Germanien Magazine, January 1935. Pp. 1-3

 Page 1:

The Berlin Pronouncement

On December 3 in the evening Wilhelm Teudt spoke in the Technical University in Berlin about the importance of the Externsteine. Afterwards, Prof. Dr. Andree-Münster, as excavation director, gave a report on this year's investigation work at the Externsteine.

The following morning, a meeting between the representatives of prehistoric science and the friends of Germanic prehistory, the so-called Teudt Circle, took place in the meeting room of the Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft.

Professor Reinerth as convener presented for discussion:

The methodology of Teudt;

The question of the Externsteine;

The 1934 volume of the journal "Germanien" with regard to his scientific and methodological publications.

Regarding his working method, Teudt had already expressed himself the evening before in the introduction of his lecture as follows:

The well-known idea of a presuppositionless, i.e. prejudice-free, science is quite justified. Especially in the field of prehistory an unfavorable prejudice has been decisive since the time of christian conversion, so that one denied to the Germanic what was recognized without further ado in the case of the Mediterranean peoples living at the same time. Even the romantics - better "Germantics" - could not change this. That was only possible by the spade science, by the German prehistory, which proved by the soil finds that in the north a unique culture existed, which was not created from the south, but on the contrary, fertilized and determined how the people of the south worked. 

It is to be demanded for our prehistory that it uses the same means of cognition that the general science of history uses, i.e. not in temporal but in cultural terms.

Page 2:

It is not the sequence of documentary material that is put together, but that judgments and pictures are created by using general experiences of life, the synopsis of different knowledge and the same logic on which every judgment of human activity is based. Thus, for example, for many works of art of prehistoric times a graphic design must be assumed, even if such designs or devices for their production have not been handed down to us. Above all, however, it must be taken into account that the alarming paucity of finds in the Germanic landscape compared to the classical countries is based on the contrast between the Nordic wood culture and the stone cultures of the Mediterranean area. The perishable wood disappeared after a few centuries, so that we could find only meager remains preserved by chance. But the presence of the Germanic words "letter" and "book" alone should be a pointer for all those who cannot get rid of the thought of the primitive Teutons. The cultural break of the time of conversion to christianity, by which the southern cultures were affected much less, must also be taken into account.

Without showing any contradiction against the basic thoughts presented by Teudt, the discussion went immediately to point 2, in which not only the Externsteine, but also the sanctuaries in the Osterholzer Senne and the so-called “dowsing'' were treated. The discussion about celestial science was mainly led by the two astronomers Prof. Hopmann of Leipzig and Dr. Müller of Potsdam. What they said can be outlined approximately as follows:

From the astronomical point of view all three theses of Teudt are to be affirmed: Externsteine, Osterholzer Senne, Ortung.

Concerning the age of the Externstein sites, Teudt's assumption from the prehistoric side was confirmed by the excavations of the year, which are to be continued in the summer of 1935. The astronomical calculation proves with equally great accuracy Teudt's thesis of the alignment of the Externstein installations with the northernmost sun and moon locations. The deviation of the moon location from the real starting point amounts to e.g. only 4 arc minutes. Both places are besides necessary for the calendar calculation. On an intermediate question of Prof. Reinerth, Prof. Hopmann affirmed the possibility of daily calendars for the time.

In connection with these questions also the solar alignment of the much disputed Stonehenge and Ordry sites is referred to, while both astronomers agree that the Bützow Stone Dance is to be regarded as a coincidence.

The "Sternhof", Haus Gierke, in the Osterholze Senne has been resurveyed by Prof. Hopmann this year. The alignment of the farm boundaries, marked by 3-4 meter wide ramparts pointing to certain mythologically significant stars, has been confirmed by Hopmann contrary to his earlier opinion. He also found another 7 lines to the "Quellenhügel". In addition, the mound at the southwest corner of the farm was recognized as an observation point from which further clear lines could be established. Thus, 11 locating lines have been proven on Gierke-Österholz. Apart from the mathematical proof about the elevation, which with 11 conditions necessarily requires this figure, also the probability calculation, which would amount to many thousands, must eliminate each coincidence. Because all these lines, as the star rises and sets determined by it have been correct for the old calendar division. They still exist today in popular customs and significant old festivals.

The same phenomenon resulted with the Location in East Frisia. Also there, lines are fixed with unusual accuracy in the terrain, which marked rising stars on old, significant feast days. On this occasion both astronomers warned

Page 3:

on the one hand against the numerous fantasies existing just in this area and on the other hand against the complete rejection of these products, since in this unexplored area naturally the greatest surprises are to be expected.

Equally both gentlemen agree that with these astronomically determined phenomena the prehistorian must have the last word. Both gentlemen explained that they would take back each of their calculations if the top research will produce no or contrary results. They explicitly referred to the Externstein excavation, where theoretical evidence and excavation results coincide.

During the discussion about the Externsteine it was first regretted that also this time the shards decisive for the dating were not at hand. - Professor Andree pointed out the evidential value of the overburden layer under all cultural layers and explained that the disputed rune mark in the large Externstein is to be regarded as absolutely old, perhaps even the oldest work of all. He emphatically rejects the assertion that the wedge holes found on rock II were anchors for a cross that had been placed there and cites for the explanation the blasted areas on rock I, where the same wedge holes can still be seen.

Then the question was discussed in detail whether the "chair" on the picture of the taking down of the cross at the big Externstein should be interpreted as an Irminsul or not.

Remarkable in this debate were the explanations of Dr. Plaßmann, who refuted on the basis of the texts the assertion that in the year 531 an Irminsul was set near Burgscheidungen. Also the explanation of Rudolph of Fulda that the Irminsul carries the world, as it were, is an embarrassing interpretation of the incomprehensible word Irminsul.

Dr. Jörg Lechler, editor of the "Mannus", based on his work on the hakenkreuz, drew on the Irminsul-like signs on Stone Age buttocks (drum of horned Romans). In his opinion, the christian symbol of the anchor can be explained from these ancient symbols. He opposes the opinion expressed several times, that the Irminsul as a tree of life and related symbolic images had originated only in the late period.

In the further discussion also the objection was refuted that too much time had passed after the conversion and the time of origin of the picture of the descent from the cross for the sculptor to have remembered the pagan symbol of the Irminsul. This is contrasted by the news of Heinrich von Herford that in 1114 the Saxons had the last relapse into the old faith, so that with it the rededication of the Externstein chapel in 1115 is sufficiently justified.

The debate had started at 10 o'clock and was closed around 2 o'clock, because at 2 o'clock Prof. Reinerth's lecture started. Therefore, the planned third point of the debate about the journal "Germania" could not be carried out.

In their closing words W. Teudt and Prof. Reinerth stated that fortunately there had been a mutual rapprochement and recognition, that thus the dangerous gap between prehistorians by profession and by inclination had been bridged.

Sorrowfully servants gasp through life,

Food and drink is their comfort:

For knowledge thirsts the soul of the wielder,

For wisdom hungers the Lord.

Leopold Weber, The Gods of the Edda