Rather than forming a single complete work, the film footage of the Nuba Mountains was made on four trips to Masakin and Kau in 1964/65, 1968/69, 1974/75 and 1977. The holdings comprise a total of around 535 items, primarily film cans containing 16mm original reversal films and rushes, as well as magnetic tapes in various formats, audio cassettes, assorted video formats, 8mm rolls and 16mm black-and-white original negatives and copies. There are around 380 cans of visual material, of which some 204 are just small cans mostly containing single film strips or even individual images, while around 137 are cans and cassettes with sound only. The total length of the visual stock (without video material) is estimated to be around 35,000 metres or 54 hours, and the audio material is thought to comprise 47 hours.

There is currently believed to be no inventory detailing this stock. So what can be done to verify that the holdings are complete, organise the materials according to the year when they were created, differentiate originals from rushes and match the audio with the images? The labels on cans and cassettes are of limited use because various different systems have been used for labelling and categorising the objects. Some of the cans have multiple overlapping stickers and post-it notes affixed to them, the handwriting revealing them to be from the film lab, from Riefenstahl herself or from one of her staff (figs 1–3).

One numbering system – with the year of travel and a sequential number – exists for original reversal films from 1968/69 onwards. It has, however, not been consistently applied, which means no conclusions can be drawn from it about the original size of the holdings (fig. 4). On the first journey in 1964/65, it seems that nobody saw the need even to number the cans, let alone label them with the year. In contrast, some of the audio material was marked with the exact date, along with details of the contents. On later trips, however, many cans were labelled only with the year and place. Synchronised sound is rare, and it seems that in most cases some original audio was recorded during filming, as well as independently of it (fig. 5). A glance inside the film cans makes it clear that knowing their number gives little indication of the volume of the material. The size of the rolls contained therein varies between 20 and 480 metres, and while some cans hold several rolls, a few are just individual strips of film that have been combined using paperclips to create small rolls (fig. 6).

The proportion of originals to rushes varies greatly from trip to trip. Whereas there were around 8,000 metres of original reversal film in 1964/65 to around 6,000 metres of rushes, a similar amount of original reversal film in 1974/75 contrasts with just under 2,000 metres of rushes. It seems that Riefenstahl worked above all with the 1964/65 recordings. Evidence for this is provided by the 204 small cans which apparently contain leftover material from the rushes that had been sorted out and retained for a potential future use. Unlike the originals and the rushes, these canisters are thematically labelled with titles such as “Seribe”, “Landschaft” (Landscape), “Totenfest” (Festival of the dead) and “Ringkampf” (Wrestling), which correspond to the chapter headings of Riefenstahl’s books of photographs. The holdings which have apparently been touched the least are the 2,500 metres from 1977, for which there seem to be virtually no rushes (fig. 7).

AW

The first goal of the identification process was to distinguish between originals and copies. In the case of films with no date marked on the can, it was also necessary to determine which trip they belonged to. These tasks were made more difficult by the divergent and overlapping systems used for labelling and organisation. We were able to identify images from the 1964/65 Sudan expedition thanks to the edge codes on the unexposed stock of Kodak’s Ektachrome colour reversal film, which is marked with symbols denoting the year of manufacture (fig. 1). Studying the edge codes was crucial for verifying the provenance of the originals. The varying lengths of the film rolls suggested that the camera rolls had been edited, and this was confirmed by the foot numbers. Like edge codes, foot numbers are exposed onto the film by the manufacturer and represent sequential numbers that are unique to every roll of film. Splices were additional indications of editing. Several series of foot numbers within the same roll show that multiple camera rolls had been joined together to form a larger roll, with splices at the places where two rolls had been joined. In contrast, missing numbers show that sections had been cut out (fig. 2).

The vague nature of the labels on the cans means that the exact dates and places of when and where the footage was shot are generally unclear. The audio tracks, which were produced at the same time and sometimes include such details, may help to clarify this issue. To this end, the sound recordings and film footage need to be examined in detail. Another crucial source are the film negative reports produced by the camera crew, documenting what was shot on a given camera roll; these are partially extant for 1964/65. Random sampling has shown that the roll numbers in the negative reports correspond to the numbers on filmed slates in the original reversal films (figs 3&4).

A significant amount of material from the film footage which Riefenstahl provided for television reports and documentary films shows her shooting with the Arriflex camera during a wrestling match. This creates the impression that she personally operated the camera during filming. The can with the original reversal film of this footage contains a list of selected shots, probably in Riefenstahl’s handwriting, that show her with the Arriflex film camera and with Leica still cameras. Also found in the can was a note that these shots were cut out in September 1976 for the TV magazine programme Aspekte (fig. 5).

In fact, however, this footage served as advertising for one of her most important sponsors – it was actually Gerhard Fromm who was responsible for the camera in 1964/65 and Horst Kettner from 1968 onwards, while Walter Hailer was involved as second cameraman, at least in 1964/65. Riefenstahl does not mention these three names either on the labelling on the can or in the working notes contained in the cans themselves. However, these materials do identify the Sudanese cameraman who remains nameless in Riefenstahl’s reports: Gadalla Gubara was responsible for shooting the earliest footage of the 1964/65 expedition, and was then succeeded by Gerhard Fromm.

It is unclear why Gadalla Gubara left the project. Notes by Riefenstahl found in cans containing sundry material state that his footage of slaughtered cattle was “too realistic” and therefore “unusable” (figs 6–8). Similarly, Gadalla Gubara’s images of a man dancing with a belt covered in little bells are kept in a box labelled as sundry material. This raises the question of the extent to which the Sudanese filmmaker had his own approach to documenting the lives of his compatriots and whether this approach may have been incompatible with Riefenstahl’s wishes. His experiences during the filming are a matter for further research.

Riefenstahl was often filmed with the Sudanese protagonists of the documentaries, especially during the 1974/75 expedition. This footage is not limited to shots which clearly served as advertising for her numerous sponsors, for instance showing Riefenstahl filming with the Arriflex during a wrestling match or while distributing medicines. Riefenstahl’s presence is also evident in a very different way in incidental shots at the beginning of scenes, when the camera was already rolling but she was still in the shot, giving last-minute instructions to the protagonists or the camera (figs 9&10). These proofs of her presence are confined to a small number of single frames that are easy to miss and can be most effectively identified using frame-by-frame playback after the material has been digitised. These images allow us to study Riefenstahl’s interventions in the events being filmed.

The digitisation and restoration process is aimed at the original reversal films. The ratio of originals to copies shows that the originals provide the most complete record of the footage shot in the Nuba Mountains. Edge codes and splices provide evidence of editing and omissions in the originals, allowing us to reconstruct the camera rolls. It is vital that we work out how the camera rolls, photographs and written records are related in order to gain a deeper overall understanding of the large volume of material and more specifically to facilitate the research.

AW

Upon the acceptance of the Riefenstahl estate, eight aluminum transport crates, two large wooden crates and several other moving boxes arrived at the Ethnologisches Museum in Berlin. These boxes, some of which were labelled and stickered by Riefenstahl herself, contained her ethnographical collection. This comprises an estimated 700 objects or cultural belongings acquired during the time Riefenstahl spent in the Nuba Mountains and other East African regions.

Around half of the objects in the collection are cultural belongings fashioned from calabashes. There are numerous calabash bowls and vessels of various kinds with pokerwork all around their circumferences, some of which feature appliquéd textiles, glass or plastic beads, plastic bands, metal or cowrie shells. In most instances, the pokerwork consists of ornamental or geometric decorations that accentuate the shape of the calabash used. We sometimes find pokerwork images of animals and people as well as symbols or events – such as hunting scenes and domestic or interpersonal activities – on some of the larger vessels.

Among the calabashes we also find sealable bottles with leather thongs and beadwork decorations as well as filled calabashes with textile appliqué. In addition, the ethnographical estate also includes a variety of everyday objects such as bottles, wooden spoons, pelts, basketwork and fronds – as well as an Italian coffeepot and souvenir items. Spears, shields, clubs, knives and other weapons are also found in the collection, as is a large selection of jewellery: hoops made of metal or wrapped in cloth, necklaces of beads or metal, tortoise shells attached to textile strips, leather strips and pendants.
Last but not least, the collection includes musical instruments, such as two large wooden drums with skin drumheads and ten plucked instruments resembling lutes with resonating bodies made either of leather stretched across a calabash or of wood – some bearing decorations or textile strips and signs of use.

Once the items had been inventorised, 680 identification numbers describing 674 objects had been entered into the museum’s documentation system. These cultural belongings from Riefenstahl’s estate are stored in the Ethnologisches Museum’s storage facility in Dahlem, Berlin.

SB

When the ethnographic objects from Riefenstahl’s estate entered the collections of Berlin’s Ethnologisches Museum, they were inventorised and logged in the museum’s documentation system. “Inventorising” refers to the process of assigning each cultural belonging an inventory number. These numbers follow a particular pattern within each institution, and so the objects in this case were assigned to the “Africa” and, more specifically, the “North Africa” section of the collection. Drawing upon established conservation techniques and recommendations, the number was permanently yet reversibly attached to the object wherever possible.

In the Ethnologisches Museum, these numbers are physically applied with Paraloid, brush, pen and ink in a place that is preferably discreet yet visible. The museum team wears protective gear during the inventorising process and when handling the object. In addition to physically applying the inventory number, the team also creates an object label for each item.

In the inventorising process, a data set for each inventory number is entered into the museum documentation system MuseumPlus, which allows each object to be catalogued and its data to be managed. In the specific case of the ethnographica, a data set template is first created in consultation with the collection’s director and administrators. This template includes all the information that is relevant for cataloguing the collection, such as its geographical context and provenance. Later in the process, the data set template is adapted for each object in the collection, with a focus on details relating to the object itself, such as its size, material, description, box number, location and condition. A more in-depth scholarly evaluation of the object data set in the database has not yet been conducted.
A further step in documenting and logging cultural belongings is to photograph the object. A digitising station has been set up near the temporary storage facility for new acquisitions in order to ensure the best possible photographic documentation of the estate. The objects are photographed from various angles, and a calibrated colour chart and measuring stick are included in the images. Each individual object in the collection is thus photographed from at least two different perspectives, but shots from multiple angles are the norm. For example, the calabashes with extensive pokerwork were photographed from several angles so as to adequately illustrate the pyrographic details.

The photographs of the ethnographica are then colour processed using the programme Capture One and saved as TIFF files as well as cropped JPG files without a colour chart or measuring stick. Once the digitisation is complete, the details relating to the object are edited and published on the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin’s online platform (in German). More than 2,000 image files have been created for the c. 700 cultural belongings and over 1,000 object photos have been uploaded to the online platform.

Wherever possible, entire boxes of objects have been inventorised, documented and digitised. The objects were pre-sorted according to their type, size and material with the aim of standardising the documentation and photography process.
Leni Riefenstahl’s ethnographic collection was inventorised, documented and digitised in 2022/23 by the management of the “Africa” collection at the Ethnologisches Museum Berlin and the Measures for the Digitisation and Visualisation of Object-Related Collection Data (MDVOS) project team.

SB

The written materials in Leni Riefenstahl’s estate, which are held at the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin (Berlin State Library), comprise her personal and professional archive. The materials from the 1920s and the Nazi era are incomplete as some were lost or discarded at the end of the Second World War. There are, however, copious documents from the period after 1945. Riefenstahl and her staff worked tirelessly in the archive, constantly rearranging and reproducing the written materials, although it is quite possible that certain records were weeded out in the process.

This body of written documents is exceedingly important for researchers studying Riefenstahl’s work and personal history. It is a vital source of information on numerous key topics, such as her relations with the Nazi state and the regime’s major players (connections which continued after 1945 with those who survived the war), her life and work in the post-war period and her contacts with figures who played a role in the politics and society of the day, as well as with her staff and colleagues. One important aspect that stands out in a number of previously unknown documents is the reception of her work and how it was viewed in the realms of popular culture. The enormous wealth of material showcases many different sides of this controversial artist. Her cinematic projects before and after the war – including those films that were never made – and her work as a photographer and author are documented in screenplays, notes, research records, etc. It is often possible to reconstruct in detail the process of how her works came about.

Riefenstahl’s abundant correspondence reflects her extensive network of professional and private connections. She kept a separate collection of letters from prominent contemporaries. In addition to her private correspondence, this section primarily consists of written communications from her production companies, including documentation of all the different areas that Leni Riefenstahl Produktion was involved in (film and photo production, issues about rights and distribution, etc.). Finally, the extensive correspondence with her lawyers reveals the many legal disputes, both personal and work-related, that beset Riefenstahl. The exchanges of letters are indicative of her international reputation and reach, with her network of professional and private contacts extending far beyond her native Germany – not only to Japan and the United States but also to many European countries, including the UK, France and Italy.

The personal documents section includes appointment diaries, address books, materials relating to her trips to Africa, certificates and other items that provide important, detailed information about Riefenstahl’s life and career.

Finally, the collections section contains an abundance of material relating to Riefenstahl’s work and personal life that she compiled on an ongoing basis through to the end of her life. These documents, which date back to the start of her career in the 1920s, include articles from the German and foreign press, reviews, publications and audiovisual media.

Finally, the collections section contains an abundance of material relating to Riefenstahl’s work and personal life that she compiled on an ongoing basis through to the end of her life. These documents, which date back to the start of her career in the 1920s, include articles from the German and foreign press, reviews, publications and audiovisual media.

Leni Riefenstahl’s written estate, archived in the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin (Berlin State Library, or SBB) under the call no. “Nachl. 590”, comprises over 750 items housed in files, archival boxes and custom-built linen boxes, which Riefenstahl and her secretaries used for organising and storing the archival material. During our initial assessment, we sorted the material into the following categories with respect to the type of holdings and their call numbers:

– Works (call nos 1–128)
– Correspondence (call nos 129–491)
– Biographical documents (call nos 492–566)
– Collections (call nos 567–750)

Within these categories, the holdings were left in their original receptacles and inventorised together with brief lists of contents, including details of where they had previously been kept in Riefenstahl’s home. Alongside manuscripts, film scripts, notes (c. 800 individual documents), biographical documents (c. 700 documents) and the dossiers compiled by Riefenstahl and her staff (c. 210 items), the largest single category consists of professional and private correspondence (c. 17,000 documents). In this section of the holdings, the colour of whatever container they were being stored in sometimes indicates a monohierarchical archiving system, which inevitably led to multiple copies being preserved. Colour coding served as an aid for organisation – at least intermittently and presumably echoing Riefenstahl’s creative processes in the field of filmmaking (fig. 1):

– white for private correspondence
– grey for domestic post
– orange for international post
– red for documents, certificates and contracts
– blue for films, books and expeditions
– yellow for press cuttings
– black for legal correspondence
– brown for brochures
– green for financial matters
 
For example, white was used for the correspondence with the production designer Isabella Ploberger-Schlichting on how to credit her for the film Tiefland as well as for letters from Arnold Fanck containing ideas about screening films in Africa. Blue was used for reports, letters and newspaper cuttings relating to unrealised film projects such as Der Nil. Riefenstahl’s published essays were colour-coded yellow, including texts about the Nuba (fig. 2). Black was assigned to legal correspondence such as that concerning the planned film version of Riefenstahl’s Memoirs, which were published in 1987.

The written material about Africa, which has been integrated into Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin’s cataloguing and digitisation project (funded by the German Research Foundation, or DFG), comprises around 220 items containing thousands of individual documents. They include project summaries, notes, diaries, letters and assorted archival documentation such as diplomas, filming permits, receipts, lists of materials, travel documents and individual photographs.

All these documents from the past offer insights into Riefenstahl’s travel plans – everything from her personal, professional and organisational preparations (fig. 3) to the expeditions themselves, before she ultimately presented her projects as effectively as possible to the general public through the medium of photographs, films, publications, lectures and exhibitions.

While the written legacy spans almost a century, from about 1920 to 2018, the bulk of it dates from the time after 1945. This was also the period when Riefenstahl supervised the process of archiving the results of her photographic and cinematic renaissance on the African continent. She began this professional sea change in 1956, with her first trip to Kenya and Uganda for a film project about the slave trade (figs 4&5), which she followed up by participating in an expedition undertaken by the Nansen Society (1962/63). Her engagement with Africa continued until 1982, when she presented her fourth illustrated volume, Mein Afrika (My Africa) to mark her 80th birthday. Moreover, Riefenstahl compiled notes for her memoirs, which include overviews of her experiences in Africa (fig. 6).

Our goal is to catalogue Riefenstahl’s estate in detail so that Nuba representatives, the research community, journalists and interested members of the public from all over the world are given the opportunity to engage with issues both fundamental and complex. These include the individuals who participated in Riefenstahl’s trips in various eras; the process of setting up assorted companies such as Stern-Film GmbH; and documentation about sponsors or the equipment used on the African expeditions (fig. 7). Questions about conserving the holdings are not the only reason why merely making the original materials available would be insufficient.

Working collaboratively to provide digital access to the sources in the estate will ensure that textual, visual and audio materials receive equal attention. At SBB, this is based on a sustainable IT infrastructure, uniform standards for metadata and authority files, high-resolution digital files and compliance with legal and ethical requirements. Reliable technologies offer optimum support for providing, accessing and reusing research data.

The cataloguing data for the written materials in the Riefenstahl estate will be stored in the Kalliope-Verbundkatalog. Over 1,300 citable documents are already available to scholars via a unique identifier. In addition to providing descriptive data about contents, size, participating actors, chronological information and local references to the archive materials, selected objects will be digitised. Subject to copyright considerations and usage rights, these digital copies will be made permanently accessible free of charge via the Digitalisierte Sammlungen platform. The digital objects will contain metadata and can be viewed and used via the DFG Viewer, an IIIF and OAI-PMH interface, or as PDF downloads. Each format will have a unique identifier.

People using the central Stabikat reference system to research, for example, “Riefenstahl Film GmbH” will find numerous references to printed and digital objects, including the digitised archives from Leni Riefenstahl’s estate. The Integrated Authority File (GND) plays a central role in the cataloguing project, creating reliable navigation points that allow people, companies and thematic references to be individually recorded and related to Riefenstahl’s life. The focus is not limited to the objects in the legacy, but also covers their digital network-like interrelationships via people, entities, places, themes and works. The shared use of thesauri and standard vocabularies like the GND allows Riefenstahl’s estate to be virtually collated in order to develop services that can facilitate research and presentation in the future.

KT

The stock of photographic material in the estate, comprising some 100,000 items, is held in the storage facilities of the Sammlung Fotografie der Kunstbibliothek (Art Library – Collection of Photography) at the Museum für Fotografie (Museum of Photography) in Berlin. One consideration in housing the material was ensuring that it would still be possible to reconstruct the original storage conditions at Riefenstahl’s house in Pöcking (fig 1). She had kept the photographs in several parts of the building. Specially made boxes covered with linen were kept in the living room; these contained prints in a variety of formats, sorted according to the various film and photo projects she was involved in or thematically, e.g. “L.R. portrait”, “L.R. in the mountains” and “Friends and acquaintances”. In the spacious archive room in the basement, repro negatives, negatives and prints intended for reproduction were deposited in an extensive system of drawers.

The holdings were compiled and augmented over a period of many decades. Riefenstahl seems to have primarily treated the photographic archive as a work archive: from the 1980s onwards it increasingly formed the basis for publications, for producing new prints to be shown in exhibitions, or for commercial use. The items in the collection can be roughly divided into several different groups:

There are some 40 photo albums containing images from Riefenstahl’s childhood and teenage years, shots of her family, individual trips, and the birthday parties she celebrated later in life, as well as compilations about various films, and documentation of her houses under construction in Berlin and Pöcking.

Riefenstahl had already been the subject of portraits taken by prominent photographic studios (mostly based in Berlin) when she was working as a dancer and actress. There are stills from most of the films in which she acted; cinemas often displayed these in showcases for advertising purposes. Das Blaue Licht (The Blue Light, 1932), the first film that Riefenstahl ever directed, was accompanied by numerous stills and production photos. Many more prints of this kind were added over time, especially for her Olympia documentary and the projects she worked on after the war. Riefenstahl often employed several stills photographers to accompany the shoot on-set. Her own career as a photographer began when she travelled to Africa. Prints of the images she regarded as particularly successful exist in multiple variants.

In her work as a photographer, Riefenstahl primarily used 35mm film, although she sometimes also had recourse to medium-format cameras. In addition to her own negatives, those produced by the on-set stills photographers have also been preserved. There is a wide range of negative material with a particular focus on pictures of the Olympia film and book.

From the mid-1960s onwards, Riefenstahl used often 35mm color transparency film, particularly for the photographs she took in Africa, the journalistic features commissioned late in her career and her underwater photographs. Since the slides could be duplicated quickly and inexpensively, many of these images in the archive have a large number of duplicates, which vary considerably in their state of preservation.

LD

The photographic estate is a working archive which Leni Riefenstahl was still actively using until shortly before her death; it was subsequently managed by Horst Kettner, Riefenstahl’s husband and sole heir. The materials are categorised and stored according to their function, e.g. book publications. The archive is generally organised into categories that correspond to topics and narratives established by Riefenstahl herself. Nevertheless, the manner in which the materials have been stored is inconsistent. Although they were indeed sorted by topic, these contexts were often suspended and the photographs filed in other places. For example, individual slides that had been framed when initially developed were removed from their boxes and added to others.

This makes it difficult to reconstruct individual films and the contexts of their production. Very little factual information is included on the slides or prints, such as the date or location where they were created. The materials themselves range considerably: negatives in a variety of formats, slides, prints on paper (colour as well as black and white) in a wide variety of sizes and qualities (both vintage and more recent). A number of copies and derivatives such as slide duplicates, internegatives and “master duplicates” of widely varying quality can also be found in the collection. Determining any sort of qualitative hierarchy among the photographs is simply not possible.

The first step in working with the archive was to consecutively number all of the packed units (referred to here as “sets”of objects) just as they had been retrieved from Riefenstahl’s home in Pöcking room by room before the estate was transferred to Berlin. This system of numbering enabled us to create the first tabular overview of the entire estate in late 2018. In 2022, the sets relating to Africa/Nuba were separated out for further assessment and processing (fig. 1).
The Africa holdings contain around 45,000 photographic objects and additional archival materials, comprising just under half of the entire estate. The photographic materials were kept in a variety of containers including photo storage boxes, portfolios, document folders and cartons (figs 2&3). Archival materials such as notes and letters were discovered in the various containers and photo albums.

For the Nuba project, around 30,000 35mm slides were digitised in 2022/23. This underlying process formed the basis for cooperating with the project partners about the contents. It also provided insights into the way Riefenstahl worked. Later, the photo prints were also digitised and then matched up with the slides. An entry for each set of objects was made in the internal database with the aim of providing a thematic overview of the Africa holdings (fig. 4). The amounts, types, techniques and dimensions of the materials were recorded as accurately as possible. References were also made to the contents of other sets (numbering, etc.) and topics (expeditions, travels, etc.), references to the objects’ condition as well as contextual keywords and any people who were involved.

JH

Artistic estates received by museums and archives are often already structured and indexed, which can be of great help to researchers. Although Leni Riefenstahl’s archive is organised according to specific principles, a structured index is lacking. Whereas many photographers organise their work chronologically, thematically and according to technical criteria, today we can only guess at what Riefenstahl’s system might have been. Riefenstahl and her staff modified the archive’s structure all too often: the photographic material was repeatedly recontextualised, parts of it were merged with other material and an incalculable number of duplicates was made. Some of the materials include descriptions that are illegible or absent. Where containers have been reused, their old labelling can be misleading.[1] Nevertheless, written documents and archival materials can help us decipher these references. The following examples are intended to aid users searching for connections within the archive.

During her travels with the Deutsche Nansen-Gesellschaft (German Nansen Society) in 1962/63, Riefenstahl kept a notebook for her photographic work titled “Reports and records […] of all photographs”[2], which contained detailed lists of film rolls. Many of the framed slides bear handwritten numbers that refer back to this notebook, providing information about when, where and in which context the photos were taken (figs 1&2). The materials used were detailed one after the other in the lists of film rolls, and hence redundant numbers for the 35mm and medium format film produced by Kodak, Agfa and Perutz exist. Anyone seeking to identify the film numbers from this expedition has to take the type of photographic film used into account (see figs 3&4).

However, the written documentation pertaining to the film material is incomplete, meaning that in some cases it is impossible to match the descriptions to the photographs. The information on the photographic images is supplemented by details of exposure times, film speeds and light conditions. At the end of the notebook we also find a shipping list.

Some of the slides and negatives in the archives include references to document folders where samples of photographs on various topics had been pasted.[3] The numbering on round white labels (figs 5&6) corresponds to the consecutive numbers in the folders found in sets 1044 and 1045 (fig. 7). In the folders for the set numbers 1040 to 1043, some of the prints have been matched with their corresponding negatives (fig. 8). Here the labelling follows the following pattern: sheet number (= sleeve) – row number (in the sleeve) – negative number (fig. 9).

The lists that Riefenstahl created for assorted purposes correspond to the various Nuba groups and other ethnicities.[4] In some of the lists we can discern notes about subjects that had been published (fig. 10), but none of the objects in the archive have hitherto been matched to these notes with any degree of certainty. Riefenstahl categorised individual sets as relating to a particular theme and relabelled them accordingly (fig. 11).

A key made up of round coloured labels provides an overview of various categories (fig. 12). These labels are found in many places throughout the photo archive, such as on the boxes containing sets of objects, on slide frames and on repackaging. Often several such labels are found on a single object. The descriptions of the categories are broadly defined and phrased in general terms. Without additional evidence detailing this process, it is impossible to determine whether it represents a systematic approach to labelling. The significance of the numbering found on some of the labels has yet to be determined (fig. 13).

A number of other markings discovered during the registration of over 11,000 individual objects have yet to be deciphered. These include abbreviations (fig. 14), for example, which could conceivably refer to duplicates provided to publishers or magazines, but they might equally be the initials of people’s names (DH, DF, DM). However, no evidence exists to support either of these interpretations. In addition, the slide frames are inscribed with various symbols (fig. 15), but once again we have been unable to discover their meaning.

JH

The overwhelming majority of Riefenstahl’s photographs from the Nuba Mountains and surrounding regions was taken with 35mm cameras on colour transparency film. She was mainly interested in expressive, powerful motifs, but no thematic or formal classification of the photographs exists. Information as basic as where and when the images were taken, whether films are linked to any other contents, and the identities of the people shown is largely missing or present only in incomplete lists. The relationships between originals and duplicates or reproductions were generally not recorded and can be determined only by visually comparing the material.

As a result, thematic relationships and the circumstances under which the images were taken must be reconstructed through research. In many cases, the materials can only be interpreted by viewing and comparing the images – including those in other archives and in the publications. To accelerate the cataloguing process and provide greater ease of handling, all the 35mm material was initially digitised.

The digitised slides form the basis for the collaborative research with representatives of the Nuba communities. This was the only way images of all the motifs could be brought to Uganda for the workshops in order to be viewed and discussed there. The collaborative viewing of the photographs has two main goals: first, a graded classification of access rights for the relatives of people shown in the pictures as well as for researchers and the public and, second, the identification of the scenes and, wherever possible, the individuals in the photographs.

During digitisation, the contents of the various groups of objects belonging to the estate were kept together in order to preserve the original organisation of Riefenstahl’s working archive for future research. Riefenstahl grouped selected images according to categories which she subjectively regarded as important and which recur as chapter titles in her publications, such as “Requiem” as the heading for Masakin funeral ceremonies and “Die Kunst der Maske” (The art of the mask) as the title of the chapter on face painting among the warriors of Kau Nyaro. Descriptions such as “Nuba in Kleidern” (Nuba in clothing) and “Landschaft mit Hütten” (Landscape with huts) are an expression of Riefenstahl’s external perspective. The remainder of the slides are organised into a qualitative hierarchy, for example “Reserve”, “Zweite Wahl” (Second-rate quality), “Archiv“ (Archive) etc. – but often lack any further indication of their content.

Our second step was to digitise the paper prints which Riefenstahl made for presentations. The cataloguing process also involves re-sorting the images digitally in order to trace the evolution of Riefenstahl’s own system of categorisation. For this purpose, descriptors such as “Agriculture”, “Musical instruments” and “Ceremonies” were formulated in cooperation with Nuba representatives. These descriptors reference standardised vocabularies and constitute the first step towards providing fuller descriptions, since local perspectives cannot be precisely captured in this way. They serve both to restructure the holdings and to make them easily searchable. The terms can be freely combined to describe the images in greater detail and assign them to multiple categories.

In order to process the images on the basis of what they show, we were able to use AI image recognition software that employs an image search process being developed at Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin for the project “Human.Machine.Culture – Artificial Intelligence for the Digital Cultural Heritage” (funded by the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media as part of the German government’s national AI strategy). This tool is especially helpful for reconstructing interrelationships between images and searching for different pictures showing the same individual. For example, there are several films of a traditional race for young women for which Riefenstahl provided no labels at all; she did, however, use individual images of the event in other contexts. After a delegate from Kau Nyaro had thematically categorised and annotated this series of images, the photos that had once belonged together were reunited by means of an image similarity search.

In the course of the collaborative research, many people were identified in the Kau Nyaro region who were still living. Thanks to AI, other photographs of the same people can be identified and labelled with the relevant information. Re-sorting the digitised images and adding metadata serves to prepare the image data so that it can be transferred to the Pan-Nuba Council for its own research.

KP

The stock of Nuba photographs comprises a large number of prints, negatives and slides in a large variety of techniques and materials. The condition of the individual objects reveals evidence of active use. Most of the photographs bear multiple annotations on the reverse, and labels have been affixed or paper notes pasted on. This usage has led to significant physical damage, including scratches, creases and fingerprints as well as occasional tears and visible discolouration resulting from glue or adhesive tape applied to the backs of the photos.

A representative selection of large-format cibachrome photographs was pasted on black cardboard for display purposes. The photographs, negatives and slides were stored in cartons and portfolios which are unsuitable for conserving photographic materials. At the start of conservation and restoration work, and before the materials were digitised, all of the photographs were cleaned. Any overlying dust or grime was removed as were traces of glue and adhesive tape. Tears and sharp creases were reinforced and backed with Japanese tissue paper to prevent further damage during handling.

After each photograph was scanned it was placed in a new sleeve of archival photo paper. All of the cartons and portfolios were replaced with suitable boxes made of archival cardboard. Before the cibachrome prints were packed they were removed from their black cardboard backing because the material was damaging the photos.

Most of the negatives were stored in plastic sleeves or in glassine envelopes from the film lab, and these had been placed in commercially available document folders. The negatives were packed in sleeves of photo archive paper and closed filing boxes for conservation purposes. The framed color transparencies, most of which had previously been stored in a number of different plastic boxes, were also repacked in new slide boxes made of archival cardboard. The new packaging materials and storage facilities featuring controlled temperature and humidity ensure the optimal conditions for archiving these photographic materials in the long term.

HP/SP