Granitschale im Lustgarten

Granite bowl and museum, before 1854

In the pre-and post-Napoleonic eras, as nation-states emerged, leaders created publicly visible symbols that demonstrated their greatness, influence, and power. According to this style of thinking, historical architectural structures from Egypt and other ancient locales were dismantled and placed in modern-day European metropolises. If one did not benefit from it or desired more, new objects were created, such as the Berlin bowl. Sibylle Einholz, who was commissioned in 1997 to clarify the ownership of the granite bowl, places the Biedermeier world wonder in a wider context. The prior consideration of the Great Granite Bowl as a Biedermeier wonder of the world, as a technical marvel of the processing and transport of the bowl by Cantian, and as an artistic appreciation by the painter Hummel was inadequate. He also considers granite as a "patriotic symbol," "cult stone", and myth" in the Biedermeier era. Furthermore, the placement of the bowl had a particular significance.

Lustgarten with bowl in 1913, in the background the city palace

Sibylle Einholz suggests that during the Biedermeier era, granite was not only admired for its exterior appearance but was also attributed to human qualities. Due to the difficulty of working with and polishing granite using the standard tools and methods available at the time, granite became a symbol of power and perseverance. This is evident in the decision made by Friedrich Wilhelm III during the selection of the design for the Luther monument in Wittenberg in 1818, where he insisted on a granite pedestal to represent Luther's unshakeable firmness.[13]

Granite boulders during the Biedermeier era were not only thought to possess human-like characteristics but also were seen as patriotic symbols. Johann Gottfried Schadow wrote to Goethe in 1818 regarding the Blücher memorial at Rostock, stating that "the nine-foot (2.82-meter) pedestal of patriotic granite" could only be executed in Mecklenburg granite.[13] Goethe saw his earlier argument in his essay "Granitarbeiten in Berlin" (1828), that the large erratic blocks were remnants of large rock masses that had disintegrated into themselves, validated. Cantian referred to his work as "patriotic granite" in the academy's exhibition brochures.[14] Einholz noted that the "national index" for the proposed Blücher mausoleum was the "largest bowl from the largest granite find."[15] The planned Blücher mausoleum, which would have had a dome 4.25 meters in diameter and been built of a granite rock called "Blücherstein" and modeled after Theodoric's tomb in Ravenna, failed to achieve comparable monumentalism.[16] Silesian Zobtenberg should be reconsidered. The 650-ton granite block could not be delivered due to technical issues, so this failed altogether.

The granite boulders located in the area were glorified as national symbols during the Biedermeier period. The worship of granite was demonstrated, among other things, by the fact that the King of Prussia purchased granite without specifying a reason. All parts of the Margraviate Stone were put to good use.[17]

According to Sibylle Einholz, there was a detectable ambivalence towards conventional cults in the Biedermeier era, which is why granite was characterized as a "cult stone" at the beginning of the 19th century. Wilhelm von Humboldt acquired the two porphyry tubs from the Diocletian Baths ruins in Rome in 1810 for the museum with the intention of using them as sarcophagi for the royal family. It was deliberate to draw comparisons between Florentine Medici burial customs and Roman antiquity. This claim is supported by other evidence:[18]

"Both the stone porphyry and the color purple were relatively rare and thus already reserved by the Romans for the emperors (for example, for sarcophagi made of porphyry). This tradition has been inherited in many later cultural circles, e.g., Byzantine art, the German Empire under the Hohenstaufen dynasty, bishops of the Christian Church, and, perhaps last, the Medici in Florence."

In addition to their shared mineral composition, porphyry, and granite share a reddish hue. Christian Gottlieb Cantian was aware of the existence of the porphyry bowl, and despite his desire to create an even more "magnificent" bowl, he recognized the similarities between the two stones.

Sibylle Einholz concludes that the proposal for the Blücher monument to be located on the Zobtenberg, also known as the "Holy Mountain of Silesia," where Celtic and Germanic cult sites had existed since the fifth century, was created by Schadow but proved to be unworkable.[19] Einholz draws on Goethe's 1828 essay on granite to support this conclusion,[20]

"that the granite is to be understood as a nucleus, as a carrier of primordial information about the formative rule of the earth. The poet speaks of the dignity of the rock, which is not only the foundation of our planet, but at the same time the highest and the deepest. To the noble rock - precious stone - is appropriate only processing to the exquisite solitaire."

Initially, the installation of the bowl was planned in the most visible place within the museum, and the change directly in front of the entrance of the museum suggests that there is a deep connection to this place. The bowl not only contributes to the museum's architecture but also conveys content. According to Einholz's reading of Goethe,

"that elsewhere he conceived of the museum as a kind of new sanctuary to which man goes on pilgrimage, we must attribute a special aura to the objects on display."

Beyond that, he sees a supra-temporal connection:[21]

"The picture cycle literature about the development of life on earth [...] planned in the vestibule would correspond to the basic idea about the shape of the earth as a geological quintessence set in a granite solitaire - whether in the rotunda or in front of the flight of steps remains the same."

Great Margrave Stone: N = original location, S = after approximately 90° rotation, ac or bd = 5 feet (1.57 meters) thick blank process description under stone splitting.

The public showed great interest in the processing of the blank, transportation, and grinding of the bowl in Berlin, which was documented by the painter Johann Erdmann Hummel. He created several oil paintings and sketches to capture the process. One photograph of the partially completed bowl being turned in Berlin was destroyed during the Second World War and was housed in the Märkisches Museum. Hummel was not interested in the bowl's symbolic meaning.[22] In addition to the precision of the painted image's perspective and reflections on the bowl's bottom, it is worth noting that one of Hummel's paintings features Cantian, the gentleman wearing the top hat, as well as Hummel's sons and their cousin.[23]

Profile of the bowl

Work on the bowl began in May 1827, with 20 stonemasons working every day. The Margrave's Stones' stonemasonry tools were shaped and hardened by one or two blacksmiths.

By mid-June, the Großer Markgrafenstein which weighed approximately 700-750 tons and measured 7.8 meters in length, 7.5 in width, and 7.5 in height, had been turned 90 degrees using ten winches (shown in Fig: from N to S). This was a necessary step to optimally split off a correspondingly large piece of stone on August 24, 1827, which was achieved with the use of 95 iron wedges.

Pen and ink drawing by Cantian: Turning the bowl in the Rauen Mountains. The bowl body is visible on the sketch on the left about 30° slanted as a light beam; it is supported by several men. On the left, on the top of the rock on a beam, Cantian has probably depicted himself again, giving the commands to the workers on the winches on the right and those below on the right.

The first splitting of the stone did not go as planned, resulting in the need to remove larger stone protrusions with hand tools. A second attempt in early November also failed, requiring further removal of stone protrusions by hammer and chisel. It was not until December 23, 1827, that the 5-foot thick stone slab (shown in the diagram as bd-ac) was finally turned to work on the underside of the bowl (shown as ba down). Turning the 225-ton slab required 100 workers and 23 hoists. Once the underside was finished on April 26, 1828, the hollowing of the bowl continued until August 4.

It is interesting to note that during the construction process, workers would sit on the edge of the shell for breakfast. This was possible due to the shell's impressive dimensions, which allowed for such activities. By mid-September 1828, the production of the profiled shell exterior and additional work on the shell was completed. Special transport preparations, such as the construction of a wooden beam frame, were also finished by this time.[24]

Ship loading of rough granite shell resting on a wooden frame

The bowl, which weighed between 70 and 75 tons at that time, was transported to the Spree River using wooden rollers. A boardwalk and a road through the forest to the Spree were constructed; the route is still recognizable today. The transport took six weeks; daily progress was 600 feet (188 m). To put the shell onto a wooden ship that had been properly braced for this task, 54 workers were required.

Due to the shell's massive size, it was transported with a rough surface as it would have been too costly to finish and polish, and protecting it from scratches and damage during the lengthy delivery trip would have been challenging. Therefore, it was only finished according to its outer form. The shell's transport to Berlin required the Grünstraße Bridge to be significantly reduced in height to accommodate its size.

On November 6, 1828, the bowl was delivered to Berlin and transferred to a specially constructed building at the Packhof, located not far from the installation location at the Altes Museum. To achieve a high gloss finish, the bowl underwent two and a half years of grinding and polishing, using a steam engine with ten horsepower inside the building.

It was the first time in Germany that a stone this hard was polished with machine help, and the polishing of curves and cavities added to the challenge.

It was found that during the grinding process, the shell had three cracks. The cause of these cracks is believed to be either natural forces or the splitting of the Rauen Mountains. In 1831, the shell was studied by prominent naturalists of the time, including Klöden and Wöhler, at Cantian's request, and was kept covered during the winter. It is assumed that one of these cracks, deepened over time by frost action, led to the shell's eventual breakage in 1981.[25]

View from the cathedral to the National Gallery with the granite bowl moved here, around 1938

The museum opened in 1830, and there was a disagreement over where to place the bowl between Cantian and Schinkel. Cantian proposed placing the bowl on high columns, while Schinkel preferred placing it close to the ground on plain granite pedestals in front of the museum staircase. Ultimately, the king sided with Schinkel, and the bowl was placed on three plinths, allowing a view into its interior. On November 14, 1831, the bowl was provisionally placed, and it was officially handed over to the Royal Museum on November 10, 1834. The estimated price for the bowl was 12,000 thalers, but it ended up costing 33,386 thalers, which was only officially approved after a revision.[26]

In the course of the transformation of the Lustgarten into a parade ground in 1936, the granite bowl was moved to the green area north of the cathedral.