Expedientes de la II Sala Penal
IMPONER LA PENA DE CADENA PERPETUA EN LOS CASOS DE SECUESTRO AGRAVADO
In 1914, Heinrich F. B. Zeidler published his dissertation on facial muscles of ‘farbigen Rassen’, based on five preserved Herero heads. Four of these were positively identified by the Charité Human Remains Project as specimens A 796 (Herero A), A 801 (Herero B), A 813 (Herero D) and A 834 (Herero E). Like Fetzer, Zeidler wanted to establish the extent to which the facial muscles of ‘coloured races’, particularly the Herero, were different from the ‘weißen Rasse’ and whether ‘aus diesen eventuellen Unterschieden eine Klassifizierung in der zoologischen Reihe möglich ist.’344 The study includes five drawings, one
for each head, and no photographs (figures 12.1-12.5). The drawings are gen- erally cruder than those done by Fetzer. Like Fetzer’s they are all in profile, showing schematic renderings of the muscles around the eye, the ear, and in the cheek. The nose, mouth, and in some cases, the ear are intact. Unlike Fetzer, Zeidler also drew (parts of) the hair of some of the heads (figures
342 Ibid., 177–178.
343 Fischer, Die Rehobother Bastards und das Bastardierungsproblem beim Menschen, Taf. 1. 344 Zeidler, ‘Beiträge zur Anthropologie der Herero’, 185.
517147-L-bw-ASC 517147-L-bw-ASC 517147-L-bw-ASC 517147-L-bw-ASC Processed on: 20-2-2018 Processed on: 20-2-2018 Processed on: 20-2-2018
Processed on: 20-2-2018 PDF page: 101PDF page: 101PDF page: 101PDF page: 101
101
12.1, 12.2, and 12.3). Herero ‘D’ (12.4) is more schematic: apparently Zeidler removed the entire scalp before he made the drawing. Zeidler also included another smaller, more schematic illustration of a ‘négresse’ reproduced from a study by Herr Dr. Loth for comparison.
So how did Zeidler proceed? The five Herero heads were, again, made avail- able by Paul Bartels in 1909. Eggeling made available the already dissected ‘Material’ of four adult Herero, one Herero and one Nama child. Zeidler be- gan with a description of the heads, necessary for understanding ‘manches typische der Hererorasse.’ Casts were then made ‘um sich die Physiognomie und die Schädelformation jederzeit plastisch vor Augen führen zu können.’ They were described and measured according to the standards of Luschan, using the Martin anthropometer. Once again, measurements were not always possible because of the conservation process. They were hindered by the horizontal ‘Sägeschnitt’ made in the skulls for the removal of the brains. The long, complicated process took eighteen months to complete. ‘Oft war die anatomische Individualität so fein und kompliziert,’ writes Zeidler, ‘daß ich lange Zeit mit der Lupe arbeiten oder zur Diagnose von Muskel- oder Binde- gewebsfasern erst dasMikroskop zu Hilfe nehmen mußte.’345 Zeidler also ex-
plains in his introduction on what basis he ‘compares’ the Herero with the ‘white race’. Lacking material or statistics of the facial muscles of the ‘white race’, he chose to rely on his knowledge of what he had seen in ‘den Berliner Präpariersälen’, and in study books, as ‘these were based on observations of the white race.’ Like Fetzer, he made casts of his preparations, drawing the contours of muscular attachments on it in red after painting the cast with ‘Leinöl’.346 After Zeidler’s study, the heads were macerated and the skulls in-
cluded in the anthropological collection of the Pathological Institute.347
Zeidler’s descriptions of the heads before preparation consisted of a system- atic summary of superficial traits of the heads, indicative of his view on the heads as pure specimens (‘reines “Material”’). Like Fetzer, he described many aspects that had nothing to do with facial muscles but everything to do with ‘typical traits’ of Herero, such as the skin colour (‘braunschwarz’), the shape of the head, face, skull, nose, and mouth.348 He also establishes the degree of
‘Prognathie’ and dwells on the teeth manipulation common for Herero men: in some ‘specimens’ the middle incisors of the upper jaw were sharpened in
345 Ibid., 186. 346 Ibid., 187.
347 Schnalke, ‘“Normale” Wissenschaft’, 172. 348 Ibid., 174.
517147-L-bw-ASC 517147-L-bw-ASC 517147-L-bw-ASC 517147-L-bw-ASC Processed on: 20-2-2018 Processed on: 20-2-2018 Processed on: 20-2-2018
Processed on: 20-2-2018 PDF page: 102PDF page: 102PDF page: 102PDF page: 102
102
an inverted V- shape, while the lower incisors were pulled out.349 His very
detailed description of the hair of some of the specimens is remarkable and completely irrelevant for his study of facial muscles. The hair of ‘Herero A’ (12.1) is described as ‘das typische krause Negerhaar’, and his description of the hair of another specimen is incredibly detailed:
349 Zeidler, ‘Beiträge zur Anthropologie der Herero’, 188.
Figures 12.1-12.4
Illustrations of dissected Herero heads in: Heinrich Zeidler, ‘Beiträge zur Anthropologie der Herero’, Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie 17 (1914/15).
Figure 12.1 Figure 12.2
517147-L-bw-ASC 517147-L-bw-ASC 517147-L-bw-ASC 517147-L-bw-ASC Processed on: 20-2-2018 Processed on: 20-2-2018 Processed on: 20-2-2018
Processed on: 20-2-2018 PDF page: 103PDF page: 103PDF page: 103PDF page: 103
103 Das Haupthaar ist kürzer als bei den vorigen Köpfen; zeigt auf der Stirn lateralwärts größere freie Stellen. Backenbart ist vorhanden, wenn auch spärlich, immerhin so, daß er eine deutliche Verbindung mit dem Kinn- bart bildet. Letzterer ist stark entwickelt, zeigt kurzes, lockiges Haar. Der Schnurrbart geht jederseits in den Kinnbart über, zeigt im großen und gan- zen jedoch kürzeres und weniger lockiges Haar.350
Zeidler studied sever- al muscles. He was not interested in the risori- us santorini that could be observed ‘regularly’ in the Herero: Eggeling had only one speci- men without it, from his own material ‘only Herero A and C’ lacked the muscle.351 He was,
however, interested in the musculus orbicu- laris oculi, the round muscle around the eye, which he found to
be highly developed in Herero ‘und über- trifft das beim Eu- ropäer Gewöhnliche bei weitem’ and the musculus frontalis in the forehead, which he also found to be more developed than that of the European.352 Looking at the
drawings, Zeidler seems to have drawn little detail around the muscle sur- rounding the eye, to make it appear more prominent. Although Zeidler con- ceded that he had not found anything in the Herero that he had never seen in whites, he still argued 'that the facial muscles of a 'coloured' individual ('die Gesichtsmuskulatur eines Farbigen') could be told apart from that of a white without difficulties. He argued that he could discern two ‘typische Merkmale’
350 Ibid., 188 and 191. 351 Ibid., 242–243.
352 Schnalke, ‘“Normale” Wissenschaft’, 175.
Figure 12.5
Illustration of a dissected Herero head in Zeidler’s study. During the 2011 repatriation ceremonies in Berlin and Windhoek, the skull of this individual was on display as representative of the nine Herero skulls returned (see chapter 6).
517147-L-bw-ASC 517147-L-bw-ASC 517147-L-bw-ASC 517147-L-bw-ASC Processed on: 20-2-2018 Processed on: 20-2-2018 Processed on: 20-2-2018
Processed on: 20-2-2018 PDF page: 104PDF page: 104PDF page: 104PDF page: 104
104
of the ‘Negermuskulatur’: overall thickness of the muscles and ‘massiveness’ (‘Massigkeit’). Interestingly, he refers directly to his drawings to make this point: ‘Ein Blick auf die Zeichnungen belehrt im Augenblick, daß die Über- sichtlichkeit fehlt, die wir bei der Abbildung eines Europäers zu sehen gewohnt sind.’ According to Zeidler, this lack of ‘clarity’ (‘Übersichtlichkeit’) resulted from a ‘deficient differentiation of the facial muscles,’ which led to ‘massive- ness’ in the middle of the face.353 Looking at the rather crude drawings, it is
easy to imagine that Zeidler, had he wanted to make another point, would have been able to make the drawings appear more refined and less ‘unclear’. Zeidler concluded that the ‘thickness’ and ‘little differentiation’ of the muscles as well as other peculiar findings such as an absence of ‘Wangenausstrahlung’ of the platysma pointed to ‘gewichtige regressive Zustände’ and enough evi- dence – together with findings of other researchers – that the Herero repre- sented a 'lesser race' when compared with 'the Europeans'.354
Thomas Schnal-
ke of the Charité Human Remains Project, explains that Zeidler’s study (like Fetzer’s) was embedded in a well-organized research infrastructure that en- couraged PhD students to do anthropological research. The prominent head of the Institute of Anatomy, Wilhelm Waldeyer, personally gave Zeidler ac- cess to material for his study, and the high standing of the Pathological Insti- tute would have ensured that his dubious conclusions were taken seriously. Hans Virchow advised Zeidler and Paul Bartels – like he did with Fetzer – initiated the research and ‘dirigierte’ it to its final product.355 This does not
mean, however, that the findings of Zeidler were supported by all these men. It seems to have been Bartels in particular who was the driving force behind Zeidler’s research.
When Zeidler’s dissertation was published, Hans Virchow responded very critically. He was particularly critical of the drawings. Apparently, they were drawn from the plaster casts and these were, in his opinion, distorted. Ac- cording to Virchow, a cast would have been unable to reproduce the details of a fine ‘Präparat’ like this, especially because the plaster would have set in between the fibers of the head and taken some along, damaging the surface of preparation and cast. Moreover, Virchow found the drawings ‘zeichnerisch- technisch mangelhaft ausgeführt.’356 He cast doubt on the typical characteris-
tics of ‘negro facial muscles’ established by Zeidler. While he agreed to a de- gree with Zeidler’s finding of ‘massiveness’, he pointed out that it would have
353 Ibid., 177. 354 Ibid.
355 Ibid., 171–172. 356 Ibid., 179.
517147-L-bw-ASC 517147-L-bw-ASC 517147-L-bw-ASC 517147-L-bw-ASC Processed on: 20-2-2018 Processed on: 20-2-2018 Processed on: 20-2-2018
Processed on: 20-2-2018 PDF page: 105PDF page: 105PDF page: 105PDF page: 105
105
been highly unlikely that the ‘Neger’ would have less differentiation in facial muscles than whites ‘weil der Schimpanse eine gleich hohe Differenzierung wie der Weisse hat.’357
Bearing this criticism in mind, it is understandable that Fetzer’s study was not accepted as a dissertation. However, I have been unable to discover the grounds on which it was rejected and the study of Zeidler accepted: they seem to have similar shortcomings. It is important to note that Virchow was critical of Zeidler’s method – not of his general idea. He does not question the latter’s research question or use of imprecise notions like ‘Mangelhafte Differenzierung’, ‘Unübersichtlich’ and ‘Regressivität’. His commentary about the chimpanzee also reveals that Virchow stands in the same tradition: would ‘a chimpanzee’ have had much lesser differentiation in facial muscles than whites, he would not have doubted Zeidler’s conclusion about the lesser dif- ferentiation of ‘negro facial muscles.’