Tag: Germany

Early women in prehistoric archaeology: the case of Berlin, 1880s to 1930s (Part 2)

Posted on by Debbie

by Elsbeth Bösl & Doris Gutsmiedl-Schümann

The early 20th century and the Kiekebusch seminar at Märkisches Museum
At the turn of the 20th century, things began to change. Both amateurs and academic scholars began narrow their expertise to certain focus fields. Distinct disciplines evolved out of Altertumskunde and prehistoric archaeology was turned into an academic profession with distinct boundaries and institutions. University chairs and institutes were installed (Kühn 1976, Leube 2010, Wiwjorra 2006).

Heritage conservation was institutionalized outside of academia. Some of the amateur societies changed into academic bodies, others became irrelevant or specialised in the local preservation of archaeological monuments. At the same time, German nationalism became increasingly radical, and a specific German way of doing prehistoric archaeology, Deutsche Vorgeschichte, was branded by Gustav Kossinna and his followers. (Gramsch 2006) After the First World War, this process gained momentum and political attention to Deutsche Vorgeschichte increased, Germano-mania was on the rise (Leube 2010).

How did these changes impact women?

In the years before the turn of the century, private and public girls’ schools emerged in Berlin, allowing women to attain degrees for university entry, and by 1909, the University of Berlin admitted women as regular students. However, most of these women opted for fields such as medicine and the social sciences, not archaeology (Heinsohn 1996; Mazón 2003; Coastas 2010).

Few women studied prehistoric archaeology before 1930 in Berlin. Studying meant a heavy financial burden and personal insecurity. Most female students depended on their families and on the goodwill of the male professors and supervisors. There was also the question of paid employment after graduation. Where would female archaeologists find a job?

While a number of self-taught women volunteered in archaeology, only a handful of women were accepted into paid positions in the 1910s to 1920s. And very few of them actually had degrees in archaeology. Most of the women we discovered in the museums and at the university of Berlin worked as secretaries, librarians and technical assistants. They had no formal qualification in archaeology but had been qualified in office professions. They trained on the job — sorting finds and labelling them, keeping research diaries, creating card indexes, and catalogues, and mounting photos, as well as restoring, drawing, and editing (with further references Bösl / Gutsmiedl-Schümann 2024).

Such jobs were increasingly coded as suitable jobs for women – albeit under male supervision. These jobs were also regarded as subaltern. They were hardly visible but these women significantly contributed to everyday research, knowledge transfer and communication.
In Berlin, however, a rather unique path into archaeology connected 19th-century civil science with 20th-century academic archaeology: Berlin was renowned for its teacher training programs during the 1910s and 1920s, with prehistory being a prominent discipline. Melting nationalism, patriotism and local-ism into one, this approach aimed to familiarize school children with the prehistory of their home area, fostering a strong sense of attachment (Kiekebusch 1915).

Albert Kiekebusch (1870–1935), a prehistoric archaeologist and the director of the Märkisches Museum in Berlin, established semi-academic classes that provided practical training, including excavation techniques and conservation (Dorka 1955; Kiekebusch 1915). Members of the Kiekebusch Circle, as it was often called, contributed voluntarily to conservation and heritage management. Notably, around one-third of the participants were women, as teaching was deemed a suitable academic profession for women early on (ref Dorka 1955).

Lena Köppler (biographical data unknown) and Elisabeth Bellot (1881-1956)

Grainy black and white photograph of a white woman from the early 1900s.

Fig 6. Elisabeth Bellot, c. 1937. Source: LAB_Bellot Reichskammer Bildende Künste A Rep. 243-04;542.

Two of these women teachers were Lena Köppler and Elisabeth Bellot (Keil 2022; Bösl 2023c). Both continued their teaching careers while engaging in voluntary archaeological work. Elisabeth Bellot also pursued the career as an artist and wrote a book on childhood psychology. She focused on recording ground monuments and conducting surveys, emphasizing drawing as a critical tool for authentication and knowledge transmission. Despite emerging photography, drawing remained pivotal for conveying findings and insights.

Sepia photograph of a woman in a excavation hole looking at finds.

Fig. 7. Lena Köppler at the excavation of Pennigsberg, 1930. Source: I-MPM, 087 Pennigsberg 1930-L.Köppler

Lena Köppler served as a voluntary conservator for Neukölln in Berlin, overseeing recoveries, excavations, documentation, and visitor engagement. Two other female teachers from the Kiekebusch Circle transitioned to studying prehistoric archaeology in Berlin: Waldtraut Bohm and Gertrud Dorka.

Waldtraut Bohm (1890-1969)

Black and white photograph of a white woman in glasses with dark hair.

Fig. 8. Waldtraut Bohm, 1961. Photo from family property (rights holder WP-user History&more), CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

One of them was Waldtraut Bohm (1890-1969), who graduated from the university of Berlin in 1930. Even before studying she had organized and negotiated the purchase of private collections of finds for the Märkisches Museum. Kiekebusch had great trust in her capabilities and treated her as an independent colleague (Koch 2024).

She graduated with a seminal study on early Bronze age Brandenburg (HU UA, Phil.Fak.01.Prom, Nr. 749; Bohm 1935). Afterwards she was employed to the Staatliches Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte to sort and arrange finds at the prehistoric department, followed by a systematic archaeological survey of the Westprignitz, a region in Brandenburg. The publication of her book Die Vorgeschichte des Kreises Westprignitz in 1937 marked a transition: Waldtraut Bohm was not following strict science anymore; instead she adopted a nationalistic and racist take on ‘Germanic’ prehistory. So, the book turned out a peculiar mix of a very modern type of catalogue with detailed documentation on the one hand and an ideologic, Germano-manic essay part on the other hand (Bohm 1937).

With the rise of the National Socialism political and ideological objectives were prioritized in prehistoric archaeology. Women who embraced Nazi ideology such as Waldtraut Bohm now found increased funding and job prospects, particularly during WWII. Prehistoric archaeology received ample funding after the Nazis seized power in 1933 now. New job opportunities opened up in conservation and heritage work as well as in popular prehistory and science communication, especially in Berlin. It was a political goal to advance public interest in Germanic prehistory to prepare a scientific rationale for conquest. Waldtraut Bohm who openly embraced Nazism received a job at the publication’s office of the NSDAP at Amt Rosenberg as a proofreader which actually meant she became a censor. She also co-edited popular prehistoric archaeology books and a handbook of German Prehistory (Handlexikon der Deutschen Vorgeschichte) – this was clearly ideological work. So were the public lectures she now gave frequently (Barthel / Atzenbeck 1938; Lindemann 2011).

Gertrud Dorka (1893-1976)

Sepia images of a woman crouched down on an excavation site.

Fig. 9. Gertrud Dorka at the excavation of Pennigsberg 1930. Source: I-MPM, 087 Pennigsberg 1930-G.Dorka

Gertrud Dorka took quite a different path. She was a member of the Kiekebusch Circle since 1916 and devoted teacher. She was particularly fond of and good at creating exhibitions and taking classes through them. She volunteered as a museum guide at Märkisches Museum and curated mobile exhibitions for schools in the 1920s. In 1930 she took up studying part time alongside her teaching job. It was very hard for her to bring up the money. She prepared a dissertation on the prehistory of the Pyritz (Pyrzyce, Poland), a district in East Prussia (Dorka 1939; Gutsmiedl-Schümann / Koch / Bösl 2023; Gandert 1957; Müller 1978; Hohmann 1963.)
However, Getrud Dorka faced massive conflicts with her Berlin professor, Hans Reinerth, a leading figure in Nazi Germany’s prehistorical research at the aforementioned Amt Rosenberg. Due to ideological disputes with Reinerth she initially failed to complete her PhD and returned to full-time teaching. With the help of friends from the Kiekebusch Circle, she later took her degree at the university of Kiel. Gertrud Dorka then turned down a museum job at Kiel because it would have come with the obligation to join the Nazi party. She did not expect to work as an archaeologist anymore.

hand drawn portrait of a white woman with wavy hair.

Fig. 10. Gertrud Dorka. Portrait drawn by Jens Notroff.

Yet, after World War II, Gertrud Dorka became the first female director of the Ehemals Staatliches Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Berlin (former State Museum for Prehistory and Early History). She rebuilt the destroyed museum and it’s library and reorganized the system of heritage management in the Western parts of the divided city (Hohmann 1963; Gandert 1957; Müller 1978). She had kept in touch with people from the Kiekebusch Circle, and now collaborated with former fellow members such as Lena Köppler and others. Gertrud Dorka was also the leading figure behind the re-launch of the BGAEU after 1945 (Dorka 1955). The role of the BGEAU, however, had changed and it never lived up to its 19th century importance. Gertrud Dorka also chose other venues for her activities which shows how things had changed for professional women. Even though the 1950s were a period of restoration and restrictive on working women there was an increasing number of options for those who wanted to engage with others and make their voices heard. Gertrud Dorka now engaged in the Berlin branch of Deutscher Akademikerinnen Bund e.V., the most important association of professional women in Germany that was re-established after 1945 and now bloomed.

Group photo of 10 people, 4 women sitting, 6 men standing at the back with a dog lying down at the front.

Fig 11. Gertrud Dorka with her staff in the 1950s. Source: MVF_Berlin_Dorka-Album_F5037

Conclusion

In conclusion, our analysis has centred on the significance of citizen science during the nascent phases of German prehistoric archaeology, particularly its influence on the roles of women. We have charted the trajectories of female archaeologists against the backdrop of socio-political and historical dynamics spanning the late 19th to the early 20th centuries. We advocate for conceptualizing the knowledge production process as a collaborative endeavour, acknowledging the diverse contributions of individuals undertaking various tasks and employing a range of tools.

Biography

Elsbeth Bösl is a research associate at the University of the Armed Forces in Munich. She holds a Ph.D. in Contemporary History and specializes in the History of Science and Technology, Disability History, and Gender History. She is currently working on early female archaeologists in the project “Akteurinnen archäologischer Forschung zwischen Geistes- und Naturwissenschaften: Im Feld, im Labor, am Schreibtisch (AktArcha)”, funded by the by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Doris Gutsmiedl-Schümann is research associate at the University of the Armed Forces in Munich and Privatdozent at the Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology, Freie Universität Berlin. She holds a doctorate in prehistoric archaeology from the University of Bonn and a master’s degree in Higher Education from the University of Hamburg. She is also working in the “AktArcha”-project on early female archaeologists.

Bibliography

Barthel, Waldemar & Atzenbeck, Carl (1938), Handlexikon der deutschen Vorgeschichte. Durchgesehen und in wesentlichen Teilen nach neuesten Ergebnissen überarbeitet und ergänzt von Waldtraut Bohm, 2. erw. Aufl., Verlagsanstalt Wilhelm Kürzl, München.

Bohm, Waldtraut (1935), Die ältere Bronzezeit in der Mark Brandenburg, Berlin.

Bohm, Waldtraut (1937), Die Vorgeschichte des Kreises Westprignitz, Leipzig.

Bösl, Elsbeth (2023c), Frauen in der Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte (BGAEU), AktArcha – Akteurinnen archäologischer Forschung und ihre Geschichte(n), 19.1.2023, URL: https://aktarcha.hypotheses.org/1229 [accessed 1 July 2024].

Bösl, Elsbeth & Gutsmiedl-Schümann, Doris (2024), ‘Breaking Ground: Women’s Roles in German Archaeology Since the Nineteenth Century’, Bulletin of the History of Archaeology, Vol 34 / Issue 1, URL: https://archaeologybulletin.org/articles/10.5334/bha-680

Costas, Ilse (2010), ‘Von der Gasthörerin zur voll immatrikulierten Studentin: Die Zulassung von Frauen in den deutschen Bundesstaaten 1900–1909’, Trude Maurer (ed.), Der Weg an die Universität: Höhere Frauenstudien vom Mittelalter bis zum 20. Jahrhundert, Göttingen, pp. 191–210.

Dorka, Gertrud (1939), Urgeschichte des Weizacker-Kreises Pyritz, Stettin.

Dorka, Gertrud (1955), ‘Gertrud Dorka: 40 Jahre siedlungsarchäologische Übungen und Studien in Berlin. Aus der Geschichte des ‘Seminars’, begründet von Albert Kiekebusch im Jahre 1915′, Berliner Blätter für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 5/3-4: 73–80.

Gandert, Otto-Friedrich (1957) Otto-Friedrich Gandert: Gertrud Dorka zum 65. Geburtstag. Berliner Blätter für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 6/2-3: 49–51.

Gramsch Alexander (2006), ‘Eine kurze Geschichte des Archäologischen Denkens in Deutschland, Leipziger online-Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie’, Sabine Rieckhoff and Wolf-Rüdiger (eds.) Teegen 19 (2006), https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bsz:15-qucosa2-33995.

Gutsmiedl-Schümann, Doris & Koch, Julia Katharina & Bösl, Elsbeth (2023), Women’s Contributions to Archaeology in Germany Since the Nineteenth Century, Sandra L. López Varela (Hrsg.) (eds.) Women in Archaeology. Intersectionalities in Practice Worldwide, New York, pp. 283–307.

Heinsohn, Kirsten (1996), Der lange Weg zum Abitur, Elke Kleinau and Claudia Opitz (eds.) Geschichte der Frauen- und Mädchenbildung, 2: Vom Vormärz bis zur Gegenwart, Frankfurt a.M., pp. 149–161.

Hohmann, Karl (1963), ‘Gertrud Dorka zum 70. Geburtstag.’ Berliner Blätter für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 10/1: 1-4.

Imeri, Sabine (2019), Wissenschaft in Netzwerken. Volkskundliche Arbeit in Berlin um 1900, Berlin.

Keil, Maria (2022), “Stirb und werde” – Biografische Notizen zu Elisabeth Bellot (1881–1956), AktArcha – Akteurinnen archäologischer Forschung und ihre Geschichte(n), 08.12.2022, URL: https://aktarcha.hypotheses.org/912 [accessed 1 July 2024].

Kiekebusch, Albert (1915), Die heimische Altertumskunde in der Schule. Ein Beitrag zur Um- und Ausgestaltung des heimatkundlichen Unterrichts, Berlin.

Koch, Julia (2024): Waldtraud Bohm (1890–1969), AktArcha – Akteurinnen archäologischer Forschung und ihre Geschichte(n), 22.02.2024, URL: https://aktarcha.hypotheses.org/4516.

Kühn, Herbert (1976), Geschichte der Vorgeschichtsforschung, Berlin.

Leube, Achim (2010), Prähistorie zwischen Kaiserreich und wiedervereinigtem Deutschland. 100 Jahre Ur- und Frühgeschichte an der Berliner Universität Unter den Linden, Bonn.

Lindemann, Arne (2011) ‘Der Prignitzer Boden gehört also zum uralten Heimatboden der Germanen“. Waldtraut Bohm und das Museum Perleberg’, Museumsblätter. Mitteilungen des Museumsverbandes Brandenburg 18: 40-41.

Mazón, Patrizia (2003), Gender and the Modern Research University: The Admission of Women to German Higher Education, 1865-1914, Stanford.

Müller, Adriaan von (1978), ‘Gertrud Dorka zum Gedenken’, Ausgrabungen in Berlin. Forschungen und Funde zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Berlin 5: 175.

Waldtraut Bohm (1937), Die Vorgeschichte des Kreises Westprignitz, Leipzig.

Wiwjorra, Ingo (2006), Die politischen und geistesgeschichtlichen Voraussetzungen der ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Bemerkungen zu Forschungsstand und Forschungsperspektiven, in Jörg Haspel & Wilfried Menghin (eds) Miscellanea Archaeologica III. Berlin und Brandenburg. Geschichte der archäologischen Forschung, Petersberg, pp. 11-25.

This post is part of a series in which speakers of the session “(In)Visbile Women in History of Archaeology” of the Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists 2023 publish their presentations. The posts will be published simultaneously in German and English. The German version of this post can be found on the blog of the project AktArcha at https://aktarcha.hypotheses.org/6625.

Early women in prehistoric archaeology: the case of Berlin, 1880s to 1930s (Part 1)

Posted on by Debbie

by Elsbeth Bösl & Doris Gutsmiedl-Schümann

This topic was first presented to the Session “(In)visible Women in History of Archaeology” at EAA’s 29th Annual Meeting at Belfast in 2023. We took the audience along to Berlin and introduced them to women who worked in prehistoric archaeology from the 1880s to the early 1930s.

We used an interdisciplinary approach, integrating biographical and history of science perspectives to examine gender dynamics in archaeology’s historical trajectory (with reference to Harders 2020). Our methodology scrutinizes printed materials and archival records, while acknowledging the inherent limitations imposed by the scarcity of such sources. The scope of our investigation encompasses the broad spectrum of archaeological work, covering both amateur and academic realms, diverse professional roles, and engagement across universities, museums, preservation, and science communication. This inclusive approach proves essential in unravelling the contributions of women during the discipline’s formative years.

While we adopt the “women-in-science”-perspective here, our overall objective is to contribute to a gendered history of archaeology. Our focus on collecting data about women serves as a means to challenge the historical male bias pervasive in scholarship. Emphasizing a gendered analysis, we recognize the need for comprehensive information on individuals, transcending gender boundaries, to counteract the prevailing narrative dominated by a few male figures in prehistoric archaeology. By concentrating on the often-overlooked group of women, we remain attuned to other marginalized groups, prompting an intersectional perspective. The study advocates for the inclusion of diverse categories such as gender, class, background, ethnicity, religion, and more in shaping a nuanced understanding of archaeology’s historical landscape.

The rise of prehistoric archaeology and the self-taught independent researchers of the 19th century

In the 19th century, the emergence of prehistoric archaeology in Germany was propelled by the exploration of local finds and sites, leading to the establishment of collections and museums. In post-Napoleonic times this surge was fuelled by political nationalism. It was often amateurs, predominantly from the Protestant educated bourgeois middle class, who promoted the expansion of prehistoric archaeology. The rise of the discipline had a lot to do with the rise of the bourgeoisie as a social class and as actors in the political process. Clubs and societies were founded in an attempt to demonstrate the claim for participation at a time when political participation was rather limited. These enthusiasts engaged in archaeology, anthropology, ethnology, and linguistics, forming a variety of scientific societies for discourse and collaboration (Imeri 2019). Many of them also provided women with diverse opportunities to actively participate in and contribute to the field of archaeology. In the 19th century German prehistoric archaeology was mainly shaped by citizen science.

The city of Berlin played a pivotal role in these developments. As the capital of Prussia and later the Deutsches Reich, Berlin burgeoned into a metropolis with a vibrant cultural and scholarly environment. The city, integral to German university reform, housed numerous museums, collections, libraries, and science clubs, including the Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte (BGAEU), co-founded in 1869 by Rudolf Virchow. Notably, this society embraced female members from its inception. Turning our attention to women in this narrative, Julie Schlemm emerges as one of the amateur experts affiliated with BGAEU.

Julie Schlemm (1850-1944)

A sepia photograph of a a group of people with hand written names underneath.

Fig. 1. The photo shows Julie Schlemm in the group picture at the conference of the Anthropological Society in Heilbronn in 1911. Schlemm is marked as No. 10. Source: BGAEU FS 142 Julie Schlemm 1911

The number 10 written on a sepia blurred photograph of a woman.

Fig. 2. Detail showing Julia Schlemm in the group picture.

In our review of the BGAEU records, we found Julie Schlemm’s first mention in 1893, when she became a regular member of the society – likely due to her father’s influence (Bösl 2023a). Despite the era’s educational barriers for women, Julie Schlemm, being financially independent, educated herself. Utilizing digital tools, we catalogued her work and connected with scholars, revealing her ongoing scientific impact.

Julie Schlemm’s biography is elusive, with scant archival evidence. Her intellectual approach involved extensive reading, critiques, travel, and photography, rather than fieldwork. She significantly advanced typology, managing the Berlin Museum für Völkerkunde’s typology cards in 1905 and serving on various committees (Imeri 2019; Bösl 2023). In subsequent years, Schlemm authored research articles for the Zeitschrift für Ethnologie solidified her reputation.

Image of a book open at a page of illustrations and words.

Fig 3. Pages from The Wörterbuch zur Vorgeschichte

Moreover, Julie Schlemm authored the first comprehensive German dictionary of prehistoric archaeology, The Wörterbuch zur Vorgeschichte, a tome of 700 pages with over 2,000 meticulously hand-drawn illustrations (Schlemm 1908). In her era, museums and universities were bursting with fresh discoveries. This prompted a need for reference books. And her’s was the first German comprehensive attempt in this direction.

In the preface, she positioned the handbook as a service to her “fellow sufferers” who, like her, engaged in archaeology out of passion or lacked access to extensive libraries and public collections. Schlemm, assertively, extended her address to professional archaeologists as well (Schlemm 1908, 9). Leaving behind contemporary conventional approaches, she innovatively structured the book strictly by typology and chronology. The handbook received international acclaim (Schmidt 1908; Waldeyer 1908; Seger-Breslau 1908).

The handbook also aids in unravelling the process of her being forgotten. Last documented in 1976 by prehistoric archaeologist Herbert Kühn (1895-1980) within his historical narrative of the discipline in Germany (Kühn 1976), he lauded Schlemm’s book as an outstanding work. However, Schlemm’s legacy faded, with scant references after Kühn 1976. She epitomized women’s passion-driven contributions to archaeology, finding community in Berlin’s science clubs.

A hand drawn portrait of a white woman wearing her hair in a bun in 1900s style dress.

Fig. 4. Julie Schlemm. Portrait drawn by Jens Notroff.

Educated upper-middle-class women found socially and morally acceptable spaces to pursue scientific interests, placing their research at the forefront despite limited formal education and lacking degrees, significantly contributing to the discipline’s development (Imeri 2019). Translating was one such important contribution.

Margarete Lehmann-Filhès (1852–1911)

Margarete Lehmann-Filhès (1852–1911) was a pivotal translator in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, notably advancing early prehistorical research (Gutsmiedl-Schümann/Koch/Bösl 2023). Her expertise in translating Icelandic archaeological and ethnological texts enriched the BGAEU meetings and her work was frequently published. Margarete Lehmann-Filhès’ research spanned ethnoarchaeology, experimental archaeology, and ethnology, with a notable focus on board-weaving, leading to her acclaimed 1901 study (Lehmann-Filhès 1901).

a black and white photograph of a white woman in a high neck black top with a broach.

Fig. 5. Margarete Lehmann-Filhés as a young woman. Source: Þorvaldur Thoroddsen: Margarete Lehmann-Filhés, Eimreiðin, 18 (1912), 103-106, 103.

Similar to Julie Schlemm, Margarete Lehmann-Filhès’ biography was challenging to uncover, with scant information available from archives (Bösl 2023b). Nonetheless, through the proliferation of retro-digitized collections, we accessed a posthumous obituary in the Icelandic cultural journal Eimreiðin (Thoroddsen 1912), shedding light on her background. Born and raised in Berlin, she hailed from a family with an academic inclination, her mother Bertha Filhés being a writer and her father a philology professor. She was educated at a girls’ school with private training in the natural sciences, and she autonomously selected her academic interests, focusing on ancient and modern languages, northern folklore, and history. Self-taught in Icelandic language, she initiated research on Icelandic history, advocating for its translation into German to benefit scholars. The BGAEU routinely published her translations and digests.
This highlights the favourable conditions for women in the discipline’s early formation, characterized by a blurred line between scholarly and amateur research. Although few in number and often excluded from leadership positions, women made significant contributions to the field.

Biography

Elsbeth Bösl is a research associate at the University of the Armed Forces in Munich. She holds a Ph.D. in Contemporary History and specializes in the History of Science and Technology, Disability History, and Gender History. She is currently working on early female archaeologists in the project “Akteurinnen archäologischer Forschung zwischen Geistes- und Naturwissenschaften: Im Feld, im Labor, am Schreibtisch (AktArcha)”, funded by the by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Doris Gutsmiedl-Schümann is research associate at the University of the Armed Forces in Munich and Privatdozent at the Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology, Freie Universität Berlin. She holds a doctorate in prehistoric archaeology from the University of Bonn and a master’s degree in Higher Education from the University of Hamburg. She is also working in the “AktArcha”-project on early female archaeologists.

Bibliography

Bösl, Elsbeth (2023a), Julie Schlemm, in AktArcha – Akteurinnen archäologischer Forschung und ihre Geschichte(n), 9.2.2023, URL:https://aktarcha.hypotheses.org/1306 [accessed 1 July 2024].

Bösl, Elsbeth (2023b), Margarethe Lehmann-Filhés (1.9.1852– 17.8.1911), AktArcha – Akteurinnen archäologischer Forschung und ihre Geschichte(n), 2.2.2023, https://aktarcha.hypotheses.org/1279 [accessed 1 July 2024].

Gutsmiedl-Schümann, Doris & Koch, Julia Katharina & Bösl, Elsbeth (2023), ‘Women’s Contributions to Archaeology in Germany Since the Nineteenth Century’, in: Sandra L. López Varela (Hrsg.) (eds.), Women in Archaeology. Intersectionalities in Practice Worldwide, New York, pp. 283–307.

Harders, Levke (2020), Historische Biografieforschung (Version 1.0), in Docupedia-Zeitgeschichte: Begriffe, Methoden und Debatten der zeithistorischen Forschung, Potsdam: Leibniz-Zentrum für Zeithistorische Forschung: https://docupedia.de/zg/Harders_historische_Biografieforschung_v1_de_2020.
Imeri, Sabine (2019), Wissenschaft in Netzwerken. Volkskundliche Arbeit in Berlin um 1900, Berlin.

Kühn, Herbert (1976), Geschichte der Vorgeschichtsforschung, Berlin.

Lehmann-Filhés, Margarete (1901), Über Brettchenweberei, Berlin: Reimer.

Schlemm, Julie (1908), Wörterbuch zur Vorgeschichte. Ein Hilfsmittel beim Studium vorgeschichtlicher Altertümer von der Paläolithischen Zeit bis zum Anfange der Provinzial-Römischen Kultur, Berlin.

Schmidt, Hubert (1908), ‘Rezension zu: Wörterbuch zur Vorgeschichte. Ein Hilfsmittel beim Studium vorgeschichtlicher Altertümer von der paläolithischen Zeit bis zum Anfange der provinzial-römischen Kultur’, Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 40 / H. 3: 471-473.

Seger-Breslau, H. (1908), ‘Besprechung von Julie Schlemm: Wörterbuch zur Vorgeschichte’, Zentralblatt für Anthropologie 13: 223–225.

Thoroddsen, Porvaldur (1912), Margarete Lehmann-Filhés, Eimreiðin, 18 / 1.5.1912: 103-106.
Waldeyer, Heinrich Wilhelm Gottfried (1908) , Wörterbuch zur Vorgeschichte, Anatomischer Anzeiger, 9/10: 270.

This post is part of a series in which speakers of the session “(In)Visbile Women in History of Archaeology” of the Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists 2023 publish their presentations. The posts will be published simultaneously in German and English. The German version of this post can be found on the blog of the project AktArcha at https://aktarcha.hypotheses.org/6617.