them were considered patriotic collections. Thus, the Bonn museum director
was instructed to improve the collection ‘so that it will serve the purposes of
youth education, historical research, and preservation of valuable monu-
ments [and] will inspire and nurture the sense of the signiWcance of our
fatherland and the history of the past’ (in Marchand 1996a: 165). Similarly, in
a Handbook of Germanic Antiquarianism (Handbuch des Germanischen
Altertumskunde) published in 1836, the author, Gustaf Friedrich Klemm
(1802–67), explained that ‘it is necessary to spread the knowledge of prehis-
tory among the people and to create respect for it as the safest way to
patriotism’ (in Wiwjorra 1996: 166).
Yet, after the fall of Napoleon, at the Congress of Vienna of 1814–15—a
congress in which Germanic countries had a central role and in which post-
Napoleonic national boundaries were codiWed—a series of reactionary meas-
ures were put in place which intended to suppress liberalism and the type of
nationalism created by the French Revolution. In many German countries
these measures were eVective, with the eVacement of liberalism in the early
1820s. As a result, the early state interest in prehistory was greatly aVected. In
contrast, classical philology and history gained in importance in secondary
schools and universities. In fact, in many German states the study of national
antiquities was discouraged (Marchand 1996a: 165). The museum in Bonn
fell out of favour and the university professors appointed as advisers indicated
that it should remove all non-classical artefacts, which they saw as large and
ugly. The deposed director later explained that ‘people then had...nosym-
pathy for national antiquities; they dreamed only of art works, of museums of
Greek and Egyptian antiquities’ (Dorow in Marchand 1996a: 166). In con-
trast, the Altes Museum, which displayed classical antiquities (Cullen & von
Stockhausen 1998), was opened in Berlin (Prussia) in 1830. The state’s
contribution to the societies was reduced and, on occasions, even frozen. By
and large the study of antiquities in universities focused on the philological
analysis of classical sources. Archaeology—even that of the Roman period—
was considered aWeld for amateurs. This state of aVairs was to persist for
some time (Sklena ́r 1983: 64–5). The Professor of Greek Philology, Ulrich von
Wilamowitz-MoellendorV(1848–1931), recalled that during his days as a
student in the late 1860s, ‘only dilettanti troubled about German antiquities
of Roman date’ (in Marchand 1996a: 168). The anthropologist, Rudolf
Virchow, thought in 1874 that ‘Prehistory is not an academicWeld (Fach) and
it will probably never be’ (in Veit 1984: 328). Yet, where extraordinaryWndings
were unearthed, such as those made by the engineer Johann Ramsauer
(1795–1874) in the Austrian Alpine village of Hallstatt from 1846,
the archaeological authorities—in this case the custodian of the Imperial
Cabinet of Coins and Antiquities, the Baron Eduard Freiherr von Sacken
328 National Archaeology in Europe