Unearthed: the Real Relationship between Berlin and the Berliner Schloss
News from 12/21/2016
For years, the Berliner Schloss has been at the center of numerous debates. Alongside the issue of the Humboldt-Forum, discussion has primarily centered on one question: should it be rebuilt, or not? Those who oppose reconstructing the building argue that this would cover up the traces of recent history – the Nazi period, the Second World War, and the GDR, for example. Regardless of which side one might take in the reconstruction debate, one thing that is certain is that the construction activity in Berlin's historic center has brought an even older era to light again. This is due in part to the fact that the ground there has been examined by archaeologists. The trailblazing discoveries that have been made are described in a recently published book, "Das Berliner Schloss. Geschichte und Archäologie," written by Michael Malliaris and Matthias Wemhoff. We spoke with Matthias Wemhoff, Director of the Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.
Mr. Wemhoff, to what extent does the book change how the Berliner Schloss (Berlin Palace) is viewed?
The book is a change of perspective. We don't view the palace as an independent structure all its own, to which the city layout was subordinate – instead, we look from the city to the palace. To date, the commonly held view in Berlin has been the one articulated very succinctly by Wolf Jobst Siedler: the palace was not in Berlin; Berlin was the palace. It was the palace defined as the center of authority, toward which all civic culture was oriented. This idea definitely has a certain appeal, and at the height of the German Empire, it may have been true. At the same time, however, people forget that this palace was embedded in the genesis of a city. They forget that the city of Berlin existed before the palace did, that the palace, its location, and the whole development of Berlin can only be understood if people look at what was there before. That's what we're working on, and this book provides an excellent and comprehensive illustration of it for the first time.
And the book is based on excavations at the Schlossplatz (Palace Square)?
Exactly. In recent years, the Landesdenkmalamt (State Office for Historic Landmark Conservation) has carried out huge excavations in Berlin, because the historic center of the city became the focus of attention, and building work was underway there. There were three large excavations: at Petriplatz (St. Peter’s Square), at the Rotes Rathaus (Red City Hall), and at the Berliner Schloss before construction started on the new Humboldt-Forum. That's over 20,000 square meters that were examined in five years. The entire eastern part of the palace had already been irrevocably destroyed with the construction of the Palast der Republik (Palace of the Republic), however. Its basement was dug out very deep, and so there is nothing of archaeological interest left within the area of the foundation walls. So we basically just examined the western part of the palace and the area between the Staatsratsgebäude (State Council Building) and the palace – the actual Schlossplatz, in other words. Remember that the main façade of the palace is not the one facing Unter den Linden but rather the opposite side, on Breite Strasse. That's where the palace is oriented. That's the front.
Why was that? What lay in the direction of Breite Strasse?
Berlin is a city with two historic centers. We have Berlin, which was the historic core around the Nicolaikirche (St. Nicholas' Church), to which the area of the Marienkirche (St. Mary's Church) was added somewhat later. And on the other side of the River Spree is Cölln. So the palace actually lies in Cölln. The center of Cölln is Petriplatz, where the Petri-Kirche (St. Peter's Church) stood at one time. The area of the palace is somewhat at the edge. During the excavations, we ascertained that people had settled in this area at a relatively early date. There are many indications that the first buildings were erected here in the 12th century. This quarter at the edge of Cölln underwent a major change again around 1300, when a Dominican monastery was built there. The Dominican monastery has been completely forgotten, but now, thanks to the excavations and our book, its development and importance can be understood. The monastery was a place that testifies to the vibrant urban society of the Middle Ages.
In fact, a central message of the archaeology of recent years, and of our book as well, is that around the 13th century, Berlin wasn't a shabby little hamlet in the sand of the Mark Brandenburg – that's a quote from Siedler again – but a vibrant medieval city that grew and became very successful in just a short time. And the evidence for that includes the distinguished structures like the city council building, the monasteries, and the stone town houses that were built during this time. That's why the Elector of Brandenburg had to move to the successful city and not the other way around. This is a different way of looking at things: the Elector built the palace in the middle of Berlin despite the opposition of the Berliners in order to profit from the growth and success of this city, which was at that time already the most important one in his land.
Why did Wolf Jobst Siedler say Berlin was a shabby little hamlet in the sand of the March Brandenburg?
That has to be understood with reference to a yearning for the palace that's no longer there. Someone who's seen the palace and Berlin before the war probably really does consider it the center and heart of the city. But by turning this palace into something ever greater and ever more important, people have actually devalued everything before that, without differentiating. People referred to this greatness of the 18th and 19th centuries and saw nothing else. That's a mistake we have to correct, both for its own sake and with a view toward future urban planning and development in Berlin. Berlin also has to see itself as a city sustained by burghers. Berlin isn't just the city of the king. To begin with, Berlin's growth into a successful European center of trade was organic. People need to rediscover this fact, and learn to appreciate the artifacts from this era. And ultimately, this new awareness has to inform today's city planning.
Which version of the palace is going to be rebuilt?
We're essentially looking at the palace of the Baroque period, which gives visible expression to the elevation of the Prussian electors to the rank of kings in 1701. It's precisely this moment which is reflected by the three reconstructed facades. It's actually too bad (and also entirely typical of the thinking behind the project) that no effort was made to come to grips with the eastern facade – because that's actually the facade that suggested the historical depth, dating back to the 15th century. Now that the eastern facade has such a monolithic appearance, the city opposite plays even less of a role. This demonstrates, you might say, that a firmly fixed and established way of thinking certainly can and does find expression in real buildings, and that it's our job to break up these entrenched ideas through careful historical archaeological work. And this has to be done just to broaden our thinking a little bit again.
How can you actually reconstruct what was there in the past based on what you find in the ground?
The central task of archaeology, whether it's here, in the Orient or Greece, or anywhere else in the world, is ultimately always to clarify the relative temporal sequence of features or artifacts and to date them as precisely as possible in absolute terms. We now have such a strong methodological framework that we can establish links between the artifacts across a large area and can then say: these are simultaneous; that is older; then this happened; that changed. In that respect, we basically cut sections through time and show a given development as an arrangement of successive stages.
Archaeologists have it easy in one respect: whatever is found in the soil has to be more recent than what lies below it. The next step is harder: to date these layers in order to analyze them with as much certainty as possible. We can date fragments and other remains through comparisons. In addition to this, much greater use is now being made of scientific data. Radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology – that's tree-ring dating – give us very specific indications of when building activity took place, for instance. That allows us to go all the way back into eras for which there are no written records. It's important to remember that written records are very sparse from the beginning to the middle of the 13th century. The oldest document in which Berlin/Cölln is named dates from 1237 – but there was settlement activity here as much as fifty, sixty, or maybe even seventy years before that. We can only comprehend these periods of time through archaeology. Written records provide a new level of detail for quite a few historical activities in the following centuries. For example, an old invoice provides an indication that Berlin rye was delivered to Hamburg. But we don't necessarily get so much statistical material that we can make an assertion about the population density, the settlement intensity, or the peak periods of new construction in a city. In the long run, only intensive, continuous archaeological research can provide that information.
Will the results of the excavation be exhibited in the Humboldt Forum?
At the Humboldt Forum, we have a relatively large archaeological zone of 1200 square meters in the area south of the Eosander Portal. Old cellars of the palace are preserved there, and visitors will be able to look into a cellar of the Dominican monastery that was still intact and in use up until the palace was built around 1700. In that respect, the archaeological evidence really does extend back to the Middle Ages. I think that's very important, in order to correct the impression that this palace appeared out of nowhere. What's more, the preserved remains of a light shaft have been built into the new facade, standing precisely where the walls of the palace used to be. Visitors will walk through the cellar areas and get a sense of how – and for how long – the premises were used at any particular spot. You'll go through rooms that were used by the palace guard; you'll see the cellar that held the heating system, including the changes in the heating there in the Wilhelminian period; and you'll end with a view into a large corridor underneath the Eosander Portal, where the blast craters still testify to the demolition of the palace in 1950. I'm convinced that history will be conveyed quite vividly there.