Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Anthropology, standardization and measurement: Rudolf Martin and anthropometric photography

  • AMOS MORRIS-REICH (a1)
Abstract
Abstract

Recent scholarship on the history of German anthropology has tended to describe its trajectory between 1900 and the Nazi period as characterized by a paradigmatic shift from the liberal to the anti-humanistic. This article reconstructs key moments in the history of anthropometric photography between 1900 and 1925, paying particular attention to the role of the influential liberal anthropologist Rudolf Martin (1864–1925) in the standardization of anthropological method and technique. It is shown that Rudolf Martin's primary significance was social and institutional. The article reconstructs key stages in Martin's writing on and uses of photography and analyses the peculiar form of scientific debate surrounding the development of anthropometric photography, which centred on local and practical questions. Against the political backdrop of German colonialism in Africa and studies of prisoners of war during the First World War, two key tensions in this history surface: between anthropological method and its politicization, and between the international scientific ethos and nationalist impulses. By adopting a practical–epistemic perspective, the article also destabilizes the conventional differentiation between the German liberal and anti-humanist anthropological traditions. Finally, the article suggests that there is a certain historical irony in the fact that the liberal Martin was central in the process that endowed physical anthropology with prestige precisely in the period when major parts of German society increasingly came to view ‘race’ as offering powerful, scientific answers to social and political questions.

Copyright
References
Hide All

1 See Thomas Theye (ed.), Der geraubte Schatten. Eine Weltreise im Spiegel der ethnographischen Photographie, Munich and Luzern: C.J. Bucher Verlag, 1989. Alan Sekula, ‘The body and the archive’, in Richard Bolton (ed.), The Contest of Meaning: Critical Histories of Photography, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992, pp. 343–389. Edwards Elizabeth (ed.), Anthropology and Photography, 1860–1920, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994. For a recent work on the topic see Maxwell Anne, Picture Imperfect: Photography and Eugenics, 1879–1940, Brighton: Sussex University Press, 2008.

2 The argument concerning the paradigmatic shift was made by Robert Proctor, Benoit Massin and most recently Andrew Evans. See Robert Proctor, ‘From Anthropologie to Rassenkunde’, in George W. Stocking Jr (ed.), Bones, Bodies, Behavior: Essays on Biological Anthropology, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988, pp. 154–179. Benoit Massin, ‘From Virchow to Fischer: physical anthropology and “modern race theories” in Wilhelmine Germany’, in George W. Stocking Jr (ed.), Volksgeist as Method and Ethic: Essays on Boasian Ethnography and the German Anthropological Tradition, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1998, pp. 79–154. Evans Andrew D., Anthropology at War: World War I and the Science of Race in Germany, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010. While his account is focused primarily on Adolf Bastian and Felix von Luschan, and does not discuss Martin, my account is in certain respects close to Andrew Zimmerman's historical interpretation. See Zimmerman Andrew, Anthropology and Antihumanism in Imperial Germany, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. German-speaking physical anthropologists followed Martin's method as long as living persons were anthropometrically measured. See, in Otto Aichel German:, ‘Zur anthropologisch-photographischen Technik’, Anatomischer Anzeiger (1924–1925) 59, pp. 328335. Hersch M., ‘Fortschritt der anthropologischen Typenphotographie seit Rudolf Pöch’, Photographische Korrespondenz (1926) 63, pp. 174176. Harrasser Albert, ‘Eine neue Methode der anthropologischen Photographie ganzer Körper’, Anthropologischer Anzeiger (1935) 12, pp. 306313; idem, ‘Die Leica als Reisekamera für anthropologische Kopfaufnahmen’, Anthropologischer Anzeiger (1937) 14, pp. 162–166. In English: Gavan J.A., Washburn L. and Lewis P.H., ‘Photography: an anthropometric tool’, American Journal of Physical Anthropology (1932) 10(new series 3), pp. 331351. Geoghagen Basil, ‘The determination of body measurements, surface area and body volume by photography’, American Journal of Physical Anthropology (1953) 11, pp. 97118. In Italian: Genna Giuseppe, Nuove Prospettive Della Fotografia Anthropometrica, Roma: Presso La Sede Della Societa, 1935. B. Jacobshagen, ‘Fotographie’, in Rainer Knußman (ed.), Anthropologie: Handbuch der vergleichenden Biologie des Menschen zugleich 4. Auflage des Lehrbuchs der Anthropologie begründet von Rudolf Martin, Band I Wesen und Methoden der Anthropologie 1. Teil Wissenschaftstheorie, Geschichte, morphologische Methoden, Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer, 1988, pp. 631–641. This discourse extends out of international attempts at standardization of anthropometrics (Frankfurt agreement in 1882; Monaco in 1905 and Geneva in 1912) more than out of any interest in photography per se. See the general statements on the standardization of anthropometry by G.M. Morant and others in Man (1932) 193, pp. 155–158 (Martin is discussed on p. 157) and Man (1934) 109, pp. 83–86 (signed by, among others, Martin's students Theodor Mollison and Otto Schlaghinaufen).

3 Fischer I. (ed.), Biographisches Lexikon der hervorragenden Ärzte der letzten fünfzig Jahre, Munich: Urban & Schwarzenberg, 1962, p. 998.

4 Lüddecke Andreas, Der ‘Fall Saller’ und Rassenhygiene: Eine Göttinger Fallstudie zu den Widersprüchen sozialbiologistischer Ideologiebildung, Berlin: Tectum, 1995, p. 57. Schafft Gretchen E., From Racism to Genocide: Anthropology in the Third Reich, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2004, pp. 227228.

5 For definitions of Anthropologie, Völkerkunde, Ethnologie and Volkskunde see Andre Gingrich, ‘From the nationalist birth of Volkskunde to the establishment of academic diffusionism: branching off from the international mainstream’, in Fredrik Barth, Robert Parkin, Andre Gingrich and Sydel Silverman (eds.), One Discipline, Four Ways: British, German, French and American Anthropology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005, pp. 86, 90. See also H. Glenn Penny, ‘Traditions in the German language’, in Henrika Kuklick (ed.), A New History of Anthropology, Oxford: Blackwell, 2008, p. 80. This differentiation is reflected in anthropological manuals. See G. Fritsch, ‘Die Reisephotographie’, in G. von Neumayer (ed.), Anleitung zu wissenschaftlichen Beobachtungen auf Reisen, 2 vols., Hannover: M. Jänecke, 1906, pp. 761–814, anthropological photography p. 764 and ethnological p. 777. On the insitutional side of the history of physical anthropology see Evans, op. cit. (2), pp. 17 and 31–55.

6 Hildegard Hugentobler-Schwager, ‘Der Anthropologe Rudolf Martin (1864–1925)’, Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der Medizinischen Fakultät der Universität Zürich, Zürich, 1990, p. 51.

7 Martin Rudolf, Anthropologie als Wissenschaft und Lehrfach: Eine akademische Antrittsrede, Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1901, pp. 611.

8 See Maxwell's chapter on ‘Racial-type photographs in the colonial period’, in idem, op. cit. (1), pp. 21–47.

9 I draw on the history of photography in science by Kelley Wilder, Photography and Science, London: Reaktion Books, 2009. For examples of attempts to develop photography as science see also Geimer Peter, ‘Fotografie als Wissenschaft’, Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte (2005) 28, pp. 114122; and idem, ‘Picturing the black box: on blanks in nineteenth century paintings and photographs’, Science in Context (2004) 17, pp. 467–501.

10 Daston Lorraine and Galison Peter, Objectivity, Brooklyn: Zone, 2007; as well as their earlier ‘The image of objectivity’, Representations (1992) 40, pp. 81–128. Following Snyder's line of thought, Josh Ellenbogen has argued that Etienne-Jules Marey in fact attempted to visualize otherwise imperceptible events, unavailable to the eye. Ellenbogen Josh, ‘Camera and mind’, Representations (2008) 101, pp. 86115.

11 Hoßfeld Uwe, Geschichte der biologischen Anthropologie in Deutschland: Von den Anfängen bis in die Nachkriegszeit, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2005, p. 184.

12 See Hugentobler-Schwager, op. cit. (6), pp. 11, 53. Martin Rudolf, ‘Über einige neuere Instrumente und Hilfsmittel für den anthropologischen Unterricht’, Correspondenz-Blatt der Deutschen Anthropologischen Gesellschaft (1903) 34, pp. 127132.

13 On the various editions see Hoßfeld, op. cit. (11), p. 182. Martin's second wife was Jewish and survived the concentration camp of Theresienstadt. On her see Schafft, op. cit. (4), p. 227. See also Ziegelmayer Gerfried, ‘100 Jahre Anthropologie in München’, Würzburger medizinhistorische Mitteilungen (1987) 5, p. 255. The 1957 revised edition appears as Saller Karl, Lehrbuch der Anthropologie. In systematischer Darstellung mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der anthropologischen Methoden. Begründet von Rudolf Martin, 4 vols., Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer, 1957. The original appeared as Martin Rudolf, Lehrbuch der Anthropologie. In systematischer Darstellung mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der anthropologischen Methoden. Für Studierende, Ärzte und Forschungsreisende, Jena: Fischer, 1914.

14 See also Martin, op. cit. (12), p. 131.

15 Schafft, op. cit. (4), p. 20. According to Schafft, head shots and naked body photographs were taken. She does not indicate if these followed Martin's anthropometric method.

16 See Stocking George W. Jr, ‘Franz Boas and the founding of the American Anthropological Association’, American Anthropologist (1960) 62, pp. 117; idem, Race, Culture, and Evolution: Essays in the History of Anthropology, New York: Free Press, 1967. Darnell Regna, And along Came Boas: Continuity and Revolution in Americanist Anthropology, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998. See also Cole Douglas, Franz Boas: The Early Years, 1858–1906, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1999, particularly pp. 261275. Barkan Elazar, The Retreat of Scientific Racism: Changing Concepts of Race in Britain and the United States between the World Wars, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

17 Martin H. Geyer, ‘One language for the world: the metric system, international coinage, gold standard, and the rise of internationalism, 1850–1900’, in Martin H. Geyer and Johannes Paulmann (eds.), The Mechanics of Internationalism: Culture, Society, and Politics from the 1840s to the First World War, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 57–69. On standardization of time in the English context (at more or less the same time as Martin's attempt to standardize anthropological technique) see Rooney David and Nye James, ‘“Greenwich Observatory time for the public benefit”: standard time and Victorian networks of regulation’, BJHS (2009) 42, pp. 530 (notes 2 and 3 on p. 6 discuss literature on the history of the standardization of time as well as additional aspects of standardization).

18 See Ziegelmayer, op. cit. (13), p. 256. Martin's motto was, ‘tolerance is the first step to inner freedom’. See his son's description: Martin Kurt, ‘Rudolf Martin und die Kunst’, Anthropologischer Anzeiger (1965) 27(2), 34, pp. 246–251 (quotation on p. 251). Hugentobler-Schwager, op. cit. (6), pp. 49, 82.

19 Benoit Massin, ‘Anthropologie und Humangenetik im Nationalsozialismus oder: Wie schreiben deutsche Wissenschaftler ihre eigene Wissenschaftsgeschichte?’, in Heidrun Kaupen-Haas and Christian Saller (eds.), Wissenschaftlicher Rassismus. Analysen einer Kontinuität in den Human-Naturwissenschaften, Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 1999, p. 12.

20 Hoßfeld, op. cit. (11), p. 307.

21 Mitchell G. Ash, ‘Wissenschaft und Politik als Ressourcen für einander’, in Rüdiger vom Bruch and Brigitte Kaderas (eds.), Wissenschaften und Wissenschaftspolitik. Bestandsaufnahme zu Formationen, Brüchen und Kontinuitäten im Deutschland des 20. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2002, pp. 32–51. In a later article Ash complicates his argument, questioning the very possibility of differentiating between ‘science’ and ‘politics’ as separate and autonomous domains. See Mitchell G. Ash, ‘Wissenschaftswandlungen und politische Umbrüche im 20. Jahrhundert – was hatten sie miteinander zu tun?’, in Rüdiger vom Bruch, Uta Gerhardt and Aleksandra Pawliczek (eds.), Kontinuitäten und Diskontinuitäten in der Wissenschaftsgeschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2006, pp. 19–37.

22 Desrosières Alain, The Politics of Large Numbers: A History of Statistical Reasoning (tr. Camille Naish), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.

23 Hoßfeld, op. cit. (11), p. 228.

24 Berenbaum Michael and Peck Abraham J. (eds.), The Holocaust and History: The Known, the Unknown, the Disputed, and the Reexamined, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998, p. 121; Cooper Allan D., The Geography of Genocide, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2009, p. 153. See also Hoffmann Annette (ed.), What We See: Reconsidering the Anthropometrical Collection from Southern Africa: Images, Voices, and Versioning, Basel: Basler Afrika Bibliographien, 2009, pp. 7, 56.

25 Marcelo Dascal, ‘Types of polemics and types of polemical moves’, in Harjeet Singh Gill and Giovanni Manetti (eds.), Signs and Signification, vol. 2, New Delhi: Bahri, 2000, pp. 127–150.

26 On the wider context of the emergence of the nomothetic/idiographic distinction see Köhnke Klaus Christian, The Rise of Neo-Kantianism: German Academic Philosophy between Idealism and Positivism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. The most important publications here include Dilthey Wilhelm, Introduction to the Human Sciences: An Attempt to Lay a Foundation for the Study of Society and History, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1988; Simmel Georg, Essays on Interpretation in Social Science, Manchester: Rowman and Littlefield, 1979; Windelband Wilhelm, Geschichte und Naturwissenschaft, 3rd edn, Strassburg: Heitz, 1904; Rickert Heinrich, The Limits of Concept Formation in Natural Science: A Logical Introduction to the Historical Sciences (Abridged Edition), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. In this context Zimmerman's statement that ‘the very idea, common to anthropologists and their humanist critics alike, that non-Europeans were objects of natural science rather than of history was an artifact of nineteenth-century imperialism’ is only partially correct. The difference was located on a higher plane, viz. in the controversy between proponents of the view that the study of culture necessitated methods distinct from those of the natural sciences and proponents of the view that humans are part of nature and should be studied with natural-scientific methods. At least in principle, Martin and his colleagues employed the same natural-scientific methods for the study of their own compatriots. Quotation from Zimmerman, op. cit. (2), p. 240.

27 Ian Hacking, ‘The looping effects of human kinds’, in Dan Sperber, David Premack and Ann Premack (eds.), Causal Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Debate, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, pp. 351–383. Specifically with regard to race and eugenics see Szreter Simon, Fertility, Class and Gender in Britain 1860–1940, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. For the German context see Weindling Paul, Health, Race and German Politics between National Unification and Nazism, 1870–1947, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

28 Hugentobler-Schwager, op. cit. (6), p. 87.

29 Martin, op. cit. (7), p. 19.

30 Martin, op. cit. (7), p. 17. Martin criticizes as ‘dilettante’ and unscientific (unwissenschaftlich) certain studies of skulls, denying that nationality can ever be deduced from skull shape.

31 On Martin's earlier work concerning race see Hugentobler-Schwager, op. cit. (6), pp. 3, 10, 11. It should also be noted that Martin never cited exponents of Aryan or Nordic superiority such as Arthur de Gobineau or Houston Stewart Chamberlain even in the ‘historical overview’ of his 1914 Lehrbuch, op. cit. (13).

32 Karl Saller, ‘Rudolf Martin’, Münchener medizinische Wochenschrift, 7 August 1925, p. 1343.

33 Martin, op. cit. (7), pp. 14–15. See also idem, op. cit. (12), pp. 127–132.

34 Martin, op. cit. (7), p. 24.

35 Martin, op. cit. (7), p. 24.

36 Martin, op. cit. (7), p. 15. For a fascinating account of the methodological and ideological controversy over the measurement of the skull in the German context see Zimmerman, op. cit. (2), pp. 86–107.

37 Martin Rudolf, ‘Körperbedeckung und Schmuck’, in idem, Die Inlandstämme der Malayischen Halbinsel: wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse einer Reise durch die Vereinigten malayischen Staaten, Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1905, pp. 680720.

38 Martin, op. cit. (37).

39 Mollison Theodor, ‘Die Verwendung der Photographie für die Messung der Körperproportionen des Menschen’, Archiv für Anthropologie (1910) 37, pp. 305321.

40 Mollison, op. cit. (39), p. 305.

41 Mollison, op. cit. (39), p. 314.

42 Frank Spencer, ‘Some notes on the attempt to apply photography to anthropometry during the second half of the nineteenth century’, in Edwards, op. cit. (1), p. 103. See also Maxwell, op. cit. (1), pp. 29–35.

43 Mollison, op. cit. (39), pp. 317–318.

44 Mollison, op. cit. (39), p. 321.

45 Martin, op. cit. (13), p. 34.

46 Saller, op. cit. (13), vol. 1, p. 150. Saller's 1957 edition of the Lehrbuch opens the discussion of photography with the statement that for anthropology, photography has become an indispensable tool (unentbehrliches Hilfsmittel). Saller claims that the photographic method was improved by Martin, Mollison and Pöch. The illustrations of anthropometric photographs are now drawn from Martin's 1925 Anthropometrie (pp. 158, 161). The section on photography is longer and, in addition to racial classification, now includes discussion of the use of photography for paternity tests as well as photographs of the eyes, inner-oral photographs, and close photography of the skin (pp. 164 –167).

47 Martin, op. cit. (13), p. 34.

48 Spencer, op. cit. (42), pp. 99–106.

49 Martin, op. cit. (13), p. 34.

50 Martin, op. cit. (13), p. 35.

51 Martin, op. cit. (13), pp. 35–37.

52 Martin, op. cit. (13), p. 34.

53 Martin, op. cit. (13), pp. 38–39.

54 Martin, op. cit. (13), p. 39.

55 Martin, op. cit. (13), p. 41.

56 Andrew D. Evans, ‘Capturing race: anthropology in German and Austrian prisoner-of-war camps during World War I’, in Eleanor M. Hight and Gary D. Sampson (eds.), Colonialist Photography: Imag(in)ing Race and Place, London: Routledge, 2002. Margit Berner, ‘From prisoner of war studies to proof of paternity: racial anthropology and the measuring of “Others” in Austria’, in Marius Turda and Paul Julian Weindling (eds.), Blood and Homeland: Eugenics and Racial Nationalism in Central and Southeast Europe, 1900–1940, Budapest: Central European University Press, 2006, pp. 41–54. The POW studies were later lauded as the first comprehensive application of the Lehrbuch. Throughout his work Pöch refined the system used for descriptive observations such as the shape of the eyes, nose and lips. Based on photographs, morphological traits were grouped into series and types and hierarchically classified. See Margit Berner, ‘Race and physical anthropology in interwar Austria’, forthcoming.

57 Evans, op. cit. (56), pp. 226, 229, 336. The format of profile and frontal views forced the body of the prisoner into a prearranged position, its agency taken away, based on methods from criminal photography. Doegen included photographs in his Unter fremden Völkern. Eine neue Völkerkunde, Berlin: Verlag für Politik und Wirtschaft, 1925.

58 Evans, op. cit. (56), p. 250. The racialization of Jews occurred primarily through classification, by viewing Jews as a separate category. See Pöch Rudolf, ‘Bericht über die von der Wiener Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in den K.u.K. Kriegsgefangenenlagern veranlaßten Studien’, Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft Wien (1918) 48(1), pp. 146, 148, 149, 150: Bergjuden, Karaite, a Jew from Petrowkow, a Jew from Kiev – the similarity between Jews and Gypsies. In the second section of the article, Pöch deals with Martin's photographic method directly, particularly with the issue of control.

59 Evans, op. cit. (56), pp. 235, 247. Evans shows that the exchange between Luschan and Struck negotiated the representation of typicality in drawings as compared to photographs. Struck published with Arnold Zweig the study of eastern Jewish portraits as Das ostjüdische Antlitz, Berlin: Welt, 1920. This book is now available in English as Arnold Zweig, The Face of East European Jewry (ed. and tr. Noah Isenberg), Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. His etchings of prisoners of war were published as Hermann Struck, Kriegsgefangene: Hundert Steinzeichnungen von Hermann Struck mit Begleitworten von F. von Luschan; ein Beitrag zur Völkerkunde im Weltkriege, mit Genehmigung des Königlichen Kriegsministeriums, Berlin: Deimer, 1916.

60 See Schlaginhaufen Otto, ‘Die Stellung der Photographie in der anthropologischen Methodik und die Pygmänfrage in Neuguinea’, Zeitschrift für Ethnologie (1915) 47, pp. 5358. Neuhauß R., ‘Die Pygmänfrage in Neuguinea’, Zeitschrift für Ethnologie (1914) 46, pp. 753754.

61 Evans, op. cit. (2), pp. 160–161. Margaret Olin discusses in similar terms the identification of types of artworks as well as racial types during First World War studies of POWs by prominent art historian Rudolph Goldschmidt. See Margaret Olin, ‘Jews among the peoples: visual archives in German prison camps during the Great War’, in Reinhard Johler, Christian Marchetti and Monique Scheer (eds.), Doing Anthropology in Wartime and War Zones: World War I and the Cultural Sciences in Europe, Bielefeld: Trascript, 2010, pp. 255–278, esp. 267–271.

62 On Pöch (and particularly in the context of von Luschan's career and the establishment of the anthropological society in Vienna) see Maria Teschler-Nicola, ‘Felix von Luschan und die Wiener Anthropologische Gesellschaft’, in Peter Ruggendorfer (ed.), Felix von Luschan (1854–1924). Leben eines Universalgelehrten, Vienna: Böhlau, 2009, pp. 66–74. On Pöch in the context of the history of anthropology in Austia see also Pusman Karl, Die ‘Wissenschaften vom Menschen’ auf Wiener Boden (1870–1959), Vienna: Lit, 2008, p. 74.

63 Evans, op. cit. (56), p. 231.

64 Rudolf Martin, ‘Anthropometrie’, in A. Gottstein, A. Schlossmann and A. Teleky (eds.), Handbuch der Sozialen Hygiene und Gesundheitsfürsorge, Berlin: Lehmanns, 1925, pp. 256–301.

65 See also Schlaginhaufen, op. cit. (60), pp. 53–38. Rudolf Martin, ‘Anthropologische Untersuchungen an Kriegsgefangenen’, Die Umschau 1915 (19). Pöch emphasized the advantages of the war situation and the readily available prisoners for scientific observation. See his ‘Anthropologische Studien an Kriegsgefangenen’, Die Umschau (1916) 20, pp. 988–991. In his response, Martin emphasized the need for control in order to enable comparison of materials collected by distinct teams. ‘Anthropologische Studien an Kriegsgefangenen’, Die Umschau (1916) 20, p. 1027.

66 Ash, op. cit. (21), p. 35. For a recent volume on the subject see Jessen Ralph and Vogel Jakob (eds.), Wissenschaft und Nation in der europäischen Geschichte, Frankfurt am Main and New York: Campus Verlag, 2002.

67 Arguing in the Boasian vein, Martin emphasized that all present peoples are racially heterogeneous. To prove this point he entered a lengthy discussion of the racial history of European peoples. Hugentobler-Schwager, op. cit. (6), p. 72.

68 See also a Tirolian man and Pygmaea, in Martin, op. cit. (13), p. 450. It should be noted, however, that there are numerous photographs of non-whites in full dress.

69 On politicization in the American context see Spiro Jonathan P., ‘Nordic vs. anti-Nordic: the Galton Society and the American Anthropological Association’, Patterns of Prejudice (2002) 36, pp. 3548. On the German context se Lipphardt Veronika, Biologie der Juden: Jüdische Wissenschaftler über »Rasse« und Vererbung 1900–1935, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008.

70 Evans, op. cit. (2), p. 206.

71 Lutzhöft Hans-Jürgen, Der Nordische Gedanke in Deutschland 1920–1940, Stuttgart: E. Klett, 1971, p. 201.

72 Martin, op. cit. (64), p. 297.

73 Martin, op. cit. (64), p. 256.

74 Martin, op. cit. (64), p. 257.

75 Martin, op. cit. (64), p. 261.

76 Martin, op. cit. (64), p. 294.

77 Martin, op. cit. (64), p. 298.

78 Sekula, op. cit. (1).

79 Bertillon defined the use of photography for criminological work in his Photography: With an Appendix on Anthropometrical Classification and Identification, Paris: Gauthier-Villars & Son, 1890. Bertillon's method was adopted worldwide. On Bertillon see Rhodes Henry T.F., Alphonse Bertillon: Father of Scientific Detection, London: Harrap, 1956.

80 Martin, op. cit. (64), p. 300.

81 Martin, op. cit. (64), pp. 300–301.

82 Martin, op. cit. (13), p. 27.

83 In one place, however, while discussing photographs for ‘technical purposes of instruction’, Martin mentioned a failed attempt he made to collaborate with Orell Füssli to create a poster of race photographs ‘to be hung in the classroom’, for which, Martin confessed, he had taken photographs himself. To obtain the highest degree of similarity, the black and white photographs were painted by W. von Steiner of Zurich. Here Martin required that the specimen represent all typical traits (hair colour and form, facial shape). Martin, op. cit. (12), p. 132. During the First World War POW study, anthropologists directly confronted the question of typicality. They viewed typicality as an intuitive decision of the anthropologist, based on pre-existing categories of classification. In Evan's interpretation the photographic project created categories of types. Evans, op. cit. (56), p. 233

84 Saller, op. cit. (13), vol. 1, p. 148. In this volume, Saller added short notes on the ethical use of photography. He included Mollison as one of the founders of the photographic method, together with Pöch and Martin (p. 150).

85 Saller, op. cit. (13), vol. 1, pp. 110–120: ‘In fact, it is hardly possible to force races living in proximity into a rigid scheme’ (p. 118). In this context Boas is discussed on pp. 111, 118.

The ideas expressed in this article were developed in conversations with Margit Berner, Simon Cook, Lorraine Daston, Uwe Hoßfeld, Eli Lederhendler, Paul Mendes-Flohr,Veronika Lipphardt, Zur Shalev and Mical Raz. I am particularly indebted to Mitchell Ash, Sander Gilman and Danny Trom for critical comments on an earlier version of this article. I am very grateful to the detailed and critical comments of the anonymous readers.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The British Journal for the History of Science
  • ISSN: 0007-0874
  • EISSN: 1474-001X
  • URL: /core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 24
Total number of PDF views: 79 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 653 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.