The era of National Socialism is firmly anchored in German cultural memory. It is framed not only by certain historical events but also by historical places. These sites undoubtedly include the extermination and concentration camps, which bear material witness to a criminal regime, as well as many other large-scale Nazi sites, whose material remains are still visible, such as the Reich Party Rally Grounds in Nuremberg, the former Peenemünde Army Research Centre (Heeresversuchsanstalt Peenemünde) and Berlin Tempelhof Airport. Stephan Porombka and Hilmar Schmundt (2005: 18) have referred to these and similar structures as ‘bodies of cultural burden’1 (kulturelle Großbelastungskörper).
Interestingly, however, limited attention has been paid so far to a particular kind of large-scale Nazi site: those dubbed Thingstätte or Thingplatz.2 These arenas or open-air theatres represent an aspect of Nazi ideology that has been forgotten, illustrating once more how National Socialism sought to permeate all areas of life. In his speech at the inauguration of the Thingstätte in Heidelberg (Baden-Württemberg), the Reich Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, glorified these open-air theatres as the ‘state parliaments of our time’ and ‘National Socialism rendered in stone’ (Anonymous 1935b). By means of their oversized monumental structures, the arenas were intended to impress and inspire. They not only served such symbolic purposes but also functioned as sites for the experience of mass events, some of which were meticulously planned and ritualised.
As remains of the Nazi era, the sites are part of our contemporary material culture. You can still find some forty to fifty of these structures in quite good condition, and many have been adapted to today's needs. For instance, the Dietrich Eckart Open-Air Theatre in Berlin, better known as the Berlin Waldbühne, which has been an event arena since the 1960s and hosted the final concert of the Rolling Stones’ ‘Sixty’ European tour in the summer of 2022, was originally a Thingstätte. Another popular example is the site in Bad Segeberg (Schleswig-Holstein) where the Wild West adventure novels of the famous German author Karl May (1842–1912) have been put on stage since the 1950s at the annual Karl May Festival. By contrast, the Volks-platz in Borna (Saxony) was equipped with a concrete wall for film projection and a building with various facilities during the GDR era and attracted several thousand people to open-air film showings in the summertime. Others are hardly visible today, such as the Thingstätte in Braunschweig (Lower Saxony) or the one in Passau (Bavaria).
As listed monuments, modern ruins, or venues with ‘history’, these immobile objects mark a field that has been overlooked and unexplored to this day – by both historians and cultural anthropologists. However, the Thingstätten are a noteworthy research object at the intersection of material culture, cultural heritage, everyday culture and historical culture as well as an interesting field of investigation regarding their subsequent use, conversion and appropriation after the Second World War. The present article forms part of a larger research project oscillating between cultural anthropology, public history, heritage studies and tourism studies. This project navigates using theoretical concepts such as experience, presence and materiality and circulates methodologically between archival research and an empirical ethnographic approach. Its main objective concerns questions such as how the monuments were reused and repurposed after the Second World War, how they are perceived today and what relevance is attached to them, in which context and by whom. These questions have rarely been asked before now. However, delving into the ambivalent ‘post-war biography’ of the Thingstätten is a worthwhile endeavour because they are visible-invisible or latent remnants of the Nazi era that were often appropriated inconspicuously and silently after 1945 (see, e.g. Samida 2023a, 2023b, 2024).
An equally neglected object of study are the reviews and comments posted by tourists about historic sites on websites such as Google Maps or TripAdvisor. There can be no doubt that digitisation is transforming everyday life, driven by online shopping, e-government and streaming services, for example. To this list should certainly be added travel blogs and online travel platforms on which users comment on and rate the places they have visited. Exploring travellers’ experiences at heritage sites by comparing how they comment and reflect upon their visits online is still largely a blank on the research agenda of both cultural anthropologists and historians, and little has been written about online travel platforms and tourists’ experiences of cultural heritage. Yet research that has been done points out the attraction of tourists to sites that raise complex moral discussions about the past. Anja Ballis (2020) focused on Holocaust memorials and visitors’ motivations and narratives while Stephan Jaeger (2023) looked at TripAdvisor reviews to museums that underline Nazi complicity and perpetration. His examples are the Topography of Terror in Berlin and the Kazerne Dossin in Mechelen in order to analyse visitor motivations and their emotions but also ‘feelings of obligation and the general storification of Holocaust site visits’ (idem: 31). Frédéric Bornarel and colleagues (2021) studied tourists’ experiences when visiting the First World War battlefield at Verdun; and Susanne Buckley-Zistel and Timothy Williams (2022) drew on visitor reviews regarding dark tourism in Cambodia and Rwanda. All of these authors focus on TripAdvisor, which features over a billion reviews of tourist destinations, accommodation and sightseeing locations and thus can be definitely described as the world's largest digital guidebook for travellers across the globe (TripAdvisor.com 2023).3 Most importantly for my purposes, TripAdvisor serves as a website ‘where tourists can articulate their emotions and sentiments which might seem personal and unique at first sight yet turn out to be paralleled by the feelings of other visitors’ (Buckley-Zistel and Williams 2022: 235).
This is the empirical aspect of my article – studying the responses written by tourists following their visits to the site in Heidelberg (Figure 1) which is the only Thingstätte listed on TripAdvisor. This is not really surprising. Firstly, there are only a few well-preserved sites, secondly, some of the still visible Thing sites are used for completely different purposes today and are therefore no longer recognisable as such, and thirdly, no other Thingstätten have been developed for tourists in any way. The one in Heidelberg is thus a unique case and particularly of great importance for this reason. The reviews and comments on the Heidelberg Thingstätte show that the visitors negotiate far more than the usual tourist information. In analysing their production of online posts, I look exclusively at travellers’ accounts of their experiences.4 The main objective is to investigate contemporary knowledge and perceptions of this peculiar Nazi heritage. How do the visitors approach and interpret the site? What associations do they have and what experiences do they make? Is this specific kind of architectural legacy of National Socialism understood as ‘difficult’ or ‘dark heritage’? The article deals with the entanglement of materiality, space and atmosphere at a concrete historical site by analysing the comments on TripAdvisor. Here, a digital community is emerging which is based on diverse visitor experiences. Thus, the entries can be understood as a kind of social memory place in the digital world, in which tourists reproduce and handle their experiences and imaginations while at the same time creating and writing (new) memories and histories. By applying qualitative content analysis of hundreds of TripAdvisor comments, the aim is to expose the imaginations, meanings and experiences circulating in the tourists’ posts.
The Heidelberg Thingstätte (photo: Stefanie Samida, 2016)
Citation: Anthropological Journal of European Cultures 34, 1; 10.3167/ajec.2025.340110
To begin with, I will give a brief historical overview of the Thingstätten in general, looking back at the period of their construction and use in the 1930s. I will then briefly trace the ‘biography’ of the Heidelberg Thingstätte from its inauguration in 1935 until the present day, giving an impression of the site and its current condition. Finally, I present and discuss the results of my analysis of TripAdvisor reviews.
Nazi Thingstätten: A Brief Historical Overview
The Thingstätten or Thing arenas erected in the mid-1930s were huge outdoor performance spaces for several thousand spectators. Reminiscent of Ancient Greek theatres, they were purpose-built for the performance of Thingspiele, a special kind of mass-participation choric dramas written and staged especially for these venues. They thus played a pivotal role in the Thing movement or Thingbewegung, which the Austrian historian Gerwin Strobl (2020: 17) recently described as a ‘failed experiment in twentieth-century mass culture’.
Thingstätten and Thingspiele are an example for what I would call the ideological openness of the Nazi regime to modern aestheticised forms of politics and culture.5 The goal was not only to establish unprecedented open-air theatres in terms of shape and size but also to bring large crowds together and to animate them by means of and within the performances. Thus, most of the Thing arenas were oval or round in shape, eliminating the separation between actors and spectators. They were not only intended to represent a permanent monument for posterity; by means of interactive mass theatre, they also fulfilled an important performative function and can therefore be described as ‘atmospheric architecture’ (Bartetzko 1985). The fascist theatres modelled on Greek archetypes were, as Eleftheria Ioannidou (2023: 133) underlines, ‘key to connecting the promise of cultural renewal to the embodied experience of a revived past’.
The original plan was to distribute Thingstätten across the entire German Reich, with each major city having one. Some four hundred sites were to be built in total. However, only about forty to sixty of these imposing structures were completed in the period from 1934 to about 1937, each holding up to twenty thousand spectators, depending on its size.6 The first official Thingplatz stage, at the Brandberge in Halle, and the site in Heidelberg (both inaugurated 1935) were prestigious projects in terms of size, location, and architecture and were treated as showcases for the Thing movement. Several of the mass-participation Thing plays were also staged for the first time at Halle and Heidelberg. From the beginning, however, the sites were also used for flag-raising ceremonies, Hitler Youth events, and, above all, solstice celebrations and as such central means for the regime to exert political will and to pursue the goal of strengthening the Volksgemeinschaft (people's community).
The Thingspiele played an important role in this. They dealt with the ‘national revolution’, as the Nazis called their rise to power, emphasised themes of work and homeland or stressed the principle of allegiance. As Glen Gadberry (1980: 103) put it, the new genre was a ‘grandiose dramatic work’ both in ‘visionary theory and unfulfilled practice’. A good example is Kurt Euringer's play Deutsche Passion 1933, which draws direct parallels to the Christian Passion while focusing on the death and rebirth of a nation. The play begins on the battlefields of the First World War, where the fallen soldiers cannot rest in peace because they hear the lamentations of children, the unemployed and mothers. Finally, a ‘nameless soldier’ rises from his grave and mingles with the Volk. In a speech at the play's dramatic climax, he embodies the ‘good spirit’, invoking the surrender of greed and preaching unity through common work. The play ends with the emergence of a ‘new’ national community, the Volksgemeinschaft.7 Thus, the new genre ‘served the Nazi aspirations to construct a modern mythology’ (Ioannidou 2023: 133).
However, the initial euphoria of 1933 and 1934 was soon followed by disillusionment and the Nazis ultimately turned away from the Thingbewegung and its arenas. Key reasons for this were rivalries in the area of cultural policy, delays in construction, and a disconnect between local actors and the modern theatre concept embodied by the Thingstätten.8 The aesthetics both of the Thingspiel and its arenas ‘had outlived its time’ and ‘brought the movement to a halt’ (Rossol 2010: 103). As a result, the ‘performative mo(nu)ments’ (Ioannidou 2023) quickly fell into oblivion. This has barely changed to this day.
Heidelberg Thingstätte: A Venue for Mass Events
One notable feature of the Heidelberg Thing arena is its picturesque location on the Heiligenberg hill that overlooks the town. The Thingstätte is surrounded by forests and numerous archaeological sites. With approximately eight thousand seats or over twenty thousand standing spaces, the architect Hermann Alker (1885–1967) created one of the largest theatre buildings in Europe during the Nazi era. The site was also renowned for its shell-shaped architectural design (Figure 2).
Aerial view of the Heidelberg Thingstätte, showing its shell-shaped design (photo: Tobias Schreiner, 2022, www.tobias-schreiner.com)
Citation: Anthropological Journal of European Cultures 34, 1; 10.3167/ajec.2025.340110
The Heidelberg site was a key project for Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, especially since he was a former student of Heidelberg University. Delays in starting construction and unforeseen complications with the ground held up its completion, which was scheduled for 1934. In the end, the Thingstätte was inaugurated on 22 June 1935, with Goebbels attending the ceremony personally. Curiously, the opening programme did not feature a Thingspiel; the first production in that genre was only performed four weeks later. Instead, the dramaturgy chosen for the inauguration was a celebration of the summer solstice. Contemporary reports not only give detailed descriptions of the numerous speeches and addresses held at the event, but they also describe the atmosphere created by the use of torchlight, the sound of drums and fanfares, call-and-response chants, the commemoration of the dead of the national revolution, and collective singing of the national anthem (Anonymous 1935a, 1935b). Here, similarities to other mass events, including the harvest festival (Reichserntedankfest) held at Bückeberg, close to the city of Hamelin (Burström and Gelderblom 2011), and the Nuremberg rallies become apparent. In all these cases, the intention was to produce emotional effects on both participants and viewers: ‘As well as incorporating the individual body into the collective, this “body work” was supposed to generate emotions of Begeisterung and Faszination – a heady mix of enthusiasm, awe, fascination and excitement’ (Macdonald 2006: 111).
Both internal discussions within the city administration and public debates about the use of the well-preserved but dormant site began almost immediately after the Second World War.9 In August 1947, after an on-site inspection, the city's planning and building committee concluded that ‘no further maintenance tasks should be conducted’ (Technical Direction 1947); instead, the 1948 meeting of the committee argued for the ‘gradual disappearance’ of the venue: ‘Throughout the entire area, trees should be planted and nature's growth should be allowed to proceed more freely’ (Technical Direction 1951). The former mayor, Hugo Swart (1885–1952), was not entirely convinced of this idea. In a 1948 paper, he asked: ‘Is this is the best practice?’ and suggested using the modern ruin as an event location (Swart 1948). However, the city was still unable to come to a decision. Only forty years later, in 1988, did the city council agree that the site could be used for two mass events per year. This ruling continues to obtain in a slightly modified form to this day. The last major event took place in the summer of 2005, when the musical Evita was staged.
Alongside the city's usage model, which preferred organised events such as theatrical performances, musicals and concerts, spontaneous gatherings also took place on Walpurgis Night (the night before 1 May) starting in the 1990s. The Heidelberg Thingstätte thus ‘awakened’ from its slumber once a year, as predominantly young people gathered to see in the Mayday dawn together. No advertising and no organiser were necessary – the whole thing ran via word-of-mouth.10 Over the years the original sit-ins turned into large-scale events, attracting several thousand people. In 2002, some fourteen thousand people were counted in attendance. According to an article in the local newspaper, the event had clearly reached its capacity limit: ‘There was no more going back and forth’ to and from the site after midnight (Anonymous 2002). Although the increasing rush to the site was challenging, the officials tolerated this annual mass event for decades, even supporting it to a certain extent, while the police and fire services, supported by the Red Cross, provided security on the grounds of the Thingstätte. However, the 2017 event was the last of its kind. A forest fire and safety concerns finally led the city to ban the gatherings it had previously tolerated. No Walpurgis celebrations have been held at the Thingstätte since 2018.
‘Thingstätte – Unsung Hero of Heidelberg’: Studying TripAdvisor Comments
Although the Thingstätte is mentioned in current guides to Heidelberg, it is not among the classic tourist destinations – such as the Old Town, the Castle, and the Old Bridge – that visitors usually explore during their stay. This is illustrated by the reviews on TripAdvisor. Far more responses are available for tourist attractions such as the Castle (more than 7,500), the Old Town (about 3,200) and the Old Bridge (about 2,000).11 The numerous comments highlight that these hotspots are important to visitors. In contrast, the relatively few responses to the Thingstätte (around 300, see further in this article) suggest that the site is apparently little known and visited. This is also because Heidelberg is divided by the Neckar River. From a tourist's perspective, the Heiligenberg and the material remains it shelters are on the ‘wrong’ side of the Neckar. Usually, travellers only venture to this side to capture photographic views of the romantic Old Town from the famous Philosophenweg trail. But Heidelberg has much more to offer than the Old Town, as one TripAdvisor user points out: ‘Once you are done with the Romantic image of Heidelberg, go up the mountain and visit this sight [the Thingstätte]. Interesting and it might broaden your image of Heidelberg’ (31 March 2016). However, the city of Heidelberg itself also shows little interest in this side of the Neckar or the Heiligenberg, and ‘always likes to forget that it still has a cultural-historical gem up there’ (Interview with HB, 28 July 2021).12 Yet much more could be made of the Heiligenberg in the ‘age of soft tourism’. According to one of my interviewees, Heidelberg ‘has a treasure up there that is hardly being exploited’, instead, the focus is unilaterally on the Old Town: ‘They want to market the Old Town. [ . . . ] So, they actually guard the Old Town jealously’ (Interview with AH, 7 September 2021).
Generally, less information is provided to those who visit these Nazi arenes, and this also applies to the Heidelberg site. When information is available, as in Heidelberg, it is usually found in the form of brief text panels, written exclusively in German.13 The information is extremely condensed, providing only rudimentary details about the history of the structures (construction year, builder, purpose). In the case of the Heidelberg site, the information panels installed by the city are heavily weathered and now barely legible (Figure 3).
Text panel at the Heidelberg site, written exclusively in German (photo: Stefanie Samida, 2024)
Citation: Anthropological Journal of European Cultures 34, 1; 10.3167/ajec.2025.340110
Even though the Thing arena is not among the classic attractions of a Heidelberg visit, the site has numerous TripAdvisor entries, most of which are positive. At the time of writing, there are 316 reviews on the platform. Most are in English (174 posts) or German (89 reviews).14 The average rating is 4.49 out of five, with 180 reviews giving five points, and 120 users giving four points. One and two points were each awarded by only three users, and three points by a total of ten people. This above-average rating among users means the site recommends it to other potential visitors as a ‘must-see’ destination: ‘Thingstätte – unsung hero of Heidelberg’ (12 January 2013).15
‘Hidden in the forest’: Aerial view of the Heidelberg Thingstätte (photo: Tobias Schreiner, 2022, www.tobias-schreiner.com)
Citation: Anthropological Journal of European Cultures 34, 1; 10.3167/ajec.2025.340110
The following analysis is based entirely on the reviews written in English. The sample thus consists of 173 online reviews between 20 January 2010 (the first post on TripAdvisor) and 31 December 2022.16 At 4.53, the average rating of these reviews is only slightly higher than for all user reviews of the site. As many users publish their remarks under pseudonyms and provide little information about themselves, it is not possible to give information on demographic aspects (e.g. sex/gender, age, place of resident). However, for the qualitative content analysis carried out here, this information is only of limited relevance.
More than Information: Imagining and Experiencing the Heidelberg Thingstätte
Unsurprisingly for a website of this kind, user-generated content on TripAdvisor about the Heidelberg Thingstätte includes advice for visitors. This includes information on the best way to reach the Heiligenberg (by foot or by car), how long the ascent takes on foot (approximately one hour), what other attractions to expect there (e.g. ruins of medieval monasteries), where to stop for refreshments (‘take a drink and a snack in the Waldschenke’, 22 July 2014), and a reminder not to forget one's camera: ‘Definitely bring a camera!’ (5 July 2017).17 Tips for travelling with children or older people are also provided: ‘The walk up to the Thingstatte is all uphill over dirt/muddy trails. It is a great physical hike so if you have young children or elderly take a car’ (30 October 2012). Some users also provide information for disabled persons: ‘There appeared to be no accommodations for disabled visitors, however, and looked to be impossible to manuever [sic] in a wheelchair’ (18 January 2012). Such information is no surprise, and useful tips for visitors are of course frequent in the comments. It is also particularly noticeable that many users refer to the inadequate signposting (‘it got all crazy’, ‘tough to find’) on how to get to the Heiligenberg: ‘Here are some tips. Allow extra time for getting lost. Signage is almost nonexistent and in German’ (9 December 2014) or ‘Not so easy to find as no sign posts exist and it's almost as if you are not meant to find it, not mentioned on the main tourist sites for the area’ (19 August 2019). Users therefore often provide detailed directions, sometimes starting in the Old Town, to assist future visitors as much as possible (e.g. 7 February 2014). Others describe how they failed to find their way, despite or perhaps because of the descriptions they received: ‘We attempted to find the amphitheater from the Philosopher's walk and could not find the right combination of trails. Even with instruction from a passing tour, we eventually went back to the hotel and drove to it. Even driving, it is not all that easy to find, but well worth it when you do’ (18 April 2013).
In addition to this information, which is typical of such platforms, several broad topics emerge from the empirical material that reflect on the site itself, its history, significance, and use – both in the past and present. These aspects can be grouped into five thematic blocks: (1) the history of the site, (2) envisioning the past, (3) remembrance, (4) stillness, and (5) bodily experience.18
More than half of the reviews refer to the history of the Thingstätte.19 This usually includes references to who built the site or the period in which it was constructed. Information is often provided about the purpose of the monument, as in the first entry from 2010: ‘It is an outdoor amphitheatre, built in the early Nazi era (1934–1935) and was used mainly for political rallies and such’ (20 October 2010). The comments offer ‘basic’ information about the historical context and, not infrequently, a positive evaluation of the site's status as a ‘hidden gem of history’ (25 April 2013) or remnant of a dark chapter in history: ‘you get goose-puns [sic] when you realize the purpose of it’ (29 January 2012). Occasional comments provide more detailed information and historical context. For example, one user states: ‘Goebbels planned over 1000 Thingstattes for propaganda meetings for the masses but only about 40 were completed. A Thingstätte is an open air auditorium in a “natural” setting a la a Roman ampitheatre. The Heidelberg Thingstätte was particularly important to Goebbels as he was a graduate of Heidelberg university’ (11 June 2016).
Of similar interest are the historical references that are made almost incidentally, such as the use of the term ‘amphitheatre’ for a twentieth-century site.20 While the use of this Ancient Greek term is fairly common nowadays for similar structures, in which banks of seating rise in rows like steps above a round or oval stage, the comparisons to classical antiquity often go further. One user notes that the building is reminiscent of the monumental architecture of the Roman Empire (24 January 2019), while other reviewers point to similarities to Ancient Greek theatres (16 October 2017, 16 June 2019). Some visitors even imagine that the structure itself is a ruin built by the Romans: ‘Still these Romans were quite skillful when they built this amphitheater. [ . . . ] Also the free-standing tower that the Romans had built, still stands strong!’ (27 August 2015). Further comments refer to prehistoric times, observing that the Nazis were ‘fascinated by mysticism’ (16 April 2012) or recreating ‘Teutonic mysticism’ (11 October 2012), or claiming that the site ‘was built on an ancient Roman ruins that was also once an ancient Celtic ruins’ (26 November 2013). Another user refers to the Germanic Thing, that ‘was like a council and made decisions for a greater region. Unfortunately, this Thingstätte was overtaken by the Nazis’ (16 April 2014). The name Thingstätte certainly refers to the Old High German Thing, a term used for meetings and tribunal assemblies of old Germanic tribes. By adopting this term, the Thingbewegung tried to suggest ‘völkisch Germanic mysticism’ though the term had already been in use among the German Jugendbewegung (youth movement) and Catholic youth groups before 1933 (Strobl 2020: 20). However, the structure itself is not a Germanic, Celtic or Roman relic, which was taken over by the Nazis, as these TripAdvisor reviews suggest. The visitors conflate antiquity and contemporary history. The site is not understood for what it is, namely a building from the twentieth century; rather, due to its similarity to Roman and Greek theatres, it is interpreted as a relic from a distant past. Thus, they refer to different, partly diffuse knowledge and link it together into a coherent story that has little in common with the history of the Thingstätte.
A central topic of many entries can be summed up as ‘envisioning the past’. The exceptionally good preservation of the arena, along with its size and monumental scale (it is described as ‘huge’, ‘big’, ‘large’, ‘gigantic’, ‘massive’, ‘immense’), which makes visible Goebbels’ ‘National Socialism rendered in stone’, resonates emotionally with the visitors: ‘it is hard not to be emotional when you stand on the auditorium and think why it was built and what it was used for’ (1 February 2015). The site evokes the feeling of being at a historically significant location: ‘The history of the place resonates around the area particularly if you are there on your own’ (28 August 2015). Due to its materiality, the site is not only visible but can also be experienced multisensorially: one can climb the stairs, sit on the tiers, or stand on the stage and feel the acoustics (see further in this article). One user vividly describes it as follows: ‘You really feel the presence of history when you're here, like the people who once used the stage or sat in the stone benches in the amphitheatre’ (19 June 2013).
In addition, many visitors wonder how it must have been at the Thingstätte in the 1930s. To explore this, they imagine themselves back in the time of National Socialism: ‘Those of us with an active imagination can turn the clock back 80 odd years and picture the scenes’ (4 October 2018).21 Envisioning the scene of a National Socialist event, they fill the absence with historical images: huge crowds (even of ‘40,000 people’),22 the presence of leading Nazis, propaganda speeches, ‘waving flags’ (5 July 2013), marching songs, and blazing torches. The users vividly imagine the atmosphere of the Nazi event in their mind's eye: ‘If you close your eyes you can almost see the swastika flags and high-ranking Nazis gathering some 80yrs ago’ (26 October 2017).
Many entries specifically refer to the Minister of Propaganda, who delivered the inauguration speech in 1935 to the thunderous applause of the masses: ‘Walk to the top and sit where Nazi sympathizers sat, imagine the roar of appreciation when Goebbels gave his opening speech’ (11 June 2016).23 Another user even perceives the spirit of Hitler and Goebbels in the arena: ‘feel yourself the Spirit Hitler and Goebbels wanted to give to the People through this Place’ (25 March 2018). As the examples illustrate, the past is brought to life through material and bodily experiences, which is combined with other sources of information and ideas about the Nazi past (e.g. from school, museum visits and films) to form a coherent picture.
However, the reviews also discuss the significance of the site as a kind of place of remembrance. Some users see in the Nazi ruin not only ‘echoes of the past’ that leave a disconcerting feeling (18 September 2016) or consider it an ‘eerie’, ‘dark’, ‘bad’ or ‘sinister’ place, but also as a ‘place to reflect’ (10 January 2015). The modern ruin is a place that ‘makes you think!’ (28 August 2015).24 Hence, the site should not be forgotten because it ‘provides an opportunity to reflect on that devastating period of our history and to learn from it’ (11 October 2015). As a part of the legacy of National Socialism, both ‘impressive and thought-provoking’ (11 July 2013), the Thingplatz is perceived as a place where one can get a sense of recent history. In addition, according to another user's appeal, this ‘surviving icon which everyone should visit’ is an admonition that shows that history must not be repeated (3 May 2015). For this subset of users, the Thing arena is not only a ‘monument from a time to forget’ (11 July 2019) and thus the bearer of a historical burden – namely the Nazi past – but also a place of remembrance from which lessons can be learned for the future.
Comments left by TripAdvisor users do not only deal with the Thing arena's past and how visitors imagine the history of the site. They also provide insights into how visitors experience the site bodily today. Emphasis is placed on the unique atmosphere prevailing at the site ‘hidden in the forest’ (8 October 2012) or, as another user points out, ‘in the middle of nowhere’ (19 September 2013). One user writes: ‘When we went up there, no one else was there and it was easy to get lost in the atmosphere of this huge arena as we walked all over it. A rewarding experience’ (12 January 2015). Frequently mentioned is the emptiness, with many visitors encountering few any other people: ‘It is worth the walk up the mountain and to find yourself here all alone in this amphitheater is quite chilling’ (23 June 2017).25 In addition, for many visitors the landscape and nature is an impressive and lasting experience. Many reviews focus on the atmosphere,26 the ‘wooded gathering place’ (17 June 2012) seemingly emanating a remarkable sense of stillness: ‘I enjoy the quiet of it’ (30 November 2015), ‘eerily quiet’ (18 July 2017), ‘calming and serene’ (6 November 2019). This is particularly evident among users who felt a ‘silent aura’ (17 October 2018) during their visit, describing the place as peaceful27 or feeling ‘a good contrast to the hustle and bustle of the historic heart of the city’ (11 July 2013). The peculiar atmospheric silence gives rise to various interpretations, with one user drawing a comparison to a cemetery: ‘its like a graveyard visit, but you don't know what's sleeping here . . . ’ (19 March 2019). These entries show that visitors experience the Thingstätte atmospherically ‘in its quasi-abandoned, weedy glory’ (13 September 2011).
The feeling of stillness is one side of the emotional and bodily experience. The other is experiencing the arena's acoustics while ‘playing’ theatre: ‘Sing a song on the stage and listen to the acoustics, it's amazing!!’ (1 July 2014). Another user gives the following advice: ‘If you're there with company (and alone or not afraid of embarrassing yourself) have one of you stand in the middle of the arena and speak. The acoustics are impressive’ (26 December 2017). Future visitors are encouraged to stand on the stage and speak or sing. Others report that they were able ‘to hear and understand a whisper from center stage while standing at the furthest seat’ (1 August 2019),28 or they confirm these and similar entries: ‘It's true that you can sit right at the top of the steps and hear the person talking at the very bottom as clear as day’ (14 May 2016). For one visitor, singing has a completely different function, namely to drive away the Nazi spirit. To this end, he stood on the stage and deliberately sang the current German national anthem: ‘I decided to do my own part [ . . . ] by singing from the stage as loudly as I could the ‘new’ German national anthem (Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit) instead of the old militant one from Hitler's era’. The comment ends with the words: ‘It helped me anyway’ (6 January 2015).
Conclusion
Online travel guides like TripAdvisor are a relatively overlooked source both in cultural anthropological and historical research when it comes to questions of digital memory as well as the perception and experience of historical sites and heritage. However, alongside other social media channels such as Instagram or X, they form a crucial part of the digital everyday life of tourists. There is hardly a place or historical site that is not reviewed and commented on by visitors. This also includes the Heidelberg Thingstätte, which is part of the Nazi legacy that is rarely part of public discussions. The same applies to academic discourse, which has also neglected this kind of monumental Nazi architecture. Thus, the results of the qualitative content analysis conducted here are particularly interesting because they reveal how tourists envision the past and experience the present at such sites and how they digitally deal with it. Four aspects in particular appear worth highlighting:
The first is the ‘double presence’ at the site: the material presence of the ruin (and hence the presence of the past) coincides with visitors’ own experience as a form of presence at the site. According to literary scholar Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht (2004: 98–99), ‘moments of intensity’ become visible. And these moments are ‘necessarily surrounded by, wrapped into, and perhaps even mediated by clouds and cushions of meaning’ (idem: 106–107). In other words: ‘simultaneity of presence effects and meaning effects’ always coincide (idem: 18). In the case of the Thingstätte, the Nazi history of the Heidelberg site is undoubtedly an important aspect of the background of the tourist experience, but the central factor is the interplay of material culture, body (Leib) and space, which evokes a special atmosphere and creates an effect of presence.
The second aspect is the role of imagination as an ‘essential component of every form of historical appropriation and a key prerequisite for subjective participation in the events of the past’ (Gundermann et al. 2025: 147). The material remains and the monumentality of the Thingstätte, which can still be experienced today, impress tourists and lead one group to reflect on the history of the site and specifically on the Nazi events that were once held there. Another group creates imaginations which are factually wrong or have less to do with the Nazi past of the Thing arenas when they interpret the sites back to Romans and Greeks. This illustrates that imagination is not the equation of present and past, but rather the creation of a personal relationship to the past. Imagination has a creative component, which is shaped by cultural pre-concepts as well as the very personal mental and emotional baggage of those who deal with a past event (idem: 148).
Thirdly, the site presents itself as a modern ruin in the countryside, freed from the historical burden of the Nazi era. The building is compelling not only because it is so well preserved, but above all through its ‘silent aura’ in the middle of the forest. Only a few people find their way there. Travellers therefore experience the Thingstätte as a place of peace or stillness away from the hectic Old Town with all its tourists. In their comments, the visitors create interpretations that go beyond the classic debates on cultural remembrance. The TripAdvisor reviews can basically be understood as evidence for the thesis put forward by Marketa Spiritova (2014: 11) that we are in a phase of ‘de-hierarchization and pluralization of the “elite project of memory culture”’. This is expressed clearly in those entries that underline the double meaning of the site as ‘impressive and thought-provoking’ (11 July 2013), ‘creepy but cool’ (25 March 2015), ‘quite atmospheric and somewhat spookily surreal’ (28 August 2015), ‘a beautiful location with a bad history’ (17 June 2016) or ‘eerie, but must see’ (12 November 2017). Moreover, to many visitors the site does not appear as Nazi heritage in any clear sense while it is not directly linked to Nazi violence; rather, the Thing arena is rendered as ‘guilty by association’. In this sense, the Heidelberg Nazi Thingstätte represents a ‘shadow place’ (Sabrow 2015; 2017), a space that is ‘confronted with a publicly known and named historical burden’ (Sabrow 2015: 78). But unlike the very ‘dark sites’, such as places of genocide, it is not necessarily characterised by atrocities and acts of horror. According to Martin Sabrow (2017: 20), by making ‘broken pasts visible’, shadow places are paradoxically repulsive and attractive at the same time: They oscillate between darkness and light. This is certainly true of the Heidelberg Thingstätte: The entries on TripAdvisor impressively mirror the play of light and dark still associated with many aspects of Nazi heritage.
And finally, similar to travel blogs, TripAdvisor represents an opportunity not only ‘to gain insights into how tourists make sense of memoryscapes’ but also to analyse how they create ‘social memory places’ in the digital sphere (Nelson 2015: 17). In general, posts on digital platforms are more than ‘just personal thoughts held by individuals’ (idem: 27). Rather, ‘tourists both consume and produce narratives of memory’ and contribute to a collective that can be understood as a special kind of a digital memory community (ibid.) which brings together people from all over the world and with different backgrounds in a ‘fundamentally new form of collectivity and make them aware of the similarities of their life experience’ (Koçak 2017, 10). On TripAdvisor each destination has its own digital community which produces particular narratives, imaginations, atmospheres and emotions that tourists experience at the site while reworking and perpetuating these narratives, imaginations and experiences anew. Thus, the users create their own digital public sphere for the respective destination.29 Sharing their experiences through the reviews, they create a digital shared memory on the platform or, at least, a memory composed of various puzzle pieces. On the one hand, this digitally shared memory confirms the readers’ own experiences, provides them with orientation, and enables them to integrate their own experiences. On the other hand, readers who have not visited the destination yet have the reviewers’ experiences in their mind and ultimately experience what they already know from reading the entries. This is also evident for the Heidelberg Thing arena.
In conclusion, large-scale Nazi sites such as the Thingstätten are a neglected but undoubtedly rewarding research field. The arenas in general have not been part of a German or transnational culture of remembrance so far. Due to their decay and appropriation in various ways shortly after the Second World War they have stayed under the radar of debates over cultural remembrance to this day (Samida 2024). However, as this analysis reveals, the Heidelberg Thingstätte can be understood as an example of how the arena is digitally transformed into a memory site (lieux de mémoire) by tourists. A central aspect here is its material presence that draws attention to a largely forgotten history of the Nazi era. For many visitors, in keeping with the word's very etymology, the past becomes tangible or experiential, they can imagine how people back then were entangled in an ideology and how the National Socialist regime permeated all areas of life, including the cultural sphere. Places such as the Heidelberg Thing arena thus can make forgotten histories visible again and, in the best case, encourage visitors to explore and confront the past. The responses on TripAdvisor provide telling evidence of this process.
Acknowledgements
This article is based on my research project ‘Die nationalsozialistischen Thingstätten: Un|Sichtbares Erbe im erinnerungskulturellen Diskurs’, funded by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation from 2020 to 2024. I would like to thank Graeme Currie (Halstenbek) for his excellent proofreading. Finally, I wish to acknowledge the constructive feedback from the journal's editors and two anonymous referees.
Notes
All German quotes are translated by author.
Research on the Thingstätten has focused primarily on the National Socialist period, see, e.g. for Heidelberg (e.g. Lurz 1975; Martin 2015) and for Passau (e.g. Seifert 1999a, 1999b). Recently, the illustrated book by Katharina Bosse (2020a) has brought the Thingstätten back into focus, presenting them in their current condition. See also Bosse's project and its online presence: https://thingstaetten.info/en/project-information/ (accessed 24 January 2025).
Compared to other social media, however, users of TripAdvisor ‘tend not to respond to each other's posts, i.e. they talk at each other but they do not communicate with each other’ (Buckley-Zistel and Williams 2022: 235).
Complementary material consulted includes archive materials and interviews with members of the Schutzgemeinschaft Heiligenberg e.V., a club that takes care of the archaeological remains of the Heiligenberg.
For more details see Samida (forthcoming).
The precise number varies depending on how one counts, see: Stommer (1985: 205–243); Bosse (2020b: 6).
For more details see Fischer-Lichte (2006); Annuß (2019: 221–251).
Another factor was the Volksempfänger radio receiver, a mass propaganda medium, which emerged as the preeminent medium for mass communication from 1933, surpassing mass theatre in its ability to reach and influence the population; see Samida (forthcoming).
See the articles in the local newspaper Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung: F. S. 1948; Günther and Geissler 1948; Sartorius 1948.
With the advent of the internet and social media, news about the event spread on its own. For more details on the Walpurgis event see Samida (2023b).
Data as of 30 June 2024.
A user on TripAdvisor expresses a similar view: ‘Normally most tourists spend their entire day on the castle side of the river. But on the other side of the river lies this amazing hidden attraction‘ (19 June 2012). Another user supposes that the site ‘doesn't seem to appear on tourist information’ because of its Nazi past (11 October 2015).
See also the entry from 11 August 2016 where the user complains: ‘None of the history markers are in English so a German English dictionary is helpful’.
The query was made on 8 November 2023. Other languages include Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, Swedish, and Korean.
There are many similar comments: ‘worth to see’, ‘highly recommended’, ‘WOW’, ‘this trip should be added to any visit to Heidelberg’, ‘Enjoy!’, ‘Insider tip’.
In the summer of 2020, an English review from the year 2003 was still present. However, it is no longer online and will not be further considered here. A comparative analysis of the German and English reviews will be provided elsewhere and against the background of the overall project. There are not only differences in the length of the comments – the German entries are less detailed – but there are also differences in terms of content. In the German comments, for example, the Nazi era as well as aspects of imagination and experiencing play a less important role while, in contrast, the current use of the site is mentioned frequently.
In the following, the date on which the content was posted is given and not the date of the visit.
All discussed topics are consistently present throughout the years, no trends or conjunctures can be identified.
The comments rarely deal with the arena's current use. There are only a few references to its use for church services (e.g. 26 June 2020), Walpurgis night celebrations (e.g. 8 July 2016, 5 June 2017) or concerts (e.g. 1 August 2015, and 22 March 2020). Occasional critical mention is also made of how the site is underutilized (e.g. 31 May 2016, and 7 May 2019).
Similar terms include ‘arena’, ‘open-air theater’, ‘outdoor theater’ or ‘outdoor-auditorium’. One person speaks of ‘historical remains of Roman Colosseum’ (16 June 2014).
See also the entries from 6 June 2014 and 6 January 2015.
Entry from 11 October 2012. However, the arena only had room for around 20,000 people.
See the entries from 12 June 2015, 23 June 2017, 18 July 2017, and 19 August 2019.
The comment with the title ‘Bizarre history lesson’ (17 June 2016) is quite similar.
See, e.g. the entries from 3 March 2010, 14 March 2013, 26 June 2014, 29 September 2015, 4 November 2017, and 5 August 2019.
See, e.g. the entries from 18 January 2012, 14 August 2015, 12 April 2017, 12 November 2017, and 14 October 2019.
See, e.g. the entries from 15 December 2015, 3 January 2016, and 2 September 2019.
See also 14 June 2016, and 4 October 2018.
However, this digital public sphere proves to be less of a discourse space, as communication on TripAdvisor is limited – you cannot respond to entries, you can only ‘like’ a comment and thereby express that it was helpful.
References
Annuß, E. (2019), Volksschule des Theaters. Nationalsozialistische Massenspiele [Volksschule des Theaters. National Socialist Mass Spectacles] (Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink).
Anonymous (1935a), ‘Wir glauben an das ewige Deutschland! Gedanken zur Sonnwendfeier auf dem Heiligen Berg’ [We Believe in Eternal Germany! Ideas on the Solstice Celebration on the Heiligen Berg], Die Volksgemeinschaft, 22 June.
Anonymous (1935b), ‘Sonnwendfeier auf dem Thing des Heiligen Berges. 20 000 Volksgenossen lauschten der Weiherede des Reichsministers Dr. Goebbels’ [The Solstice Celebration on the Heiligen Berg. 20 000 People Listened to the Consecration Speech by the Reich Minister Dr. Geoebbels], Die Volksgemeinschaft, 24 June.
Anonymous (2002), ‘Thingstätte: Der Kult geht weiter’ [Thingstätte: The Cult Continues], Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung, 2 May.
Ballis, A. (2020), ‘“I cannot say ‘enjoy’ but I can say look and learn”: Touristen schreiben auf TripAdvisor über Besuche in KZ-Gedenkstätten’ [‘“I cannot say ‘enjoy’ but I can say look and learn”: Tourists Write on TripAdvisor about Their Visits at Concentration Camps'], in F. Bajohr, A. Drecoll, and J. Lennon (eds), Dark Tourism. Reisen zu Stätten von Krieg, Massengewalt und NS-Verfolgung [Dark Tourism: Journeys to Places of War, Mass Violence and Nazi Persecution] (Berlin: Metropol Verlag), 66–79.
Bartetzko, D. (1985), Illusionen in Stein: Stimmungsarchitektur im deutschen Faschismus. Ihre Vorgeschichte in Theater- und Film-Bauten [Illusions in Stone: Atmospheric Architecture in German Fascism. Their Backstory in Theatre and Film Buildings] (Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt).
Bornarel, F. et al. (2021), ‘Exploring Travellers’ Experiences when Visiting Verdun Battlefield: A Tripadvisor Case Study’, Current Issues in Tourism 24, no. 6: 824–841.
Bosse, K. (ed) (2020a), Thingstätten: The Significance of the Past in Relation to the Present Day (Bielefeld: Kerber). [Also published in German: Thingstätten: Von der Bedeutung der Vergangenheit für die Gegenwart (Bielefeld: Kerber 2020).]
Bosse, K. (2020b), Thingstätte(n). In K. Bosse (ed.), Thingstätten: The Significance of the Past in Relation to the Present Day (Bielefeld: Kerber), 6–10. [Also published in German: Thingstätten: Von der Bedeutung der Vergangenheit für die Gegenwart (Bielefeld: Kerber 2020).]
Buckley-Zistel, S., and T. Williams (2022), ‘A5* Destination: the Creation of New Transnational Moral Space of Remembrance on TripAdvisor’, International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society 35, no. 2: 221–238.
Burström, M., and B. Gelderblom (2011), ‘Dealing with Difficult Heritage: The Case of Bückeberg, Site of the Third Reich Harvest Festival’, Journal of Social Archaeology 11, no 3: 266–282.
Fischer-Lichte, E. (2006), ‘Tod und Wiedergeburt: Zur Verklärung der Volksgemeinschaft in Thingspielen und nationalsozialistischen Feiern’ [Death and Rebirth: On the Glorification of the Volksgemeinschaft in Thing Plays and National Socialist Celebrations], in P. Diehl (ed.), Körper im Nationalsozialismus: Bilder und Praxen [Bodies in National Socialism: Pictures and Practices] (München: Wilhelm Fink), 191–201.
F. S. (1948), ‘Was wird aus dem Thingplatz?’ [What Will Happen to the Thingplatz?], Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung, 5 June.
Gadberry, G. (1980), ‘The Thingspiel and Das Frankenberger Wurfelspiel’, The Drama Review 24, no. 1: 103–114.
Gumbrecht, H. U. (2004), Production of Presence: What Meaning Cannot Convey (Stanford: Stanford University Press). [Also published in German: Diesseits der Hermeneutik: Die Produktion von Präsenz (Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 2004).]
Gundermann, C. et al. (2025), Key Terms of Public History (Berlin: de Gruyter).
Günther, H., and E. Geissler (1948), ‘“Was wird aus dem Thingplatz?”’ [What Will Happen to the Thingplatz?], Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung, 12 June.
Ioannidou, E. (2023), ‘Performative Mo(nu)ments. Re-enacting Classical Antiquity in Theaters of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany’, Fascism 12: 117–141.
Jaeger, S. (2023), ‘Visitor Emotions, Experientiality, Holocaust, and Human Rights: TripAdvisor Responses to the Topography of Terror (Berlin) and Kazerne Dossin (Mechelen)’, in D. I. Popescu (ed.), Visitor Experience at Holocaust Memorials and Museums (London: Routledge), 31–45.
Koçak, D. Ö. (2017), ‘Collective Memory and Digital Practices of Remembrance’, in H. Friese, G. Rebane, M. Nolden, and M. Schreiter (eds), Handbuch Soziale Praktiken und Digitale Alltagswelten [Handbook of Social Practices and Digital Everday Life] (Wiesbaden: Springer VS), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-08460-8_36-1.
Lurz, M. (1975), Die Heidelberger Thingstätte. Die Thingbewegung im Dritten Reich: Kunst als Mittel politischer Propaganda [The Heidelberg Thingstätte. The Thing Movement in the Third Reich: Art as a Means of Political Propaganda] (Heidelberg: Kunsthistorisches Institut der Universität Heidelberg).
Macdonald, S. (2006), ‘Words in Stone: Agency and Identity in a Nazi Landscape’, Journal of Material Culture 11, no. 1/2: 105–126.
Martin, P. (2015), ‘Die Thingstätte auf dem Heiligenberg bei Heidelberg’ [The Thingstätte of the Heiligenberg near Heidelberg], in Niedersächsisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege (ed.), Unter der GrasNarbe: Freiraumgestaltungen in Niedersachsen während der NS-Diktatur als denkmalpflegerisches Thema [Under the Turf: Open Space Design in Lower Saxony during the Nazi Dictatorship as a Subject of Cultural Heritage Preservation] (Petersberg: Michael Imhof Verlag), 195–208.
Nelson, V. (2015), ‘“Don't Forget”: Social Memory in Travel Blogs from Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina’, in S. P. Hanna, A. E. Potter, E. A. Modlin Jr., P. Carter, and D. L. Butler (eds), Social Memory and Heritage Tourism Methodologies (London: Routledge), 15–30.
Porombka, S., and H. Schmundt (2005), ‘Unterwegs in Germania: Vorwort’ [On the Way in Germania: Preface], in S. Porombka and H. Schmundt (eds), Böse Orte: Stätten nationalsozialistischer Selbstdarstellung – heute [Evil Places: Sites of National Socialist Self-Portrayal – Today] (Berlin: Claassen), 7–18.
Rossol, N. (2010), Performing the Nation in Interwar Germany. Sport, Spectacle and Political Symbolism, 1926–36 (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan).
Sabrow, M. (2015), ‘Schattenorte’ [Shadow places], in Merkur 69, no. 8: 77–84.
Sabrow, M. (2017), ‘Schattenorte. Von der andauernden Gegenwart unrühmlicher Vergangenheit’ [Shadow Places: From the Enduring Presence of Inglorious Past], in S. Eisenhuth and M. Sabrow (eds), Schattenorte: Stadtimages und Vergangenheitslast [Shadow Places: City Images and Onus of the Past] (Göttingen: Wallstein), 7–23.
Samida, S. (2023a), ‘Die nationalsozialistischen Thingstätten nach 1945: Zwischen Verfall, Aneignung und Umdeutung’ [The National Socialist Thingstätten after 1945: Between Decay, Appropriation and Reinterpretation], in J. O. Habeck and F. Schmitz (eds), Ruinen und vergessene Orte: Materialität im Verfall – Nachnutzungen – Umdeutungen [Ruins and Lost Places: Materiality in Decay – Reuses – Reinterpretations] (Bielefeld: transcript), 213–226.
Samida, S. (2023b), ‘Die NS-Thingstätten: Vom propagandistischen Massentheater zum popkulturellen Massenevent’ [The Nazi Thingstätten: From Propagandistic Mass Theatre to Popular Mass Event], Bayerisches Jahrbuch für Volkskunde 2023: 103–117.
Samida, S. (2024), ‘Sichtbar-unsichtbare Orte. NS-Thingstätten abseits des Erinnerungsdiskurses’ [Visible-Invisible Places: The Nazi Thingstätten beyond the Memory Discourse] in Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 74, no. 24: 18–24.
Samida, S. (forthcoming), ‘Volkwerdung through Mass-Theater: The Thingbewegung and National Socialism’, in J. Reitzenstein and D. M. O'Byrne (eds), Handbook Ideologies in National Socialism Online (Berlin: de Gruyter).
Sartorius, F. (1948), ‘“Was wird aus dem Thingplatz?”’ [What Will Happen to the Thingplatz?], Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung, 12 June.
Seifert, M. (1999a), ‘Der Thingplatz in Passau: Architektur und Baugeschichte’ [Thingplatz in Passau: Architecture and Building History], Ostbairische Grenzmarken: Passauer Jahrbuch für Geschichte, Kunst und Volkskunde 41: 153–179.
Seifert, M. (1999b), ‘Die Thingbewegung in Passau: Zu den lokalen Aktivitäten im nationalsozialistischen Freilichtschauspiel zwischen 1934 und 1943’ [Thing Movement in Passau: On Local Activities in National Socialist Open-Air Theatre between 1934 and 1943], in W. Becker (ed.), Passau in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus [Passau in Times of National Socialism] (Passau: Universitätsverlag Passau), 289–306.
Spiritova, M. (2014), ‘Performing Memories: Erinnerungspraktiken zwischen Geschichtspolitik und Populärkultur am Beispiel Tschechiens’ [Performing Memories: Commemorative Practices between Politics of History and Popular Culture on the Example of the Czech Republic], Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 110, no. 1: 91–111.
Stommer, R. (1985), Die inszenierte Volksgemeinschaft. Die ‘Thing-Bewegung’ im Dritten Reich [The Staged Volksgemeinschaft: The ‘Thing Movement’ in the Third Reich] (Marburg: Jonas Verlag).
Strobl, G. (2020), ‘The “National Community” under Open Skies: The Thing(spiel) Movement and Its Arenas’, in K. Bosse (ed.), Thingstätten: The Significance of the Past in Relation to the Present Day (Bielefeld: Kerber 2020), 16–24. [Also published in German: Thingstätten. Von der Bedeutung der Vergangenheit für die Gegenwart (Bielefeld: Kerber 2020).]
Swart, H. (1948), ‘Was soll aus der Heiligen Berg Thingstätte werden?’ [What Should Happen to the Heiligen Berg Thingplatz?], 12 June, AA 232/7 (Stadtarchiv Heidelberg).
Technical Direction (1947), Letter to the mayor, 4 September, AA 232/7 (Stadtarchiv Heidelberg).
Technical Direction (1951), Letter to the Municipal Cultural Office, 28 May, Nr. 161, Forstdienststelle (Stadtarchiv Heidelberg).
TripAdvisor.com (2023), ‘About Tripadvisor’, https://tripadvisor.mediaroom.com/US-about-us, (accessed 15 February 2024).
