Albert Funk collection

Pharmacist Albert Funk (18871979) began maintaining and preserving the archaeological heritage of Singen, his adopted hometown, in 1925. It is thanks to him that excavations were carried out in the Hegau region over several decades in which a number of spectacular finds were unearthed.

In 1951, some of these discovered objects found a new home in the exhibition rooms of Singen palace. However, many archaeological artifacts came into the Hegau-Museumand also vanished from itin not entirely transparent ways during the turbulent 1930s and the decades that followed.

From the end of the 19th century onward, efforts to foster local values and traditions and conserve nature in south Baden were largely the preserve of a middle class who engaged in these activities on a voluntary basis. Generally speaking, archaeological excavations were led by local academics who had taught themselves all about the prehistoric and early historic subject matter. A large proportion of these lay archaeologists came from an educated Catholic or Jewish background. The sometimes spectacular archaeological finds often remained in the possession of the excavators, were donated to the local communities or were loaned out for exhibition purposes. Besides the actual objects, it is primarily the original research documentation that is of special scientific importance. This includes not just written materials, but also photographs as well as their negatives and copies, drawings, stored goods, survey documents and much more.

With the start of the Nazi era, the whole specialist area of prehistoric and early historic research was nationalized. Dozens of professorships were created at universities; numerous offices were put in charge of the protection of local values and traditions and Germanic heritage. The most widely known protagonist of the Nazi state in this field was Hans Reinerth, who took part in all important excavations in the Lake Constance area from the 1920s onwards. The academic bourgeoisie who had carried out the research up until then was largely ousted, particularly the unwanted Jews and devout Catholics. Not only was the prehistory and early history aryanizedthe discovered objects were also taken into the possession of state authorities usually without due process, transferred to museum collections and thus effectively expropriated.

Albert Funk himself, like his fellow campaigner Ludwig Finkh, worked in a voluntary capacity for nature conservation and the preservation of historical monuments after 1933. It can be assumed that the latters personal closeness to Hermann Göring was of no little significance here.

After 1945, many archaeological finds were reported as missing or looted. However, the information on these is only partially credible. Targeted theft is more likely in certain individual cases. External events provided enough opportunities for valuable objects to change hands repeatedly. According to the archived written correspondence, Albert Funk presented himself as the sole owner of his extensive collection of objects, photos and research documents from 1950 onward. He distinguished this collection from subsequent allocations made by the state of Baden (after 1954 Baden-Württemberg). However, it is still partly unclear how older archaeological stocks came into his collection.

Albert Funk continued to work in just the same way after 1945 as he had before. It is ultimately thanks to him that a museum with archaeological objects exists at all. For him, the discovered objects always took center stage; he had little interest in who was in power at the time. Under the Nazi regime, his work appears to have been easier than before, which might be explained by Funks generally positive attitude to the Nazi regime. Funk also never shied away from fully exploiting the opportunities offered by the Nazi state. He believed the Nazi state had set the right course as regards the protection of local values and traditions, and it supported the preservers of nature and historical monuments. However, Funk did not have any difficulty adapting to the new circumstances after 1945 either: The first post-war mayoran opponent of the regime with no suspicious pastattested to Funks impeccable moral conduct. This mayor also confirmed that Funk had devoted all his energies to the resistance movement at the end of the war. This statement should be viewed very critically, if only because Albert Funk would not have been physically able to participate in any resistance struggles at that time due to a number of chronic illnesses.

Post-war society was not interested in the political Albert Funk. Even though there must have been people who incriminated him during his denazification processthere is no other explanation for a large fine and a ban from his professionhis work and his position as a voluntary preserver of monuments and museum director were never called into question or critically scrutinized. On the contrary, his huge commitment to the preservation of nature and historic buildingsno matter in what regimewas considered so commendable that he was even made an honorary citizen of the city of Singen. As a rather quiet and reserved individual, Funk appears never really to have clashed with other people. He tended to shy away from conflict in all his positions. This meant he was held in high esteem, irrespective of the political system.

Numerous excavations of both a spurious and a scientific nature were carried out by educated laypersonslike pharmacists in this caseup to 1945. With their pro-German interpretation of discovered objects, these volunteer prehistorians accommodated the National Socialists desire for political legitimacy. The aim here was to demonstrate the cultural superiority of ancient Germanic tribes as direct ancestors of modern-day Germans. Prehistoric archaeology was thus considered a key field of the Nazi era. In this context, one may recall the Reichsbund für Deutsche Vorgeschichte (Reich association for German prehistory) or Heinrich Himmlers Ahnenerbe, the SS scientific institute for research into Germanic ancestral heritage. This closeness to the regime, which was revealed in the course of the provenance research at the Hegau-Museum, is therefore highly unlikely to be an isolated case in the scientific history of archaeology. It is to be expected that local history with a spade was generously promoted and supported by the National Socialists in many other places too. In countless cases, full-time and voluntary scientists alike will have come closer to the protagonists of the regime and taken on board their ideological beliefs.

So far, there is not a single instance in which it has been possible to prove that pieces from the Hegau-Museums collection were confiscated from their previous owners under the threat of Nazi persecution. However, it is not impossible that, during further research or through investigations at other museums, individual archaeological finds may turn up which were confiscated from non-German government bodies or private owners during military occupation. In addition, the aim over the next few years is to examine the original ownership of excavation documents from the first half of the 20th century which are deposited in various archives. Despite the past inconspicuousness of the surviving documents, it is likely that individual scientistsparticularly those working on a voluntary basiswere denied the published fruits of their labor due to persecution.

(c) Hegau Museum Singen