Zeit gerückt und dürfte unsound.7 His solution for the Jewish Question was for
es noch mehr werden. Ich glaube mich nicht zu irren, wenn ich
behaupte, dass die allgemeine Urgeschichte, neben der Physik, sich
zur führenden Wissenschaft der nachsten Generationen erheben 6. “Jedes Volk hat nicht nur das Recht, sondern auch die sittliche
wird. Das metaphysische Bedürfnis der Menschheit war durch das Pflicht, sein Volkstum zu verteidigen.”
Opium des Materialismus und Positivismus zwar für einige Zeit 7. Menghin’s objections to Kossinna’s writings and to later works
betäubt gewesen, ist aber wieder mit voller Macht hervorgebrochen that were patently inspired by Nazi racial ideology were based prin-
und kommt mit einer Intensität zur Geltung, wie sie nur tieffte cipally on his knowledge of the archaeological record. He simply
geistige Not erzeugen kann. Viele erwarten von der Urgeschichte did not believe that everything significant originated in northern
das erlösende Wort. Das ist zuviel erhofft. Auch die Urgeschichte Europe; while in his opinion race and culture were intimately in-
wird letzte Entscheidungen nicht geben können. Über sie wird wen- terconnected, they were not synonymous. Thus, for example, he
igstens in der Lage sein, zu zeigen, dass die Untworten des mater- objected to J. Andree’s contention that the Upper Palaeolithic blade
ialistischen Evolutionismus—und manche andere dazu—keine wis- cultures were indigenous to Europe and did not originate in Asia
senschaftliche Tragfähigkeit besitzen.” and to Andree’s belief that “culture is only a function of race” (cited
the Jews to leave Europe for Palestine; writing in the Both were diffusionists, insisting on the constant sharing
early 1930s, he took a position consistent with but not and exchange of ideas, technologies, and, ultimately,
identical to the Nazi program that was motivated by his genes, but there the similarity ended. Their political
overdeveloped sense of a duty to save his people. sympathies, of course, were diametrically opposed:
Throughout his very long life, Menghin fought against whereas Childe was an atheist and an increasingly com-
atheistic evolutionists; they were the real enemy, not mitted Marxist, Menghin was an ardent Catholic and
the Jews—or, perhaps better, the evolutionists remained Nazi sympathizer who labored strenuously throughout
the enemy long after the Jewish Question had been the early and middle 1930s to unite Austria with Ger-
solved. many in a new German Reich as a naı̈ve bridge-builder
War clouds were of course gathering over Europe dur- (Brückenbauer) between the Catholic nationalist intel-
ing the 1930s, and both Childe and Menghin believed lectuals and what he believed were the more moderate
then that their discipline had an important positive role elements among the National Socialists. Childe’s dif-
to play in confronting the important issues of the times.8 fusionism was simpler and more consistent than
Menghin’s: rather than a superior race directing the pro-
in Menghin 1939b:181). In these respects, Menghin’s views seem cess there was an exchange that operated in all direc-
quite similar to those of Father Wilhelm Schmidt (Brandewie 1990: tions, creating one shared tradition. A favorite metaphor
238–39 and see below). Schmidt’s writings got him in trouble with
the Nazis and ultimately led to his exile in Switzerland, while of Childe’s was that of a stream gathering its waters from
Menghin’s reviews were carefully enough phrased not only not to countless different sources until it became a mighty
antagonize those who became his political superiors but also, for river, representing all humanity’s common cultural in-
a while at least, to endear him to them. It is difficult not to detect heritance (Childe 1954:22–23). Menghin’s “universal his-
a calculating opportunism in some of these reviews. Thus, in dis-
tory of prehistory” fundamentally differed. He admitted,
tinction to his earlier reviews of Kossinna, Menghin’s 1933 review
(1933b) faithfully mentioned Kossinna’s scholarly shortcomings even emphasized this sharing and insisted that all hu-
while acknowledging the current popularity of Kossinna’s works manity took part in the same universal world-historical
and their potential significance for the writing of ethnic his- process, while at the same time maintaining an almost
tory—specifically, the prehistory of the Germans. Menghin rec- religious belief in the existence of three fundamental
ognized with approval that the aim of Kossinna’s “national science
of German prehistory” extended beyond the scientific [ausserwis- culture circles or Kulturkreise. He traced these three
senschaftliche] to the cultural-political. He argued that specialists traditions—blade, bone, and hand-axe—to the begin-
could easily recognize and correct Kossinna’s mistakes and that nings of the Palaeolithic and saw them as corresponding
because of the books’ great value for lay readers in introducing them respectively to the three basic races of humanity, white,
to the magnificent world of the early history of the Germans they
yellow, and black—a kind of archaeologically or scien-
belonged “in every German house” (1933b:145).
8. Our intent in this essay is not to contrast the wise, politically tifically grounded vision of humanity mirroring the bib-
correct, or, at least, sympathetic Childe with the dangerously mis- lical division of Noah’s offspring, Shem, Ham, and
guided and dogmatic Menghin. Both were great, exceptionally pro- Japheth.
ductive prehistorians, and both exhibited seriously flawed political As a general principle, Menghin believed that farther
judgments. Childe’s unwillingness to condemn outright the liqui-
dation of archaeologists in the Soviet Union (of which both he and back in the Stone Age there was a greater correspondence
A. M. Tallgren [1936] were aware) and his unstinting praise of Stalin between race, language, and culture;9 subsequently,
throughout the war and afterwards at least until 1947 (see the con- mixtures and hybridizations constantly occurred, mak-
clusion to his History [1947:83]; for recent documentation of the ing it impossible today to refer to pure races, languages,
repression of archaeologists in the Soviet Union during Stalin’s
or peoples. (This was a view shared with the ethnologist
time, see Formozov [1998]) are, even when properly contextualized,
impossible to condone. While Childe’s posthumously published Father Wilhelm Schmidt of the Vienna school but es-
criticisms of Soviet archaeology were severe, they referred almost sentially at odds, of course, with Nazi Aryan ideology
exclusively to its methodological shortcomings (excavation tech- [see n. 7 above].) Nevertheless, according to Menghin,
niques, quality of publications, etc.) and not to the earlier purging our Stone Age inheritance was very persistent, making
and repression of archaeologists (Childe 1992, Merpert 1992).
Childe’s undeniable contributions to prehistory were far greater and it impossible, “because of the racial difference, for a Ne-
more lasting than Menghin’s and his politically clouded views far gro ever to become an Englishman” (1934:129) despite
less serious in their practical effects than those in which Menghin the ability to speak English and the desire to become
became entrapped; nevertheless, Childe’s misguided judgments such. Healthy peoples (Völker) today, which he called
should not be overlooked. Childe’s life and prehistoric reconstruc-
“races in gestation” or in the making, exhibited cultural
tions have been the subject of numerous recent biographies (Trigger
1980, McNairn 1980, Green 1981) and collections (Manzanilla 1987, and physical features which were remarkably stable over
Harris 1994, Gathercole, Irving, and Melleuish 1995, Wailes 1996, the course of several millennia. It was as if different in-
Sherratt 1997). Unfortunately, these studies typically only empa- soluble or partially soluble substances had flowed to-
thize with Childe’s Marxism and fail to evaluate critically his mis-
placed and excessive fondness for Stalin and the Soviet Union (see,
for example, Green’s [1981: 102–4] discussion of Childe’s revived World’s Foremost Problem. At the same time, while the sincerity
interest in Marxism and trip to the Soviet Union at the end of World of Menghin’s muddled beliefs cannot be questioned, it is impossible
War II). not to view some of them as guided by careerism and self-pro-
Conversely, Menghin’s racism too must be interpreted in the motion; for example, he was appointed rector of the University of
context of the times in which he was writing. Racist ideologies and Vienna shortly after publishing Geist und Blut.
confusions linking race, language, and culture were hardly limited 9. “Das berechtigt uns, den allgemeinen Grundsatz aufzustellen,
in the 1920s and ’30s to German-speaking lands; many important das wir, je weiter wir in der Menschheitgeschichte zurückgehen,
Nazis found their initial anti-Semitic inspiration in “famous” mit desto stärkerem Zusammenfallen von Kultur, Rasse und Spra-
American studies such as Henry Ford’s The International Jew: The che rechnen dürfen” (1934:30).
gether into Childe’s mighty river or, more precisely, were

continuously mixed in a single great body of water like
the world’s oceans. They all participated in the same
universal historical process, but they remained forever
qualitatively distinct.
A year after writing Geist und Blut, Menghin was ap-
pointed rector of the University of Vienna (1935–36),10
and two years later, after greeting Hitler on Austria’s
“longest day,”11 he became minister for culture and ed-
ucation (fig. 1) in the Seyss-Inquart cabinet (fig. 2), a po-
sition he held for less than two months before he peti-
tioned to return to the university and expressed his
willingness to serve in the Monument Service if it were
to be reactivated (Urban 1996:9).12 He returned as a pro-
10. His experiences during 1935–36, when university life was highly
politicized and the Nazis, aided in part by Menghin’s own efforts,
were trying to obtain legal status, are recounted in Bildung, Wis-
senschaft, und Leben: Kundgebungen und Ansprachen während
meines Rektorsjahres (1936). Surprisingly, both Geist und Blut and
Bildung, Wissenschaft, und Leben are singled out explicitly for
praise by Narr (1958:80) as “an ever-open source of stimulation and
Fig. 1. Menghin as minister for culture and educa-
reflection” (geöffnete Quelle der Anregung und Besinnung) in his tion, Vienna, Austria, Spring 1938. (Adapted from
homage to the scientific work of Menghin on the latter’s seventieth Narr 1958.)
birthday in 1958; the first of three photos of Menghin included in
this Festgabe shows him at work at his desk as minister for culture
and education, the position he so briefly held. Both Menghin and
Narr must have remained proud of his brief stint as minister. To
our knowledge, Menghin never publicly acknowledged his political
fessor to the University of Vienna in August 1938 but
misjudgments. Despite the horrors of World War II and the Holo- continued to receive his minister’s salary in recognition
caust, his moral agenda and that of at least some of his followers of his help in propagating the “cultural goals of National
never essentially changed. Socialism.” Despite this recognition, he was never ad-
11. The historian G. Brook-Shepherd tellingly refers to Menghin,
Wolf (the foreign secretary), and Glaise-Horstenau (the vice chan- mitted as a full member of the Nazi party; his uncon-
cellor) as “an assorted band of well-meaning muddlers.” In this ditional loyalty remained in question because of his un-
appointed cabinet they represented “moderate Austrian Nazidom changed religious convictions and earlier association
tempered with pan-German Austrian Catholicism” (1963:179). with then-banned Catholic groups (cf. Geehr 1986:18–19,
12. Menghin’s naı̈ve belief that conservative Catholic values would
flourish under the Nazis was quickly dispelled, and he left and/or 24). He received an unlimited discharge from state ser-
was dismissed from his ministerial position in less than two vice in 1945,13 and his curriculum vitae in the archives
months despite his initial efforts at “cleansing” Austrian higher of the Museo Etnográfico in Buenos Aires states that he
educational institutions (die Säuberung der Universitäten) of
overrepresented “foreign elements” [Überfremdung] (Urban 1996: left the University of Vienna in March 1945, before the
9; Haag 1995:159, 163). Haag’s characterization of these National- Russian invasion (cf. n. 4). As a former member of the
Catholic intellectuals seems to have been written with Menghin Seyss-Inquart cabinet, he was named a war criminal, and
in mind (pp. 145, 165–66; see also his description of the Austrian from May 1945 to February 1947 he was interned in
National-Catholic intellectuals as “parlor brownshirts” (Haag 1980:
240): “what united these Catholic National intellectuals ideolog- American camps in Ludwigsburg and Darmstadt, West
ically and emotionally was their passionate belief in the Reich. This Germany, where he apparently made about 100 public
new, authoritarian state and society would take the German Volk presentations—presumably to fellow inmates—on pre-
far beyond the travails of the Western democratic civilization that
had brought Europe to the brink of destruction. On the ruins of a
history, Volk- und Landeskunde, art, and religion. A year
selfishly individualistic capitalism and a menacing Marxism a new after his release from his last American camp Menghin
and uniquely German culture would be created, and they, as learned went to Argentina, having been invited with official pas-
men pure in spirit, would clearly play a leading role in this noble sage by the Argentine government. Almost immediately
reconstruction of the Central European social order. Deeply com-
mitted to these ideals, the scholarship of these men was permeated
by the romantic belief that the superior German Kultur and its
profound Geist could only be properly interpreted by a select elite
of intellectuals like themselves. . . . Why were so many otherwise edgeable in small areas of knowledge but almost totally ignorant
intelligent and essentially decent human beings so profoundly de- in many others, particularly in the complex, shifting and morally
ceived by Nazism? Why had they given so little thought to the ambiguous arena of public life.”
consequences of Anschluss? One must keep in mind the immense 13. Our source here is Narr (1958:73: fristlose Entlassung aus dem
impact of romanticism on German intellectual life to grasp how österreichischen Staatsdienste). His scholarly output of 1938–45
powerful concepts like . . . the mission of an educated elite could continued, though at a greatly reduced rate. He conducted some
create mentalities easily manipulated by the nihilistic Nazi leaders. field investigations in Tirol during the war years and also traveled
Central European intellectuals had pitifully little experience in the to Francoist Spain in 1942; this first visit to a Spanish-speaking
real world of power and politics. Modern professional training had country was an experience that would prove useful for him in his
turned many faculty members into Fachidioten, brilliantly knowl- postwar life in Argentina (Urban 1996:9).
Fig. 2. Menghin (back row, center) with other members of the newly formed Seyss-Inquart cabinet in Vienna,
March 1938. (Adapted from Brook-Shepherd 1963.)
he was appointed distinguished extraordinary professor scholarly activities. He founded the Centro Argentino de
at the University of Buenos Aires.14 Estudios Prehistóricos and became the editor of Acta
Praehistorica in 1957; he visited archaeological sites
throughout Argentina and Chile and conducted no fewer
Menghin’s Second Career than 30 expeditions, including important archaeological
investigations of Palaeo-Indian remains, particularly in
Having settled in Argentina, Menghin promptly began Patagonia, such as his excavations at the famous site of
his second career as a prehistorian and produced nu- Los Toldos in the province of Santa Cruz during the early
merous able and devoted students who enthusiastically 1950s. He was proud of his work in Patagonia, defining
studied world prehistory and the tenets of culture history an early Riogallegian I (Olivian) culture and comparing
under his knowledgeable supervision. Through his stu- his later Toldian or Riogallegian II materials with those
dents, his influence still permeates Argentinian archae-
earlier excavated by Junius Bird in southern Chile. For
ology (figs. 3 and 4).15 There was no abatement in his
Menghin the comparison of his materials with Bird’s pro-
14. Menghin obtained his official identity card in Buenos Aires in
vided proof of his theory of an early “protolithic bone
early May 1948. Less than two weeks later J. Imbelloni, the director culture” with its roots in East Asia (1962:84) to which
of the Institute of Anthropology, helped him secure his professor- these materials were ultimately related.
ship at the university; Menghin remained forever grateful, an ad- In 1957, at the age of 69, Menghin became Profesor
mirer of Imbelloni’s racial studies (see below). Interestingly, in one
of his last reviews for Acta Praehistorica Menghin fondly remem- titular de Prehistoria at the Universidad Nacional de La
bers how the Abbé Breuil had tried to help him in his darkest hour Plata, a position he held until his retirement. In 1957 he
by sending him to South Africa; by the time Breuil intervened, was also awarded his pension from Austria as a retired
Menghin had already found his way to Argentina (Menghin
1971:271).
university professor, and in the following year, at the age
15. The loyalty and respect which Menghin engendered in his stu- of 70, he was presented with a Festgabe published in
dents are reflected in the anonymously published notice of his death Austria in honor of his scientific accomplishments (Narr
which appeared in the journal Relaciones: Sociedad Argentina de 1958). Menghin died in November 1973 in Buenos Aires
Antropologı́a (Relaciones 1974:9, our translation, see also Schob-
inger 1959, 1973): “Soon [after his arrival] one could appreciate the and is buried in an Austrian-style vault in a cemetery
beneficial influence of an authentic master. The ideas that he de-
veloped, inspired by the culture-historical school, positively at- ideas que desarrollará, inspiradas en la escuela histórico-cultural,
tained the summit of anthropological science in Argentina. . . . The impulsaron positivamente el auge de las Ciencias Antropológicas
virtues which characterized the personality of Dr. Menghin were argentinas. . . . Las virtudes que embellecı́an la personalidad del
always legendary for those who had the good fortune of visiting Dr. Menghin fueron siempre proverbiales para quienes tuvieron la
him frequently in the department or in his small office at the Eth- fortuna de frecuentarle asiduamente, tanto en la cátedra, en su re-
nographic Museum in Buenos Aires or in his house. His jovial and cogido despacho del Museo Etnográfico de Buenos Aires, o en la
intelligent conversation was always filled with wisdom; behind the casa donde vivı́a. Su jovial e inteligente conversación estaba per-
austere scientific spirit of the prehistorian, one could glimpse the manentemente llena de sabidurı́a y tras si austero espı́ritu cientı́fico
poetic and philosophical world that exalted his soul” (“Bien pronto de prehistoriador dejaba entrever el mundo poético y filosófico que
pudo apreciarse la beneficiosa influencia del auténtico maestro. Las engrandecı́a su alma”).
The range and volume of Menghin’s scholarly works

are truly astounding; his first publications on Tirolean
Volkskunde (collections of songs and plays, etc.) ap-
peared in 1908, and he was still active in the mid-1960s,
for example, revising and expanding his study on the
origin and antiquity of human races. The bibliography
(Narr 1958) compiled for his Festgabe contains 877 en-
tries. Perhaps most impressive are his numerous reviews
of major archaeological studies in French, Spanish, Ital-
ian, German, and English on European, Near Eastern,
African, and American materials in his role as editor of
the Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift and, later, Acta
Praehistorica, as well as those written for Runa and other
journals. For example, he wrote an article on the Pa-
laeolithic in America and published 41 extensive and 137
brief or annotated book reviews in Acta Praehistorica
(see Menghin 1971) when he was 83 years old. In one of
these reviews, a very positive evaluation of Alonso del
Fig. 3. Menghin examining Palaeo-Indian cave paint- Real’s Sociologı́a pre- y protohistórica, he apologized for
ings in Chubut Province, northern Patagonia, Argen- the lateness and brevity of the review; he believed that
tina. (Adapted from Narr 1958.) the book deserved more and sadly admitted that his fail-
ing energy had kept him from providing it.
on the pampas in Chivilcoy, where the local archaeo- As an archaeologist, Menghin never limited himself
logical museum is named after him (fig. 4).16 to a single area or time period. His interests (as well as
his beliefs and theories) were extremely catholic, ranging
16. At the end of his life Menghin lived with his daughter in Chi- from his Palaeolithic investigations on a world scale to
vilcoy. He donated materials from his collections, particularly from his collections of contemporary material culture from
his excavations in Patagonia, to the newly established museum,
and in appreciation the museum was named after him. He never
had a chance to visit it, since he was hospitalized in Buenos Aires trating the continuing respect accorded him in Argentina and Ar-
when it opened in October 1973; a month later he died. In Septem- gentine archaeology (information kindly provided by M. A.
ber 1979 the museum organized a symposium in his honor, illus- Caggiono).
Fig. 4. Menghin Museum, Chivilcoy, Argentina. (Photo courtesy of M. A. Caggiano.)

his beloved Tirolean homeland and patriotic novels and career to “proving” the great antiquity of hominids in
verse and from Central Europe to Egypt and southern- the New World and “demonstrating,” along with other
most South America. Insatiably curious and fascinated culture historians of the Vienna school such as Robert
by human diversity and history, he never ceased working Heine-Geldern (1954, 1958), the dependence of cultural
even after his internment and subsequent emigration. evolution in the Americas on earlier developments in
Comfortably ensconced as a distinguished professor in the Old World. Menghin concluded his final major racial
Buenos Aires from the beginning of his Argentine exile, study, Origen y desarrollo racial de la especie humana,
Menghin could have let up and published the occasional which appeared in 1965 in a second revised edition, with
article on European or American antiquities. He did the the following proud assertion (1965:129, our translation):
opposite, becoming an expert on early American mate- “One cannot doubt that the canvas we have painted al-
rials, excavating under harsh field conditions, and con- ready has life and color, a profound temporality and spa-
tinuing to publish countless articles and reviews. What tial expanse; the aboriginal American is set within the
was it that drove him as he began his second career in grand context of universal history instead of isolated as
the Americas at the age of 60? The answer to this ques- a curiosity and mystified in terms of origin and subse-
tion reveals not only Menghin’s personal moral agenda quent development. The ‘Indian sphinx’ no longer
but also features of the Vienna culture-historical school exists.”18
with which he so proudly identified himself throughout A review of Menghin’s later publications shows that
his long, illustrious career. he had set himself the task of proving these intercon-
nections from the very beginning of his exile in Argen-
tina. In 1949, shortly after his arrival, he read a general
Menghin’s Mission in the Americas paper at a conference in Mendoza on the Palaeolithic
(1950:3–74) entitled “El hombre del Paleolı́tico, con re-
Menghin arrived in the Americas not only to seek safe ferencias a America.” The article reads as if it were an
haven and escape his troubled past but also to document introduction to a graduate course on the Palaeolithic,
conclusively that the prehistory of the New World was conveniently summarizing Menghin’s theories of sepa-
intimately linked to that of the Old. For Menghin and, rate culture circles as well as his views on Palaeolithic
more generally, for the entire Vienna culture-historical art and religion, including the original fall from primor-
school, it was essential that all humans, including the dial monotheism which he believed the archaeological
aboriginal inhabitants of the Americas, had a common
record unequivocally confirmed.19 Human biological ev-
origin and participated in the same divinely created uni-
olution had occurred, but it had nothing to do with the
versal historical process.17 Physical and cultural devel-
“psychic problem.” “The origin of the human soul and
opments in the Americas had to be related to those in
the formation of man as a spiritual being is a subject
the Old World rather than constituting an independent
which is entirely distinct. . . . There is no point of union
example of evolution to be explained solely by material
between man and animals from the spiritual point of
factors such as adaptations to different environments.
view” (1950:15, 18). Decadence had already set in by the
Menghin remained convinced of the value of his spiritual
interpretation of prehistory; he was combating the same later Upper Palaeolithic, during which time one finds
enemy—godless materialism and evolutionism—on the caches of human skulls, evidence, according to Menghin,
new soil of the New World. for head-hunting and cannibalism and the belief in an-
Menghin devoted the last years of his second academic imism and spirits—later developments that “gradually
obscure the primordial monotheism.” He concludes
17. This moral imperative of the Vienna culture-historical school (1950:69, our translation):20
can be traced directly at least to the writings of Friedrich Ratzel
(Vázquez León and Rutsch 1997:126–29); it is also consistent with 18. “No puede ponerse en duda que el cuadro que pintamos ya tiene
the monogenetic, biblically inspired views of early 16th-century vida y color, profundidad temporal y envergadura espacial; colora
Spanish chroniclers such as Diego Durán and Bernardino de Sa- al aborigen americano en el gran contexto de la historia universal
hagún, who believed that the Aztec Mexicans had originally sailed en vez de aislado como una curiosidad y de mistificar su origen y
to Mesoamerica from somewhere overseas (Davies 1987:15). desenvolvimiento. Ya no hay ‘una esfinge indiana.’”
Menghin embraced this doctrine after it had been further elaborated 19. Despite the obvious problems with its documentation from
by Father Wilhelm Schmidt and associated with Schmidt’s concepts ethnographic and archaeological sources (monotheistic missionar-
of primordial monotheism and primary revelation (Uroffenbarung); ies converting “ethnologically old” natives, inherent ambiguities
God had revealed himself to humans at their beginning or in their of the evidence), primordial monotheism still finds its adherents
“ethnologically oldest” documented stage, and from then on they and sources of support today, particularly in popular introductions
were destined to participate in a shared developmental or historical to anthropology (for example, Zubov 2000).
process. From this perspective, the Vienna school’s diffusionism 20. “Con esto llegamos, en el fin de nuestras explicaciones, a un
sharply contrasted with that promoted by Childe. Childe focused concepto filosófico de la historia cultural, que tal vez no les gusta
his efforts on explaining the peculiarity of European prehistoric a aquéllos, que creen en un progreso contı́nuo de la humanidad.
developments and never really concerned himself with the pre- No cabe duda, que en lo que se refiere a la técnica, a la civilización
Columbian archaeological record. He regretfully admitted his ig- externa, la humanidad evolucionó y evoluciona en el sentido de
norance about developments in the New World but never totally ascenso. Pero esto no vale para la vida espiritual, por lo menos en
grasped their significance for his broader concerns with social and los ojos de los que contemplan la cultura del alma como el alma
cultural evolution. In a sense, for Childe all the developments in de la cultura. Ellos podrı́an preguntarse, si el hombre más primitivo,
the Americas formed a major tributary that joined the grand current el hombre del paleolı́tico antiguo, el hombre que vivı́a en condi-
of human culture only at the beginning of the 16th century a.d. ciones materiales e intelectuales de extrema sencillez, pero natur-
With this we have arrived at the end of our investi- situation needed to be rectified, and this was a task
gations of a philosophical concept of culture history, Menghin set for himself (1950:29–30, our translation):22
one that is not pleasing to those who believe in the
In order to put the science of Palaeolithic archae-
continuous progress of humanity. There can be no
ology in Argentina on a solid basis, it is necessary to
doubt that in terms of technology and external civi-
conduct new excavations with all possible scientific
lization, humanity has evolved and this evolution is
precision. We will see if the material obtained dur-
in the form of an ascent. But this is not true for
ing the heroic period of prehistoric investigations in
spiritual life, at least for those who consider the cul-
Argentina is corroborated by the new data obtained
ture of the soul as the soul of the culture. These lat-
through excavations in the modern style.
ter are able to ask whether the most primitive man,
the man of the Lower Palaeolithic, the man who Coming down to more recent times, Menghin also saw
lived in material and intellectual conditions which close parallels between the blade tools of European Up-
were very simple but natural and healthy, was not per Palaeolithic cultures and the bifacially retouched
more content with himself, happier, and closer to projectile points found in the lowest level at Sandia Cave
God than the man of more advanced cultures. in New Mexico, “which are strikingly similar to the So-
lutrean leaf-shaped blades” (1950:43).23 Unfortunately,
All these ideas were consistent with those earlier ad-
he said, Palaeolithic investigations in North America
vanced by Schmidt and the Vienna school of culture his-
were still “in diapers”24 because of the refusal of Aleš
tory; Menghin simply extended their theories, which
Hrdlička and his followers to consider any evidence for
were culled from the ethnographic record, back into ear-
it.
liest Palaeolithic times. For him the ethnographic record
Once arrived in the Americas, Menghin confronted a
assembled by the Vienna school and his reading of the
new enemy: the North American neoevolutionists. Ac-
Palaeolithic perfectly coincided and proved beyond doubt
cording to him, North American scholars exhibited a
that primitive peoples were originally monotheists, “a
mentality that was characterized by an absence of his-
fact which annihilates all the constructions of the evo-
torical sensibility (1965:110). They did not read anything
lutionists and psychologists with respect to the origin of
that was not written in English—though this was only
religion” (1950:33). Once more prehistory demonstrated
a partial explanation for their astounding ignorance,
its value (p. 35, our translation):21
since they were also poorly informed about what their
The enormous importance of prehistory and particu- British colleagues wrote. North American archaeologists
larly prehistoric archaeology is at the same time kept themselves busy with their research, but, astonish-
abundantly clear for the formation of our knowledge ingly, they concerned themselves with problems that had
of the universe, of an ideology founded on a scien- been solved by Europeans more than 150 years ago (1962:
tific basis, of a science that has certainly overcome 81–83). Their theories and concepts were half-baked, and
the infantile naı̈veté of the evolutionism and materi- they committed basic mistakes such as not distinguish-
alist philosophy of the past century. ing cultural stages (Kulturstufen) from cultural units
The belief in divine creation (Schöpfung) meant that
all of human history was interconnected, and for
Menghin this meant connecting developments in the 22. “Para colocar la ciencia del paleolı́tico argentino sobre una base
New World with those in the Old, even during Palaeo- sólida, es preciso ejecutar nuevas excavaciones con toda la exactitud
cientı́fica posible. Veremos luego si el material aportado en el perı́-
lithic times. He believed that the earliest finds in the odo heróico de la investigación prehistórica de la Argentina resiste
Americas should relate to his East Asian bone culture la prueba delante de los criterios nuevos, ganados por indagaciones
circle and argued that such evidence had already been de estilo moderno.”
found at Potter’s Creek Cave in Shasta County, Califor- 23. The theory of a connection between the Solutrean and Clovis-
related early projectile-point horizons in the Americas is today be-
nia, as well as probably at sites in southern South Amer- ing revisited, particularly in the wake of the discovery of the “Eu-
ica, though much of it lacked proper provenience and ropeoid” Kennewick remains (Begley and Murr 1999, Holden 1999;
stratigraphic control and had therefore been overlooked for a devastating critical review see Straus 2000). Even disregarding
the dreadful political consequences of these attempts (the disen-
or rejected by the North American evolutionists. The franchisement of the “Native Americans,” since “Europeans” sup-
posedly arrived first), these new theorists try to bring the Solutreans
across the northern Atlantic into the Americas, a highly implau-
sible reconstruction for which there is almost no supporting evi-
dence and for which little can be expected. Menghin, at least, traced
ales y sanas, no fué más contento con sı́ mismo, más feliz y más these connections with his blade culture circle across the Eurasian
vecino de Dios que el hombre de las culturas más avanzadas.” continent to Lake Baikal and on to the Bering Strait.
21. “Es a la vez una demostración sobremanera clara de la enorme 24. Later, in his 1962 article identifying the basic problems for
importancia de la prehistoria, y particularmente de la arqueologı́a research into the Urgeschichte of the Americas (see below),
prehistórica, para la formación de nuestro conocimiento del uni- Menghin evaluated the state of current research as “still standing
verso, de una ideologı́a fundada sobre una base cientı́fica, de una in children’s shoes,” a modest advance from his “diapers” assess-
ciencia que ciertamente ha superado la candidez infantil del ment of 1950—presumably in good part due to his own field
evolucionismo y del materialismo filosófico del siglo pasado.” discoveries.
(Kultureinheiten). A dogmatic orthodoxy25 that could be of the present ought to be resolved principally
traced to Hrdlička denied an early arrival of humans and in the field of the investigation of primitive history.
any human physical evolution in the Americas, despite Such a fact ought to be profoundly moving for any-
the great works in racial studies conducted particularly one who wishes to discover . . . the grand intellec-
in Central Europe between the two world wars (1965:77; tual connections and final causes and who desires to
1962:82–83), such as Imbelloni’s (1937) application of be in the position of distinguishing correct asser-
von Eickstedt’s (1934) American racial classification sys- tions from false ones. Everyone should have this de-
tem, which demonstrated the great antiquity of the dis- sire because everyone should not only have to sup-
tinct race of the Tierra del Fuegians (la raza fuéguida). port what is true but also assume moral responsi-
The enemy here is the same godless materialist evo- bility. The dangers of technical civilization that lie
lutionism, though its proponents have changed from the in wait for us can only be overcome, in the final
Marxists and Bolsheviks of the end of the 19th and the analysis, intellectually.
early decades of the 20th century to the North American
neoevolutionists of the second half of the 20th century. Menghin was still fighting the same dragons, though
Prehistory of the type espoused by Menghin and his they had assumed new forms.
school maintains its unique value for overcoming this In 1962 Menghin published an article in German, ded-
godlessness. The prologue to volume 1 of Menghin’s icated to Egon von Eickstedt, that identified three basic
Acta Praehistorica eerily recalls the opening pages of problems in the primeval history (Urgeschichte) of the
Geist und Blut written nearly 25 years earlier at the Americas: (1) the existence of Lower/Middle and ter-
height of his first academic career (1957:1–2):26 minal Lower/Middle Palaeolithic (epiprotolithischer)
cultures in the New World, (2) the existence of Upper
The final objective [of the journal and of Menghin’s Palaeolithic and terminal Upper Palaeolithic hand-axe
American, indeed lifelong, mission] is the universal cultures, and (3) the Southeast Asian (Chinese) origin of
history of primitive times, of the most ancient pe- the Neolithic food-producing and complex cultures
riod of human development, in which the cultural, (Hochkulturen) of the Americas and their maritime mi-
linguistic, and racial foundations on which man grations across the Pacific (1962:83). All of these prob-
raised himself to a historical perception of himself lems, in Menghin’s opinion, had been satisfactorily re-
and a rational comprehension of the universe were solved—the first two partially through his own efforts,
created. It is impossible to overestimate the impor- although some details, particularly in relation to evi-
tance of knowledge of human prehistory for the for-
dence for the earliest, pre-Wisconsin glaciation arrival of
mation of our concept of the world. Thus, insofar as
hominids, still needed additional clarification. Menghin
it deals with arguments based on the positive sci-
could finally rest easily; he had succeeded in linking the
ences, the throbbing social and intellectual problems
New World with the Old: “When one takes account of
these facts, one can for the first time bring a true order
25. For Menghin to complain of a dogmatic orthodoxy, of course,
is a little like the pot calling the kettle black. Nevertheless, he had
(wirkliche Ordnung) to American and universal racial,
a point, as the strong reluctance to accept the earliest recently ethnic, and cultural history” (1962:87, our translation).27
excavated materials from Monte Verde attests; Menghin, of course, Choas had been averted, the “Indian sphinx” extirpated.
would have welcomed these discoveries, though they would still Unfortunately, of course, Menghin’s evidence and
not have been early enough for him. Similarly, as Kehoe (1996) has
passionately argued, the very topic of possible pre-Columbian con-
demonstrations were not widely accepted at the time,
tacts across the oceans has become in many American schools a and subsequent research has proven them largely illu-
taboo subject, not open to objective scientific investigation. Blind sory. At some point, particularly after considerable re-
adherence to this or to any orthodoxy is subject to the same crit- search, negative findings cannot just be dismissed as
icisms we have of Menghin and the Vienna school; circular, ten-
dentious closed-mindedness is the antithesis of open scientific
Menghin was so fond of doing. His quest for a universal
inquiry. culture history in which everything was connected and
26. “El objetivo final es la historia universal de los tiempos pri- interdependent was based fundamentally on the religious
mitivos, es decir, del perı́odo más antiguo del desarrollo humano beliefs that he felt morally obliged to confirm. The uni-
en el que fueron creados los fundamentos culturales, lingüı́sticos,
versal history of Menghin and of the culture-historical
y raciales, sobre los cuales el hombre se elevó a la percepción his-
tórica de sı́ mismo y la comprensión racional del cosmos. No es school more generally differs from the universal world
posible sobrevaluar la importancia de los conocimientos de una prehistory later articulated by J. G. D. Clark and others.
prehistoria humana para la formación de nuestro concepto de Its obsessive diffusionism is explicitly opposed to evo-
mundo. Pues, en cuanto se trata de argumentos basados en las cien- lutionism and the reduction of human history to natural
cias positivas, los palpitantes problemas sociales e intelectuales de
la actualidad deben resolverse principalmente en el campo de la history, although the story it relates with exquisite at-
investigación de la historia primitiva. Tal hecho debe conmover tention to the archaeological record is one that shows
profundamente a toda persona que quiera hallar tras lo corriente y humanity’s continuous development from Stone Age to
material las grandes conexiones intelectuales, las últimas causas y historical times. What ultimately is meant by culture
que desee estar en situación de separar las afirmaciones correctas
de las falsas. Este deseo todos deberı́an tenerlo. Porque toda person history (Kulturgeschichte)? Shorn of its moral baggage,
no solamente tiene que soportar lo que sucede, sino que participa
en la responsabilidad moral. Los peligros de la civilización técnica 27. “Man wird erst eine wirkliche Ordnung in die amerikanische
que nos acechan, en última instancia, solamente pueden ser su- und allgemeine Rassen-, Stammes- und Kulturgeschichte bringen
perados intelectualmente.” können, wenn man diese Tatsachen berücksichtigt.”
to what extent is it necessarily opposed to evolution? scholarly roots that can be traced back ultimately to Al-
Does this culture history provide another illustration of exander von Humboldt (Bunzl 1996). As many have
the overworked opposition between diffusion and his- noted, the culture areas defined and elaborated by the
tory, on the one hand, and evolution, on the other? We Boasians resembled—albeit in modified form—the cul-
will address these questions first by examining more gen- ture circles postulated by Graebner, Frobenius, and
erally shared features of the Vienna school of culture Schmidt and can be critiqued on the same grounds (Váz-
history and then by considering the weaknesses and quez León and Rutsch 1997:134–35 and, ironically, Lo-
strengths of the culture-historical paradigm. wie 1937:180–85).
The methodological and theoretical shortcomings of
the Kulturkreis concept are well known, and it has been
Universal Culture History versus Modified widely discredited and even repudiated by the direct de-
Diffusionism: The Limits and Uses of scendants of the Vienna school. The principles of culture
Culture-Historical Archaeology history as developed by Fritz Graebner and elaborated by
Schmidt were intended to reconstruct the historical in-
As we have seen, Menghin’s views were heavily influ- terconnections among ethnographically documented
enced by those of the Vienna school of culture history, peoples on the basis of trait distributional patterns and
particularly those of Father Wilhelm Schmidt, as extend these interconnections back in time to produce
Menghin openly acknowledged. Menghin’s use of cul- an ethnographically based universal history of human-
ture circles, the concept of primordial monotheism, and ity. Their minimal reliance on archaeological evidence
his belief in a fall from an earlier state of grace or, at is striking from today’s perspective and easily explained
least one closer to God and nature can be traced directly by the tremendous gaps in the archaeological record with
to Schmidt.28 Both Menghin and Schmidt were philo- which they were confronted. In retrospect, the limits of
sophically and scientifically opposed to late 19th-century an ethnographically based universal history relying al-
evolutionism as promoted by theorists such as E. B. Tylor most exclusively on the distribution of material cultural
and Friedrich Engels, and they were convinced that their traits seem obvious; today one simply would not attempt
works had empirically demolished these “naı̈ve” evo- to reconstruct the remote history of a region without
lutionary speculations. The Vienna school’s critique of recourse to the archaeological record for that area. Eth-
evolutionism closely resembled Boas’s famous attacks, nography has redefined itself since the heroic days of
which were first articulated in 1896 and shared ancestral Boas and Schmidt—it is a new discipline with new con-
cerns and methods, though one that admits the need to
28. The political outlooks and prejudices of the two men were also appreciate the historical developments of the cultures it
remarkably similar, though from spring 1938 onward their lives studies.
sharply diverged—Schmidt needing direct papal intervention to es- Menghin courageously but unsuccessfully attempted
cape the Nazis and flee to Switzerland precisely at the time to extend the concepts and methods of the culture his-
Menghin was minister of education under the short-lived Seyss-
torians back into the Palaeolithic and to write a culture
Inquart regime (Brandewie 1990:245–71). Haag (1980), however,
lists both Schmidt and Menghin as representatives of the Austrian history replete with Kulturkreise and exhaustive trait
National-Catholic intellectuals who wittingly or unwittingly fa- lists based upon archaeological evidence. At the time he
cilitated the Nazis’ successful quest for acceptability and respect- undertook his great study, the effort seemed obvious and
ability, particularly during the early 1930s. Schmidt’s undeniably logical; through the principle of stratigraphy archaeolo-
immense contribution to anthropological and ethnological theory
(cf. Lowie 1937:188–95) was greater than Menghin’s to archaeolog- gists had firmer control over relative time than the eth-
ical thought, though Brandewie’s (1990:116) assessment of nologists, and his work therefore held the promise of
Menghin’s Weltgeschichte der Steinzeit as “a good example of ‘cul- independently confirming the reconstructions of the cul-
ture circle thinking’ at its worst” seems excessively harsh. Both ture historians. Unfortunately, this promise never was
Schmidt and Menghin were attracted to certain Nazi policies, such
fulfilled. As Childe suspected, applying the dubious and
as union with Germany and the promotion of childbearing, but
Schmidt quickly became dubious and distrustful of the Nazis prin- problematic Kulturkreis concept to the Palaeolithic was
cipally because of the strained relations that had developed between asking for trouble, akin to building one sand castle on
the Catholic Church and the Nazis in Germany from 1933 to 1938 top of another. Menghin’s three primary culture circles
(Brandewie 1990:213–16) and their manifest paganism, while, as we were preconceived and arbitrarily defined. Mixtures of
have seen, Menghin tried unsuccessfully to reconcile his Catholic
beliefs with Nazi policies. Schmidt’s anti-Semitism was, like supposedly diagnostic elements among the culture cir-
Menghin’s, more politically than racially inspired, but to our cles could, of course, be interpreted in classic diffusion-
knowledge it was never specifically linked to Nazi policies or cal- ary terms as evidence for cultural mixing and borrowing
culatedly designed to coincide with them as in Menghin’s Geist or, alternatively, as evidence undermining the validity
und Blut. Schmidt’s most explicit anti-Semitic writings, which su-
of the postulated culture circles themselves, and the lat-
perficially resemble Menghin’s in their celebration of peasant/rural
over urban life and their condemnation of liberalism, spiritless cap- ter explanation became more credible as inconsistent ev-
italism, and materialism, were first articulated at the end of World idence increased. In short, the contradictory evidence
War I in the face of the imminent defeat and dismemberment of could not forever be explained away as due to interaction
the Austro-Hungarian Empire. They provide evidence of how among the culture circles. Today Menghin’s Palaeolithic
widely diffused such anti-Semitic sentiments were in Austria at
the time rather than showing any direct link with the policies later culture circles have disappeared, washed away by the
adopted by the Nazis (cf. Vázquez León and Rutsch 1997:131); the tide of accumulating archaeological evidence.
same cannot be said for Menghin’s 1934 essay. We have also argued that there was a moral and relig-
ious dimension to Menghin’s use of this concept and to León and Rutsch 1997:131–32, our translation, emphasis
his perceived need to connect developments throughout added):30
the entire world from the very beginnings of humanity.
The culture-historical school, really through its his-
His principal scholarly achievement in his first career in toricism and desire for universal history, contrib-
Europe was a universal “world history” of the Stone Age, uted to the first demonstration—albeit hypothetical
and that in his second American career was to disprove, and not completely documented—of the vast, rich
to his own satisfaction at least, Eduard Seler’s so-called history of those peoples “without history” (Natur-
Monroe Doctrine29 and demonstrate that cultural ad- völker) in Africa and Oceania that the ethnographic
vances in the Americas were directly linked to devel- presentism of British social anthropology largely ig-
opments in the Old World from their original peopling nored because of its own imperial and racist preju-
to the emergence of complex civilizations in the Andes dices. The culture-historical school’s proofs of the
and in Mesoamerica. Universal culture history in the human dignity of these peoples indirectly helped
hands of Menghin and others, such as Heine-Geldern, prepare the spiritual climate for their decolonization.
assumed a hyperdiffusionist form that minimized hu-
Significantly and ironically, the conservative culture his-
man inventiveness and capacity for independently solv-
torians anticipated social anthropology’s rapprochement
ing problems set by the environment or other human with history and the long overdue rediscovery of the
groups. “peoples without history” as, for example, so forcefully
Menghin’s insistence on the qualitative separation of and masterfully argued by Eric Wolf (1982).
humans and animals was rooted in his religious beliefs, Such a confluence is not yet visible in contemporary
but it was also consistent with the division between nat- archaeology. While many (possibly the majority of?) con-
ural and historical sciences (Naturwissenschaften and tinental European prehistorians work within what may
Geistes-, Kultur-, or Geschichtswissenschaften), a dis- be called a culture-historical approach or paradigm, most
tinction with a long intellectual tradition in Germany Anglo-American archaeologists view this approach with
and one staunchly upheld by culture historians such as skepticism if not outright contempt. Today the term
Graebner and Schmidt and by Boas and his followers. “culture-historical archaeology” is most often used neg-
Schmidt (quoted in Brandewie 1990:102) denied any atively to connote an old-fashioned, highly particular-
qualitative distinction between the so-called Natur- and istic archaeological practice. The standard history now
Kulturvölker (the latter distinguished from the former promulgated in most Anglo-American universities has
by the presence of writing) and cited Ratzel approvingly culture-historical approaches as becoming universally
to that effect: dominant in the first half of the 20th century after the
rejection of unilinear/stadial 19th-century evolutionism
One can no longer write a world history without and the widespread acceptance of the archaeological cul-
mentioning those groups who were till now thought ture concept and the subsequent “peopling of the past”
to be without history because they had no writing or through the endless documentation of archaeological
left no traces of themselves hammered in stone. His- cultures. This perspective paints culture-historical ar-
tory is interaction! In comparison how unimportant chaeology as consisting almost exclusively of the spatial
it is whether groups have writing or not! How irrele- and temporal ordering of one’s materials, a deadeningly
vant to the actual doing and creating is the written descriptive pursuit unconcerned with broader theoretical
description thereof! issues that has now, fortunately, been supplanted by the
development of the more sophisticated and stimulating
Part of the mission of the culture historians, including processual and postprocessual archaeologies.31
Menghin, was to give voice to these “peoples without
history” by reconstructing their histories on the basis of
30. “La escuela histórico-cultural, justamente mediante su histo-
ethnological and archaeological evidence. Their efforts ricismo y su afán por la historia universal, contribuyó a ofrecer las
surpassed those of the functionalists and structuralists primeras pruebas, ası́ fueran hipotéticas y no del todo documen-
in that they recognized that the “traditional” cultures of tales, de una vasta y rica historia de aquellos pueblos ‘sin historia’
(‘Naturvölker’) en Africa y Oceanı́a, que el presentismo etnográfico
anthropological study had to be historically context- de la antropologı́a social inglesa largamente ignoró bajo sus propios
ualized in order to be properly understood (Vázquez prejuicios imperiales y raciales. Esas pruebas de la dignidad his-
tórica de esos pueblos ayudaron indirectamente a preparar el clima
espiritual de la descolonización.”
31. The antihistoricism of the New Archaeology and its false di-
29. “Por ello y hasta donde conocemos hoy los hechos, debe valer chotomy between scientifically studying evolution and writing his-
la Doctrina Monroe para las culturas del México antiguo: ‘America tory has been cogently critiqued by Trigger (1989:312–16, 373). In
para los americanos.’ Y la ciencia americana solamente saldrı́a ga- several of his articles, L. R. Binford (see, e.g., 1972) contrasted the
nando, si por fin se terminarán los intentos infructuosos de postular New Archaeology he was promoting with the erroneous approaches
conexiones imaginarias” (quoted in Vázquez León and Rutsch 1997: of earlier archaeological practice; for him, the generalizing, com-
122). Earlier Lowie (1937:184) had referred to Seler’s invocation of parative tasks of science and evolution were explicitly opposed to
the Monroe Doctrine in disparaging terms: “All the diffusionists the particularizing pursuits of history. Postprocessual archaeology
from Ratzel on are right in treating the history of mankind as one has rightly rejected Binford’s simplistic dichotomy; archaeology is
unit; this implies ipso facto that no Monroe Doctrine can segregate now correctly perceived as a form of history, and archaeologists are
America from the rest of the world.” enjoined to interpret their data in all its rich specificity. Such ex-
This view is, of course, a caricature based more on cal developments could be fully understood only by ref-
ignorance than on awareness of contemporary trends in erence to the whole “world” in which they were situated.
continental European archaeology, including those oc- The metaphysical need of Menghin and the Viennese
curring largely within the German archaeological tra- culture historians to have literally everything intercon-
dition, a hardly unified school which remains strongly nected led to a denial of human inventiveness and, ul-
identified with the culture-historical approach. European timately, to reconstructions of the past that are rightly
archaeologists are increasingly aware of the political con- rejected today by most practicing specialists. In part, the
texts in which they work and are addressing such con- Vienna culture historians’ hyperdiffusionism gave cul-
cerns (e.g., Biehl, Gramsch, and Marciniak 2002a). The ture history its bad name, an unfortunate consequence
differences between Anglo-American and continental in that the “peoples without history” still need to have
European traditions of archaeological research can be histories whether they lived in the ethnographic or the
overdrawn, and points of similarity and convergence de- remote, archaeologically documentable past.
serve to be emphasized (cf. Gramsch 2000). Not every
culture-historical archaeologist is a stamp collector, and,
despite certain pretensions, most processualists and The Constraints of Archaeological Evidence
postprocessualists cannot be considered grand theoreti- and Open-Minded Inquiry
cians interested in conceptual issues on the scale of a
Childe or a Menghin. Menghin and, to a great extent, the Vienna school to
Clearly, culture history meant something else to which he belonged devised for themselves a vision of
Menghin and the Vienna school. They were assiduously human evolution and diversity with which they could
engaged, of course, in the ordering of their materials, but comfortably accommodate their religious beliefs and
they were also asking (and answering) very theoretical, moral values. Their vision or theory, with its numerous
even metaphysical questions, pursuing not middle-range interrelated, if not totally consistent, postulates, was
but grand theory. Menghin’s culture-historical archae- never canonized as the only Catholic or Christian per-
ology was ethnographically informed, indeed based on spective on evolution;32 rather, it was just one way of
applying the findings and concepts of one ethnographic interpreting human origins and development, one that
school to the prehistoric record, and he certainly was not has failed to be confirmed by the ever-accumulating ar-
averse to linking archaeological with physical anthro- chaeological record and a more objective evaluation of
pological and linguistic data. As we have seen, the the-
ories of the 19th-century evolutionists were anathema
32. Peoples of various faiths, of course, have accommodated their
to Menghin, and he rejected them on both moral and beliefs with the fact of evolution in countless often highly personal
professional scientific grounds as the products of poor, ways. Despite Schmidt’s activities and considerable influence at
superficial scholarship. Both Menghin and Childe and the Vatican, particularly with Pius XI, his views on evolution and
the Viennese culture historians and the Boasians (and, divine revelation were never sanctioned as the only officially ac-
ceptable accommodation of Catholic faith with evolution. To the
one might add, Wolf and the school of contemporary
best of our knowledge, practicing Catholics are able to interpret
historical anthropology he represents) believed that in- the evidence for evolution in different ways; for example, the in-
terconnections among peoples needed to be traced—that spiring, mystical, and personally idiosyncratic writings of Pierre
history, as Ratzel said, was interaction and their task Teilhard de Chardin have achieved great popularity among many
was to document and understand that interaction. So- Catholic (as well as non-Catholic) believers. Teilhard’s views and
those of the Vienna school are quite distinct: the former considers
ciocultural evolution was to be distinguished from or- evolution as a process whereby humans ultimately become divine
ganic evolution by the demonstrable fact that technol- through ever-increasing self-consciousness, while the latter sees a
ogies—indeed, entire culture complexes—could be fall or descent from an original, divinely inspired condition and
directly transmitted from one group to another, and such does not emphasize the progressive character of the evolutionary
process. Menghin was aware of Teilhard’s scientific work as a pa-
diffusion linked groups together in a seamless web of
leontologist in the excavations at Zhoukoudian and met him in
interaction. 1937 in Philadelphia at the same conference Childe attended.
For Menghin and the Viennese culture historians that Menghin’s fawning epigone K. J. Narr critically reviewed Teilhard’s
web of interaction had to encompass the entire globe, philosophical evolutionary writings in Menghin’s journal Acta
necessitating the writing of a universal or world history. Praehistorica (1961–63). Narr correctly objected to Teilhard’s sci-
entifically imprecise language, describing his view of evolution as
For Childe and other modified diffusionists, the zones of orthogenetic and teleological. For Narr, Teilhard’s major failing was
interaction in prehistory were more circumscribed, to conceive of evolution as an ongoing process leading to ever-
though still extensive, necessitating—to adopt more greater consciousness, a view which blurred the qualitative dis-
modern terminology—the conceptualization of “world tinction between humans and animals or the natural world and
underestimated the cultural achievements of primitive humans.
systems” or zones of structured interaction in which lo-
Narr admitted that the culture-historical school could not provide
answers to what were fundamentally metaphysical issues, but he
hortations should lead logically to detailed reexaminations of ar- insisted that his school provided “a sharper conception of an earlier
chaeological evidence and the writing of new prehistoric syntheses, culture as a unique, objectively understood testimony of the spir-
but for many postprocessualists the temptation to theorize, preach, ituality of primitive man” (“una concepción más aguda del fenó-
and publish has, at least to date, apparently proved stronger. Cul- meno de la cultura más temprana como el único testimonio ob-
ture-historical archaeology is still perceived negatively, if, in fact, jetivamente asequible de la espiritualidad del hombre primitivo”)
its existence is even acknowledged, by processual and postproces- (pp. 215, 221). In short, Teilhard’s philosophical writings would not
sual archaeologists alike. have received Narr’s (and presumably Menghin’s) imprimatur.
ethnographic data on non-food-producing peoples. What in the New World cannot be seen as significantly deriv-
distinguished or, perhaps better, still distinguishes the ative from the Old, as, for example, R. S. MacNeish’s
Vienna school is its influence on later culture historians excavations in the Tehuacán Valley have conclusively
and archaeologists working within that tradition and the demonstrated. The plants and animals domesticated are
fact that it developed a doctrine enthusiastically adopted indigenous to the Americas and have a long, archaeo-
by its members, who purported to demonstrate the va- logically demonstrated history of utilization, manipu-
lidity of its tenets empirically. lation, and transformation prior to the indigenous emer-
It may not always be clear when it is no longer rea- gence of sedentary food-producing communities (for a
sonable to maintain a cherished theory in the weight of current overview, see Harlan 1995).
accumulating contradictory evidence. Ptolemaic astron- One positive lesson is that some theories are capable
omers in the days of Copernicus long tried to postulate of refutation; they are simply wrong. As Trigger (1989:
additional epicycles to prove the sun’s rotation around 400–404; 1995:275–76) has consistently argued, the ar-
the earth. Ultimately, their efforts failed, and, as is well chaeological record ultimately constrains or establishes
known in the history of science, there comes a time limits for possible reconstructions and readings of the
when new evidence forces a paradigm shift. Acceptance past. Archaeological data cannot infinitely be manipu-
of such shifts may be delayed by personal factors, such lated to serve national, political, or moral agendas. There
as religious and political beliefs, and these factors cer- may be and often are alternative ways of interpreting the
tainly inhibited Menghin from examining the archaeo- archaeological record, but there are also ones that are
logical record more objectively. Menghin’s theories were inconsistent with the evidence and therefore incorrect.
not based principally on the evidence but preconceived In the final analysis, Menghin’s unwavering religious
and circular. He knew what he wanted to find in advance convictions undermined his scientific endeavors and
and claimed to have done so despite all the accumulating clouded his political judgments and activities. When he
evidence to the contrary. Scientific inquiry, in contrast, attempted to address the outstanding social and political
should be open-ended, confirming or rejecting hypoth- issues of the day as a self-proclaimed expert on evolution
eses within established paradigms of research that are and race in the early 1930s, the results were disastrous.
constantly modified and even radically transformed His sincerely inspired but muddled views were readily
through this ongoing process of investigation and inter- adopted by less squeamish politicians to help justify the
rogation. worst atrocities of modern times. The examples of
Menghin’s influence endures in many spheres. He was Menghin and, to a lesser extent, the Vienna school il-
not only an extremely productive scholar but also a re- lustrate vividly the dangers of cloaking religion and pol-
vered teacher of prehistoric archaeology. His students itics with a scientific mantle.
have trained nearly all the specialists working today in
early prehistoric archaeology in Austria (Urban 1996:11);
similarly, his influence on Argentine archaeology is very Menghin’s Legacy
important and still quite discernible. In many respects,
this legacy is positive—embodying high scholarly stan- We have attempted to reassess Menghin’s complex leg-
dards, encyclopedic erudition, and a strong commitment acy and, in so doing, rescue his works from the near total
to field investigations and the rigorous compilation of oblivion to which they have been assigned in the Anglo-
archaeological evidence. Menghin’s considerable works American literature. Menghin’s activities and theories
significantly influenced the development of Palaeolithic must be historically contextualized. He had come to Vi-
archaeology in Europe and Paleo-Indian studies in the enna as a patriotic, romantic young man from the Ti-
Americas, particularly in South America; as they con- rolean countryside and flourished there. Through effort
tributed positively to the accumulation of archaeological and superb scholarship, he became at the age of 30 the
data and are consistent with the record, they are professor of prehistoric archaeology in Vienna. Historical
enduring. events overshadowed these accomplishments. Menghin
Most of Menghin’s reconstructions of the remote past, was truly “a man between the fronts,” writing his most
however, have not withstood the test of time. His world important works in the interwar years after the signing
history of the Palaeolithic, his racial studies, and his of the disgraceful Treaty of Versailles, the collapse of the
accounts of early Paleo-Indian developments today ap- Austro-Hungarian Empire, the success of the Bolshevik
pear curious, dated, and incorrect. The broad scholarly Revolution and the widespread anarchy and fear of a
community of prehistorians, social anthropologists, communist takeover in Central Europe, and, of course,
evolutionary biologists, geneticists, and physical anthro- the subsequent rise of Nazi Germany. He clearly admired
pologists has largely rejected these theories. His belief the hierarchical, authoritarian academic tradition that
in an extremely early arrival of humans in the Western had rewarded him and reveled in the adulation of his
Hemisphere during the Pleistocene and the dependence students and in being a grand figure in that establish-
of later cultural developments in the Americas on sep- ment. He was sustained by his conservative religious and
arate waves of migration from East Asia were not really political convictions and continued to be a highly pro-
supported by discoveries within his lifetime and have ductive scholar throughout the 1930s. As we have seen,
not been sustained by subsequent research. To cite just he was also very ambitious, aspiring to and obtain-
one obvious example: the beginnings of food production ing—for a short while—high political office. Later he
continued his scholarly “mission” in Argentina, though and Pérez Gollán advocate the increased use of cultural
safely within the limits of the academic world. historical approaches to archaeology as a means of grant-
His legacy as an archaeologist is complex: many sub- ing past peoples their histories. This goal, while not the
stantive accomplishments must be balanced against in- only legitimate goal of archaeology, is certainly impor-
correct and tendentiously argued theories. His personal tant and in many cases attainable. If I read them cor-
or moral legacy cannot be so nuanced. Menghin never rectly, they see an increased emphasis on cultural his-
suffered from writer’s block. His lack of public acknowl- torical methods and theory as one of several productive
edgment of his mistakes or expression of remorse is as approaches to prehistory. From my point of view, a jux-
striking as the celebration of his brief stint as minister taposition of history and evolution exists only on a sim-
of culture and education in the Festgabe that he was plistic level, since few evolutionary processes can be sep-
presented years after he had sought asylum in Argentina. arated from their historical contexts. Cultural change is
Menghin gave a signed copy of this work to the library in its essence historical, and evolution in human and
of the Museum at the Universidad Nacional de La Plata nonhuman systems is change—and in some cases sta-
and went to his grave on the pampas convinced that he sis—over time. A clear distinction between the two con-
had extirpated the American “sphinx” and documented cepts is possible only when history and evolution are
a universal history of humankind. Sadly, his illusions defined within artificially rigid frameworks.
and pretensions have only been exposed posthumously. Kohl and Pérez Gollán point out the potential dangers
of mixing religion, politics, and prehistory, but in a broad
sense archaeology inevitably takes place in a political
and religious context, even if, as Menghin feared, that
Comments religious context is today often agnostic or atheistic.
Kohl and Pérez Gollán argue for open-mindedness and
critical analysis of ideas and hypotheses. They obviously
nicholas conard reject the postmodernist notion that “anything goes” and
Institut für Ur- und Fruhgeschichte, Universität clearly believe that prehistory can provide nonarbitrary
Tübingen, D-72070 Tübingen, Germany and potentially refutable interpretations. Although
([email protected]). Menghin was wrong in most of his interpretations, he
did offer a coherent paradigm with which he addressed
Kohl and Pérez Gollán argue with balance and subtlety global issues in prehistory, and his methods and ideas
about the significance of the productive and in some are still relevant today.
respects laudable career of Oswald Menghin. The paper Kohl and Pérez Gollán apparently realize that there is
and its helpful footnotes provide a well-argued introduc- no single valid approach to prehistory and that plausible
tion to Menghin’s work. The authors provide cultural and refutable ideas that advance the field can have di-
scientists a useful reminder that we are fallible and sub- verse sources of inspiration. I find their paper refreshing
ject to errors and oversights analogous to those made by in the sense that John Brew’s (1946) critique of the use
Menghin. Particularly reassuring is that they do not offer of taxonomy in archaeology argues for a plurality of ques-
simplistic answers to the theoretical and practical prob- tions and solutions rather than a monolithic approach
lems they bring to light via Menghin’s zealous global to the field. Open-mindedness, however, should not be
research. As they point out, no caricature can adequately confused with uncritical eclecticism. Interpretations in
depict the complexity and scope of Menghin’s work. In prehistory may be plausible, implausible, or simply
our era of academic fads and fast-paced research, a seem- wrong. Although Menghin was wrong in many matters,
ingly modest paper such as this one can have significant his search for global explanations to complex cultural
implications for critical reflection on the state of dis- questions is commendable, and the simplistic and ster-
course and practice in prehistoric research. eotypic assessments of him as an ideologue or National
The paper goes beyond a critique of Menghin’s work Socialist are far less helpful than the contextualized pre-
to raise questions about the theoretical framework in sentation by Kohl and Pérez Gollán. In the contexts of
which archaeological research is conducted and through economic, political, and scientific globalization, main-
which research agendas are defined. Is a universal pre- stream scholarly circles existing in Anglophone isolation
history desirable and achievable? Is a distinction be- (Neuštupny 1997–98) will profit from scholarship of the
tween cultural history and cultural evolution meaning- kind presented by Kohl and Pérez Gollán. There is much
ful? Are the—in retrospect—readily apparent excesses of to be learned by leaving the confines of standard English-
the Kulturkreislehre present in analogous forms in con- language textbooks and standard views on the history of
temporary approaches to prehistory? While Kohl and Anglophone archaeological thought. Prehistoric archae-
Pérez Gollán are not explicit, they strongly and in my ology can only profit from a broader assessment of the
view rightly suggest that processual and postprocessual field’s developmental history. Partly because of the loss
archaeology are indeed flawed in their polemic and prac- of two world wars and the archetypal nature of Nazi
tice. The former at times provides a dogmatic and crimes against humanity, German research traditions
pseudo-scientific framework for archaeological research, have lost their international prominence and today often
and the latter, in its arbitrariness, offers few convincing serve as the stereotype of what needs to be avoided in
answers about what happened in the past and why. Kohl the future. I can only concur with Kohl and Pérez Gollán
that a critical assessment of central European and other I would be inclined to draw a clearer distinction be-
non-Anglophone research traditions can raise the level tween the academic tradition of “culture circles,” which
of international discourse and lead to a constructive reas- claims to find large more or less permanent technical
sessment of the trajectories of mainstream anglophone and cultural groupings within human societies on a
research. There remains much work to be done to es- global scale, and the tradition of “culture history.” The
tablish the multilayered, self-critical dialog using shift- latter, more modest and descriptive, merely sets out to
ing scales of analysis that the field needs (Conard 2001). classify the remains of past societies and thus establish
Kohl and Pérez Gollán remind us to keep asking whether preliminary chronological and spatial frameworks. It was
we are posing the right questions and addressing these indeed in Germany but also in Scandinavia (Oskar Mon-
questions within the right theoretical and methodolog- telius) that this method was developed at the end of the
ical frameworks. Whether researchers work in the broad 19th century. At first it was just a tool for classification,
terrain of ideas and data marked out by Darwin, Durk- and it was only later, following Gustav Kossinna, that
heim, Marx, and Weber or that of other, more contem- an attempt was made to make “culture” coincide with
porary scholars, many avenues of prehistoric research “people” (Volk). From this point of view, Menghin’s crit-
remain to be traveled. An improved appreciation of the ical remarks, quoted by Kohl and Pérez Gollán, on the
field’s history will help archaeologists to avoid errors methodological incapacity of North American archae-
made in the past and to establish directions for new and ology to distinguish between “cultural stages” (Kultur-
productive research. stufen) and “cultural units” (Kultureinheiten) could well
be taken up again today by many continental European
archaeologists in the face of Anglo-American approaches.
jean-paul demoule And it was with explicit reference to the methods of
Centre de Recherches Protohistoriques, Université de German archaeology that Childe was able to draw up the
Paris I, 3, rue Michelet, F-75006 Paris, France first syntheses of European prehistory and protohistory.
([email protected]). 11 iv 02 Speaking of Childe, despite the current fashion for his-
torical revisionism, I would not place Childe’s commit-
The article by Kohl and Pérez Gollán has two goals: one ment to the Soviet Union on the same footing as
is historiographic, retracing the intellectual and profes- Menghin’s to the Nazi regime. Even though both regimes
sional career of the Austrian archaeologist Oswald have millions of deaths on their consciences, it was not
Menghin; the other is more theoretical, reviving discus- the same in the 1930s to support an explicitly racist and
sion in Anglo-American archaeology on “culture circles” inegalitarian ideology as it was to support an ideology,
(Kulturkreise) and more generally on the culture-histor- although soon led astray, that sought to overcome in-
ical (Kultur-historisch) approach which has long been equality. Childe was in fact one of the few European
typical of continental European archaeology. archaeologists (with the Finn Aarne Tallgren) to take an
The conditions surrounding Menghin’s exile to Ar- open stand against Nazism in the journal Antiquity from
gentina perhaps deserve even more attention. Since his the moment Hitler came to power in 1933. Most West
political career had been so brief, was he really forced to European archaeologists, especially the French, who had
flee Austria? After all, Herbert Jankuhn, head of archae- been “corresponding members” of the German Archae-
ology in the SS, pursued a brilliant career in West Ger- ological Institute (DAI) before 1933, continued to accept
many after the war, and, with the exception of Hans this position, despite the fact that their German Jewish
Reinerth, no other archaeologist was bothered. Similarly, colleagues had been excluded. A certain number, among
the main racial biologists, such as Ottmar von Verschuer, them the Frenchman René Vaufrey, tried to defend Nazi
the immediate superior of the sinister doctor Mengele, racial policy in the journal L’Anthropologie and offered
had no difficulty in keeping their university posts. Since the best welcome, right up to 1938, to official visits from
Argentina was a preferred place of refuge for Nazi war the Nazi regime’s archaeologists (Schnapp 1980).
criminals, it would be interesting to know exactly what I would like to end with an apparent paradox. As Kohl
relations Menghin maintained with the German com- and Pérez Gollán stress, a theory of human history based
munity in exile. on a vision that is both religious and racial may naturally
Kohl and Pérez Gollán reveal some important infor- seem old-fashioned and irrelevant to North American
mation on Menghin’s intellectual itinerary: it was com- academics and intellectuals. Nevertheless, it was indeed
promised by Nazism and racial and racist theories but the United States of America that saw the emergence in
at the same time was part of the tradition of conservative the 1960s of sociobiology, the “New Synthesis” pro-
Viennese Catholicism, notably that of one of the main claimed by Edward Wilson and founded on an inegali-
founders of the “culture circle” school, Father Schmidt. tarian theory of the human species—a theory taken up
Thus the racism here was monogenetic, acknowledging again a few years later in the famous best-seller The Bell
the unity of the human species, albeit divided into Curve. Scholars like Marshall Sahlins and Stephen J.
“races” with different capacities, as opposed to the poly- Gould have provided pertinent criticism of these “the-
genetic racism which emerged in the 19th century, pre- ories.” As for the religious view of human history, most
cisely in opposition to Catholicism, and which argued European academics and intellectuals, who have lived
for a different biological origin for each of the human for a long time in secular societies, are perpetually aston-
“races.” ished by the role that religion can play in official North
American policy (where it is apparently normal to invoke soon forgotten, to the detriment of the discipline” (Kos-
the fight of “Good” against “Evil”) and even in North sack 1999:45, my translation).1 To hail Menghin’s
American science, where Nobel prizewinning physicists achievements, however, without mentioning his racist
can wonder about the existence of God within theories position and involvement in Nazi politics (Kossack 1999:
of physics. 116) is a disagreeable shortcoming. Postwar syntheses of
human history too do refer to the Weltgeschichte der
Steinzeit, albeit as outdated but as the “culmination of
alexander gramsch the work of the ‘Vienna school’ ” (Almagro et al. 1966:
Historisches Institut, Universität Leipzig, Ritterstrasse 437).
14, 04109 Leipzig, Germany ([email protected]). So, while Menghin has not been completely forgotten,
4 iv 02 his reception in Germany has been meager. The reasons
for this can be found in the particular conception of cul-
In the past decade there has been a remarkable expansion ture history of the “Vienna school,” and here we observe
of interest in the social, political, and epistemological a major limitation in Kohl’s and Pérez Gollán’s presen-
history of archaeology in both Anglo-American and Eu- tation. Culture history is not a unified theory or meth-
ropean discourses. This is particularly true in Germany odology. Menghin and his teacher Moritz Hoernes—who
(see, e.g., Kossack 1999, Härke 2000, Steuer 2001). It is held the first full professorship of prehistoric archaeology
all the more surprising, therefore, that one of the most in Austria—developed a very specific conception of cul-
important scholars in German-language archaeology ture history based on the Kulturkreislehre which differed
during the phase of its professionalization and institu- considerably from the Kossinna school (see, e.g., Parzin-
tionalization has played no major role in this debate. ger 2002:37). Moreover, Kossinna polemically rejected
Thus Kohl and Pérez Gollán detailed biographical article Hoernes’s application of culture-historical approaches
is especially welcome. based on Lubbock and Morgan (see Eggers 1986:218–19).
Menghin’s importance is based on the fact that he both Before World War II, the strong Kossinna school in Ger-
was able to establish a “Vienna school” of prehistory by many ignored or downplayed what was produced in Vi-
applying a historical concept explicitly and rigidly and enna, relying on a culture-historical approach based not
was involved in university and education politics. Kohl on Kulturkreise but on peoples and “archaeological cul-
and Pérez Gollán lay bare the connections between per- tures.” After the war no explicit discussion at all of any
sonal worldview, political ambition, and academic en- of the “great synthesizers” and of the theoretical debates
deavor in the work of Menghin, one of the few “great of the 1920s and 1930s took place. Culture history re-
synthesizers” in Central European archaeology—and treated into the seemingly safe haven of typology and
this comment is written from a European point of view. chronology. Kohl and Pérez Gollán, however, give the
These connections of course exist not only in nationalist impression that all of traditional mainstream archae-
or National Socialist archaeologies—on which much of ology both in Europe and in Latin America is culture-
the current debate concentrates—but also in modern, ex- historical in the sense of Menghin’s conception.
plicitly nonnational interpretations and syntheses. In- Menghin’s position within culture-historical archae-
terestingly, Menghin’s romanticist, monolithic concep- ology remains somewhat unclear.
tion of a people as a self-contained, everlasting unit While Kohl and Pérez Gollán are surely right in de-
(inclusive) which has to beware of or defend against for- scribing Menghin’s religious and political views as a
eign elements (exclusive) resembles the inclusive and prime mover for his academic work, particularly for his
exclusive conceptions which can be found in present Eu- attempts to synthesize worldwide the early history of
ropeanist syntheses—attempts to trace something par- humankind, it is a bit disappointing that they charac-
ticularly “European” from pre- and protohistory to this terize Menghin as sort of a Don Quixote fighting demons
day (Gramsch 2002b). existing only in his mind when writing about his criti-
Kohl and Pérez Gollán point out that Menghin has cism of Marxist and neoevolutionist theories and about
been forgotten in the Anglo-American discourse. I would his own conception of world prehistory. It surely would
have wished for more detailed discussion of the reception have been more useful first to accept Menghin’s premise
of his views in pre- and postwar European archaeology. as one possible philosophically or religiously founded
Is the same true for European, particularly German ar- conception and then to criticize his stance epistemolog-
chaeology? As mentioned above, little reference is made ically. The question how someone who advocated ac-
to his works and politics in recent approaches to socially curate academic work could nevertheless pursue racist
and epistemologically contextualizing the history of ideas and how he developed them after World War II in
German-language archaeology. Except for the biography a completely different context still needs investigation.
by Urban (1996) (who discusses mainly Geist und Blut) Menghin is one of the rare German-speaking synthesiz-
mentioned by Kohl and Pérez Gollán, Menghin is also ers and theorists to devote considerable attention (e.g.,
cited, for example, by Kossack in his history of prehis- in all of the introductory chapters of Weltgeschichte der
toric archaeology in Germany. Kossack emphasizes that
Menghin’s synthesis Weltgeschichte der Steinzeit is 1. “eines jener geistesgeschichtlich bedeutenden Werke, die auf prä-
“one of those important works in the history of ideas historischen Gebiet im deutschen Sprachraum so selten und zum
that are so rare in German-language prehistory and so Schaden des Faches so rasch vergessen sind.”
Steinzeit) to methodology and theory, and this should comparable example can be found in the field of Classical
have been made clearer. Moreover, it is a pity that his archaeology, where for many years the highly esteemed
ideas and his methods are not yet fully considered in the German scholar Karl Schefold (1905–99) pursued the no-
growing European discourse on the epistemological, so- tion that the culture of the ancient Greeks and Romans
cial, and political identity of archaeology (see Kobylinski was permeated by religious fervor similar to that char-
2001, Biehl, Gramsch, and Marciniak 2002b). I sincerely acteristic of Christianity (see, e.g., Schefold 1998). The
hope that this biographical overview by Kohl and Pérez impulse to follow such a line of research arose from the
Gollán will be widely received and debated. desire, as was the case with Menghin, to find a corre-
lation between the object of his scholarly work and his
personal conviction—between the pagan world of Clas-
klaus junker sical antiquity and the Christian belief in redemption.
Institut für Klassische Archäologie, Johannes Needless to say, such ideas have had no measurable im-
Gutenberg-Universität, 55099 Mainz, Germany pact on past and current research.
28 iii 02 The article concludes with a rather too emotional call
for open-minded archaeological research that is not “ma-
This article is largely devoted to the results of the re- nipulated to serve national, political, or moral agendas.”
search carried out by Oswald Menghin and the impulses One cannot disagree with something so obvious. How-
which motivated him both as a scholar and as a person. ever, it does raise two questions. First, the futility of
The following three aspects receive particular emphasis: Menghin’s research clearly presents no risk for present-
(1) Menghin propagated the Kulturkreis-Theorie (theory day research, and therefore his case is a poor example
of culture circles), which maintains that certain char- with which to demonstrate the continuing instrumen-
acteristics of a culture can remain essentially unchanged talization of archaeological material. Secondly, while one
over an indefinite period of time. (2) He remained im- certainly supports the authors’ call for a moratorium on
mune to the opposition of other scholars because his the corruption of archaeological data, this will, unfor-
religious belief—a type of fundamentalist Catholi- tunately, remain a pious wish for a long time to come.
cism—moved him to reject the idea of the evolutionary The diffusionist perspective in archaeology will be at-
development of humankind. (3) As a passionate follower tractive and seductive as long as nationalism and unre-
of the theory of culture circles he was fascinated by Nazi flective patriotism exist. The myth of autochthony—the
ideology and, indeed, served as Austrian minister of cul- simplistic view of seeing people who lived thousands of
tural affairs, if only for two months. (In this context one years ago in a certain place as direct physical and spir-
would like to have learned something about the reasons itual ancestors of the actual inhabitants—is unlikely to
for his emigration to Argentina in 1948, but archival die, at least not in the vast areas outside the scholarly
evidence seems to be lacking.) world. The November/December 2001 issue of Archae-
In analyzing Menghin’s political views, Kohl and Pérez ology, for example, contains a letter about the dispute
Gollán adopt an admirably well-balanced position. They over the Kennewick Man stating that some tribes in
correctly point out that the fervent Catholic and Na- Washington believe that “they have always been here”
tional Socialist parties must have eyed each other with (Henson 2001). This is exactly the formula which has
a certain degree of distrust, and for this reason they re- been and surely always will be applied whenever ar-
frain from moral castigation. An essential element of chaeological discoveries are (mis-)used as a means to un-
Nazi ideology was the belief in the superiority of the derscore the validity of national or cultural identity
Aryan race and the necessity of its remaining untainted or—even worse—to defend territorial claims.2
by foreign blood. Menghin too was obsessed with the
concept of purity in relation not to a particular race (or
culture circle) but to all races. suzanne marchand
The rather limited issue of Menghin’s “political sins” Department of History, Louisiana State University,
is, however, not what Kohl and Pérez Gollán are most Baton Rouge, La. 70803, U.S.A. 14 iii 02
interested in. The more important question is whether
any ideological legacy of his research can be found almost Congratulations to Kohl and Pérez Gollán on a highly
30 years after his death and, if so, whether it presents a informative and (I hope) provocative essay. The authors
threat to the archaeological concepts prevalent today in have opened up an intellectual world that British and
Continental Europe and beyond. They conclude that this North American scholars all too often ignore or presume
is not so and, indeed, that Menghin’s influence is in fact dead, the world of Central European Kulturgeschichte.
quite limited. His crusade for the diffusionist rather than Here, in particular, they not only show how influential
evolutionist viewpoint was driven by religious beliefs; the Austrian school of prehistorical anthropology re-
he could rightly be termed a creationist. Such academic mains but also acknowledge its real contributions to the
notions remain influential only to the extent that the study of material culture. While much of the essay is
reader shares the author’s convictions. This is certainly historical in nature, documenting the career of one
not so today, and for this reason Menghin’s work appears highly influential prehistorian, Oswald Menghin, and of-
somewhat bizarre—important only as an unusual and
rather obscure chapter of Wissenschaftsgeschichte. A 2. Translated by Fiona Healy.
fering a critique of his intellectual (and political!) fail- to know more about Menghin’s excavations and the
ings, there is also much here for present-day archaeol- methods he employed. Was he, like Schmidt, merely a
ogists to chew on. Menghin and his school did (and collector of data at the top of a food chain (the lower
perhaps still do?) provide an alternative to excessively rungs of which were chiefly staffed by missionaries), or
ahistorical processual archaeology or excessively cul- did he do fieldwork himself? It is quite striking that he
ture-specific cultural anthropology. threw himself so passionately into the prehistory of his
As a specialist in modern German and Austrian cul- new world. Did he retain any of the Eurocentric preju-
tural history, I cannot comment on Menghin’s archae- dices of the old, or was he sufficiently universalizing not
ological accuracy or acuity and will limit my remarks to feel that he’d come down in the world? The Argentine
to the essay’s contribution to the history of anthropology, (Catholic, conservative) intellectual world seems to have
currently a very rich field of activity (though essays on accepted Menghin readily. To what extent did its mem-
Austria are few and far between).3 It is correct, as Kohl bers already share his worldview? Finally, was this pre-
and Pérez Gollán argue, that Menghin was a central historian typical in any way of other exiles? I suspect
member of the Austrian school of cultural history and that intellectually, at least, he was not, which is more
very much beholden to its ideas and aims. He wanted to his credit than that of the others; morally, however,
to prove, as did Father Wilhelm Schmidt, that the cul- he was rather typical, as the cases of Paul de Man, Martin
tural history of the earth was largely a story of diffusion, Heidegger, and, incidentally, Wilhelm Schmidt illus-
that the ur-inhabitants of the globe had experienced a trate: often those who fancied themselves victims failed
primeval revelation and were, essentially, monotheists to acknowledge their complicity in Hitler’s crimes.
and that spirit had triumphed over matter and always Cultural history and hyperdiffusionism may never re-
would. This set of claims was, as Kohl and Pérez Gollán cover the good name they had in the 1910s and 1920s,
argue, certainly “preconceived and circular”—but the and that may well be a good thing. But in conclusion,
Catholic response, at least in the early part of the cen- let me simply note that many of the questions they asked
tury, should perhaps be seen in the context of contem- were, indeed, questions we would like answered: how
porary claims by social evolutionists that “primitives” did the ur-Americans get here, and how are African and
were incapable of real religion and civilized morals (a hot Polynesian cultures related? What sort of “history” can
topic in this debate was the subject of ur-promiscuity be written about preliterate societies? The Austrians, as
and the evolution of monogamy). The point at which, in Kohl and Pérez Gollán point out, worked very hard to
my view, Viennese cultural history really became ideo- collect data and to put it together to sort out answers to
logical was probably sometime during the interwar pe- these questions, and though we can be happy as spe-
riod, during which Schmidt and company refused to cialists in one field for research purposes, ultimately our
come to grips with British and French social anthropol- students and laypersons do want us to sketch out “the
ogy, disdained to answer the criticisms of the American big picture.” Will we do a better job than Menghin and
Boasians (who still, into the 1930s, had great respect for Schmidt? Maybe—but if so, it is partly because they laid
the Austrian school), and failed to deal with the com- some of the foundations and provoked us to think rather
plexity of the material being collected by their own mis- more critically about these big issues.
sionary ethnologists. In this period, too, as Kohl and
Pérez Gollán suggest (though they might have dwelt
more on this), one of the main tasks of the Austrian irina podgorny
school became the refutation of Austro-Marxism, which Archivo Histórico, Museo de La Plata/CONICET, La
was, of course, quite powerful in the city ruled by the Plata, Argentina ([email protected]). 29 iii 02
socialists and colloquially known, in that period, as “Red
Vienna.” This is a highly interesting and tricky intellec- This article seeks to illustrate the dangers of mixing re-
tual context to work in (though surely Germanophile, ligious certitudes and political activities with the study
the Austrian Catholic conservatives were some of those of the past. Taking Menghin’s works as the subject of
least eager to join up with the more powerful—and ma- analysis, it creates a second narrative in which it explores
jority Protestant—German state to the north in the this problem: the risks of dealing with the history of
1920s and 1930s), and the authors do a fine job of illus- right-wing intellectuals beyond moral condemnation
trating the peculiarities of Menghin’s Catholic conser- and Manichaean or partisan approaches. Menghin’s life
vativism, which did not make him a Nazi, and his op- is a good example of adaptation to—and survival of—
portunism, which, at least briefly, did. different political environments and also illustrates the
I knew nothing (but was always curious) about dangers of reading ideas as a direct translation of political
Menghin’s career in Argentina, and the essay does a won- circumstances. This article, on the contrary, suggests
derful job of exploring that territory. I would have liked that he did not need to change his views on prehistory,
having worked and taught under Franz Joseph, the First
3. In addition to the wonderful and extensive work on the history Republic, the corporate state, the Nazis, the Americans,
of anthropology in Britain and France led by George Stocking but
recently enhanced by postcolonial perspectives, many new inquir-
Perón, the “Revolución Libertadora,” and the subsequent
ies into the history of German anthropology are under way (see Argentinean governments. However, it seems obvious
Zimmerman 2001, Penny n.d., and Marchand n.d.). that Menghin had strong skills of adaptation and that
his political commitment was weak enough to save him lectured in Buenos Aires. José Imbelloni, who had earned
from being caught in one of the fronts. his Ph.D. in natural sciences in Padua, published in 1930
Menghin wrote Geist und Blut in 1933, when the an introduction to the study of civilizations following
Communist and the National Socialist parties were de- the “culture-historical method.” In the late 1930s, his-
clared illegal in Austria. In July 1934 Engelbert Dollfuss, torians—focused on “peoples’ great traditions”—had de-
after introducing the May Constitution, which led to the cided that the “history of the Americas” should ignore
suppression of liberal institutions and transformed the the prehistoric, protohistoric, and contact periods, topics
country into the Christian-German Federal State of Aus- more akin to the Americanists’ field. At this point, some
tria on a Corporate Basis, was assassinated by Austrian of the Argentinean historians disparaged archaeologists
Nazis. Dollfuss, Austrian chancellor from 1932 to 1934, as “merely concerned about acquiring more scientific
was one of the promoters of so-called Austro-Fascism, knowledge.” The plotting of archaeological remains in
developed and supported by the circles around paramil- geographical regions preceded the culture-historical
itary forces and young Christian Socialist politicians. method and was established in Argentinean museums
This movement, whose core constituency came from from the first decades of 20th century. By the 1930s, the
Austria’s conservative peasantry, was influenced by geographical distribution of past and indigenous cultures
Mussolini’s fascism and backed by political Catholicism. prevailed as an approach over any attempt at chronology.
Ideas such as the antagonism of peasantry toward urban Earlier attempts at building a local prehistoric sequence
cosmopolitan life could be framed in terms of the crit- in consonance with the (French) international one had
icism of modern culture shared by various politically failed and been abandoned. Menghin, in fact, had found
oriented intellectuals of the beginning of the 20th cen- a very propitious field for expanding his circles and open-
tury. But in 1934 industrial cities such as Vienna and ing up the Americas’ deep past.
Linz were also sites for Social Democratic uprisings as
well as concrete battlefields against Marxists, who, in
the language of the right, were identified with Jews. It gustavo g. politis
would be worth asking for whom Menghin had written CONICET-Universidad Nacional del Centro de la
Geist und Blut and who its readers were. Except for Narr Provincia de Buenos Aires, 7400 Olavarria, Argentina
and his mention of this work in Menghin’s Festgabe, it ([email protected]). 3 iv 02
seems that it was unknown among archaeologists who,
like Childe, were aware of Menghin’s writings. At the
This acute article sets Menghin’s ideology and academic
same time, Geist und Blut and Menghin’s ideas on the
production within his sociopolitical context and outlines
kind of relationship that Lower Paleolithic humans
a portrait of a man with a lifelong mission. There have
would have had with God poses a very interesting ques-
been two contrasting images of Menghin—that of the
tion about the reading of the archaeological record
Nazi sympathizer who “consciously participated in what
through a reactionary political theology—that is, about
was at best a distortion of scholarship, and at worst a
the relationship between Menghin’s static time and the
contribution to the legitimation of a genocidal authori-
expansion of the Americas’ prehistoric temporality.
The authors also underline the gap between Anglo- tarian regime” (Arnold 1996) and that of the old professor
American and continental European and Latin American who, in the fullness of his maturity, left his homeland
writings. As Menghin did, they point to a linguistic and to look for a new country where he could establish a
conceptual chasm. For Menghin U.S. scholarship repre- peaceful niche and came to America to continue his
sented the opposite of his continental European world, brilliant research career. The article acknowledges
in which people exchanged objects and ideas as in his Menghin’s past as an academic close to the Nazi regime
and Childe’s vision of prehistory. In this sense, Argentina (although never affiliated as a full member) but mitigates
was also a place of exchange. In the country where he the negativity of this connection by identifying him as
developed “his second academic career,” the historian an ardent Catholic with an “overdeveloped sense of the
Ricardo Levene, as president of La Plata University, in- moral duty to save his people.” Nonetheless, through his
augurated on January 11, 1933, the publication by the book Geist und Blut he provided some theoretical foun-
University Press of Teorı́a, a series devoted to transla- dations for later Nazi atrocities against the Jews. Of
tions into Spanish of “works of non-Latin authors on course, this book was not the only source of such jus-
contemporary science and philosophy.” This series in- tificatory theories, and nowadays it is impossible to es-
cluded the translation of Ancient Society in 1935 and timate its influence on decisions taken by the Nazi gov-
Fritz Graebner’s Methode der Ethnologie in 1940. The ernment during the war. Subtly, time and again,
latter was translated by the Spanish ethnologist and ar- Menghin described Jews in terms of negative character-
chaeologist Salvador Canals Frau (1893–1958), who had istics (racial, linguistic, psychological, etc.) and ex-
studied in Frankfurt and served during those years as plained from a supposedly scientific perspective why
librarian at La Plata University. The foreword was writ- they were a problem for “host nations.” The message
ten by the archaeologist Fernando Márquez Miranda was clear: the racial characteristics of Jews make them
(1897–1961), who had taught in Madrid in 1934–35. Ear- difficult people to live with, and therefore they must be
lier, the German prehistorian Hugo Obermaier, who resettled in Palestine. The implications of this book,
taught in Madrid and worked with the Abbé Breuil, had whether or not Menghin was fully conscious of them,
have been somewhat overlooked by Kohl and Pérez his tremendous influence, which persists today, on the
Gollán. study of South American hunter-gatherers. However, we
The article raises several issues that I would like to cannot forget that he was not an innocent spectator of
comment upon. First, how did Menghin end up in Ar- the atrocities of World War II; he played a role, although
gentina and become a respectable professor in both of a secondary one, and for that he will also be remembered
the main Argentinean universities? On the one hand, the with bitterness.
dubious position of Argentina during World War II was
clear. A good part of the army, which at the time con-
trolled the government, was on the side of Germany. b ru c e g . t r i g g e r
This created a scenario in which not only Menghin but Department of Anthropology, McGill University, 855
also many other implicated Nazi officials considered Ar- Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
gentina a safe place to escape to. Several networks ex- H3A 2T7 ([email protected]). 26 iii 02
isted in Argentina that helped these people to enter the
country, find jobs, and, if necessary, acquire new iden- Kohl and Pérez Gollán examine the career of a once very
tities. On the other hand, other influential Kulturkreise- influential archaeologist whose work is of renewed in-
school adherents had paved the way for Menghin’s ar- terest in the context of the widespread revival of the
rival and for his immediate academic success. The Italian culture-historical approach to archaeology during the
José Imbelloni was probably the person who helped most 1990s. Their integrated examination of the social and
in two respects: by disseminating the ideas of Menghin political circumstances in which Menghin worked and
and other Austro-German scholars and by making the of his personal background and political commitments
political arrangements to secure Menghin a full profes- makes for fascinating reading. I direct my remarks to
sorship at the University of Buenos Aires. Also, the trans- their discussions of (a) the consequences of prehistorians’
lation into Spanish by Canals Frau (1940[1911]) of Fritz addressing contemporary social and political issues and
Graebner’s Methode der Ethnologie was an effective tool (b) the continuing value of culture-historical reconstruc-
for a broader distribution of Austro-German culture his- tions. Any differences between us are ones of nuance
tory. Therefore, when Menghin arrived he was more than rather than general principles.
welcome as the “great professor” in search of a quiet Menghin’s work is said to illuminate “the danger of
place to continue the worldwide scope of his research. cloaking religion and politics with a scientific mantle.”
It still remains unclear why his political past was not Such behavior is undeniably reprehensible whenever the
taken into account at that time and why the many ar- “cloaking” involves conscious misrepresentation. Ar-
chaeologists who were on the opposite side politically chaeologists who knowingly make false claims about the
did not react in any way that is known to us. archaeological record to promote political and religious
Secondly, the article mentions that as a result of his agendas should be stripped of their professional accred-
research in Patagonia (especially at Los Toldos Cave) and itation. Yet most behavior is not so clear-cut. The history
comparison of the material he recovered with that found of archaeology demonstrates that research is never car-
by Junius Bird in Fell and Palli Aike Caves, Menghin ried on outside a social, political, and ideological context.
uncovered the proof of his early culture circle the “pro- Archaeologists collect data not as an end in itself but to
tolithic bone culture.” Actually, he first proposed the learn something about the past. Cultures, social stand-
existence in South America of his Old World–related pro- ing, and political allegiances influence the questions
tolithic bone culture on the basis of the excava- they ask and how much evidence they require to believe
tion—conducted with his close disciple Marcelo Bór- that a particular interpretation is true. For Gabriel de
mida—at the Gruta del Oro in the Pampean region Mortillet the study of Palaeolithic archaeology was a way
(Menghin and Bórmida 1950), part of his earliest South to combat traditional Christian beliefs and promote so-
American fieldwork. After a few days of shovel exca- cialism in 19th-century France. His contemporary, the
vation with local rural workers he recovered a handful Canadian geologist John William Dawson (1888), a de-
of lithic material which he correlated with Bird’s find- vout Calvinist, argued correctly that the data so far col-
ings in southern Patagonia. For Menghin, this material lected came from too small a region of the world (western
was proof of the existence of the Bone Protolithic, a pre- Europe) to demonstrate the universality of cultural ev-
sumption that was later confirmed in his methodological olution. Both men’s interpretations were ideologically
scheme by the findings from Los Toldos. driven, but Mortillet, despite his highly speculative ex-
Finally, Kohl and Pérez Gollán’s article allows three trapolations, laid the foundations of modern Palaeolithic
generations of Argentinean archaeologists who did not archaeology while Dawson is remembered as an out-
know Menghin personally but have heard a great deal moded reactionary. Kohl and Pérez Gollán rightly ap-
about him to reconcile his two sides: the Austrian war plaud Childe for using his understanding of diffusion to
criminal and the exiled, wise, good-humored old profes- oppose the ethnocentric and racist claims being made by
sor always ready to answer any question. As the article Nazi ideologues.
demonstrates, he was not involved in a personal crusade Menghin was caught up in a widespread romantic
against the Jews as some would like to represent him. counterattack that middle-class intellectuals launched
Moreover, no one can deny his contribution to the ar- in the late 19th century against the increasing influence
chaeology of the Southern Cone, and no one can doubt of radical socialism in Europe. This reaction exhibited
growing hostility towards cultural evolutionism and En- not, however, mean that regularities are not involved.
lightenment universalism. It also promoted diffusionism Cultural evolution and history are complementary not
and essentialized cultural differences. Nationalist and antithetical concepts.
racist ideas were employed to counter Marxist interna-
tionalism by persuading the working class that ethnic
bonds were more important than class loyalties. Culture- andrew zimmerman
historical archaeology developed within the context of Department of History, George Washington
this broader movement, which in the course of the 20th University, Washington, D.C. 20052, U.S.A.
century played a significant role first in preserving cap- ([email protected]). 11 iv 02
italism and then in destroying the Soviet Union (Shni-
relman 2001). Menghin had strong religious, class, and For Kohl and Pérez Gollán, Oswald Menghin’s culture-
national reasons for subscribing to a variant of the cul- historical archaeology presents both an example and a
ture-historical approach that included belief in primitive warning. Menghin’s approach illustrates how archaeol-
monotheism and degenerationism. Yet even Childe, who ogists might get beyond the binary opposition between
was a committed socialist, remained influenced by cul- science and history that once hobbled the discipline. At
ture-historical archaeology, despite his determined ef- the same time, the way Menghin’s good science was
forts to free himself from it (Trigger 1980). While one blinded by and ultimately sacrificed to bad ideologies
may regret that Menghin did not learn more from the (Nazism and Catholicism) presents a warning to present-
political events of the 1930s and 1940s, it is not sur- day postprocessual archaeologists against collapsing the
prising that he continued to embrace ideas that accorded opposition between science, on the one hand, and poli-
with his deepest social and political convictions. tics and ideology, on the other. The oppositions that
Guessing what goes on in other people’s minds is al- structure Kohl and Pérez Gollán’s account, those be-
ways a hazardous undertaking. Yet it seems that, rather tween science and ideology, science and religion, em-
than deliberately trying to cloak religion and political piricism and theory, progress and prejudice, thus do dou-
beliefs in a scientific mantle, Menghin was caught up in ble duty as both categories of analysis and categories of
a worldview that played a major role in helping to pre- exhortation. In what follows I want to consider the costs
serve a way of life that he believed in and thought that and benefits of allowing these actors’ categories to mi-
archaeological findings supported. Like Menghin, all of grate into the analytic framework of a social scientific
us find ourselves trapped in cognitive nets that relate to study of a scientific discipline.
the social contexts to which we owe allegiance. While The authors argue persuasively that the primary sci-
studying the history of archaeology may make us more entific importance of culture-historical anthropology
aware of the impact of such nets, this awareness does and, with Menghin, archaeology was the assertion that
not ensure that we can escape from their influence. All societies regarded as having no history could in fact be
of us are predisposed to accept a little evidence as con- treated historically. In this, culture-historical anthro-
firming what we want to believe while demanding over- pologists and archaeologists rejected not only evolution-
whelming proof before we abandon ideas that deeply ap- ism but also the positivist antihistoricist natural scien-
peal to us. This reinforces the positivist argument that tism that characterized German anthropology before
it is less important where ideas come from than whether diffusionism. As I have argued elsewhere, this antihis-
they can survive being scientifically tested. Despite the toricist anthropology emerged in Germany, in turn, as a
serious problems inherent in such testing, systematically challenge to the hegemony of the humanities (Geistes-
subjecting ideas about human behavior to the possibility wissenschaften) in German culture and the university.
of empirical refutation is more likely to curb erroneous The historical record of anthropology suggests that par-
concepts than is exposing their ideological connections. adigm shifts depend not so much on the discovery of
I wholly agree about the value of detailed historical new evidence as on theoretical, political, ideological, and
constructions of the past (Trigger 1978). Yet, because of scientific controversies. Indeed, as Thomas Kuhn him-
their complete rejection of evolutionism and their ex- self suggested, anomalous facts are generated not by na-
clusive emphasis on cultural particularities, neither ture but rather by the very scientific paradigms that they
Menghin’s work nor that of other culture-historical ar- come to challenge.
chaeologists provides a satisfactory point of departure for What, then, should we make of Oswald Menghin’s
a modern study of culture history or world systems. The (wrong) belief that all human prehistory could be com-
most persuasive justification of a historical approach I prehended in a single narrative that included both the
have encountered is a set of essays by A. L. Kroeber (1952: Old World and the New? As Kohl and Pérez Gollán dem-
57–106). Kroeber argued that cultural change, like bio- onstrate, this assertion did indeed come from a religious
logical evolution, involved such a complex and contin- commitment to the unity of humankind and to an orig-
gent set of parameters that no theory of evolution, inal monotheism, as well as from a political opposition
however accurate and complete, could ever predict the to materialism and evolutionism. As Johanna Bockman
precise course of change in any particular society. Be- (n.d.) has demonstrated, the image of the otherly com-
cause of this, it is necessary to understand change in mitted scientist—otherly committed to a religion, an
individual cultures as a basis for generalizing about ideology, or a foreign intelligence agency—threatens all
broader patterns. The unpredictability of change does scientific self-images. Indeed, Menghin’s ideologies of
choice, Nazism and Catholicism, are commonly re- dialogue among Central European, Latin American, and
garded as some of the most “other” of extrascientific Anglo-American archaeologists, and we believe that
commitments: one thinks of “German physics” in the their responses illustrate that this dialogue is under way.
one case and the persecution of Galileo in the other. Yet Thus, both Demoule and Junker wonder why and how
assertions of extrascientific commitments form a com- Menghin immigrated to Argentina, and Marchand asks
mon strategy in many scientific controversies, and every how he carried on his work there; both these concerns
scientist and scientific discipline is in some way otherly are addressed in the thoughtful responses of Politis and
committed. Methodologically, this implies that asser- Podgorny. We were unable to determine exactly when
tions of extrascientific ideological commitments and de- and under whose auspices Menghin left Central Europe,
viation from the role of scientist must be treated neu- and it may be important to recall that he was confined
trally and objectively by social scientists studying such in American camps in Germany, not in Austria. In any
controversies. event, Argentina represented a welcome refuge, and, as
Thus, when the authors explain Menghin’s transat- Politis reminds us, he arrived with a professorship in
lantic diffusionism as a result of his deviation from an place, a secure position that was facilitated by J. Imbel-
explicitly normative statement—that “scientific inquiry loni. For Menghin, Argentina represented both a quiet
. . . should be open-ended, confirming or rejecting hy- place and, as Podgorny notes, “a propitious field for ex-
potheses within established paradigms of re- panding his circles and opening up the Americas’ deep
search”—they commit the very offense of which they past,” the new ideologically driven mission of his second
accuse Menghin, subjecting scientific explanation to archaeological career.
other, ideological commitments. Menghin was wrong, Gramsch, Demoule, and, to a certain extent, Trigger
and he was otherly committed, but to establish his de- wish that we had drawn attention to the difference be-
viation from scientific norms as a cause for his wrong tween the type of culture-historical archaeology with its
science it would have also to be demonstrated that his Kulturkreislehre espoused by Menghin and the more
opponents were not similarly motivated by extrascien- conventional type of culture-historical archaeology that
tific concerns. Furthermore, it would have to be shown emphasizes the spatial and temporal ordering of mate-
that the norms of science really do motivate scientific rials. Their point is well taken, and we only hope that
practice and are not simply post-hoc justifications, as has our article will serve to stimulate substantive discussion
been suggested by critics of Robert Merton. Thus the on this important distinction. The culture-historical ar-
assertion that science is (rather than simply claims to chaeology that was initially developed under Montelius
be) based on neutral, objective examination of data is and then given a Volk twist by Kossinna represents the
itself at least potentially unscientific in the very terms common form, the type most often practiced today by
of this assertion. This is by no means to defend Menghin traditional archaeologists. Gramsch’s comment that in
but rather to suggest that an analysis of his work as Germany at least after the war there was no return to
otherly committed should be complemented by a sym- the earlier theoretical debates of the great synthesizers
metrical analysis—in the sense outlined in Bloor but a retreat into the “seemingly safe haven of typology
(1981)—of the work of those archaeologists deemed cor- and chronology” is revealing. What type of culture-his-
rect in retrospect. torical archaeologist was Childe? Can the term be res-
I am deeply sympathetic to Kohl and Pérez Gollán’s urrected to refer to the writing of prehistory as a grand
call—a call too often glibly dismissed—to press forward or macrohistorical narrative and/or one that gives the
science at the expense of ideology. However, I am skep- peoples without history a meaningful past? Marchand,
tical of the ideological conception of scientific method in fact, raises this very point at the end of her comment
deployed, paradoxically, to challenge ideology in the and acknowledges, as we also tried to do, that, despite
name of science. their mistakes and tendentious distortions, Menghin,
Schmidt, and others in the Vienna school were interested
in reconstructing “the big picture” and that was and is
a laudable goal and one for which we remain indebted
Reply to them.
Junker, Zimmerman, and Trigger all question our crit-
icism of Menghin for cloaking his religious and political
p h i l i p l . k o h l a n d j . a . p é r e z g o l l á n beliefs in a scientific mantle and our seemingly naı̈ve or
Wellesley, Mass., U.S.A./Buenos Aires, Argentina “pious” advocacy of an open-ended, objective archae-
13 v 02 ology. Of course, we agree that all science occurs in a
social and political context from which its practice can
We thank all the respondents for their constructive and never be totally divorced. Research is structured and con-
thoughtful comments on our article. We agree entirely ditioned by the beliefs and values of its practitioners,
with Conard’s summary that “there is much to be whether they are atheist communists or conservative
learned by leaving the confines of standard English-lan- Catholics. There is no denying the connection. The ques-
guage textbooks and standard views on the history of tion is one of degree. Do you celebrate this inevitable
Anglophone archaeological thought.” Indeed, one of the relationship and make your commitments and beliefs so
primary purposes of this article was to initiate a critical rigid as to refuse consideration of ambiguous or contra-
dictory evidence? Some postprocessual archaeologists to- reconsideration of the history of archaeology in Europe
day revel in their awareness of the political nature of and the Americas.
their work, as did S. N. Bykovski in the early 1930s when
Soviet archaeology became officially internationalist:
“Consciously or unconsciously, a historian [archaeolo-
gist] performs a political task expressing his political in-
terests and inclinations in the choice of a particular
topic, in his methodological tools, and in his represen- References Cited
tation of historical data” (quoted in Shnirelman 1995:
125). A few years later, as Soviet archaeology reversed a l m a g r o , m . , e t a l . 1966. Ältere und Mittlere Steinzeit:
itself to glorify the specifically Russian past, Bykovski Jäger- und Sammlerkulturen. Handbuch der Urgeschichte 1.
Edited by K. J. Narr. Bern and München: Francke Verlag. [ag]
was imprisoned and then executed. Menghin suffered a a l o n s o d e l r e a l r a m o s , c . 1991. La prehistoria: Ciclo
kinder fate, but both examples reveal the dangers of ex- de conferencias para doctorado. Pontevedra: Gráficas Duher.
plicitly and vigorously mixing politics and science. We a r n o l d , b . 1996. “The past as propaganda: Totalitarian ar-
agree with Trigger’s modulated prescription that the sub- chaeology in Nazi Germany,” in Contemporary archaeology in
theory: A reader. Edited by R. W. Preucel and I. Hodder, pp.
jection of ideas about human behavior to the possibility 549–69. Oxford: Blackwell.
of empirical refutation is a better way to correct errors a r n o l d , b . , a n d h . h a s s m a n 1995. “Archaeology in
and advance our understanding than the exposure of Nazi Germany: The legacy of the Faustian bargain,” in Nation-
their ideological bias. Parenthetically to answer De- alism, politics, and the practice of archaeology. Edited by P. L.
Kohl and C. Fawcett, pp. 70–81. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
moule, we did not intend to equate Childe’s unfortu-
versity Press.
nately misguided fondness for Stalin with Menghin’s b e g l e y, s . , a n d a . m u r r . 1999. The First Americans.
much more serious misdeeds; they are incomparable. Newsweek, April 26, pp. 50–57.
Our criticism of Childe was only made for fairness’ sake; biehl, peter f., alexander gramsch, and arka-
the works on him in English (at least after Grahame d i u s z m a r c i n i a k . Editors. 2002a. Archäologien Europas:
Geschichte, Methoden und Teorien. Münster: Waxmann.
Clark’s uninformed evaluation [1976]) have often been ———. 2002b. “Archäologien Europas: Geschichte und Identitä-
too uncritical, bordering on the hagiographic; some cor- ten,” in Archäologien Europas: Geschichte, Methoden und
rective was needed, lest we appear too ideologically bi- Theorien. Edited by P. Biehl, A. Gramsch, and A. Marciniak,
ased ourselves. pp. 25–32. Münster: Waxmann. [ag]
b i n f o r d , l . r . 1972. “Some comments on historical vs. pro-
Both Podgorny and Marchand refer to the unsettled cessual archaeology,” in An archaeological perspective, pp.
and politically volatile conditions that beset interwar 114–21. New York: Seminar Press.
“Red Vienna” to help explain Menghin’s aversion to Aus- b l o o r , d a v i d . 1981. The strengths of the strong programme.
tro-Marxism. Such contextualization is appropriate and Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11:199–213. [az]
b o a s , f . 1896. The limitations of the comparative method in
enhances our understanding of the conservative reaction anthropology. Science 4:901–8.
of Catholic intellectuals and their cautious embrace of b o c k m a n , j o h a n n a k . Espionage and social science in his-
the Nazis. For Menghin the main problem, however, was torical perspective. MS. [az]
not principally political instability but the maintenance b r a n d e w i e , e . 1990. When giants walked the earth: The life
and times of Wilhelm Schmidt, SVD. Fribourg, Switzerland:
of religious certainty in the wake of modernization and University Press.
of the demonstration of organic evolution on the appar- b r e w, j . o . 1946. “The use and abuse of taxonomy,” in Ar-
ent basis of totally materialist principles. His entire chaeology of Alkali Ridge, Southeastern Utah, pp. 44–66. Pa-
worldview was threatened, and a response was required. pers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and
Ethnology, Harvard University, 21. [njc]
Demoule correctly observes that Menghin’s ideologi- b r o o k - s h e p h e r d , g . 1963. The Anschluss March 11, 1938:
cally conservative religious response is not totally anach- Austria’s longest day. Philadelphia: J. P. Lippincott.
ronistic; there are surprisingly many such appeals to b u n z l , m . 1996. “Franz Boas and the Humboldtian tradition:
combating perceived evils today. Similarly, Gramsch de- From Volksgeist and Nationalcharakter to an anthropological
concept of culture,” in Volksgeist as method and ethic: Essays
tects a parallel between Menghin’s unchanging cultural on Boasian ethnography and the German anthropological tra-
circles and recent attempts to project an essentialized dition. Edited by G. W. Stocking Jr., pp. 17–78. Madison: Uni-
and anachronistic concept of Europe back into the re- versity of Wisconsin Press.
mote prehistoric past. Our article, of course, was critical c h i l d e , v. g . 1933, Is prehistory practical? Antiquity 7:
410–18.
of what we perceived as Menghin’s conservative Cath- ———. 1935. Changing methods and aims in prehistory: Presi-
olic closed-mindedness, but these beliefs too must be dential address for 1935. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
contextualized. Marchand points us in the right direction 1:1–15.
when she observes that at least early on there was a ———. 1937. Symposium on Early Man, Philadelphia. Antiquity
11:351–52.
progressive character to Schmidt’s and Menghin’s beliefs ———. 1947. History. London: Cobbett Press.
in that they emphasized the true humanity of the peoples ———. 1954. What happened in history. New York: Penguin.
they studied. In this respect, they were unlike the social ———. 1992. Pis’mo sovetskim arkheologam ot 16 Dekabrya
evolutionists, who felt that the “primitives were inca- 1956 g. Rossiiskaya Arkheologiya, no. 4, pp. 184–89.
c l a r k , g . 1976. Prehistory since Childe. University of London
pable of real religion and civilized morals.” Menghin’s Institute of Archaeology Bulletin 13:1–21.
story is fascinating because it is so complex and contra- c o n a r d , n . j . 2001. “The future of archeology,” in Quo
dictory. We hope that our study will foster a broader vadis archaeologia? Whither archaeology in the 21st century?
Edited by Z. Kobylinski, pp. 106–17. Warsaw: Polish Academy Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sitzungsberichte Jahrgang 1999,
of Sciences. [njc] 4. [ag]
d a v i e s , n . 1987. The Aztec empire: The Toltec resurgence. k r o e b e r , a . l . 1952. The nature of culture. Chicago: Univer-
Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press. sity of Chicago Press. [bgt]
d a w s o n , j . w. 1888. 3d edition. Fossil men and their modern l o w i e , r . h . 1937. The history of ethnological theory. New
representatives. London: Hodder and Stoughton. [bgt] York: Farrar and Rinehart.
e g g e r s , h . j . 1986. 3d edition. Einführung in die Vorge- m a c c u r d y, g . g . Editor. 1937. Early man. Philadelphia: J.
schichte. München: Piper. [ag] B. Lippincott.
e i c k s t e d t , e . v o n . 1934. Rassenkunde und Rassenge- m c n a i r n , b . 1980. The method and theory of V. Gordon
schichte der Menschheit. Stuttgart. Childe. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
f o r m o z o v, a . a . 1998. Russkie arkheologi i politicheskie re- m a n z a n i l l a , l . Editor. 1987. Studies in the Neolithic and
pressii 1920–1940-x gg. Rossiiskaya Arkheologiya, no. 3, pp. urban revolutions: The V. Gordon Childe Colloquium, Mexico
191–206. 1986. British Archaeological Reports International Series 349.
f r a n c h , j . a . 1996. Diccionario de arqueologı́a. Madrid: Ali- m a r c h a n d , s u z a n n e . n.d. “Priests among the pygmies:
anza Editorial. The Counter-Reformation in Austrian ethnology,” in Worldly
g a t h e r c o l e , p . , t . h . i rv i n g , a n d g . m e l l e u i s h . provincialism: German anthropology in the age of empire. Ed-
Editors. 1995. Childe and Australia. St. Lucia: University of ited by H. Glenn Penny and Matti Bunzl. Ann Arbor: Univer-
Queensland Press. sity of Michigan Press. In press. [sm]
g e e h r , r . s . 1986. “Oswald Menghin, ein Vertreter der kath- m e n g h i n , o . 1922a. Review of: Die Indogermanen: Ein
olischen Nationalen,” in Geistiges Leben im Österreich der Abriss, vol. 1, Das indogermanische Urvolk, by G. Kossinna.
Ersten Republik: Auswahl der bei den Symposien in Wien Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift 9:116–18.
vom 11. bis 13. November 1980 und am 27. und 28. Oktober ———. 1922b. Review of: Die deutsche Vorgeschichte eine her-
1982 gehaltenen Referate, pp. 9–24. Vienna: Verlag für Geschi- vorragend nationale Wissenschaft, by G. Kossinna. Wiener
chte und Politik. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 9:120.
g r a e b n e r , f r i t z . 1940 [1911]. Metodologı́a etnológica. ———. 1931. Weltgeschichte der Steinzeit. Vienna: Anton
Translated by Salvador Canals Frau. La Plata: Ed. Universitaria. Schroll.
[ggp] ———. 1933a. Review of: The Danube in prehistory, by V. Gor-
g r a m s c h , a . 2000a. “Vom Vergleichen in der Archäologie: don Childe. Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift 20:20–21.
Zur Einführung,” in Vergleichen als archäologische Methode: ———. 1933b. Review of: Ursprung und Verbreitung der Germa-
Analogien in den Archäologien. Edited by A. Gramsch, pp. nen in vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit and Germanische
3–18. British Archaeological Reports International Series 825. Kultur im l. Jahrtausend nach Christus, by G. Kossinna. Wie-
ner Prähistorische Zeitschrift 20:144–45.
———. 2002b. “Reflexiveness” in archaeology, nationalism, and
———. 1934. Geist und Blut: Grundsätzliches um Rasse, Spra-
Europeanism. Archaeological Dialogues 7(1):4–19. [ag]
che, Kultur und Volkstum. Vienna: Anton Schroll.
g r e e n , s . 1981. Prehistorian: A biography of V. Gordon
———. 1935. Review of: Religion und Kult der Urarien, by E. V.
Childe. Wiltshire: Moonraker Press.
Zenker. Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift 22: 53–54.
h a a g , j . 1980. “Marginal men and the dream of the Reich:
———. 1936. Bildung, Wissenschaft, und Leben: Kundgebungen
Eight Austrian National-Catholic intellectuals, 1918–1938,” in und Ansprachen, während meines Rektorsjahres. Vienna.
Who were the fascists? Social roots of European fascism. Ed- ———. 1939a. Review of: The prehistory of Scotland, by V. Gor-
ited by S. U. Larsen, B. Hagtvet, and J. P. Myklebust, pp. don Childe. Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift 26:216–17.
239–48. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget. ———. 1939b. Review of: Kultur und Rasse, by M. Hesch and G.
———. 1995. “Triumph and neglect: Austrian Hochschulen and Spannaus. Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift 26:180–81.
the Anschluss,” Austria, 1938–1988: Anschluss and fifty years. ———. 1950. El hombre del Paleolı́tico, con referencias a Amér-
Edited by W. Wright, pp. 135–66. Riverside, Calif.: Ariadne ica. Anales de Arqueologı́a y Etnologı́a de la Universidad Na-
Press. cional de Cuyo 10:13–74.
h ä r k e , h . Editor. 2000. Archaeology, ideology, and society: ———. 1956. Alois Menghin (1856–1956). Der Schlern 30:98–99.
The German experience. Gesellschaften und Staaten im Epo- ———. 1957. Prologue. Acta Praehistorica 1:1–2.
chenwandel 7. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang Verlag. [ag] ———. 1962. Grundprobleme der amerikanischen Urgeschichte.
h a r l a n , j . 1995. The living fields: Our agricultural heritage. Homo 13 (1–2):81–92.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1965. 2d revised and expanded edition. Origen y desar-
h a r r i s , d . Editor. 1994. The archaeology of V. Gordon Childe: rollo racial de la especie humana. Buenos Aires: Editorial
Contemporary perspectives. London: University College Press. Nova.
h e i n e - g e l d e r n , r . 1954. Die asiatische Herkunft der süd- ———. 1971. Bibliographia brevis (hasta 1966, bis 1966). Acta
amerikanischen Metalltechnik. Paideuma 5. Praehistórica 8–9:261–97.
———. 1958. “Chinese influences in Mexico and Central Amer- m e n g h i n , o s w a l d , a n d m a r c e l o b ó r m i d a . 1950. In-
ica: The Tajı́n style of Mexico and the marble vases from Hon- vestigaciones prehistóricas en cuevas de Tandilia (Prov. de
duras.” Proceedings of the 33rd International Congress of Buenos Aires). Runa 3:5–36. [ggp]
Americanists, San José, Costa Rica. m e r p e r t , n . y a . 1992. K publikatsii pis’ma V. G. Childa.
h e n s o n , c h r i s t o p h e r p . 2001. Letter. Archaeology 54:6. Rossiiskaya Arkheologiya, no. 4, pp. 189–96.
[kj] m u r r a y, t . 2001. Encyclopedia of archaeology: History and
h o l d e n , c . 1999. Were Spaniards among the first Americans? discoveries. 3 vols. Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio.
Science 286:1467–68. n a r r , k . j . 1958. Festgabe für Oswald Menghin. Der Schlern
i m b e l l o n i , j . 1937. Láguidos y Fuéguidos. Anales del Museo 32:73–103.
Argentino de Ciencias Naturales 39. ———. 1961–63. Das kulturelle Phänomen und die Noogenese:
k e h o e , a . b . 1996. The land of prehistory: A critical history Das Werk Teilhard de Chardins /El fenómeno cultural y la
of American archaeology. London: Routledge. noogenesis, la obra de Teilhard de Chardin. Acta Praehistorica
k o b y l i n s k i , z . Editor. 2001. Quo vadis archaeologia? 5–7:209–22.
Whither European archaeology in the 21st century? Proceed- n e u š t u p n ý , e . 1997–98. Mainstream and minorities in ar-
ings of the European Science Foundation Exploratory Work- chaeology. Archaeologia Polona 35–36:13–23. [njc]
shop, Madralin near Warsaw, 12–13 October 2001. Warsaw. Relaciones: Sociedad Argentina de Antropologı́a. 1974. Doctor
[ag] Osvaldo F. A. Menghin. 8:9–10.
k o s s a c k , g . 1999. Prähistorische Archäologie in Deutschland p a r z i n g e r , h . 2002. “ ‘Archäologien’ Europas und ‘europäis-
im Wandel der geistigen und politischen Situation. Bayerische che Archäologie’: Rückblick und Ausblick,” in Archäologien
Europas: Geschichte, Methoden und Theorien. Edited by P. t a l l g r e n , a . m . 1936. Archaeological studies in Soviet Rus-
Biehl, A. Gramsch, and A. Marciniak, pp. 35–52. Münster: sia. Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua 10.
Waxmann. [ag] t r i g g e r , b . g . 1978. Time and traditions: Essays in archaeo-
p e n n y, g l e n n . n.d. Objects of culture: Ethnology and ethnological interpretation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
graphic museums in imperial Germany. Chapel Hill: Univer- [bgt]
sity of North Carolina Press. [sm] ———. 1980. Gordon Childe: Revolutions in archaeology. Lon-
s c h e f o l d , k . 1998. Der religiöse Gehalt der antiken Kunst don: Thames and Hudson.
und die Offenbarung. Mainz. [kj] ———. 1989. A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge:
s c h n a p p , a l a i n . 1980. Archéologie et nazisme (2). Quaderni Cambridge University Press.
di Storia 11:19–33. [jd] ———. 1995. “Romanticism, nationalism, and archaeology,” in
s c h o b i n g e r , j . 1959. Significación del doctor Osvaldo F. A. Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology. Edited
Menghin para el conocimiento de la prehistoria sudamericana. by P. L. Kohl and C. Fawcett, pp. 263–79. Cambridge: Cam-
Anales de Arqueologı́a y Etnologı́a de la Universidad Na- bridge University Press.
cional de Cuyo 14–15:11–18. u r b a n , o . h . 1996. “Er war der Mann zwischen den Fron-
———. 1973. Osvaldo F. A. Menghin, 1888–1973. Anales de Ar-
ten”: Oswald Menghin und das Urgeschichtliche Institut der
queologı́a y Etnologı́a de la Universidad Nacional de Cuyo
Universität Wien während der Nazizeit. Archaeologia Aus-
27–28:229–33.
triaca: Beiträge zur Paläanthropologie, Ur- und Frühgeschichte
s h e r r a t t , a . 1997. “Gordon Childe: Right or wrong (1995),”
in Economy and society in prehistoric Europe: Changing per- österreichs 80:1–24.
spectives, pp. 490–505. Princeton: Princeton University Press. v á z q u e z l e ó n , l . , a n d m . r u t s c h . 1997. México en la
s h n i r e l m a n , v. a . 1995. “From internationalism to nation- imagen de la ciencia y las teorı́as de la historia cultural ale-
alism: Forgotten pages of Soviet archaeology in the 1930s and mana. Ludus Vitalis 5 (8):115–78.
1940s,” in Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archae- w a i l e s , b . Editor. 1996. Craft specialization and social evolu-
ology. Edited by P. L. Kohl and C. Fawcett, pp. 120–38. Cam- tion: In memory of V. Gordon Childe. Philadelphia: University
bridge: Cambridge University Press. Museum Publications.
———. 2001. The value of the past: Myths, identity, and politics w o l f , e . r . 1982. Europe and the people without history.
in Transcaucasia. Senri Ethnological Studies 57. [bgt] Berkeley: University of California Press.
s t e u e r , h . Editor. 2001. Eine hervorragend nationale Wissen- z i m m e r m a n , a n d r e w. 2001. Anthropology and antihuman-
schaft: Deutsche Prähistoriker zwischen 1900 und 1995. Berlin ism in imperial Germany. Chicago: University of Chicago
and New York: Walter de Gruyter. [ag] Press. [sm]
s t r a u s , l . 2000. Solutrean settlement of North America? A z u b o v, a . b . 1996. Istoriia religii. Vol. 1. Doistoricheskie
review of reality. American Antiquity 65:219–26. vneistoricheskie religii. Moscow: Planeta Detei.

Kohl y Perez Gollán 2002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kohl y Perez Gollán 2002

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kohl y Perez Gollán 2002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

C u r r e n t A n t h r o p o l o g y Volume 43, Number 4, August–October 2002

publications include “The Balance of Trade in Southwestern

Prehistory Anthropology 27:223–46).

j . a . p é r e z g o l l á n is Director of the Ethnographic Mu-

The writings and career of Oswald Menghin are rarely

gether into Childe’s mighty river or, more precisely, were

The range and volume of Menghin’s scholarly works

Fig. 4. Menghin Museum, Chivilcoy, Argentina. (Photo courtesy of M. A. Caggiano.)

You might also like