RIHA Journal 0289 | 15 September 2023

The Patronage of Berlin’s Egyptian Museum by German-Jewish Press Tycoon Rudolf Mosse (1843–1920) and the Sequestration of His Art Collection during the “Third Reich”

Thomas L. Gertzen and Jana Helmbold-Doyé

Abstract
The publishing tycoon Rudolf Mosse (1843–1920) donated over 700 objects to the Egyptian Museum in Berlin between 1892 and 1894, among them the Green Head from a royal statue of Amasis (ÄM 11864). Most had been acquired on the antiquities market by Egyptologist Heinrich Brugsch (1827–1894) during his journey to Egypt in 1891–1892, which was financed by Mosse. Leaving aside postcolonial discourse regarding the appropriation of ancient Egyptian artifacts by European travelers and scholars, this case study highlights another important and long-neglected aspect of the early history of German Egyptology: patronage or private support provided by Jewish entrepreneurs. Only recently a wider public was reminded of the engagement of James Simon (1851–1932), the most significant sponsor of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft (German Oriental Society), whose gifts to the Egyptian Museum in Berlin included the painted bust of Queen Nefertiti. This article—which is based on the findings of a multi-author volume published jointly by the Moses Mendelssohn Center for European-Jewish Studies in Potsdam and the Egyptian Museum in Berlin—discusses the prehistory of the seizure and sale of Mosse’s private art collection in 1934, including Egyptian antiquities, and the attempted damnatio memoriae of him. The goal is to open a discussion with a broader, more complex approach, employing strategies of provenance research, to document the efforts and achievements of Jewish patrons of the arts and thus avoid their reduction to victims.

Introduction1

[1] In the summer of 2014, the heirs of Rudolf Mosse requested the restitution of two ancient Egyptian objects that had been acquired in 1970 by the Egyptian Museum in Berlin2, a request to which the State Museums of Berlin acceded. Obviously, provenance research for the restitution of works of art from museum collections to previous owners or their heirs is not limited to the period between 1933 and 1945. For instance, both the German Democratic Republic and the art market in the Federal Republic of Germany have respective issues in need of resolution. Similarly, the Mosse collection during the “Third Reich” has a prehistory and an aftermath3. This article focuses on the period prior to the Nazis’ assumption of power in Germany and on a different aspect of provenance research—namely, the role of German-Jewish entrepreneurs as benefactors of public art collections and archaeological museums.

Rudolf Mosse: the making of a press tycoon

[2] Rudolf Mosse, the sixth child of Markus Mosse, MD (1808–1865), and his wife, Ulrike (née Wolff; 1813–1888), was born 8 May 1843 in Grätz, in the district of Posen/Poznań, which at that time belonged to the Kingdom of Prussia (today: Voivodeship Greater Poland) (Figs. 1, 2)4. After graduating from the gymnasium in Lissa, he struggled to find a position in life. In 1860, after a short period learning the bookselling business in Posen/Poznań, he worked for a time in the linen and lingerie store of his elder brother Salomon (1837–1903); thereafter he experimented with several other occupations, even considering a career as an estate manager. In 1864 the Der Telegraph newspaper in Leipzig hired him. At the end of the year Mosse accepted an unsalaried position as an advertising agent for the journal Gartenlaube. In recognition of his success, the editor offered him a partnership. Mosse, however, declined the offer and instead went on to establish his own Zeitungs-Annoncen-Expedition Rudolf Mosse in Berlin in 1867. When the business blossomed, he opened various local branches in a number of German cities. Decisive for his success was the firm’s offer of a complete package of advertising and publishing services in its own newspapers, such as the Berliner Tageblatt und Handelszeitung (from 1872) and the Berliner Morgen-Zeitung (from 1889) (Fig. 3)5.

Fig. 1. Rudolf Mosse, ca. 1910 (photograph © Bildarchiv, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, bpk 10002695; photographer unknown)

Fig. 2. Rudolf Mosse (front right) and his brothers (from left to right) Albert, Salomon, Paul, Emil, Theodor, and Max, 9 April 1891, place unknown (photograph © Bildarchiv, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, bpk 10009402; photographer unknown)

Fig. 3. Postcard featuring the headquarters of Mosse’s Berliner Morgen-Zeitung, undated (photograph from the private collection of Thomas L. Gertzen)

[3] In 1872, Mosse purchased the daily Berliner Tageblatt and, in 1904, the newspaper Berliner Volks-Zeitung. He created a center for market research and an atelier for advertisement design. His enormous economic success and his many and varied engagements in the public interest earned Mosse numerous honors6. These included an honorary doctorate from the University of Heidelberg in 1917. The following year, he was elected alderman of the Berlin merchant corporation. Although Kaiser Wilhelm II offered him a title of nobility, he declined, for he ranked himself among the Bürger. On the occasion of his 70th birthday, the Berlin district of Wilmersdorf named a street after him. (In 1958, it was expanded to Rudolf Mosse Square.) On 8 September 1920 Rudolf Mosse died of a heart attack while hunting.

[4] The economic decline of Germany in the aftermath of World War I resulted in considerable economic losses for Mosse’s business interests; in 1932 the company declared bankruptcy7. Immediately after the Nazis’ assumption of power, the business was seized and his family was forced to sell their assets before going into exile. The various companies and businesses were “Aryanized”. Many assets, including the art collection from Mosse’s private estate, were put up for auction in 1934.

Rudolf Mosse’s private collection of Egyptian antiquities

[5] Mosse had integrated his private art collection into his 20-room palace at Leipziger Platz 15 in Berlin. Since about 1910, he offered the public limited access to the Mosse Gallery (or: Mosseum, as it was called in art circles). The Egyptian objects were displayed along with other antiquities in a glass cabinet (Fig. 4)8. The contents of this collection can be reconstructed from the descriptions of art critic Adolph Donath, who took the reader on a guided tour through the Mosse Gallery in 1909. Furthermore, in recent years, objects that belonged to Rudolf Mosse or his heirs prior to 1934 have been identified in numerous collections9.

Fig. 4. Glass cabinet with Aegyptiaca and other antiquities in the private collection of Rudolf Mosse, Mosse-Palais at Leipziger Platz 15, Berlin (reprod. from: Haus der Sammlungen Rudolf Mosse, exh. cat., Berlin 1929 [reprint 1932], n.p. [17])

[6] After Mosse’s death in 1920, his art collection and estate were put under the control of the Rudolf Mosse – Treuhandverwaltung (trusteeship). In 1934, the latter commissioned Hans-Carl Krüger and Karl Haberstock with the sale of the entire collection, which was handled by Rudolph Lepkeʼs Kunst-Auctions-Haus. Paintings, furniture, and other objects were auctioned off after a customary viewing period of a few days on 29 and 30 May 1934 in the Mosse-Palais on Leipziger Platz10. Since his collection consisted mainly of contemporary German art and Old Masters paintings, the catalog listed only a few Egyptian antiquities, recorded in just 35 auction lot numbers11. Unintentionally, the National Socialists preserved Mosse’s legacy with this catalog. However, it contained only the high-quality and most valuable works in the collection. His larger collection of Egyptian antiquities can only be traced through marginal descriptions and the photograph of the glass cabinet (see Fig. 4), in addition to the Lepke auction catalog. Among the Egyptian objects were two mummy portraits, which were apparently valued highest in the auction in the group of Aegyptiaca12. Otherwise, the Egyptian items for sale and in the cabinet were mostly small-format objects, such as amulets, statuettes, and vessels of various shapes, and almost all exclusively date from the Late Period to the Roman Period (ca. 6th century BC to 3rd century AD). Only four objects belong to earlier periods, the Old Kingdom (ca. 2500–2350 BC) and the New Kingdom (ca. 1550–1070 BC)13. Some of the artifacts came from the excavations of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft at Abusir el-Meleq, which included a necklace from a tomb14. Since the earliest systematic excavations of Late Period burials in that area began in 1903, the necklace could not have entered the collection earlier15. In the same year, a relief fragment with a hieroglyphic inscription is said to have been found in the tomb of the official Sennefer, located in Saqqara16.

[7] Two of the objects recognizable in the photo of the glass cabinet (see Fig. 4) and thus proven to come from Mosse’s private collection, have been identified with objects in the Egyptian Museum in Berlinin recent years (Figs. 5a, 5b). The objects in question are an offering table made of limestone from the Old Kingdom, possibly fromSaïs, and a canopic jar without lid from the Late Period (ca. 664–525 BC), possibly from Saqqara. They were purchased in 1970 by Erich Getzlaff, MD (1889–1971), who lived in Borgsdorf near Berlin, for the price of 1,500 marks (GDR)17. It is not recorded under what circumstances and when exactly Getzlaff acquired them. Shortly after their acquisition, the artifacts were published in 1972 by Ingeborg Müller, who at that time was curator of the Egyptian Museum in East Berlin18. In the summer of 2014, the descendants of Rudolf Mosse submitted restitution claims to the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz, which were also consented to for the two objects, as their provenance can undoubtedly be traced back to Rudolf Mosse’s private collection. After the claim regarding the Egyptian artifacts had been agreed on, however, the objects initially remained in the Egyptian Museum’s depot at the request of the heirs until they were handed over in February 202119.

Fig. 5a. Egyptian offering table from the private collection of Rudolf Mosse, restituted to his heirs in 2014 (photograph: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung; photographer: Frank Marohn)

Fig. 5b. Egyptian canopic jar from the private collection of Rudolf Mosse, restituted to his heirs in 2014 (photograph: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung; photographer: Frank Marohn)

[8] From an Egyptological point of view, the collection might be considered an assemblage of antique souvenirs. The whereabouts of the other Aegyptiaca from the Mosse collection are not yet known. However, due to the comparatively low sums at which they were valued, it can be assumed that they were bought by different private individuals at the auction in 1934.

Jewish sponsorship of art: From Tzedakah to Bürgersinn

[9] Research into the history of Jewish20 patronage in Germany has progressed considerably in recent years, though there is a lack of comparative studies about non-Jewish patronage, and research has been concentrated on urban areas like Berlin, Hamburg, and Frankfurt21. According to Elisabeth Kraus, the various possible motivations Jewish entrepreneurs had for engaging in public patronage can be summarized as follows22:

  • A paternalistic attitude toward the working classes might ensure dependability and discourage engagement in socialist movements (which would also apply to non-Jewish patronage, of course).

  • Jewish benefactors might be particularly sensitized to the needs of the underprivileged, given their own precarious status in German society.

  • Social benevolence might function as an entrée to German society and was considered as a distinctive sign of belonging to German Bürgertum23.

  • Sponsorship might counteract anti-Semitic stereotypes, like the “avaricious Jew”.

  • Finally, there might be a religious incentive, following the concept of צְדָקָה (tzedakah, the obligation to charity).

[10] It is important to keep in mind that Jews, though (by law) enjoying equal status in Prussia since 1867 and later in all of Germany, never achieved actual equality in the society of the Kaiserreich. Nonetheless, since the time of Jewish enlightenment (השכלה, Haskalah), scholars like Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786) had sought emancipation—not to be confused with assimilation (i.e., adaptation to German culture byabandoning Judaism), which, however, was yet another option24—through education and social integration. In any case, the ideal for German Jewry was to become a part of German Bürgertum25.

[11] Given the enormous popularity of archaeological research in Germany at the turn of the 20th century and the establishment of various learned societies for the support of museums, it is no wonder that a number of Germany’s most wealthy Jewish entrepreneurs pursued patronage of excavations and museums26. In 1887/1888, the Orient-Comité was founded to compensate for the lack of funds available to the Berlin Museum of Egyptian and Near Eastern Antiquities to finance excavations and acquire objects for the collections. Among the most prominent benefactors were Jewish members James Simon (1851–1932, who later donated the bust of Nefertiti [ÄM 21300] to the museum)27, Max Steinthal (1850–1940), and Robert von Mendelssohn (1857–1917). In 1888, Isaak Simon (1816–1890) financed the acquisition of the so-called Amarna Letters for the Near Eastern Department28. His son, James, helped to secure the famous Green Head, a Late Period sculpture, for the Egyptian Department in 1893 (Fig. 6). This “casual” support was institutionalized through the foundation of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft in 1898 under the aegis of Emperor Wilhelm II (Fig. 7), but support was primarily provided by those Jewish entrepreneurs who had earlier funded the Berlin and other German museums.

Fig. 6. The so-called Berlin Green Head, Late Period (ca. 570–526 BC). Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, ÄM 12500 (photograph © Bildarchiv, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, bpk 0095730; photographer: Sandra Steiß)

Fig. 7. Commemorative medal of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft on the silver wedding anniversary of Emperor Wilhelm II and his wife, Auguste Viktoria, 27 February 1906 (reprod. from: Westfälische Auktionsgesellschaft [WAG] für Münzen und Medaillen oHG, ed., WAG Auktion 52, no. 205)

Mosse and the Golden Age of Egyptology

[12] Sponsorship for Berlin’s Egyptian Museum29 became more institutionalized when Jean Pierre Adolphe Erman (1854–1937) served as director (1885–1914) (Fig. 8)30. Erman, himself of Jewish-Huguenot extraction31, was very well connected in Berlin society and clearly saw the necessity of popularizing Egyptological research with spectacular archaeological finds and significant acquisitions. As a formative figure of the so-called Berlin School of Egyptology, he inaugurated what has been termed the Golden Age of Egyptology and became one of the most influential scholars in the history of the discipline32.

Fig. 8. Jean Pierre Adolphe Erman (1854–1937), Egyptologist and director of the Ägyptisches Museum in Berlin 1885–1914, undated photograph (reprod. from: Adolf Erman, Mein Werden und mein Wirken. Erinnerungen eines alten Berliner Gelehrten, Leipzig 1929, frontispiece)

[13] Erman convinced numerous benefactors, named above, to donate or at least finance various acquisitions; he also enlisted Rudolf Mosse as one of the most active supporters of his museum. Being a conservative royalist himself, Erman conveniently ignored the respective political orientations of others when they might have been a hindrance:

I also encountered Rudolf Mosse in those days, and I can only say, that he appealed to me, notwithstanding our different political views. He was totally different from what people expected, an energetic personality, of whom one would readily believe that he originally intended to become a farmer. Only once I have experienced an aspect of his personality which I could not approve of, but even then, he acted so naively, that I was unable to bear a grudge: One day I was astonished to read an extremely negative article about the municipal administration in the Berliner Tageblatt. When I intended to ask him about it, he rushed at me, saying: “Well, what do you say? People say Mosse is almighty in the Red [town] Hall, but I achieved nothing.” The ensuing conversation revealed the cause for his rage; he had sought for a position in a local hospital for a young relative of his, but the city had employed somebody else. Now he punished the alderman by this article and found nothing wrong in that33.

There is evidence that Erman offered objects from the museum’s holdings in return to this major benefactor. On 14 October 1892, Erman asked Mosse in a letter to come to the museum to select objects to be transferred to his private collection34. A few months after Mosse made the selection, the custom-fitted cabinet (Fig. 4) was made in a carpenter’s shop at the museum’s expense.

Heinrich Brugsch and the Egyptian antiquities in Rudolf Mosse’s private collection

[14] Erman was not the only Egyptologist whom Mosse supported in his work. Another was Heinrich Brugsch (1827–1894), one of the most adventurous and genial figures in the history of the discipline35. At the beginning of the 1890s, Mosse financed an expedition enabling Brugsch to conduct excavations at Hawara and Arsinoë in the Fayûm Oasis and at Saïs in the Western Nile Delta. During his sojourn in Egypt, Brugsch established contact with antiquities traders36, which led to the subsequent acquisition of the Green Head mentioned above. In a way, Brugsch functioned as an agent both for the Egyptian Museum in Berlin and for Rudolf Mosse, his private financier: The artifacts from Egypt in Mosse’s collection are largely due to Brugsch’s enterprises and connections with the Egyptian Museum Berlin. Little attention has been paid to the fact that Rudolf Mosse was primarily a silent patron who contributed to a considerable extent to the growth of the Egyptian Museum’s collection as early as 1892. Thus, he must be honored here, not only as the donor of numerous objects but also as a sponsor of the Egyptologist Heinrich Brugsch. And the museum owes more than 700 objects to Brugsch’s venture in Egypt, which were generously donated by Mosse and thus recorded in various volumes of the museum’s inventory book as gifts between 1892 and 1894 (Figs. 9a, 9b)37.

Figs. 9a-b. Excerpts from the inventory book of the Egyptian Museum, Berlin (photographs: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung)

[15] Brugsch’s stay in Egypt in 1892, which lasted several weeks, was financed solely by Mosse, whose donation of 30,000 Reichsmark made possible not only excavations but also purchases38.The excavations at Hawara and Arsinoë under Brugsch’s direction took place from 10 to 20 March 1892 and at Saïs from 13 to 24 April 189239. The choice of archaeological sites in the Fayûm was not random; it was inspired by the Roman-era mummy masks and portraits that had been recorded at various sites a few years earlier. Thus, Theodor Graf (1840–1903), an Austrian carpet dealer, acquired numerous finds from Er-Rubayat, and W. M. Flinders Petrie (1853–1942) was able to document comparable artifacts at Hawara through excavations40. Accordingly, the Egyptian Museum was pleased that these excavations yielded archaeological objects for its collection41, though there are very few records by Brugsch about the finds42.

[16] The majority of the Egyptian archaeological objects in the Berlin museum that can be traced back to Brugsch are recorded with Hawara as their origin43. In the immediate vicinity of the Middle Kingdom pyramid of Amenemhat III (ca. 1800 BC) at Hawara lies a large necropolis of mud-brick tombs dating from the Ptolemaic and Roman periods (ca. 300 BC – AD 300) (Fig. 10). Several individuals, probably entire families, were buried inside them, most of them mummified and provided with splendid covers. Nevertheless, the statement that Brugsch allegedly excavated 600 mummies in Hawara has to be doubted44. It is unrealistic that he would have been able to find this large number of individuals with the support of 150 workers in just 10 days, while working in the Fayûm in two places at the same time, even if one takes into account that the excavations at the time were similar to a treasure hunt. Considering the few contemporary statements, one assumes that Brugsch exaggerated the importance of his mission by alleging such results.

Fig. 10. View from the pyramid of Amenemhat III to the later tomb complexes, Hawara (Fayûm), Egypt (photograph: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, ph. 1764 [1881/2])

In addition to the finds from the Fayûm in the Egyptian Museum in Berlin, which comprise 166 archaeological objects and thus almost 40 percent of the finds from this campaign, another 67 objects from other regions are recorded, among which are numerous acquisitions from merchants45. Furthermore, over 300 inscribed objects can currently be traced back to Brugsch’s excavations and acquisitions in Egypt in 189246. The Greek inscriptions represent the largest group, followed by Arabic-language inscriptions, as well as individual inscriptions in Demotic, Coptic, Ethiopian, Pehlevi, and bilingual texts. Among the documents, the largest percentage are of Fayûm origin. As in the case of the mummies, Brugsch’s statement that he allegedly brought 4,000 papyri with him is probably exaggerated47.

[17] The acquisition of numerous antiquities for Berlin’s Egyptian Museum also took place while the excavation was underway. The total value of the purchases made by Brugsch in Egypt between February and May 1892 is documented as 4,385.70 Reichsmark (Fig. 11)48. In fact, Brugsch seems to have devoted more time to the purchase negotiations than to the excavations, which lasted only twenty days. This can be concluded by the fact that he had already taken a first look at the antiquities at the dealers’ in Cairo and surroundings between 12 and 14 February 189249.

Fig. 11. Heinrich Brugsch, list of acquisitions made in Egypt between February and May 1892, detail. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Zentralarchiv (hereafter: SMB-ZA), I-GV, 566 Anlage D, 4 (photograph: SMB-ZA)

[18] Among the objects recorded on Brugsch’s purchase list and later documented in Mosse’s private collection was, for example, a clay oil lamp with six wick channels and the enthroned god Serapis and a Greek inscription on top (Figs. 12a-c)50. Mosse generously left valuable and remarkable pieces to the museum and thus to scholarship, while the known parts of his private collection of Aegyptiaca are of more modest rank51.

Fig. 12a. Heinrich Brugsch, list of acquisitions made in Egypt between February and May 1892, detail: oil lamp with the god Serapis, Roman Period (2nd–3rd century AD), which came into the private collection of Rudolf Mosse, Berlin. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Zentralarchiv, I-GV, 566 Anlage D, 2 (photograph: SMB-ZA)

Figs. 12b-c. Oil lamp with the god Serapis, Roman Period (2nd–3rd century AD), from the private collection of Rudolf Mosse, Berlin: b) cabinet in the Mosse-Palais, Berlin, with lamp on shelf (reprod. from: Haus der Sammlungen Rudolf Mosse, Berlin 1929 [reprint 1932], n.p. [17]) │ c) as shown in the 1934 Lepke auction catalog, pl. 20 (no. 167)

[19] Among the hundreds of works of art donated by Rudolf Mosse to the Berlin Egyptian Museum are 40 artifacts that, according to the inventory book, Brugsch bought from two Bedouins named Ali and Farag52. In fact, the dealers in question were Ali Abd el-Haj and Farag Ismaïn, who lived in Kafr el-Haram (Giza). There is also evidence of other purchases of larger sets of items for the Berlin museum from these two sellers53. Both operated as the most important antiquities dealers in Egypt at that time and worked as partners until 1896, when they became competitors. Farag Ismaïn and Ali Abd el-Haj managed to obtain authorization to carry out excavations at various sites in the Fayûm and Middle Egypt; this was issued to them on the condition that they had to hand over part of the finds to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. The objects that are preserved today in Cairo and Berlin show clearly the exclusivity of the pieces that the “Bedouins Ali and Farag” traded; for example, one of the sets purchased for Berlin includes ten exquisitely painted mummy shrouds with different representations (Figs. 13a-b)54.

Figs. 13a-b. Roman period mummy shroud of a woman depicted in the costume of the living. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, ÄM 11659 (photographs: SMB, Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung; photographer: Sandra Steiß)

Two draped statues of nameless high officials from Dimeh (Soknopaios Nesos) were also acquired from them, possibly from their excavations (Figs. 14a-b). In addition, Ali Abd el-Haj and Farag Ismaïn were involved in the trade of papyri; a whole bundle of over 300 Greek texts, which Brugsch bought for 1,000 pounds sterling for the then Königliche Museen, comes from them55.

Figs. 14a-b. Early Roman draped statues from Soknopaios Nesos (Fayûm), Egypt. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, ÄM 11632, 11633 (photographs: SMB, Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung; photographer: Jürgen Liepe)

Commemorating the Jewish benefactors of the Egyptian Museum in Berlin

[20] The names of the numerous Jewish patrons to whom the Staatliche Museen in Berlin owe extensive donations are, in many cases, no longer remembered or acknowledged today56, although we still admire the objects in the exhibitions. Only a small part of these benefactors’ commitment is known to the public, which is essentially related to the limited research into the history of the collection holdings to date57. Bringing back into public memory the contributions of Jewish patrons to cultural life in Germany is one of the tasks that the Egyptian Museum has to accomplish in the coming years. In the meantime, James Simon, who, as discussed above, is closely associated with the Egyptian Museum due to his financing of the excavations in Amarna and his donation of Nefertiti, has become a household name again thanks to tireless reappraisal and appreciation in the public sphere58. Exhibitions, publications, and the permanent display of the finds from Brugsch’s excavations, made possible only by Rudolf Mosse’s funding, should and must be the declared goal of remembering him as a patron of the Egyptian collection and anchoring him permanently in our memory. About ten objects from Brugsch’s enterprises are currently on display at the Neues Museum on Berlin’s Museum Island, including the high-quality so-called head of pharaoh Amasis (Fig. 15).

Fig. 15. So-called head of pharaoh Amasis, Late Period (ca. 570–526 BC). Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, ÄM 11864 (photograph: SMB, Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung; photographer: Sandra Steiß)

It is hoped that in the near future, in addition to permanent labeling, a special exhibition will make Mosse’s many and varied donations visible to a broader public. In this context, the more recent history of his dispersed private collection after 1934 must be given further research attention.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Moses Mendelssohn Center for European-Jewish Studies in Potsdam once again for its support in publishing the volume on which this essay is based (see note 1), as well as the initiators of this book, highlighting a hitherto neglected part of the history of the Berlin Egyptian Museum. We would like to thank all the staff of the Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung Berlin and the Verein zur Förderung des Ägyptischen Museums Berlin e.V. for their support in researching and financing the 2017 publication.

Special Issue
Irene Bald Romano, ed., The Fate of Antiquities in the Nazi Era, in: RIHA Journal 0282-0294 (15 September 2023), DOI: https://doi.org/10.11588/riha.2022.2.

License
The text of this article is provided under the terms of the Creative Commons License CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0.

1 This article is based on Jana Helmbold-Doyé and Thomas L. Gertzen, eds., Mosse im Museum. Die Stiftungstätigkeit des Berliner Verlegers Rudolf Mosse (1843–1920) für das Ägyptische Museum Berlin, Berlin 2017.

2 Ingeborg Müller, “Zwei Neuerwerbungen aus der ehemaligen Sammlung Rudolf Mosse”, in: Forschungen und Berichte 14 (1972), 104-108.

3 Currently a subject of research by the Mosse Art Research Initiative (MARI), https://www.mari-portal.de/ (accessed 4 August 2020).

4 If not indicated otherwise, biographical information is based on Elisabeth Kraus, Die Familie Mosse. Deutsch-jüdisches Bürgertum im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Munich 1999.

5 Cf. Fritz Härtsch, Rudolf Mosse – ein Verleger revolutioniert das Werbegeschäft. 125 Jahre Mosse in Zürich, Zurich 1996.

6 Always keeping in mind the precarious situation of German Jewry at the time; see Dolores L. Augustine, “Die soziale Stellung der jüdischen Wirtschaftselite im wilhelminischen Berlin”, in: Werner E. Mosse, ed., Jüdische Unternehmer in Deutschland im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Stuttgart 1992 (= Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte, Beiheft 64), 225-245.

7 According to Claudia Marwede-Dengg, the exact date of the declaration of bankruptcy, provided by Kraus (1999), 502, cannot be verified within the trade register archive. See Claudia Marwede-Dengg, “Die Enteignung der Familie Lachmann-Mosse”, first section, entitled “Der Mosse-Konzern bis Herbst 1932”, in: MARI-Portal (2018).

8 Adolph Donath, “Berliner Privatsammlungen. III. Die Sammlung Rudolf Mosse”, in: B. Z. am Mittag, 19 February 1909, no. 42, zweites Beiblatt; Adolph Donath, “Der Berliner Kaufmann als Kunstfreund”, in: Verein Berliner Kaufleute und Industrieller, ed., Berlins Aufstieg zur Weltstadt. Ein Gedenkbuch, Berlin 1929, 241-310, esp. 274-278. For another eyewitness account, see Max Osborn, “Die Kunstsammlung Rudolf Mosse”, in: Kunstchronik: Wochenschrift für Kunst und Kunstgewerbe, Neue Folge 23 (1 March 1912), no. 18, 282-283, https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.5954#0152.

9 See https://www.mari-portal.de/ (accessed 30 December 2020), as well as articles in the daily press: Andreas Förster, “In alle Welt verstreut”, in: Berliner Zeitung no. 168, 22 July 2014, 24; Ulrike Knöfel, “Im Namen des Vaters”, in: Der Spiegel, 16 April 2016, 112-113; Regina Mönch, “Geraubt, verkauft und wiedergefunden”, in: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) no. 36, 12 February 2015, 13.

10 For the auction, e.g.: Jost Hermand, “Zweierlei Moderne. Das Kunstverständnis Rudolf Mosses und Hans Lachmann-Mosses”, in: Anna-Dorothea Ludewig, Julius H. Schoeps and Ines Sonder, eds., Aufbruch in die Moderne. Sammler, Mäzene und Kunsthändler in Berlin 1880–1933, Cologne 2012, 250-271, esp. 267. The scope and selection of the objects are only partially documented by the much-cited auction catalog (Rudolph Lepke, ed., Kunstsammlung Rudolf Mosse, Berlin, Berlin 1934; digitally available at https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.5360); there it states: “Für den vorliegenden Katalog ist eine Sichtung erfolgt, es wurden nur die besten Stücke der Sammlung aufgenommen” (p. 10). With 325 catalog numbers, this does not reflect the art collection, once numbering several thousand objects that the collector made available to the public on a limited basis since about 1910. On the restricted access, see Sven Kuhrau, Der Kunstsammler im Kaiserreich. Kunst und Repräsentation in der Berliner Privatsammlerkultur, Kiel 2005, 122.

11 Lepke (1934), pp. 35-39: “Altertümer aus Ägypten”, lot numbers 133-168, pls. 19-20. The exact number of objects cannot be determined from these short entries – it varies between 88 and 106 individual objects – as some entries contain contradictory information (see e.g. no. 138).

12 See the handwritten notes in the digitized copy of the auction catalog: The portraits (Lepke [1934], p. 38, lot numbers 156-157, pl. 19) are listed at 250 and 400 Reichsmark, respectively. In the terms of sale in the catalog, the equivalent value for one Reichsmark is given as 1/2790 kg of fine gold, see https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.5360#0009. The two mummy portraits mentioned here were offered for sale in a Christie’s auction catalog after being transferred back to the heirs, see: Christie’s New York, ed., Antiquities: Tuesday 25 October 2016, 38-41, nos. 45-46.

13 Lepke (1934), lot numbers 137 (Old Kingdom, 4th Dynasty), 155 (New Kingdom, 18th Dynasty), 158 a-b (Old Kingdom, both [?] 5th Dynasty), and 164 (Old Kingdom).

14 Lepke (1934), lot numbers 149, 164, and 168 (necklace from Abusir el-Meleq).

15 Otto Rubensohn and Friedrich Knatz, “Bericht über die Ausgrabungen bei Abusir el Mäläq im Jahre 1903”, in: Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 41 (1904), 1-21.

16 As the name Sennefer was very common in the 18th Dynasty, it is not clear where the tomb was located. Considering this Sennefer’s title, the most obvious would be the tomb found at the following location: Anne Herzberg-Beiersdorf, “Prosopographia Memphitica”, https://anneherz.github.io/ProM/detail/singleview_persons.html?ids=744 (accessed 28 February 2020). A Sennefer was named in the tomb of Merire at the Falaise du Bubasteion in Saqqara-North, which dates from the pre-Amarna period (ca. 1400–1353 BC).

17 However, it is documented that the former curator, Dr. Steffen Wenig, inspected the two antiquities in November 1969 and they were already transferred to the museum at the beginning of January 1970; see Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Zentralarchiv (hereafter: SMB-ZA), II A/ÄM, PS 0042: letters dated 1 January 1970 and 11 March 1970 from Erich Getzlaff and 30 March 1970 from Dr. habil. Wolfgang Müller, director of the Egyptian Museum, to the general director of the Staatliche Museen in East Berlin , Dr. G. R. Meyer. The contractually regulated purchase was not completed until April 1970; the inventory book contains the note: “Ankauf von Herrn Dr. Getzlaff. April 1970; urspr. Sammlung Mosse Lepke Katalog Nr. 2075, Nr. 158b und 159”.

18 The objects entered the Ägyptisches Museum in East Berlin as ÄM 27658 and ÄM 27659; Müller (1972), 104-108; Ingeborg Müller, “Die Eingeweidekrüge des Berliner Ägyptischen Museums”, in: Festschrift zum 150jährigen Bestehen des Berliner Ägyptischen Museums, Berlin 1974 (= Mitteilungen aus der Ägyptischen Sammlung, 8), 191 (type XIX).

19 Michael Bienert and Elke Linda Buchholz, “‘… so frei von aller lokalen Begrenzung’. Reklamegeschäft und Sammellust: Der Verleger Rudolf Mosse”, in: Jahrbuch Preussischer Kulturbesitz 50 (2014), 153-172: 159, 163, 168.

20 For this denotation, see Peter Paret, “Bemerkungen zu dem Thema: Jüdische Kunstsammler, Stifter und Kunsthändler”, in: Ekkehard Mai and Peter Paret, eds., Sammler, Stifter und Museen. Kunstförderung in Deutschland im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Cologne 1993, 173-185.

21 See Bernhard Kirchgässner and Hans-Peter Becht, eds., Stadt und Mäzenatentum, Sigmaringen 1997 (= Stadt in der Geschichte, Veröffentlichungen des Südwestdeutschen Arbeitskreises für Stadtgeschichtsforschung, 23). One can distinguish patronage of the arts from patronage of societal initiatives and science. For a general account, see Klaus-Dieter Lehmann, “Jüdische Mäzene – Sammeln als zivilgesellschaftliches Engagement”, in: Jahrbuch Preußischer Kulturbesitz 43 (2007), 96-105.

22 See Elisabeth Kraus, “Jüdisches Mäzenatentum im Kaiserreich. Befunde – Motive – Hypothesen”, in: Jürgen Kocka and Manuel Frey, eds., Bürgerkultur und Mäzenatentum im 19. Jahrhundert, Berlin 1998, 38-53; Elisabeth Kraus, “Zwischen bürgerlicher Philanthropie und traditioneller Zedaka. Das Mäzenatentum der deutsch-jüdischen Familie Mosse”, in: Koordinierungsstelle für Kulturgutverluste, ed., Sammeln, Stiften, Fördern. Jüdische Mäzene in der deutschen Gesellschaft, Magdeburg 2008 (= Veröffentlichungen der Koordinierungsstelle für Kulturgutverluste, 6), 73-99.

23 See Michael S. Cullen, “Juden als Sammler und Mäzene”, in: Julius H. Schoeps, ed., Juden als Träger bürgerlicher Kultur in Deutschland, Stuttgart 1989, 123-148.

24 For this controversial term, see Till van Rahden, “Verrat, Schicksal oder Chance. Lesarten des Assimilationsbegriffs in der Historiographie zur Geschichte der deutschen Juden”, in: Historische Anthropologie: Kultur – Gesellschaft – Alltag 13 (2005), 245-264.

25 See Uffa Jensen, Gebildete Doppelgänger. Bürgerliche Juden und Protestanten im 19. Jahrhundert, Göttingen 2005.

26 A good overview is given in Olaf Matthes, “Jüdische Mäzene und der Alte Orient”, in: Helmbold-Doyé and Gertzen (2017), 37-43.

27 See Olaf Matthes, James Simon: Mäzen im Wilhelminischen Zeitalter, Berlin 2000; see also Thomas L. Gertzen, Judentum und Konfession in der Geschichte der deutschsprachigen Ägyptologie, Berlin 2017, 179-188.

28 The Amarna Letters are the diplomatic correspondence written in cuneiform on clay tablets between various princes in Syria-Palestine and the Egyptian pharaohs Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten, see: “The El-Amarna Letters at the Vorderasiatisches Museum of Berlin”, https://web.archive.org/web/20150725041257/http://amarna.ieiop.csic.es/maineng.html (accessed 4 August 2020); as for the acquisition, see: Thomas L. Gertzen, “‘Denn was ich Ihnen als Phantasie bezeichnet habe, das liegt seit vorgestern im Museum’. Einige Marginalien zum Ankauf der Keilschriftkorrespondenz aus Amarna durch J.P.A. Erman”, in: Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 139 (2012), 28-37.

29 See, for its Near Eastern Department, Nicola Crüsemann, Vom Zweistromland zum Kupfergraben. Vorgeschichte und Entstehungsjahre (1899–1918) der Vorderasiatischen Abteilung der Berliner Museen vor fach- und kulturpolitischen Hintergründen, Berlin 2001 (= Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen, Neue Folge 42 [2000], Beiheft), 58-108; for the Egyptian Department, Thomas L. Gertzen, École de Berlin und “Goldenes Zeitalter” (1882–1914) der Ägyptologie als Wissenschaft. Das Lehrer-Schüler-Verhältnis von Ebers, Erman und Sethe, Berlin 2013, 278-309.

30 For his leading role in the foundation of the German Oriental Society, see Olaf Matthes, “Der Aufruf zur Gründung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft vom November 1897”, in: Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 130 (1998), 9-16.

31 See Thomas L. Gertzen, Jean Pierre Adolphe Erman und die Begründung der Ägyptologie als Wissenschaft, Berlin 2015 (= Jüdische Miniaturen, 180).

32 For a general account, see Gertzen (2013).

33 Adolf Erman, Mein Werden und mein Wirken. Erinnerungen eines alten Berliner Gelehrten, Leipzig 1929, 236ff. [translation: TLG].

34 Thomas Gertzen’s attention was drawn to the existence of this correspondence in the Landesarchiv Berlin by Simon Renkert: Landesarchiv Berlin, Nl. Rudolf Mosse E Rep. 061 - 16. A transcript of these letters can be found in JanaHelmbold-Doyé, “Erwerbungsgeschichte der durch Rudolf Mosse an das Ägyptische Museum Berlin gestifteten Objekte”, in: Helmbold-Doyé and Gertzen (2017), 30-31.

35 Heike Schmidt is currently preparing a double biography of Heinrich Brugsch and his younger brother, Emil Brugsch; for the time being, see Heike Schmidt, “Am Anfang war Ägypten”, in: Hans Helmut Hillrichs, ed., Troja ist überall. Der Siegeszug der Archäologie, Frankfurt a.M. 2007, 69-135; Heike Schmidt, “Die Rolle der Gebrüder Brugsch im ägyptischen Antikenhandel”, in: Helmbold-Doyé and Gertzen (2017), 44-58; Heike Schmidt, “‘Meister’ in 36 Tagen – der Ägyptologe Heinrich Brugsch (1827–1894)”, in: Christian E. Loeben and Florian Ebeling, eds., O Isis und Osiris – Ägyptens Mysterien und die Freimaurerei, Rahden 2018, 457-474; Heike Schmidt, “Ein Preuße in Göttingen”, in: Janne Arp-Neumann and Thomas L. Gertzen, eds., “Steininschrift und Bibelwort”. Ägyptologen und Koptologen Niedersachsens, Rahden 2018 (= TA-MEHU. Ägyptologie in Norddeutschland, 2), 19-24.

36 For the Egyptian antiquities trade in general, see Frederik N. Hagen and Kim Ryholt, The Antiquities Trade in Egypt 1880–1930. The H. O. Lange Papers, Copenhagen 2016 (= Scientia Danica, Series H, Humanistica 4, vol. 8), and Frederik N. Hagen and Kim Ryholt, “The Antiquities Trade in Egypt during the Time of Rudolf Mosse”, in: Helmbold-Doyé and Gertzen (2017), 59-71.

37 Due to the eventful history of the collection, the current whereabouts of some of these artifacts are unknown. In detail: Jana Helmbold-Doyé, “Erwerbungsgeschichte der durch Rudolf Mosse an das Ägyptische Museum Berlin gestifteten Objekte”, in: Helmbold-Doyé and Gertzen (2017), 21.

38 The Zentralarchiv (ZA) of the Staatlichen Museen Berlin (SMB) holds numerous documents (SMB-ZA, I/GV 566, 563-613b) relating to the transactions. These include entries in the account books, statements of transport and labor costs, payment instructions, bills of lading, and a list of the objects with indication of the respective purchase prices. The lists or attachments are written in German, while the receipts are in Arabic or French. Heinrich Brugsch, Mein Leben und mein Wandern, 2. ed., Berlin 1894, 387; Erman (1929), 165 (on the head of Amasis); Müller (1972), 104-108, esp. 104; Susanne Voss, Die Geschichte der Abteilung Kairo des DAI im Spannungsfeld deutscher politischer Interessen, vol. 1: 1881–1929, Rahden 2013 (= Menschen – Kulturen – Traditionen. Studien aus den Forschungsclustern des Deutschen Archäologischen Institutes, 8.1), 32. The comprehensive biography of the Mosse family by Kraus (1999) contains no reference to this.

39 SMB-ZA, I/GV 566, 583.

40 Renate Germer, Hannelore Kischkewitz and Meinhard Lüning, eds., Berliner Mumiengeschichten. Ergebnisse eines multidisziplinären Forschungsprojektes, Berlin 2009, 143.

41 About the mummy portraits from the Brugsch enterprise: Heinrich Schäfer, “Ägyptische Abteilung. Porträt auf Holz, von einer Mumie des II. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.”, in: Amtliche Berichte aus den Königlichen Kunstsammlungen 29 (1908), no. 6, 159.

42 Heinrich Brugsch, “Die Toten von Hawara”, in: Die Gartenlaube 38 (1892), no. 20, 628-632. After his return, Brugsch gave a lecture on his findings to the Berlin Society for Anthropology, Ethnology, and Prehistory on 9 July 1892, but it remained unpublished. See the note, “Der Vortrag ist bis jetzt nicht eingegangen”, in: Zeitschrift für Ethnologie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerkunde und der Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte 24 (1892), 416. In contrast, a report survives of another lecture he gave in Metz on 28 October 1892. [First name unknown] Osterkamp, “Der Moeris-See und das Todtenfeld von Hawara. Vortrag von Heinr. Brugsch-Pascha-Berlin am 28. Oktober 1892 über Aegypten und seine jüngsten Ausgrabungen daselbst”, in: XV. Jahresbericht des Vereins für Erdkunde zu Metz für das Vereinsjahr 1892–93, Metz 1893, 20-27.

43 In total, there are 125 objects. A brief commentary on the finds is given in Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning (2009), 144-152.

44 Osterkamp (1893), 20-27, esp. 26; taken up by Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning (2009), 145 n6.

45 An overview of the origin of the archaeological finds based on the inventory book is provided in the tabular compilation by Jana Helmbold-Doyé, “Erwerbungsgeschichte der durch Rudolf Mosse an das Ägyptische Museum Berlin gestifteten Objekte”, in: Helmbold-Doyé and Gertzen (2017), 26-27.

46 The total number to be determined at present differs from the number of 372 papyri mentioned in the literature. See also Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning (2009), 144; James H. Breasted, “The Latest Discovery from the Egyptian Fayum“, in: The Biblical World 3 (April 1894), no. 4, 295-298. Of the papyri, 157 Greek-language documents are accessible online: https://berlpap.smb.museum/result/?Nummernsuche=&Inventar=&Standort=&Publikation=&Inhalt-Stichworte=&Textgattung=&Startdatum=&Enddatum=&Herkunft=&Bezugsorte=&Sprache=&Material=&Schriftrichtung=&Form=&Schreibweise=&Erwerbung=Mosse&Erwerbungsjahr=&Fundort=&Alle=&Suchtext= (accessed 11 September 2022).

47 Osterkamp (1893), 20-27, esp. 25.

48 The corresponding directory comprises 10 pages in which 160 numbers are listed. SMB-ZA, I/GV 566, 585 (Anlage D).

49 SMB-ZA, I/GV 566, 584 (Anlage C).

50 SMB-ZA, I/GV 566, 585 (Anlage D), no. 21 = Lepke (1934), 39, lot numbers 167, pl. 20. Furthermore, there are other objects in the Berlin museum collection that are labeled with the names of sites at which Brugsch worked, creating some confusion and raising the possibility that they were either purchased or found in the course of his excavations. See, e.g., SMB-ZA, I/GV 566, 585 (Anlage D), nos. 37-41: “Fünf weibliche Köpfe. Roth gebrannter Ton. – Arsinoë”.

51 For a comparable treatment after the purchase of the valuable Erich Schmidt Library, see Bienert and Buchholz (2014), 153-172: 165 n30; Annette Thomas, “Rudolf Mosse - ein Medienzar im Kaiserreich und sein gesellschaftliches Umfeld”, in: Berlin in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Jahrbuch des Landesarchivs Berlin, Berlin 2006, 51-72, esp. 62; Hans-Henning Zabel, “Mosse, Rudolf”, in: Neue Deutsche Biographie 18 (1997), 213-216, esp. 215.

52 Berlin, Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, ÄM 11632-11670, 11867 (with contradictory indications of origin).

53 See, e.g., SMB-ZA, I/GV 566, 576, 584, 586-587, and a letter from Adolf Erman dated 24 October 1892: Thomas L. Gertzen, “‘Brennpunkt’ ZÄS. Die redaktionelle Korrespondenz ihres Gründers Heinrich Brugsch und die Bedeutung von Fachzeitschriften für die Genese der Ägyptologie Deutschlands”, in: Susanne Bickel et al., eds., Ägyptologen und Ägyptologien zwischen Kaiserreich und Gründung der beiden deutschen Staaten, Berlin 2013 (= Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, Beiheft 1), 63-112, esp. 100-101. In the archival records of the ZA, the dealers are listed with their full names, here spelled Farrag Ismail and Ali Abdal-Hai. For the dealers, see Erman (1929), 213; Hagen and Ryholt (2016), 192, 214; Hagen and Ryholt (2017), 65-68.

54 Berlin, Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, ÄM 11651-11660. About the mummy shrouds in detail: Jana Helmbold-Doyé, “Erwerbungsgeschichte der durch Rudolf Mosse an das Ägyptische Musem Berlin gestifteten Objekte”, in: Helmbold-Doyé and Gertzen (2017), 28-29, 156-159.

55 SMB-ZA, I/GV 566, 587.

56 See Cella-Margaretha Girardet, Jüdische Mäzene für die Preußischen Museen zu Berlin. Eine Studie zum Mäzenatentum im Deutschen Kaiserreich und in der Weimarer Republik, Berlin 1997 (= Monographien zur Wissenschaft des Judentums, 3); Andrea Baresel-Brand and Peter Müller, eds., Sammeln. Stiften. Fördern. Jüdische Mäzene in der deutschen Gesellschaft, Magdeburg 2008 (= Veröffentlichungen der Koordinierungsstelle für Kulturgutverluste, 6).

57 On the sponsors of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, see, e.g., "Acquisitions and Donations" on the website of the Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz, https://www.preussischer-kulturbesitz.de/schwerpunkte/erwerbungen-und-schenkungen.html (accessed 15 January 2021).

58 See, e.g., “Kaiserjude, Mäzen und Preussischer Patriot: James Simon und das jüdische Mäzenatentum”, on the website of Jüdisches Europa (2019), https://www.juedisches-europa.net/archiv-seite-3/4-2019/james-simon-kaiserjude-m%C3%A4zen-und-preussischer-patriot/ (accessed 15 January 2021).