Photography in the Third Reich
|Science
6. Science and Ideology
Photographic ‘Economies of Demonstration’ in Racial Science
Texte intégral
1The main aim of this chapter is to enter into the respective scientific logics of a variety of scientific and/or scholarly fields and to reconstruct, from within this logic, the use of photographic techniques with regards to ‘race’ before and during the so-called Third Reich. The argument in this chapter is twofold. Firstly, within the various branches of biologically oriented science and scholarship in Germany between 1900 and the 1940s, the scientific uses of photographic practices and techniques varied greatly: both in their epistemological definition, with regard to the scientific-political agenda that they were intended to drive; and in terms of their place in the respective economies of scientific demonstration. And secondly, it is only based on this recognition that the changes in form, scope, purpose, and social effect of the use of photography during the Third Reich can be evaluated.
2Consequently, the first part of the chapter will be dedicated to the reconstruction of the main methodological uses of photography for the study of race in the German context from the beginning of the century until the end of the 1920s. This methodological perspective embraces a survey of Rudolf Martin’s standardization of photography as a measuring device in physical anthropology; Eugen Fischer’s use of photography for the observation of patterns of Mendelian hereditary characteristics within families; Felix von Luschan’s use of ‘type’ photographs in ethnology and physical anthropology; Hans F. K. Günther’s massive and complex serialization strategies; and Ludwig Ferdinand Clauss’s use of photography as a form of self-evidence to bring to the eye a racial essence that was already known a priori by the mind.
3The second part of the chapter argues that during the era of National Socialism, these techniques were redefined because their scientific, political, and aesthetic contexts had been transformed. Irrespective of the original (scientific and/or ideological) context of their development, or the range of scientific purposes to which they were originally put to use, during the Third Reich their uses narrowed, transforming their contexts and economies of demonstration. The range of scientific and ideological positions with which photography was aligned became smaller, and, rather than being guided by any substantial scientific questions, these positions were used to uphold components of the National Socialist worldview and, sometimes, the immediate political concerns of the regime. But this process of contraction was not limited to the science-politics nexus, in the strictest sense of the term, as it reflected broader contemporary cultural-political processes. The chapter ends by suggesting that, during the period of the Third Reich, the scientific uses of photography increasingly overlapped with the political and aesthetic ideologies of National Socialism in general and with certain branches of documentary and art photography in particular.
4However, in order to bring the epistemological diversity to the surface, several interpretive procedures must first be undertaken. To begin with, it is necessary, difficult as this may be, to resist the common tendency to collapse the history of the biological sciences or biologically influenced humanities into the political sphere. In other words, judgment must be suspended on what appear to be objectionable scientific, political, and cultural or social ideas and practices. Secondly, the scientific intentions of those who introduced photography into scientific discourses should be taken (more) seriously, by reconstructing the internal logic of these spheres of knowledge production. Finally, it is also necessary to free an analysis of these photographic practices from the anachronistic imposition of later critical notions of photography, as advanced by Roland Barthes and Susan Sontag. None of these procedures is without problems, but the payoff is that the epistemological and ontological diversity of photographic techniques and practices comes into view.
- 1 For the elaboration on the difficulty of historical contextualization see, Amos Morris-Reich, ‘Tabo (...)
5Several historical and methodological considerations complicate writing about the scientific photography of the Third Reich. These complications all have to do, in one way or another, with the rather swift turn that history took in 1945 with the collapse of National Socialist Germany, but one of them is connected to dramatic changes in the definition of science, while the others pertain more specifically to photography. Strands of science and ideology that, a short while earlier, were not only legitimate and socially well embedded but in some cases enjoyed hegemonic status could suddenly no longer be publicly upheld. The particularly important consequences of this shift in history, for our purposes, are as follows.1 Firstly, because scientists wanted to re-establish their scientific reputations, they were compelled to distance themselves from what very quickly came to be understood as National Socialist political ideology, in contrast with science. As a result, a new configuration of differentiations emerged between what qualified as scientific and what was damned as ideological. Importantly, this new configuration was not only different from the one that prevailed until the collapse of National Socialist Germany, but it was also different from the one found among the opponents of the scientific racial paradigm prior to the rise to power of the National Socialists. This was a distinctly West German configuration, and it changed the relationship between branches of science and knowledge in the immediate past, which in turn complicates the account of the history that led to the National Socialist era and the history of the Third Reich itself.
6The second complication touches on photography. This chapter reconstructs the uses of photography in science based on the epistemological and conceptual status of photography in respective scientific contexts. But because photography is a visual medium, visual parallels present themselves between photographs generated for different purposes and in different contexts. Science is never completely detached from society and culture, but in the case of scientific photography, comparisons with photography outside of science narrowly understood spring even more strongly and immediately to mind.
- 2 See Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida (New York: Hill and Wang, 1981).
7 The third complication has to do with the perception of photographs, a question of particular importance. In most cases, we have no documentation of, and therefore cannot judge, the perception of photographs apart from the broader contexts in which they were generated and used. But precisely because that broader context is accessible, the perception of the photographs is in fact accessible as well. The underlying logic of the photographs — the explicit and implicit assumptions and expectations found in their broader context — gives the historian information about how they were perceived. This means, however, that even if there is an insistence on photographic contingency as a feature of the medium, in a highly antisemitic or racist context, there would be no justification for the assumption that the expected audience would have perceived something other than what it was intended to perceive. In other words, in Roland Barthes’s terms, the historian’s interest is in the studium of the photographs, their average effect, rather than in their possible punctum.2 Because the perspective employed here is methodological, focusing on the most important or influential developments in the use of photography for the study of race, single photographs will not be analysed; rather, there is a focus on the relationship of the relative place of photographs within respective economies of demonstration, that is, what photographs were expected to do within their broader context of scientific or scholarly argumentation.
8The demystification of the perception of photographs can begin once it is acknowledged that, although it is intuitive to view photographs as if they documented reality or represented a portion of reality from a perch outside that portion, in fact photography is a part of the reality it documents; it partakes and plays a constitutive role in that reality. In this sense, then, the trajectory of scientific photography described in this chapter, rather than running parallel to the social, political, economic, or cultural history leading into the Third Reich, is an active component of those histories. The methodological perspective adopted here, focusing on systematic attempts to use photography for the study of race, leads to the core of the racial sciences. The photographic techniques discussed here were embedded in the work of scientists who were committed to principles of race, and all of the scientists discussed in this chapter who were active in the National Socialist period were committed to racial determinism. Consequently, looked at very generally, taking a step back from the important differences between them (discussed below), the photographic techniques discussed here have in common that they naturalized a biologically oriented conception of humans, society, culture, and history and deepened the (conscious and unconscious) notion of the foundational place of ‘race’ in every aspect of the collective and individual life of the nation.
- 3 For more on this realisation see: Amos Morris-Reich, ‘Photography in Economies of Demonstration: Th (...)
9The fourth complication is that all the uses of photography that can be found in the Third Reich were invented prior to the period. Their meaning was transformed during National Socialism because they were now embedded in a transformed political context. Simply from the point of view of quantity, there was an avalanche of publications with photographs, as race was omnipresent in Germany, in both the private and public spheres. This exponential growth found expression in the flourishing of journals and books, in newspapers and newsreels. It is also important to note that while, up until roughly 1927, both the supporters and the opponents of racial determinism employed photographs to underpin their arguments, by the end of the 1920s the opponents of racial determinism had gradually come to realize that photography played into the hands of their opponents, and so photography virtually disappeared from their own scientific publications.3 These considerations frame the discussion that follows.
10The principal argument in this chapter is that it is impossible to understand racial photography as scientific evidence in the National Socialist period without considering its longer historical course before and after the Third Reich. Between 1900 and the 1930s, the scientific uses of photographic practices and techniques varied greatly within branches of biologically oriented German science and scholarship, both in their epistemological definition and in terms of their place in respective economies of scientific demonstration. Uses ranged from the illustration of human diversity by ‘type’ photographs, through anthropometric photography intended to generate statistical information, to Gestalt ‘thought experiments’.
11Before entering into a detailed discussion of select cases, it is important to state explicitly that not only are the photographic practices different, but so too are the respective concepts of race, the scientific methods for its study, and even the general conceptions of science, and that there are various complex relationships between all of these elements. Concepts of race, for instance, ranged from those of the natural sciences, which were fundamentally descriptive (such as Anthropologie or physical anthropology, as part of the biological sciences of the day) and which later relied heavily on statistical methods of measurement, all the way to Gestalt psychology or phenomenology, which severely criticized the experimental sciences and their scientific assumptions, statistical methods in particular. With the advent of the Third Reich, in which epistemological diversity was unified by a political framework, the question of the significance of the epistemological diversity prior to 1933 necessarily hovers over the discussion.
Racial Photography: A Methodological Perspective
- 4 See Amos Morris-Reich, ‘Anthropology, Standardisation and Measurement: Rudolf Martin and Anthropome (...)
12The most influential development of photography as racial evidence in the German context around 1900 was found in physical anthropology. In the German-language context, the most important tradition here was developed and standardized by the German Swiss anthropologist Rudolf Martin and his many students.4 Physical anthropology only gradually turned into a respectable academic discipline around 1900. It is important to note that Martin and his students, who standardized anthropometric photography, did not do so out of any inherent interest in photography or even any overt concern with the visual. Most, if not all, physical anthropologists had a medical background, and their introduction to photography formed part of their attempts to introduce and standardize measuring devices. Furthermore, the version of science to which physical anthropologists — most notably Martin himself — adhered was descriptive. Martin, who was politically liberal and whose second wife was Jewish (she was later a survivor of Theresienstadt), viewed race as an inherent part of the study of human variety in its natural scientific context.
13Martin’s major contribution to the field of physical anthropology was not conceptual, but consisted in his crafting, over a decade, what became the single most important textbook and manual of physical anthropology. In this book he brought to anthropology criminology’s use of the camera as a measuring device; that is, he moved it from individual identification to (what he took to be) racial measurement (criminologists also used their measurements to code race as one of the categories of description.) In all four editions, from 1914 to 1966, photography was discussed in the first half of the book, but as a form of material reproduction, not as a form of representation. If the first objective of the anthropologist was to obtain physical anthropological materials, such as skeletons and skulls, in order to measure them, the second objective was to reproduce such materials by way of photographic techniques or geometrical drawing, also in order to measure them. Methodologically, photography was tied quite tightly to statistical methods. The ultimate goal of anthropometric photography, when carried out under sufficient scientific control — a goal Martin believed his method and technique had achieved — was to be transformed into statistical tables (see Fig. 6.1a and 6.1b).
14Only statistical tables could represent the respective frequencies of various racial traits. But this was also part of a larger vision of a natural scientific field as, in the end, describing the physical variety of mankind. This perspective, of course, does not provide the entire picture. Martin’s book also employed other, already existing, uses of type photographs, even if they were not explained or justified as instances of anthropometric photography (see Fig. 6.2).
15Furthermore, although Martin repeatedly stated that the study of racial variation was only descriptive, numerous crude forms of racism were incorporated, both textually and photographically, in his work. Politically, too, much of the fine-tuning of anthropometric technique took place during studies of prisoners of war in German and Austrian camps, in ways that could not be separated from politics, not to speak of the use of Martin’s methods and technique on Jews in ghettos before they were sent to their deaths during the Third Reich.
- 5 On Fischer see Bernhard Gessler, Eugen Fischer (1874–1967): Leben und Werk des Freiburger Anatomen, (...)
16Less important at the time than Martin’s standardization of technique within anthropology, but more important in terms of the history of medicine to the present day, was the introduction of photography for the sake of observation by Eugen Fischer (1874–1967).5 Fischer introduced his photographic practices at more or less the same time that Martin standardized his, although Fischer belonged to a younger generation of physical anthropologists already on its way towards the study of human heredity. Here, photography was tied not to a descriptive form of Anthropologie but to the first attempt to carry the reintroduction of Mendelian genetics into the study of race and, more specifically, into the study of racial mixing — or what Fischer termed ‘racial bastardization’.
Fig. 6.1a Rudolf Martin, ‘Anthropometrie’, in A. Gottstein, A. Schlossmann, and A. Teleky, eds, Handbuch der Sozialen Hygiene und Gesundheitsfürsorge (Manual of Social Hygiene and Health Care) (Berlin: Lehmann, 1925), p. 298. Public domain.

Fig. 6.1b Rudolf Martin, ‘Anthropometrie’, in A. Gottstein, A. Schlossmann, and A. Teleky, eds, Handbuch der Sozialen Hygiene und Gesundheitsfürsorge (Manual of Social Hygiene and Health Care) (Berlin: Lehmann, 1925), p. 300. Public domain.

Fig. 6.2 Rudolf Martin, Lehrbuch der Anthropologie: In systematischer Darstellung (Textbook of Anthropology: A Systematic Account) (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1914). Public domain.

17Scientific or photographic control played no role in Fischer’s photographic practice; there are also no traces of classical art in the images that he produced, and his photography was not tied to statistics in the same way as Martin’s. His notion of race, too, differed from Martin’s in the sense that, rather than describe statistical frequencies of physical traits, Fischer was committed to a deterministic notion of race and sought to apply Mendel’s notions of genetic inheritance to its study.
- 6 Margit Berner, Annette Hoffmann, Britta Lange (eds), Sensible Sammlungen. Aus dem anthropologischen (...)
- 7 Eugen Fischer, Die Rehobother Bastards und das Bastardierungsproblem beim Menschen (Jena: G. Fische (...)
18Fischer’s famous Rehobother Bastards study, focusing on an African population of mixed descent, appeared in 1913 (years before his notorious career under National Socialism, though it was republished numerous times, until 1961). Today, the broader colonial and genocidal context of that study is recognized.6 At the time, the study was seen as ground-breaking in shifting scientific attention from the study of ‘racial types’ to the study of ‘racial bastards’. In the book itself, Fischer reproduces close to fifty photographs out of the 300 that he had taken.7 He focused his study on traits that he believed were racial and that he conceived as Mendelian hereditary units.
Fig. 6.3 Eugen Fischer, Die Rehobother Bastards und das Bastardierungsproblem beim Menschen: Anthropologische und ethnographische Studien am Rehobother Bastardvolk in Deutsch-Südwest-Afrika (The Rehobother Bastards and the Bastardization Problem in Humans: Anthropological and Ethnographic Studies of the Rehobother Bastard People in German Southwest Africa), (Graz: Akademische Druck, 1961, original 1912), plate 2. Courtesy of ADEVA Akademische Druck.

19Fischer’s photographs focused on the faces and heads of his subjects. He stated that the undressing of observed objects was neither possible nor advantageous. Photographs, in his view, were not intended to replace nor to extend measurements, which he carried out following Martin’s method. His use of photography served rather to provide pictures of patterns of Mendelian hereditary characteristics within families. His photographs, therefore, focus on families: supposedly racially pure parents (termed either Dutch or Hottentot) and their racially mixed children. Significantly, the photographs attempt to demonstrate the alternation of specific traits, rather than whole types. As Fischer was interested in the genealogy of families, each photographed person was named. Fischer attempted to break down types into Mendelian traits, through the portrayal of the mixed offspring next to their ‘pure’ Khoikhoi or Dutch parents. The reader of the text and observer of the photographs was requested to identify different traits found in the offspring, and to track them to only one of the parents.
20This use of photography epitomizes the Mendelian logic of traits that exist irrespective of a whole type, distinct traits that, in persons who are racially mixed, combine as ‘whole packages’ but do not blend. Photographs were taken from the front, in half or full profile, and yet are independent of measurements and free from strict considerations of control in terms of distance, angle, or lighting. Fischer was not aiming to transform the photographs into statistical tables. In his short explanation of the tables of photographs, Fischer emphasized that the classification of individuals under the photographs introduced as ‘Eu’, ‘Hott.’ Or ‘Mittl.’ — which later became standard practice in Hans F. K. Günther’s work — afforded priority to the true (wirkliche) bloodlines over appearance (Aussehen).
- 8 Eugen Fischer, ‘Neue Rehobother Bastardstudien, ’ Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie 37: (...)
21If, in Martin’s method, photography was in effect intended as data for the generation of statistics, Fischer employed photographs for the observation of traits. In the archive of his scientific papers in Berlin, one can track some of the uses of photography in Fischer’s actual working practices — cards with photographs or photographic clippings glued onto them and Fischer’s handwritten working comments. Fischer revisited his famous study in the 1930s, now interested especially in how aging played out in his ‘bastard population’.8 He also published a book in 1927, together with Hans F.K. Günther, that culminated with a display of the most beautiful German heads of the Nordic race; in 1943, together with the theologian and student of ancient Judaism Gerhard Kittel, he published a crude antisemitic book with numerous photographs, in which the uses of the photographs intersected in rather complex ways with his more famous racial study and with Martin’s method (because the few photographs of Jews included in the album had been taken in Lodz, in early 1940, following Martin’s protocol) (see Fig. 6.4).
22Fischer’s method undermined the veracity of the photograph, but, in contrast the prevailing critical tradition of photography, this did not derive from a reflection on photography but rather from Fischer’s belief in a two-layered reality, that is, in the incongruity between the phenotype and the genotype. Photography for Fischer could only express the phenotypical surface; the genotype would remain hidden. This is the source of Fischer’s undermining of the ‘truth’ of photography: photographs do not necessarily tell the truth about reality; they can ‘deceive’ and cannot be fully trusted.
- 9 See in particular John M. Efron, Defenders of the Race: Jewish Doctors and Race Science in Fin-de-S (...)
23A third mode of using photographs in ethnology and physical anthropology can be illustrated using the work of the politically liberal opponent of antisemitism and Austrian-German polymath Felix von Luschan.9 Type photographs were, of course, not invented by von Luschan, but in the German-speaking context, von Luschan was central, not only because of his prominence in the field but more specifically because of the way his photographic practice were imbricated with his anthropological sensitivity or prejudices to form racial types.
24Von Luschan’s photographic practices interacted with a complex and tension-riddled string of interrelated linguistic, archaeological, biological, and cultural-political assumptions or theories. But the effect of his photographs stemmed primarily from their photographic qualities; through his use of serialized photographs, in particular, von Luschan was able to demonstrate that certain features were somehow typical of the group in question. This effect was achieved through careful selection of individuals who tended to cluster around certain shared features
Fig. 6.4 Gerhard Kittel and Eugen Fischer, Das antike Weltjudentum Tatsachen, Texte, Bilder (Jewry of the Ancient World, Facts, Texts, Images) (Hamburg: Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, 1943), p. 113. Public domain.

Fig. 6.5 Felix von Luschan, four types of photograph from one collection: 1903 Türke (Turk), 1904 Darde (Kaukasus), 1912 (Kurde), 1914 (Kurde). Courtesy of Felix von Luschan, the collection of the Natural History Museum Vienna, Department of Anthropology. Die Anthropologische Abteilung, Naturhistorisches Museum Wien.

25It was magnified by his photographic treatment of his subjects, which was never explicitly elucidated. Unlike anthropometric photography, these photographs were not intended for the purposes of measurement, and von Luschan thus followed no form of control; in practice, however, von Luschan tended to photograph his non-white and non-European subjects (he did not photograph white Europeans) from very close up — thus distorting their faces and, especially, enlarging their noses — and often from an unflattering angle slightly lower than their eyes. Furthermore, he used strong lighting on a neutral background, the effect of which was both the elimination of much facial detail and, within the genre of type photographs, an increased distance between the white, German observers and the non-European, non-white photographed subjects; the effect was to stress discontinuity and difference between the two proposed classes of human.
26The justification for discussing Martin and von Luschan in the current context, both of whom died in the Weimar era, is twofold. Firstly, in visual terms, their photographs set the tone for type photographs after their time. And secondly, their techniques were later appropriated wholesale by Fischer, Günther, and others. In fact, much of the discussion of the Third Reich has to contend with scientific and ideological appropriation.
27At first sight, the photographic practice of Hans F. K. Günther’s Rassenkunde (racial lore) seems to derive far more from the kind of photography produced by von Luschan than from that of Martin or Fischer. But this impression conceals the fact that Günther in fact developed a different and effective form of photographic practice. Von Luschan produced his photographs himself, as part of his research and documentation, while Günther relied on numerous sources of existing photographs. Von Luschan, who, like Martin and Fischer, had a medical background, believed he was relying on the hard science of anatomy and skull indices in classifying populations. Photographs, in this respect, were a superficial form of illustration and external to any real scientific demonstration. For instance, von Luschan wrote a two-part article on the Jews in the 1880s, and, on the re-publication of his principal argument in a shortened version in 1905 in Arthur Ruppin’s first issue of the first volume of the Zeitschrift für Demographie und Statistik der Juden, he appended this photograph to the article. He was using a photograph of an Armenian Christian Turk rather than a Jew to illustrate a claim about Jews that he had already formulated and published over a decade earlier, based on what he believed to be essentially objective physical anthropological science (see Fig. 6.6).
Fig. 6.6 Photograph of a Christian Armenian Turk reproduced in Felix von Luschan, ‘Zur physischen Anthropologie der Juden’ (The Physical Anthropology of the Jews), Zeitschrift für Demographie und Statistik der Juden 1: 1 (1905), 21. Public domain.

- 10 See chapter three of Amos Morris-Reich, Race and Photography: Racial Photography as Scientific Evid (...)
28In Günther’s Rassenkunde, photographs were no longer the superficial illustration of an independently reached scientific claim, but rather were thoroughly integrated into the scientific demonstration or the form of argumentation itself.10 This was the culmination of a process that had been initiated — and not by Günther — in the second decade of the twentieth century.
29To speak about Günther in terms of the history of science is to create serious historical and methodological problems. Günther is regarded as the most important authority on race in National Socialist Germany; he was Himmler’s mentor and was closely affiliated with the NSDAP and the highest leadership even prior to the National Socialist party’s rise to power (note, for instance, that Hitler’s only visit to a German university between 1930 and 1945 was for Günther’s inauguration speech in Jena in 1930). Günther, who was trained in philology, developed a holistic and deeply deterministic view of race. He was a proponent of the superiority of the Nordic race, which he viewed as the only civilizational agent in world history. He had a less favourable view of what he considered to be the other elements of the German population, and he was ardently antisemitic, conceiving the Jews as a Gegenrasse (counter-race) in world history and the product of Gegenauslese (adverse selection). After 1945, Günther became the epitome of the ‘racial ideologue’, first and foremost in the eyes of scientists who now had to distance themselves and their work on race from the immediate past. But even from a perspective outside such an anachronistic West German point of view, Günther had one foot in scholarship and another in ideology, with the two so closely interwoven in this period that it is difficult to separate them, even analytically. Because he lacked any medical or anthropological background, Günther’s status within the scientific community was not the same as, for instance, Fischer’s. But historiographic traditions after 1945 made the gap between them even larger, removing Günther from the history of science much earlier and much more abruptly than Fischer.
30In the current context, Günther is particularly important. As with the other individuals discussed in this chapter, his assumptions about photography must be deduced from his actual photographic practices. By far the most visually sensitive of any of the people addressed in this chapter, he collected thousands of photographs from a network of archives from all across Europe (like Darwin) — one can only speculate on the number of photographs he had at his disposal and the amount of time and energy he spent in using them, but the fact that he could use more than five hundred photographs in one book is extremely telling; his principal book, Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes (München: J. F. Lehmanns Verlag, 1922) came out in over twenty editions, and in each edition he played around with the photographs, changing many of them.
31Günther’s forte was his clear grasp of the power of the serialization of photographs. In a pragmatic sense and a highly politicized form he shared this recognition with contemporaries like Walter Benjamin and Aby Warburg. From a practical perspective, then, Günther’s was quite close to those early voices in the critical tradition that proclaimed the series as more important than the single image. Most of the effects of Günther’s use of photographs derive, not from the single photographs that he used, but from careful strategies of layout.
- 11 Benjamin H. D. Buchloh, ‘Gerhard Richter’s ‘Atlas’: The Anomic Archive, ’ October 88 (Spring 1999), (...)
32While there are important differences among the photographs he used in his discussions of various racial groups, his propagandistic effects are achieved far more through serialization and layout than by individual photographs. A scholar of Aby Warburg has noted that Warburg differentiated between serialization as ‘arrangement of form’ and serialization as ‘construction of meaning’, which seems to apply to Günther’s photographic thinking as well.11 With the exception of the Nordic type, rather than attempt to reduce complexity to a single racial type or stereotype by use of massive serialization strategies, Günther both destabilized and subtly re-stabilized visual patterns (see Fig. 6.7).
33With the Nordic type, however (and only with that type), Günther used serialization to erect and stabilize a prototype. Some of his serialized photographic matrices manifested, in the human sphere, Wittgenstein’s idea of ‘family resemblance’, that is, certain shared features that crisscross a certain population but nonetheless cannot be pinpointed by way of any shared common denominator.
Fig. 6.7 Hans F. K. Günther, Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes (Ethnogeny of the German People) 10th ed. (Munich: Lehmann, 1926), p. 59. Public domain.

34The answer to the question of what Günther was attempting to achieve by the creation of such complex patterns is not easy to answer. But it is important to note, in the current context, that what he actually achieved was a kind of hybridizing instrument, that is, the gradual, mostly subconscious ability of observers to isolate one or another individual facial trait that Günther took to be racial (the shape of the eye, the subject’s gaze, the lips, etc.) and segregate it from the rest of the subject’s features. In effect, then, Günther taught his observers to break types apart into what he believed were their underlying constitutive racial components. His photographic series function as a matrix, in a dialectical move between the deconstruction of types and their carefully crafted reconstruction. The photographic patterns that Günther created in pages and pages of photographs — none of them innocent in their selection or organization — quite often evade easy definition or classification (a somewhat surprising fact given that Günther so clearly had one foot in ideology). With or without his political motivations, Günther could be credited with developing and introducing in practice the racial photographic matrix.
35Günther’s use of photography was, in a certain sense, more complex — or more difficult to decode — than the written texts in which the photographs were embedded. Günther was not the first to use photographs that were produced for various social purposes — a family photograph of a white German woman with her African German husband and their children, could, in his hands, serve as scientific evidence for the study of race — but in terms of quantity and sophistication he practically created a new genre. His use of photographs also relied on a tacit understanding that far more readers would actually skim through photographic reproductions than read lengthy texts, thus ensuring that his intended effects would be achieved even without the texts that the photographs purportedly only illustrated.
36The final innovative use of photographs in the study of race examined here was the form developed by Ludwig Ferdinand Clauss. Here, too, photography is closely tied to serialization, but in a different way than in Günther. And unlike Martin, for whom photographs were data that could be transformed into statistical information, Clauss attempted to transform the racial photograph from evidence (a kind of Beleg) into a form of self-evidence (or Evidenz), bringing to the eye an essence that was already known a priori by the mind.
- 12 Clauss’s principal book was Rasse und Seele. Eine Einführung in die Gegenwart (Munich: J.F. Lehmann (...)
37In contrast to all the cases discussed above, it is not even possible to attempt to imagine Clauss’s method without photography; his method, in truth, was an intrinsically photographic one.12 Clauss, like Günther, had no medical, natural scientific, or physical anthropological background — he was a senior student of the founder of modern phenomenology, the Jewish German Edmund Husserl — and his idiosyncratic use of photography as well as his ideas about race belong far more to the history of the humanities than to the natural sciences. Here photography was not only integral to the scientific demonstration or argumentation process, it was in fact at the heart of the very process of phenomenological observation that comprised Clauss’s form of racial phenomenology (see Fig. 6.8).
38Clauss’s use of serialization was close to that of Étienne-Jules Marey’s (1830–1904) or Eadweard Muybridge’s (1830–1904) photographic method for the study of movement. The rather idiosyncratic idea was that race expressed itself in terms of style, which was racially determined and could be observed in movement. In terms of style, the Nordic man, defined as Leistungsmensch (man of performance), moved in a distinctly Nordic way, the result of the interaction between anatomy and culture, both of which were racially defined. The still camera, according to Clauss, had the advantage over the eye that it could stop, freeze, and represent moments of this movement. Hence, Clauss developed a method of studying that movement by photographing carefully selected individuals in movement, with small intervals between photographs. Of course, by the time Clauss developed his photographic method, technological advances in camera size, shutter speeds, and film sensitivity entailed that his method was not technologically novel. In terms of its visual language it, like all the other instances discussed here, was, instead, conservative or reactionary.
39The structure of Clauss’s publications, as can be seen from the first lines of every chapter of his most important book, Rasse und Seele (Race and Soul), derived from the textual elaboration of photographic series. Rather than specimens of a type in the anthropological or biological sense, the individuals Clauss photographed were closer in their epistemological status to ‘examples’ in the sense discussed by Kant in his moral philosophy. That is, rather than move from the racial type to the specimen, Clauss believed the single individual he was studying revealed the racial ‘rules’ of the type as a whole. In this he was following the phenomenological method of gradually removing the accidental from the object under scrutiny until only the core, the essence of the phenomenon, could be grasped and described.
40The status of photography in Clauss’s study of race was closely tied to Gestalt traditions, as was his understanding of race. Following the critique of Gestalt psychologists and philosophers in the Neo-Kantian philosophical tradition, and the further critique of the experimental sciences, and also in opposition to Martin, who relied heavily on statistical methods in the study of race, Clauss perceived race as an a priori structure. Using the analogy of the difference between a stick broken in two and an arrow broken in two, that is, an object that possessed inherent structure transcending its autonomous constitutive ‘parts, ’ Clauss proclaimed that race is Gestalt (Rasse ist Gestalt). In line with this understanding of race, the status of photographs as scientific evidence in his work approaches, ultimately, that of Gestalt thought experiments. In this instance, Clauss took one of the principal photographs from his book Rasse und Seele and abstracted from the photograph only the outline. He then gradually modified the outline until the racial Gestalt was damaged to such an extent that the racial essence could no longer be observed and grasped (according to what he claimed he had tested on numerous observers) (see Fig. 6.9).
Fig. 6.8 Ludwig Ferdinand Clauß, Rasse und Seele: Eine Einführung in den Sinn der leiblichen Gestalt (Race and Soul: An Introduction to the Meaning of the Bodily Form) (Munich: Gutenberg, 1937), pp. 78–81, photographs pp. 62–69. Public domain.

Expansion and Contraction in the Third Reich
- 13 Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison, Objectivity (New York: Zone Books, 2007).
41The five ways of using photography in the scientific study of race that I have now documented point to the diverse nature of the racial photograph in terms of its epistemological definition and respective role in scientific demonstration, intertwined with sometimes competing ideas of race, visual language, and photographic technique. The employment of photographs within scientific writing was closely tied to transformations in concepts of objectivity in particular forms of science, such as the gradual transition from ‘mechanical objectivity’, with its optimistic trust in forms of mechanical reproduction, to ‘trained judgment’, with the addition of the subjective authority of scientific experts, as described by Daston and Gallison.13 Some photographic practices were intended for publication, with audiences ranging from the professional to the general public. But photographs were also integrated into the working practices of scientists and scholars. From our later perspective, the differences between them appear negligible. However, it is from a political rather than a scientific perspective that they appear so. It is noteworthy that there were no attempts to develop scientifically novel methods for the employment of photography in the study of race after the 1930s.
42In the historical interpretation above, there is a conscious effort to avoid collapsing this chapter on the history of scientific photography into the political sphere. This is not motivated by an attempt to defend a purist interpretation of science. Indeed, there can be no question that even the best instances of science are politically ‘contaminated’, albeit in different ways. Hence, rather than following the post-1945 West German impulse and segregating these instances of racial photography as contaminated, thereby exonerating all of the rest, the same standards, methods of analysis, and modes of interpretation should be applied here as with other facets of the history of science. In the National Socialist era, racial photography flourished, and its meaning was transformed, although its uses were conceptually derivative. The inventory of photographic collections in archaeological institutes or museums in Germany or Austria reveals a shift in the materials generated and archived from non-European, non-white peoples in the imperial period to Jews during the time of the Third Reich. In methodological terms, different practices, underpinned by different conceptions of science or race, were collapsed into explicitly politicized instruments. The photographic repertoire also preceded Hitler’s seizure of power, both empirically and in terms of genre and visual language. Quantitatively, racial photography expanded; methodologically, it contracted.
Fig. 6.9 Ludwig Ferdinand Clauß, Rassenseele und Einzelmesch: Lichtbildervotrag (The Racial Soul and the Individual: A Slide Presentation) (Munich: Lehmann, 1938), slides 3–5. Public domain.

- 14 Mitchell G. Ash, Wissenschaft und Politik als Ressourcen für einander, ‘ in Rüdiger vom Bruch and B (...)
- 15 See Deborah Poole, Vision, Race, and Modernity: A Visual Economy of the Andean Image World (Princet (...)
43The ways in which science and politics drew on each other, the ways in which they conferred legitimacy on and received legitimacy from each other increased, and their meanings changed.14 In Germany all of these, irrespective of their methodological differences, remained well within the general outlook of National Socialism. In publications sanctioned by the party and state ideology, where photographs had generally served illustrative purposes, scientists and scholars such as Walter Scheidt, Peter-Heinz Seraphim, and numerous others who made extensive use of photographs now saturated society with images that spoke about race directly or indirectly, and elicited social relations in which race was interwoven: they naturalized, visualized, classified, and instructed viewers about race and racial differences; suggested its presence and importance for virtually every aspect of the life of the individual, the family, the community, and the Volk; and sharpened the sensual, intellectual, and political education of citizens. Scientific photographs were interwoven with other photographs within this broader ‘visual economy’, endowing it with the prestige and authority of science, connecting the scientific discourse with other facets of culture, and providing the public with cues (in the language of art historian Ernst Gombrich) for the decoding and understanding of the photographs, for knowing how to connect the photographs with social reality.15 The photography that purported only to represent reality in fact took an active part in shaping it.
44The previous section attempted to show that the function of racial photographs as scientific evidence was embedded in and relative to various discourses and their respective aims. But photographs generated for one kind of use, based on a certain set of assumptions, could of course also be used in a different context. Scientists and scholars who had laboured to differentiate their practices from those of their peers now often reproduced photographs that were based on one methodology in publications underpinned by another, as political instrumentalization more strongly trumped methodological differences. As a result, the same photograph could be generated in one context, such as these photographs by Martin (Fig. 6.2) and von Luschan (Fig. 6.6) but could, without much effort, be transported and reused in another (see Fig. 6.10).
45Von Luschan illustrated his argument on Jews with this photograph; Günther not only reproduced it for opposing political ends, but now embedded it in his different economy of demonstration or argumentation. Similarly, Fischer sent a group of assistants and students to measure and photograph Jews in the Lodz ghetto in early 1940 following Martin’s method (Fig. 6.4), and, in a 1943 volume, used them for a much more clearly scientific justification for the extermination of the Jews (see Fig. 6.11).
- 16 Egon Freiherr von Eickstedt, Ursprung und Entfaltung der Seele: Entwurf und System einer psychologi (...)
46While this phenomenon greatly expanded in the Third Reich, it did not begin or end there. Clauss took this photograph (Fig. 6.8) as part of his phenomenological method, but the physical anthropologist Rainer Knussman reproduced it many years later, in 1986, as a standardized anthropological type photograph. Similarly, physical anthropologist Egon von Eickstedt made no direct mention of Jews in his truly unusual book published in 1963, comprised of over 2,500 pages, but he reproduced two of Clauss’s photographs (on page 1657 and page 2256). The latter, which Clauss claimed was an Arab woman, von Eickstedt characterized as ‘Armenider Erlösungstypus’ (Armenian Redemption Type) which thus integrated Clauss’s typology (redemption type) and von Luschan’s racial classification (Armenian type).16
Fig. 6.10 Hans F. K. Günther, Rassenkunde des jüdischen Volkes (Ethnogeny of the Jewish People) (Munich: Lehmann, 1930), p. 386. Public domain.

Fig. 6.11 Gerhard Kittel and Eugen Fischer, Das antike Weltjudentum Tatsachen, Texte, Bilder (Jewry of the Ancient World; Facts Texts, Pictures) Hamburg: Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, 1943), p. 116. Public domain.

47One way to look at all of this is to say that racial photographs succumbed rather easily to different uses; another, perhaps stronger, approach is to say that the boundaries between racial discourses, which in some respects were fairly clear, in others were quite fluid. This fluidity was closely tied to political instrumentalization, and it all tended in the same general direction, which makes it easier for the later historian to question the significance of the epistemological differences in the first place.
48This chapter has addressed photography within science and scholarship. But science and scholarship are never isolated from other facets of society and history. Furthermore, photography, because of its visual legibility, connects spheres of cultural production with each other directly and instantaneously. In terms of their subjects, visual language, and broad political ideology, the kinds of photography elaborated upon here bear considerable similarity to the work of photographers who are discussed at length in other chapters of this volume, such as Erna Lendvai-Dircksen and Erich Retzlaff. Photographs tend to centre on individuals, but the individuals stand for something typical (racial, regional, or ethnic). While focusing on individuals and in fact emphasizing their uniqueness, the photographs discussed here were also speaking about types and, at an even deeper level, and perhaps most crucially, when they focused on members of the German Volk they were engaged in establishing a prototype of that Volk, arguably one of the few key kernels of the rather fluid National Socialist ideology.
49The photographic treatments discussed here speak to viewers in similar terms, suggesting that the photograph offers a direct, immediate depiction of the person, based on and intensifying a naïve conception of the relationship between photography and reality. Both these branches of scientific photography and their respective forms of documentary photography emphasize authenticity more than they do beauty, although they share implicit conservative notions of beauty. And they also share, in broad terms, the naturalizing Völkisch ideology as well as, often, an explicit commitment to National Socialist ideas or motifs. In fact, there is a significant overlap, with regard to the conception of photography’s relationship to reality as well as from aesthetic, sociological, cultural, and political perspectives, between Völkisch ideology and the ideas of National Socialism. Some of Erna Lendvai-Dircksen’s photographs could easily replace some of the photographs used in the publications of Clauss or Günther, for instance.
50Professional photographers, to a much greater degree than amateur photographers, master the camera and work from within photography’s dispositions to create the image they desire. For this reason, the aesthetic and ideological overlap between certain documentary photographers and racial scientists merits special attention. However, for the same reason, it is important to note a caveat; namely, the ability in retrospect to observe visual similarities between photographs made by photographers who were aesthetically and ideologically clearly at odds (such as Helmar Lerski and any of the photographers discussed here). While this raises broader questions with regard to the history of photography, it also means that drawing conclusions based on visual similarities should be approached with caution.
Conclusion
- 17 See the literature cited in Amos Morris-Reich, ‘Taboo and Classification’ (2013).
51Methodologically, the use of photographic techniques for the study of race was not developed further after 1945, and quantitatively, it declined quite sharply, although it did not altogether disappear. This stands in contradiction to the relative continuity, otherwise, in the scientific branches in which it had been featured (excluding Günther’s Rassenkunde, which was debunked as political ideology).17 The question of why the use of photography lessened is, to some extent, dependent on interpretation. Explanations include internal scientific developments (such as the increasing dominance of concepts based on computing processes within the biological sciences, and the shift to the chromosomal level of analysis in the 1960s) as well as the interface between science and politics and transformations in the public sphere with regard to the legitimacy of these uses of photography. Photography’s documentary nature also offers itself as an explanation. Indirect evidence for this latter interpretation can be seen in the destruction, by scientists, in the final days of the war, of photographs of Jews taken in Lodz in 1940 (discussed above). They did not destroy other measurements, such as fingerprints, which were taken on the same occasion, based on the same method and for the same purportedly scientific purposes (in fact, some of those scientists were still considering publishing the fingerprints in the late 1940s). The scientists understood the photographs as more incriminating than other media. So, the photographs were destroyed, but everything that had been collected or published was not. What happened to the composite image that this vast repertoire of photographs helped establish in the social imagination? What has this photographic tradition implanted in that social imagination? Did the receding of photography mean the receding of images developed over decades and sitting atop deeper and broader cultural, religious, and social layers?
52Attempting to answer this question requires studying photography within a multi-layered, complex history of vision, where vision is understood as a dynamic and sensually, intellectually, and politically shaped process. This work still needs to be carried out. Speaking very generally, the study of photography from the 1980s to today emphasizes photography’s contingency, the modes of doubt and ambivalence built into the images that it produces, and the protean nature of vision itself. At least to some extent, these tendencies are corrective with regard to earlier conceptions that implied or assumed photography’s direct representation of the real. But in certain respects, they may optimistically exaggerate the roles of photography in historical reality. Perhaps, by building on Aby Warburg’s less progressive and possibly more pessimistic view of human vision in history, future work will have to study photography in relation to other forms of image production, to demonstrate how photographs solidified images in the social imagination. Such embedding of photography allows us to locate and stabilize certain points of transition in the relationship between photography and vision, while reminding us that at no point can the history of photography be separated from psychological and social structures, or cultural and political ideologies. The photographic practices studied in this chapter did not create images ex nihilo: the images existed prior to them and did not, most probably, entirely disappear with photography’s decline
Notes
1 For the elaboration on the difficulty of historical contextualization see, Amos Morris-Reich, ‘Taboo and Classification: Post-1945 German racial writing on Jews, ’ in Leo Baeck Yearbook 58 (2013), 195–215. For a broader contextualization of photography within twentieth-century German history, and for comprehensive bibliographies on the subject, see Elizabeth Harvey and Maiken Umbach, eds, Photography and Twentieth-Century German History, a special issue of Central European History 48: 3 (2015); and Jennifer Evans, Paul Betts, and Stefan-Ludwig Hoffmann, eds, The Ethics of Seeing: Photography and Twentieth-Century German History (New York: Berghahn, 2018).
2 See Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida (New York: Hill and Wang, 1981).
3 For more on this realisation see: Amos Morris-Reich, ‘Photography in Economies of Demonstration: The Idea of the Jews as a Mixed-Race People’, Jewish Social Studies 20: 1 (Fall 2013), 150–83.
4 See Amos Morris-Reich, ‘Anthropology, Standardisation and Measurement: Rudolf Martin and Anthropometric Photography, ’ British Journal for the History of Science 46: 3 (2013), 487–516.
5 On Fischer see Bernhard Gessler, Eugen Fischer (1874–1967): Leben und Werk des Freiburger Anatomen, Anthropologen und Rassenhygienikers bis 1927 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2000). The earlier biography by Niels Loesch, titled Race as Construct, is even more problematic. The best treatment of the development of Fischer’s ideas on race is Amir Teicher, ‘Eugen Fischer’s Scientific Purview: The Development of a Scientific Concept and the Interrelationship among Science, Society, and Politics in Germany, 1913–1936,’ Master’s thesis, (2008), Tel Aviv University [in Hebrew]. Fischer’s photography has, surprisingly, garnered even less scholarship than have his ideas on race. The only sustained treatment can be found in Kathryn Alice Steinbock, ‘Crisis and Classification: Photographic Portrait Typologies in Early 20th-Century Germany’ PhD thesis, (2011), The University of Michigan.
6 Margit Berner, Annette Hoffmann, Britta Lange (eds), Sensible Sammlungen. Aus dem anthropologischen Depot (Hamburg: Philo, 2011).
7 Eugen Fischer, Die Rehobother Bastards und das Bastardierungsproblem beim Menschen (Jena: G. Fischer, 1913).
8 Eugen Fischer, ‘Neue Rehobother Bastardstudien, ’ Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie 37: 2 (1938), 127–39.
9 See in particular John M. Efron, Defenders of the Race: Jewish Doctors and Race Science in Fin-de-Siècle Europe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994); Anja von Laukötter, ‘Von der ‘Kultur’ zur ‘Rasse’ — vom Objekt zum Körper?’, in Völkerkundemuseen und ihre Wissenschaften zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts (Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2007), pp. 91–124.
10 See chapter three of Amos Morris-Reich, Race and Photography: Racial Photography as Scientific Evidence, 1876–1980 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2016).
11 Benjamin H. D. Buchloh, ‘Gerhard Richter’s ‘Atlas’: The Anomic Archive, ’ October 88 (Spring 1999), 117–45, quotation from p. 127.
12 Clauss’s principal book was Rasse und Seele. Eine Einführung in die Gegenwart (Munich: J.F. Lehmann Verlag, 1926). In later editions a subtitle was added that indicated its programmatic nature (Eine Einführung in den Sinn der leiblichen Gestalt). For a remarkable biography of Clauss, see Peter Weingart, Doppel-Leben. Ludwig Ferdinand Clauss: Zwischen Rassenforschung und Widerstand (Frankfurt: Campus, 1995); on his phenomenology, see Richard T. Gray, About Face: German Physiognomic Thought from Lavater to Auschwitz (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2004); on the relationship of his thought to Ludwig Klages’s, see Per Leo, Der Wille zum Wesen: Weltanschauungskultur, charakterologisches Denken und Judenfeindschaft in Deutschland 1890–1940 (Berlin: Matthes & Seitz, Berlin 2013); on his photographic method, see chapter four of Amos Morris-Reich, Race and Photography. Racial Evidence as Scientific Evidence, 1876–1980 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016).
13 Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison, Objectivity (New York: Zone Books, 2007).
14 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: Steiner, 2002), pp. 32–51.
15 See Deborah Poole, Vision, Race, and Modernity: A Visual Economy of the Andean Image World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997).
16 Egon Freiherr von Eickstedt, Ursprung und Entfaltung der Seele: Entwurf und System einer psychologischen Anthropologie (Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag, 1963). For Clauss’s originals see Rasse und Seele (Munich: Lehmann, 1933), pp. 78–81.
17 See the literature cited in Amos Morris-Reich, ‘Taboo and Classification’ (2013).
Table des illustrations
![]() | |
---|---|
Titre | Fig. 6.1a Rudolf Martin, ‘Anthropometrie’, in A. Gottstein, A. Schlossmann, and A. Teleky, eds, Handbuch der Sozialen Hygiene und Gesundheitsfürsorge (Manual of Social Hygiene and Health Care) (Berlin: Lehmann, 1925), p. 298. Public domain. |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/18428/img-1.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 47k |
![]() | |
Titre | Fig. 6.1b Rudolf Martin, ‘Anthropometrie’, in A. Gottstein, A. Schlossmann, and A. Teleky, eds, Handbuch der Sozialen Hygiene und Gesundheitsfürsorge (Manual of Social Hygiene and Health Care) (Berlin: Lehmann, 1925), p. 300. Public domain. |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/18428/img-2.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 38k |
![]() | |
Titre | Fig. 6.2 Rudolf Martin, Lehrbuch der Anthropologie: In systematischer Darstellung (Textbook of Anthropology: A Systematic Account) (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1914). Public domain. |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/18428/img-3.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 62k |
![]() | |
Titre | Fig. 6.3 Eugen Fischer, Die Rehobother Bastards und das Bastardierungsproblem beim Menschen: Anthropologische und ethnographische Studien am Rehobother Bastardvolk in Deutsch-Südwest-Afrika (The Rehobother Bastards and the Bastardization Problem in Humans: Anthropological and Ethnographic Studies of the Rehobother Bastard People in German Southwest Africa), (Graz: Akademische Druck, 1961, original 1912), plate 2. Courtesy of ADEVA Akademische Druck. |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/18428/img-4.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 85k |
![]() | |
Titre | Fig. 6.4 Gerhard Kittel and Eugen Fischer, Das antike Weltjudentum Tatsachen, Texte, Bilder (Jewry of the Ancient World, Facts, Texts, Images) (Hamburg: Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, 1943), p. 113. Public domain. |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/18428/img-5.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 43k |
![]() | |
Titre | Fig. 6.5 Felix von Luschan, four types of photograph from one collection: 1903 Türke (Turk), 1904 Darde (Kaukasus), 1912 (Kurde), 1914 (Kurde). Courtesy of Felix von Luschan, the collection of the Natural History Museum Vienna, Department of Anthropology. Die Anthropologische Abteilung, Naturhistorisches Museum Wien. |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/18428/img-6.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 66k |
![]() | |
Titre | Fig. 6.6 Photograph of a Christian Armenian Turk reproduced in Felix von Luschan, ‘Zur physischen Anthropologie der Juden’ (The Physical Anthropology of the Jews), Zeitschrift für Demographie und Statistik der Juden 1: 1 (1905), 21. Public domain. |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/18428/img-7.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 108k |
![]() | |
Titre | Fig. 6.7 Hans F. K. Günther, Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes (Ethnogeny of the German People) 10th ed. (Munich: Lehmann, 1926), p. 59. Public domain. |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/18428/img-8.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 45k |
![]() | |
Titre | Fig. 6.8 Ludwig Ferdinand Clauß, Rasse und Seele: Eine Einführung in den Sinn der leiblichen Gestalt (Race and Soul: An Introduction to the Meaning of the Bodily Form) (Munich: Gutenberg, 1937), pp. 78–81, photographs pp. 62–69. Public domain. |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/18428/img-9.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 50k |
![]() | |
Titre | Fig. 6.9 Ludwig Ferdinand Clauß, Rassenseele und Einzelmesch: Lichtbildervotrag (The Racial Soul and the Individual: A Slide Presentation) (Munich: Lehmann, 1938), slides 3–5. Public domain. |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/18428/img-10.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 38k |
![]() | |
Titre | Fig. 6.10 Hans F. K. Günther, Rassenkunde des jüdischen Volkes (Ethnogeny of the Jewish People) (Munich: Lehmann, 1930), p. 386. Public domain. |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/18428/img-11.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 65k |
![]() | |
Titre | Fig. 6.11 Gerhard Kittel and Eugen Fischer, Das antike Weltjudentum Tatsachen, Texte, Bilder (Jewry of the Ancient World; Facts Texts, Pictures) Hamburg: Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, 1943), p. 116. Public domain. |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/18428/img-12.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 49k |
© Open Book Publishers, 2021
Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International - CC BY 4.0