his profession; on the other hand he recognized the need to meticulously register the monuments. To this end Heyne made his own instructive collection of plaster casts.

Philological methods determined German archaeological research in the nineteenth century, whose central subject was the visual art of classical antiquity. The scholar Eduard Gerhard (1795–1867) described his scientific position with these words: “Research concerning the monuments of classical antiquity is obliged to begin with its literary knowledge, on which is based, in a narrower sense, the so called philology; its monuments are studied on a philological basis by the archaeologist; to achieve this aim various friends of Antiquity have to explore the material for him; artists will have to judge and examine it” (Gerhard 1853). Gerhard considered philological methods as indispensable to archaeological research as much as the profound knowledge of antique monuments. To fulfill this latter requirement, he founded journals and corpora. Gerhard’s greatest contribution to the institutionalization of archaeology as a scientific discipline was the foundation of the Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica in Rome in 1829 as an international institute of research. In 1859 the Prussian state took over its funding, and it was from this henceforth national institution from which the German Archaeological Institute (deutsches archäologisches institut––dai) emerged in 1874, a substantial establishment for German archaeology as a whole. The Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica’s primary functions were to publish new archaeological discoveries and to promote the exchange of discoveries in the various disciplines of classical science.

Philologically oriented archaeology led to several important scientific discoveries and effective achievements, such as the sober, systematic, and precisely formulated works of Karl Otfried Muller (1797–1840) and the work of Otto Jahn (1813–1869), who planned a corpus of antique sarcophagus reliefs, a project taken over by the German Archaeological Institute. The development of archaeology initially as a historical and later a positivist determined science also encouraged a discipline whose aim sometimes comprised the presentation of material rather wider in scope than in content.

Emerging from a philologically determined archaeology but still under its auspices, the scholar Heinrich Brunn (1822–1894), whose main work was Geschichte der griechischen Kunstler (1859) (History of Greek Artists), became the next pioneer of a new archaeological method. Brunn wrote: “A philologist explaining an author must know the language grammatically and lexically. In the same way an archaeologist explaining a monument must, above all, be profoundly familiar with the language of art, its forms and syntactical connections, with its constant types and their connection to artistic motifs, and must first try to explain a monument out of itself. It is only on this basis that he will succeed in making use of the written sources of our knowledge… an archaeologist cannot renounce a philological basis for his studies. But the philologist is not an archaeologist and without special archaeological training he will often, by his philological knowledge, run the risk of clouding his view, and closing his eyes to the evidence” (Brunn 1857–1859). Adolf Furtwangler (1853–1907), Brunn’s pupil and successor to the chair of archaeology at the University of Munich, continued Brunn’s work with his respectively formal and analytic, and stylistic and critical approach to archaeology.

Beginning in the 1870s great archaeological monuments and discoveries increased in quantity and variety due to a series of unsystematic explorations and excavations by heinrich schliemann (1822–1890) at the Homeric site of Troy. In 1875 German excavations directed by ernst curtius (1814–1896) began at Olympia. The researchers’ aim was the exploration of groups of Greek monuments in their original context. Extant sources of knowledge were to be augmented by means of a widely determined cultural-historical concept, whose validity was recognized only gradually. Other great German excavations at Pergamon and Miletus were guided by equivalent, almost exclusively historical aims.

World War I not only changed the external conditions under which classical archaeology developed in Germany as a positivist scientific