A newly published study has uncovered fresh evidence that the Nazi SS likely misidentified the remains of a medieval woman as those of King Henry I in an attempt to bolster its ideological campaign during the 1930s.
The research, published in the Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte (Annual Journal for Central German Prehistory), examines previously overlooked archival documents relating to excavations ordered by SS leader Heinrich Himmler at St. Servatius Church in Quedlinburg, Germany.
Historians have long known that Himmler sought to transform the church into a national shrine dedicated to Henry I, the 10th-century ruler whom the Nazis portrayed as a symbolic predecessor of the Third Reich. The regime sought to use the king’s legacy to reinforce its nationalist and racial ideology, depicting him as the founder of a German empire and a model for its expansionist ambitions.
In 1937, following excavations beneath the church, the SS announced it had discovered Henry’s remains. However, the excavation report was believed to have been lost, leading some researchers to question whether the excavation had taken place as described.
The new study reports that the German Federal Archives contain previously neglected manuscripts and draft reports written by archaeologist Rolf Höhne, who led the excavation on Himmler’s behalf, together with his close associate Karl Schirwitz. These documents provide the first detailed account of the excavation and the subsequent handling of the remains.
Central to the investigation was a fragmented skull recovered from a grave in the northern section of the church’s crypt. The skull was examined by anatomist August Hirt, who later became notorious for his involvement in Nazi medical crimes.
Hirt created casts and took measurements of the skull, presenting his work as scientific evidence to support Nazi racial theories. He concluded that the skull was of “predominantly Nordic origin” and belonged to an elderly individual, although he was unable to determine the biological sex with certainty. Combined with the discovery of a pin and fragments of a headdress, Höhne declared the remains to be those of King Henry I.
The new research challenges those conclusions.
A re-examination of the excavation records and surviving photographs showed that the textiles, leather fragments and metal eyelets identified along the skull combined to create a burial cap, while the pin was also found to be a sewing pin rather than a royal artefact. The recovery of a wooden board from the grave also fits late medieval or early modern burial practices and not a royal burial in the 10th century.
The study also finds that the visible skeletal features are more associated with a woman than a man. Researchers are suggesting that the remains may instead belong to Anna von Tautenburg, a canoness who died in 1533 and whose gravestone covered the burial site until the late nineteenth century. While the identification cannot be confirmed without a fresh excavation and ancient DNA analysis, the available evidence strongly supports this interpretation.
If correct, the findings suggest the SS staged the remains of a medieval religious woman as the centrepiece of its campaign to mythologise Henry I and legitimise Nazi ideology.
The study also highlights how archaeology and physical anthropology were manipulated by the Nazi regime to give a veneer of scientific legitimacy to its racial beliefs and political propaganda.
Henry I, who ruled East Francia from 919 until his death in 936, is considered to be a key early medieval ruler who consolidated power in Saxony and laid the foundation of the Ottonian dynasty. But modern scholarship does not take the Nazi ideology too seriously, and regards the formation of the Holy Roman Empire as a gradual historical process rather than the achievement of one ruler.
Header Image Credit : State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt
Sources : IDW – Donat Wehner/Andreas Stahl/Jörg Orschiedt, King Henry I († July 2, 936) and the SS’s “skull cult”. Yearbook for Central German Prehistory 100, 2, 2026. https://doi.org/10.11588/jsmv.2026.2.116367
