Interview: Directors Matthias Wemhoff and Friederike Seyfried on the Historic Re-opening of Berlin’s Neues Museum

Reopened in October 2009 after remaining closed since the outbreak of WWII in 1939, the Neues Museum is Berlin, Germany is the world’s newest and boldest cultural mecca. As recently as a decade ago, it was a burnt-out shell, badly-damaged during the Second World War, then neglected during the GDR-era, its collections spread among other museums.

Repaired, refurbished and re-imagined by architect David Chipperfield – controversially, in the eyes of some – the new Neues represents a triumphant meeting of history and modernity, emphasising a strong connection between the museum’s venerable and turbulent past and its bright and very promising future.

Museum directors Professor Dr Matthias Wemhoff of the Museum of Pre and Early History, and Dr Friederike Seyfried of the Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection, spoke to Heritage Key about the importance of a reopened Neues, their favourite items among the museum collection, the ongoing struggle to retrieve artefacts looted by the Soviets, and plans for future development on Berlin’s Museum Island.

HK: How does it feel to see the Neues Museum opened to the public again, after it was closed for so many years?

MW: It is a historical moment and therefore in a way indescribable. On one hand there is a rational feeling about the significance for the collections and the complex of buildings on the Museum Island. After 70 years all [the] museums are open again and they can show the reunified collections. Somehow it is the end of the post-war period. On the other hand you realise that this is a big moment of German history and you are taking part in it.

HK: How many people have visited the newly reopened museum so far?

FS: In the first four weeks since it was reopened, 125,000 people visited the Neues Museum. It’s a splendid success.

HK: Explain to us in short why it has taken so long for the museum to be restored and reopened.

MW: The building was heavily damaged in the Second World War and in parts completely destroyed. After the division of Berlin it was situated in the eastern sector and then in the GDR. It was left as a ruin.

After the reunification of Germany the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation restored and rebuilt it. A ruin had to be transformed into a modern museum. In addition, a number of regulations concerning the preservation of historical monuments had to be observed.

FS: The Museum Island is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The work of rebuilding ranged from reconstructing the foundations, to replacing parts of the building that had been destroyed, installing state-of-the-art technology and detailed restoration of the original decoration.

HK: What is it that impresses you about architect David Chipperfield’s vision for the new museum?

FS: The new fits harmoniously with the old. The traces of damage, and thus of the building’s history, are not concealed. The new additions are clearly identifiable as such. They re-complete the original volume. The original sequence of rooms was restored with new building sections that create continuity with the existing structure.

All the gaps in the existing structure were filled in without competing with the existing structure in terms of brightness and surface. The building itself was treated like an archaeological object and is a perfect frame for the archaeological collections it now houses.

HK: Chipperfield’s vision for the Neues has been criticised by some people, who wanted to see it rebuilt closer to Friedrich August Stüler’s original 19th-century design. What do you have to say in response to such criticisms?

MW: The reconstruction and restoration followed the guidelines of the Charter of Venice, respecting the historical structure in its different states of preservation. Historical honesty was the maxim underlying the reconstruction. No effort was made to create the illusion that elements that had to be supplemented as a result of damage were in fact old.

FS: The restoration and repair of the existing is driven by the idea that the original structure should be emphasized in its spatial context and original materiality.

HK: Some of the museums most famous artefacts – such as the Bust of Nefertiti – have been on display in other Berlin museums. But where have the rest of the artefacts been over the last 70 years?

FS: From 1967 to 2005, the Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection was housed in the eastern Stüler building in Berlin Charlottenburg, where after the Reunification it was joined by the East Berlin museums’ own Egyptian collection, previously (since 1958) housed in the Bode Museum.

After a temporary stay in the Altes Museum, the Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection has once again returned to the house for which it was originally intended and where it first went on display in 1850.

MW: From 1958 onwards the collection of the Museum of Pre and Early History was given a new home in West Berlin in a building in Berlin Charlottenburg designed by Carl Gotthard Langhans (the architect of the Brandenburg Gate). In 1990 after the Reunification it was merged with those parts of the collection that had until then been administered by the East Berlin Museum for Prehistory and were integrated into the exhibition in Charlottenburg.

HK: Which are your favourite artefacts among the Neues Museum’s collection, and for you, what makes them special?

MW: Our most popular artefact is of course the golden hat from the Late Bronze Age. It was worn by a priest in a ritual context. But my favourite exhibition pieces are the jade axes from Mönchpfiffel (Saxony-Anhalt). The raw material [comes] from the western Alps of Italy. They [are] proof that already in Neolithic times prestigious goods had been traded through networks over broad areas of Europe.

FS: In the part of the Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection the most famous pieces are of course the bust of Nefertiti and the – so-called – Berlin Green Head, but beside these marvelous pieces, my favourite one is the seated quartzite statue of Cherti-hotep, an official of the Middle Kingdom, dating [from] about 1800 BC. (Check out our Top Ten Artefacts at the Neues Museum).

HK: How much of the museum’s original collection has been destroyed or lost since 1939?

FS: Both collections – the Egyptian Museum and the Papyrus Collection on the one hand and the Museum for Pre and Early History on the other hand – lost a great number of objects at the end of World War II due to damage, theft and looting.

Artefacts of the Egyptian Museum and the Papyrus Collection which fell into American hands were transferred to the Central Collecting Point in Wiesbaden (including the Bust of Nefertiti) and returned to the western sector of Berlin in the early 1950s. The collection’s objects which had been sent to Moscow and Leningrad as lootings were returned to the Berlin’s eastern sector in the early 1950s. About 10-15% of the entire holdings (more than 5.000 objects) are still lost.

Regarding the still missing papyri, it is likely that they were stolen in Poland when the artefacts were in transit from Berlin to the Soviet Union. In the last decade some of them were offered by private sellers. About 143 papyri are currently in the care of Polish institutions. They were identified in close cooperation between Berlin and Warsaw and are accessible for academic research. On the basis of the German-Polish “Cultural Agreement” implemented in 1992, the papyri are supposed to return to Berlin.

MW: Regarding the Museum for Pre and Early History around 40 % of the originally catalogued objects (170,000 inventory numbers in the main catalogue) and an unknown number of non-inventoried finds must be counted as losses. Of the [approximately] 3,500 most important works around 3,000 items are known or assumed to be in Russia including the gold treasure of the Trojan treasure and the Eberswalde gold find. The items which were returned in 1956 by the Western Allies formed the basic stock of the museum in West Berlin. In 1958 the Soviets relinquished 589 crates from Leningrad to the GDR so that the museum in East Berlin could be reestablished.

HK: One set of artefacts that famously remains in Russia is Priam’s Treasure. What is the latest news on efforts to see Priam’s Treasure returned to the Neues Museum?

MW: German efforts to recover cultural items and artworks looted by the Soviet Union after the Second World War demand a long-term strategy. The topic has been in discussion at German-Russian government consultations since the early 1990s. The negotiations have stagnated since 1998. Russia and Germany have different legal positions. However, the museums’ experts of both countries cooperate and maintain good contact.

HK: Are you hopeful that Priam’s Treasure will be given back soon? Who or what is blocking the collection’s return?

FS: The issue has to be dealt with at a high government level. Under the law which passed the Duma (the lower house of Russia’s Federal Assembly) in 1997 looted art is declared to be Russian property. From the Russian point of view, this precludes any return of such art works. With good reason, the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation has not abandoned hope of regaining its former holdings.

HK: How do you justify calling for the return of items looted by the Soviets, while at the same time maintaining possession of artefacts such as the Bust of Nefertiti, which the Egyptians have asked to be returned to Cairo? Do you see these as being two very different issues?

MW: Yes, these are two different issues. The claim to restitution of looted art is derived in principle from binding international treaties, specifically the pertinent articles in the Hague Land Warfare Convention of 1907. In addition, specific agreements have been reached with the Soviet Union and, subsequently, the Russian Federation.

Under Soviet rule the USSR and the Federal Republic of Germany came to an agreement, signed on November 9, 1990, calling for the establishment of good relations, partnership and cooperation between the two countries. This agreement went into effect on July 5, 1991. According to Article 16, section two, the parties agree to return to the rightful owner or legal successor any lost or illegally obtained works of art that are currently in their possession.

Concerning the bust of Nefertiti the legal status concerning the division of the finds from the archaeological excavations of 1913 is known and it is not disputed between Egypt and the Federal Republic of Germany. That is why to this day the government of Egypt has not asserted any claims to return the exhibit.

The historical background: on 6 December 1912 an archaeological team of the German Oriental Company led by Egyptologist Ludwig Borchardt (1863–1938) working on the site of Akhenaten near the modern city of Tell el-Amarna unearthed the “buried treasure” from the sculptor’s workshop.

James Simon (1851–1932), a businessman and patron of the arts from Berlin, had financed the excavation. He also held the license for the excavation from the Egyptian Department of Antiquities which stipulated that the finds would be divided between the two. In 1913, Simon was allocated scores of objects, including the bust which he donated to the Egyptian Museum in Berlin in 1920.

HK: What plans do you have for the future at the Neues Museum?

FS: By itself, the Neues Museum would not be able to fulfill the requirements of an infrastructure able to sustain millions of visitors. The new reception building, the James Simon Gallery, is set to assume the main service roles of the entire Museum Island as its main visitor centre.

The building will receive visitors with a generous gesture appropriate for the Museum Island, offer them orientation and direct them to the exhibits featured on the main circuit. Beyond that, the James Simon Gallery will provide the infrastructure of an auditorium, a media centre, space for temporary exhibitions, a bookstore, shops, cafés and restaurants for all of the Museum Island.

The construction of the James Simon Gallery, designed by David Chipperfield and located between the Neues Museum and the Kupfergraben on the site originally occupied by Schinkel’s Packhof building, will be completed in 2013.

HK: Finally, can you sum up how important the reopening of the Neues Museum is – for Berlin, for Germany and for the world?

FS: The reopening was a historical date. Regarding the Museum Island the post-war period is now finished and a new era begins. The Neues Museum was closed 70 years ago, damaged and the collections were divided. The reconstruction and reopening with the reunited collections would not have been possible without the reunification of Germany.

Read or leave comments