The evaluation and transformation process of the GDR research system in the wake of German reunification 1989/90 was immediately accompanied not only by debates within the scientific community, but also by an extensive discussion about the value and future perspectives of East German scholarship and its protagonists in the nationally circulated press. In 1990, the focus turned temporarily to the prominent East German prehistorian Joachim Herrmann after his election to the board of an international historical association. The article uses the example of Herrmann and the public discussion about him as a case study to examine the status of, and changes in, the authority of scholarship and the scholar in the context of the evaluation and restructuring of the East German research landscape in the early 1990s. A selection of press articles from nationwide German newspapers and newsmagazines, as well as archival letters exchanged between different participants in the debate serve as prisms carving out the central arguments and subjacent structures of the discussion. Therefore, Herrmann's case exposes generic characteristics of (different concepts of) scientific authority and the close connection between its negotiation and the search for identity in the newly reunited German academic sphere.

中文翻译：

---

“昂纳克的附庸”还是为科学服务的史前学家？统一德国之约阿希姆·赫尔曼辩论中的前东德学者评价与学者概念

1989/90 年德国统一后，东德研究体系的评估和转型过程立即伴随着不仅科学界内部的争论，而且还伴随着关于东德学术及其主角的价值和未来前景的广泛讨论在全国发行的报刊上。In 1990, the focus turned temporarily to the prominent East German prehistorian Joachim Herrmann after his election to the board of an international historical association. 本文以赫尔曼的例子和公众对他的讨论作为案例研究，在东德研究格局的评估和重构的背景下，考察学术权威和学者的地位和变化。 1990 年代初。来自德国全国性报纸和新闻杂志的精选新闻文章，以及辩论中不同参与者之间交换的档案信件作为棱镜，勾勒出讨论的中心论点和下面的结构。因此，赫尔曼的案例揭示了科学权威（不同概念）的一般特征，以及它的协商与在新统一的德国学术领域中寻找身份之间的密切联系。