Scientific background knowledge and research transfer as exemplified by the Egyptologist Georg Steindorff (1861-1951)

2011年，格奥尔格·施泰因多夫的继承人将他的私人信件交给了莱比锡大学埃及研究所/埃及博物馆，从而使人们有可能利用一个迄今鲜为人知的档案来深入了解某一学术学科的历史。在60年的时间里，至少有6800份文件(斯坦多夫收到并注释的信件以及他自己的信件草稿)揭示了埃及学核心人物之一的活动，不仅是作为一名学者，而且作为一名学术政策制定者，他在20世纪前30年的影响力几乎不可低估。施坦多夫的影响在很大程度上是他在所谓的沃尔特布赫科姆教团的十年成员资格的结果，该教团由德国四个学院的代表组成。在这个同时负责监督位于开罗的帝国德意志埃及考古研究所的学术机构中，施泰因多夫与领军人物阿道夫·埃尔曼一起发挥着最大的影响力。他对即将到来的德国埃及学领域所有问题的深刻洞察使他成为埃尔曼最重要的顾问，并接替他成为德国埃及学最有影响力的权威。他的各种编辑职位也让他与大型出版社有了直接的接触。现在可以接触到的材料的意义在于它的质地、密度和质量，以及它惊人的60多年的年代范围。私人通信的朴实无华的坦率为我们提供了对人文学科的元水平的洞察。因此，例如，最近发现的关于德国埃及学家参与国际科学文化竞赛(威廉二世皇帝)的论述以最定性的方式得到说明。第一个细读揭示了在学术世界内以及学术话语和一般公众之间发生的研究转移中相互作用的复杂网络。等待彻底检查的档案文件清楚地证明了行为者的相互作用和真实动机。这导致了第二层次的理解：(1)从同步的角度看，在这种视角下，国际研究网络和研究在各自国家制约下的跨学科影响变得明显；(2)从历时的角度，从知识/信息转移的机制和产生学术学校的过程看起来是新的，揭示了从威廉明时代到第二次世界大战后时期的直接传统脉络。因此，参与知识生产和研究转让的行为者可以以一种远远超出其轶事般的可重建网络的方式被描绘出来。

In 2011, the heir of Georg Steindorff handed over his private correspondence to the Egyptological Institute/Egyptian Museum of the University of Leipzig, thereby making it possible to exploit a hitherto largely unknown archive in order to gain insights into the history of an academic discipline. No less than 6800 documents written over a period of 60 years (letters received and annotated by Steindorff as well as drafts of his own letters) shed light on the activities of one of the central figures in Egyptology, not only as a scholar but also as an academic policy-maker whose influence in the first three decades of the 20th century can hardly be underestimated. Steindorffs influence was to a considerable extent the result of his decade-long membership in the so-called Wörterbuchkommission, which was made up of representatives of the four German academies. Within this academic organ, which was also in charge of supervising the Imperial German Institute for Egyptian Archaeology in Cairo, Steindorff wielded the greatest influence along with the leading figure, Adolf Erman. His profound insight into all matters related to the upcoming field of German Egyptology enabled him to become Ermans most important adviser and to succeed him as the most influential authority in German Egyptology. His various editorships also placed him in direct contact with the large publishing houses.The significance of the material that has now become accessible lies in its texture, density, and quality as well as in its astonishing chronological scope of more than 60 years. The unembellished frankness of the private correspondence affords insights into the meta level of a humanistic discipline. Thus, for instance, the recently uncovered discourse on the participation of German Egyptologists in the internationally waged scientific contest of cultures (Emperor William II) is illustrated in the most qualitative manner. A first perusal reveals the complex meshwork of interactions in the research transfer that was taking place within the academic world as well as between the academic discourse and the public at large. The documents of the archive that awaits thorough examination bear explicit testimony to the interactions and to the true motives of the acting persons. This leads to a second level of understanding: (1) from a synchronous perspective, under which the international research networks and the transdisciplinary influencing of research under the respective national constraints become apparent, and (2) from a diachronic perspective, under which the mechanisms of knowledge/information transfer and the processes that gave rise to scholarly schools appear in a new light and reveal the direct lines of tradition that ran from the Wilhelmine age to the post-World War II period. The actors involved in the production of knowledge and in research transfer thus become portrayable in a manner that extends far beyond their anecdotically reconstructable networks.