DOI: 10.55804/jtsuSPEKALI-17-3

1. Introduction – Aims and Objectives

The aim of this publication is to investigate the Georgian-language recordings preserved in the so-called sound archive of the Humboldt University of Berlin – the recordings had been performed by both Georgian and non-Georgian Caucasian prisoners in 1915-1918 in the camps operating on the territory of Germany after the First World War. To this end, we considered it necessary to cover the following issues:

- The Humboldt University sound archive and its history;

- The general historical and cultural context of prisoner camps established in Germany after the First World War, its formal and actual purpose;

- The emergence of the idea of making voice recordings, the developers of the idea and the initiators; recording technologies and quality; the original purpose of the idea itself and its adaptation to the requirements dictated by the actual situation at the camps;

- Georgian-language corpora presented in the archive, general principles of their cataloging; The Mannheim corpus as a direct research object;

- The development of research criteria for linguistic and semantic aspects based on the Mannheim corpus; generalization of the developed model for the purpose of studying other corpora.

2. Phono-archive/Sound Archive of the Humboldt University of Berlin

The phono-archive/sound archive of the Humboldt University of Berlin (Lautarchiv der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin,  also - Berliner Lautarchiv) has a century-old history.  It was founded on April 1, 1920 by the German linguist specializing in English studies, Wilhelm Doegen (*1877, Berlin –†1967, Berlin) and includes 7,500^[1] audio recordings cataloged to date, made on wax, shellac, gelatin and aluminum plates. It is rather noteworthy that the archive is also a home to  (in a fragmentary form, but still) phonograms, manuscripts and photo-documents of the same period.

The phono-archive had been kept intact, in its original form for a long time; however, in 1990, it was the phonetician, Dieter Mehnert who copied the records and restructured the entire archive; in 2019, the process of records digitization was completed and the archive became the constituent part of the so-called Humboldt-Forum. Currently, there is an ongoing re-cataloguing of the phono-archive supervised by Christopher Li; from 2023, the updated and expanded phono-archive will be able to assist various visitors at the same time - both individual researchers of a narrow field and groups working on interdisciplinary projects of a wide profile.^[2]

The sound archive is truly outstanding due to several circumstances:

• From a historical point of view, it revives the German Empire (Deutsches Kaiserreich; 1871–1918), as the constitutional monarchy and the Weimar Republic (Weimarer Republik; 1918–1933) as the Parliamentary Democratic Republic in the form of audio portraits of their prominent representatives;

• On the technical level, it is an accurate chronicle of the creation and development of audio recording technologies and appropriate inventory in Germany of that time;

• From the linguistic perspective, the said archive is the first attempt to gather about 250 languages and dialects of the world in one space, which is considered a rich cultural monument and is still unique due to its volume and diversity;

• This is the first attempt to create an acoustic archive across Europe whose theoretical focus is on linguistic, folklore and anthropological studies; in terms of its practical application, this archive is a remarkable example collecting, systematizing and archiving empirical material in this field;

• And finally, the archive is outstanding with its delicate nature both in terms of physical and semantic parameters (it is often referred to as “Sensible Sammlung”). Firstly, in the sense that the records that were made under limited technical conditions cannot withstand intensive use and the quality of the original copy might be easily jeopardized; in addition, the slight lexical changes deliberately made in the standard, casual texts (fables, poems, etc.; see Chapter 5) performed by the prisoners of war (POWs), and the subtle personal information encoded in this way, are not easily recognizable by ordinary listeners, not to mention their adequate decoding.^[3]

The topic of this study is the sound recordings made purely with phonological purpose (their total number exceeds 3,800) with a particular focus on the Georgian-language recordings, which has been made public for the very first time (See Sections 4 and 5.).

3. World War I Camps in Germany

3.1. Camp Residents

After the end of the WWI, many foreigners of completely different backgrounds, professions, statuses, and age groups (from 17 to 55 years) found themselves trapped in Germany from different parts of the world (Despite the rich number of sources, the exact number is still unknown.). A large part of them accounted for military personnel/POWs (“Kriegsgefangene”); along with the military personnel, there was the so-called category of privileged foreigners, in particular, non-military persons/civilians (“Zivilisten”), who due to personal affairs (work, qualification, education, marriage, tourism, etc.) happened to be on the German territory and could not leave the country before the outburst of the war. Since the representatives of the second category were also qualified as “foreigners”, they were obliged, like POWs, to obey the existing regulations. In accordance to these regulations, all of them should have been isolated in order not to be assimilated with the local population and  to make sure that the process of their surveillance was properly managed.

3.2. Types of Camps

All types of establishments that could be considered as the shelter for any of the above-mentioned categories of foreigners were referred to as camps.^[4] However, the purpose of each of these camps was different, as well as the rules of conduct, the forms of surveillance, the degree of rigor, the rights and duties of the detained, the detention period, and the labor regulations of prisoners. Accordingly, the names of the camps were also different: the camp intended for military personnel participating in the war was called the “camp for war prisoners” (“Kriegsgefangenenlager”) - it was considered a low-category shelter, whose residents were not allowed to work, move around freely on the camp territory, or interact with each other; the degree of surveillance was determined according to the camp residents’ nationality: for example, the living conditions of the Russian prisoners were unbearable (See below the information about the Georgians.), as described in classical historical and encyclopedic sources. From the latest literature, it will suffice to mention the research project conducted by the Russian sociologist, Oksana Nagornaya, which she carried out based on the materials collected in German archives and published them as a book in 2010 [Нагорная, 2010].

There were also special/propaganda camps for Arab, Indian and African Muslims: “Halbmondlager” (Crescent) in Wünsdorf and “Weinberglager” in Zossen, which were used for ideological purposes, in this particular case, to suppress the anti-colonial aspirations among the residents.^[5]

For the privileged caste – civilians who happened to be in Germany during the war (their number was more than 800,000) – there were “internee camps”, aka “internment camps” (“Internierungslager”),^[6] whose residents were allowed to certain benefits: there were no predetermined regulations there; residents were not forbidden to interact with each other or move around in the territory of the camp; even more, they were allowed to pursue sports activities, music, art; they could organize exhibitions,  evenings of artistic endeavors, etc. They themselves were entrusted with ensuring the order. German controllers kept them under a somewhat formal surveillance from the outside and interfered only in case of necessity (suicide, escape from the camp, etc.).

3.3. Calling up Georgians for the First World War and their Placement in Camps

In the First World War, Georgians/Caucasians were recruited mainly in three ways: a) by the order of the Russian Empire that aimed to have as many warriors as possible, regardless of nationality, to pursue the interests of the Empire on the global arena; b) through hiring; c) through volunteering, by having volunteers join the so-called Georgian Legion (“Georgische Legion”).^[7] This legion was formed with the support of the pro-German Committee for the Independence of Georgia („Komitee für die Unabhängigkeit Georgiens“) operating in Germany at that time. The committee had been active in 1915-1917 and was in an alliance with Germany in the hope that the German Empire would support Georgians in the future to free themselves from  the Russian Empire and gain independence.^[8]

Interestingly, there were also many non-Georgian Muslims from the mountaineous regions of the Caucasus such as Lazi, Chans, Acharians, Abkhazians, Ossetians among the so-called “Christian Georgian warriors” [Zürrer W., 1978: 85]. There were also Georgian-speaking Armenians, Azerbaijanis and Greeks residing in Georgia. At the last stage of the war, they were transferred to the Salzwedel camp in Saxony-Anhalt [ibid. 96], where first they were given agricultural tasks, and then various types of random tasks. Perhaps it was due to their pro-German and anti-Russian inclination that Georgian warriors were placed in the camps with Turks, Indians and Arab Muslims and lived in relatively bearable, humane conditions. Life in camps was more difficult for the Georgians who had joined the Russian army - they did not enjoy similar benefits; however, they still received a certain support from the emigrants who had fled from Georgia at that time.

4. Camp as a Research Laboratory

It is rather interesting how the above-discussed camps were turned into the so-called research laboratories. This was encouraged by the similar interests of the state officials and intellectuals of the German Empire in 1915-1918 to explore and describe the individual and national characteristics of the camp residents:

- This interest was coming from the intellectuals (scholars of humanities: linguists, historians, anthropologists, ethnologists, folklorists, musicologists) to obtain empirical materials directly on their grounds as opposed to arranging expensive expeditions in distant countries, which was nearly impossible due to complicated and financially challenging situation caused by the war. The scholars considered the diversity of the prisoners in each camp an ideal precondition for studies – this factor was key to collecting the maximum amount of material in a short period of time, in one location, in several languages and dialects^[9] at the same time. The scholars found the group activities of the camp residents particularly favorable for studies in order to make sure that the database was drafted according to valid criteria in terms of cataloging and archiving, which would further facilitate their work;

- The scholars’ interests were absolutely in line with the intentions of the German government, which was fueled by political motivation to facilitate, if necessary, the identification of prisoners based on their exact data. At the same time, to some extent, their aim was to distinguish the typical, universal characteristics of other nations.

Accordingly, in 1915, the German government issued an imperial decree on the formation of a Commission of Scholars^[10]  (the Phonographic Commission)  whose members were given the right to pay visits to the camps without any restrictions; Wilheml Doegen served as the head of commission. Stemming from the nature of the commission, (willingly or unwittingly)  there was a place for political incorrectness - the camp residents both military personnel and civilians became “study objects”, “objects of observation;” the detailed information had to be compiled about them, taking into account all features (background, appearance, social status, religious beliefs, speech, areas of interest, etc.; see Appendix 1).

The main emphasis was put on the study of the prisoners’ speech, and therefore, on the linguistic aspect, which led to the making of acoustic recordings - the audiograms, which are represented as an icon of the Humboldt-Forum, are the primary object of the analysis of this study. Setting priorities in such a manner was dictated, on the one hand, by a large-scale pursuit - a noble desire to respect other cultures, preserve a wide range of linguistic diversity for future generations - to create a remarkably unique monument^[11] of cultural heritage. However, behind this benevolent endeavor, it had a rather practical purpose - to use the recordings in order to teach languages, first of all, German language to the camp residents in an accelerated manner and to introduce the audition method in this process. Thus, they were trying to solve the problem of interacting^[12] with prisoners. The publication of several textbooks of the German language intended for foreigners (Bulgarians, Poles, Russians, etc.) must have served to find solution to the above-mentioned problem during the war years. Among these textbooks, Georgian readers might find the book, Introductory course of the German Language for Georgians, authored by the Slavist and Caucasologist, Richard McKelain, particularly interesting [Meckelein, 2022].

5. Georgian-language Recordings of the Audio Archive, Mannheim Corpus

The recordings in Georgian language that we managed to find in the Phono-archive  were made in different POW camps of the following cities: Mannheim, Ohrdruf, Münster, Puchheim and Sagan. Due to the large number of materials and the specificity of the technical processing, for the present study, we have decided to focus on the Mannheim corpus alone, which includes 24 records. Based on the existing archival materials, it is easy to see the high quality of the registration cards developed by Wilhelm Diogenes and Adolph Dirr (See below.) striving for uniformity of description aspects and structuring. There should be a separate discussion to explore how successfully these researchers managed the task in the complete absence of technical support at that time (graphic records were completed by hand; there was no equipment to complete audiograms at a proper technical level.), considering the predominantly low social background of the camp residents - most of them could not even read or write; usually, it was the intermediary who would write letters to their family members on their behalf.

5.1. Adolf Dirr – The Person Who Made Georgian-language Recordings

In 1915-1918, it was Adolf Dirr (*1867 Augsburg – †1930 Passau), a wide-profile philologist, linguist, ethnologist and Caucasologist, who was assigned to manage Georgian-language recordings in the camps.  Adolf Dirr took interest in the Caucasian civilization as early as his student years; even before the First World War, he had studied Georgian and Caucasian languages and had traveled to Georgia several times. During his stay in Tbilisi, he studied and published particular research works about Udi and Tabasaran dialect (as exotic languages) [Dirr, 1903]; after the war, he published Georgian folk Tales [Dirr, 1920 a] translated into German (included in the Tales of the Peoples of the World) and his own translations of Georgian Folk Songs [Dirr, 1920a] (from the cycle: Songs of Russian Soldiers).

Despite his numerous achievements, Adolph Dirr’s four hundred-page fundamental work, Einführung in das Studium der kaukasischen Sprachen: mit einer Sprachenkarte (Introductory Course for the Study of Caucasian Languages with a genealogical map [Dirr, 1928 b],  of languages) printed in Leipzig in 1928 is his most outstanding piece of work. And even though his perspectives presented in this work might be controversial to many specialists in the field, we believe it undoubtedly deserves to become an object of special study and respect for Georgian as well as non-Georgian Caucasologists.

5.2. Form and Content of the Record Registration Card Index

According to the recommended model developed by the Commission, the mandatory information about each record should have been presented in the form of four documents:

• Questionnaire that should have included the following objective data related to the proband/person of observation: his/her record number / location of the camp / personal number, surname, nationality, origins / place of residence / native language / education, literacy, the knowledge of Russian or other languages / musical data: vocal skills, knowledge of native folklore, playing any musical instrument, etc.;

• Document II, the protocol, partially repeated the points listed in the questionnaire (surname of the proband, personal number, camp number, etc.), but also supplemented them with data about the material selected for recording such as the title of the text, genre, place of recording, time, form (reciting as a poem, singing), etc.;

• Document III was a text in Georgian language written on a sheet of paper, supplemented by a transcript in German language and the German translation;

• Document IV was the phonogram itself, that is, a live presentation recorded on a tape - singing, reading out the text from a sheet of paper, oral narration.

Stemming from the format of the publication, we are to introduce the reader with only one person, Platon Machaidze (see Appendix 1), who happened to be in the Russian camp - personal number 17308, born in 1891 in Kutaisi province, originally from Racha (region in Georgia), Catholic, native language - Georgian, literate, knows Russian at a certain level, is an agriculturist by profession; he articulated clearly and loudly, could sing national songs, but could not play any musical instruments; it is rather interesting that on the last question,  “Would you be willing to have your voice recorded on tape”, he directly gives a negative answer, “Nein”^[13], despite which, as it is obvious from the following documents, he did make recordings, and even several ones at the same time and also contributed to the copying and reproduction of various texts.

6. Linguistic and Semantic Analysis of Georgian-language Records

This sub-section introduces the analysis of the graphic and audio recordings made by the prisoners in the Georgian language at different linguistic levels.

The texts to be read/performed was probably selected by Adolph Dirr himself, as he was rather well acquainted with Georgian and Caucasian folklore; nevertheless, we would not rule out the prisoners’ contribution to the selection process. The diversity of genres and themes of the samples (fable, song, heroic epic, etc.) makes it difficult to classify them according to any criteria. (There is a large number of love songs in the Mannheim corpus.) In order to provide an overall picture, see some pieces that are very well known in Georgia below: Ballad of the “Tiger and the Man” („ლექსი ვეფხისა და მოყმისა“), “Fly away, Black Swallow” („გაფრინდი შავო მერცხალო”), “The one I loved” („ვინც მე მიყვარდა”), “How flattering are Those Twinkling Eyes” („რა ლამაზად გიხდება ეგ ჟუჟუნა თვალები“), “Entering the Garden of Sadness” („სევდის ბაღს შეველ შენაღონები“), “Tano-Tatano” („ტანო-ტატანო”), “Your body is like a Poplar Tree” („ტანი ალვის ხეს მიგიგავს“), “Do you remember, my beauty?” („გახსოვს ტურფავ“), “Two girls were on the way” („ორი გოგო მოდიოდა“), “A girl met me at the turn” („გოგო შემხვდა მოხვეულში“), “The Grape said, I am also a Fruit” („ყურძენმა თქვა, მეც ხილი ვარ“), “Let’s Light the Street Lamp” („ავანთოთ ქუჩის ფარანი“), also, The Parable of the Prodigal Son from the Gospel of Luke, and passages from The Knight in the Tiger’s Skin.

The analysis of the texts at the graphic level revealed that their transfer to a sheet of paper was largely done by the prisoners, which is also evidenced by the variety of handwriting and the poor calligraphic manner - oftentimes, it is impossible to make out the writing; however, along with these samples, there are also texts copied in a refined calligraphic style, written in the same handwriting, which encourages us to conclude that their performer must have been Adolf Dirr per se. There are also duplicates performed in school notebooks by Giorgi Nalikrishvili and Platon Machaidze.^[14]

On the graphic level, along with the spelling errors, the manuscripts also show, on the one hand, poor Georgian vocabulary and grammar, on the other hand, the influence of archaisms, dialects, and local speech. To prove the case, bringing just one fragment of the above-mentioned Platon Machaidze’s record of reading Giorgi Chaladidel’s poem, I remember the first day at school, will suffice: „მახსობს პირველათ სასწავლებელშიდ წასაყვანათ რომ მამაზადეს“ [...] მხოლთ ეს მახსობს გამამყვა დედა [...] /Machaidze 346 b/ [“I remember the first day at school when I was prepared to go [...] I only remember that my mother followed me”];

It is rather significant that Adolphe Dirr happened to be copying the same lexical units in the German transcript in some passages, whereas other passages stand out with the complete observance of articulation norms. The name of the folk song, My Wife got Angry with Me („ცოლი გამიდიდგულდა“) included in Machaidze’s notebook was presented with certain alterations („ქალი გამიკუნტულდა“), apparently due to the dialectic influence of his native area.

The inaccuracies presented above, which were spotted at the graphic level, are also repeated in the audio recordings, where they are even more noticeable due to the violation of the prosodic norms of literary Georgian. There is also a number of sociolinguistic instances that deserve a separate study, for example, recordings of non-Georgian individuals, whose accent, regardless of the performer’s Georgian surname (in the case of Philip Murjikneli, originally from Akhalkalaki), can be recognized as a peculiar articulation/non-Georgian (in particular, Armenian) accent.

The records compiled in the Mannheim corpus comprise a large number of inaccuracies discussed above. Out of the twenty-four graphic and audio recordings, not a single one is performed in fluent Georgian, which may not be surprising considering the poor education, incompetence and a low social class of most soldiers.

So, what makes these records so interesting, rather than the fact of their existence? They are fascinating thanks to the hidden nuances of the semantic nature, coded through the substitution of lexical units in the text, which are not always easy to decode. Oftentimes it is rather challenging to figure out their actual implication as the reader tends to deem those nuances to be minor mechanical errors.

To illustrate the above, we will present only two corresponding samples in this study. The first is the Machaidze’s version of Fly Away, Black Swallow („გაფრინდი შავო მერცხალო“), in which the lines, “Hurry and bring  a message from my brother at war” („ამბავი ჩამოგვიტანე ომში წასულის ძმისაო“) are replaced by the words, “Bring a message from my three brothers at war” („ამბავი ჩამოგვიტანე ჩემის სამისა ძმისაო“). Thus, the performer unambiguously informs us of the grief of the Machaidze family, about the disappearance of three brave brothers who were lost in the war (The fourth one was Platoni himself.) [Record 375 b]. The second example is the tape of the Murjikneli’s version of Oh, my Vineyard („ვაიმე ჩემო ვენახო“), where the number, “seven” is changed into “four” in the following line, “I have not seen you for four years” [record 435 b], thus indicating the time span of his detention at the camp.

7. Conclusions / Perspectives

This publication is the very first attempt to study the Georgian-language materials in the Humboldt-Forum Phono-archive , and this is the first time Georgian society has been provided with the findings. Due to the documentary nature of the study and the large number of facts presented about the Mannheim Corpus, we decided to refrain from formulating conclusions in a traditional manner, which, in the best scenario, would have resembled a selective-chronological repetition of the above. Hence, we tried to put forward further research prospects, instead. These are the following:

• The analysis of the records revealed the validity of the step-by-step research method that we have developed - on the cultural, historical, linguistic, semantic and sociolinguistic levels (See subsection 5.3.) - which might also be used for the study of the rest of the Georgian-language records (Ohrdruf, Münster, Puchheim and Sagan). Applying this approach will make sure that the study of Mannheim corpus won’t be the only attempt of similar research projects  and we will be able to learn as much as possible about the struggles and sufferings of other compatriots participating in the First World War through coded graphic or acoustic recordings;

• The next step of the analysis is believed to be the contextualization of the Georgian-language records made in different types of camps, that is, to do comparing and contrasting of these recordings;

• The methodology proposed in the paper might also be successfully used in the study of records made in other languages of the world as well (e.g. Estonian, Armenian, Indian dialects, etc.);

• In the more distant future, when the results of the recordings in other languages have been finalized, it will be interesting to contextualize the information obtained about our compatriots through comparing and contrasting the Georgian language recordings with other recordings in the general historical and cultural narrative of the First World War.

[1]They do not rule out the existence of a larger amount of material, as the audio archive has been studied only episodically/fragmentally so far, which can be explained by the following: firstly, it was not possible to present all corpora in a comprehensive manner through the mere application of the general principles of cataloguing without narrow thematic classification. There are cases when – let’s say, while doing the specific study of this or that complex corpus - due to its significance and content, the material accidentally found in it ought to be belonging to a completely separate thematic corpus; the second explanation might be a lack of interest of modern scholarly circles in audio archives and their research from a new perspective, especially in the absence of proper funding.

[2]The detailed history of the archive is provided in Jochen Hennig’s publication: Wechselnde Formate. Zur rezenten Geschichte der Sprachaufnahmen des Berliner Lautarchivs – ein Bericht. In: Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte : Organ der Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftsgeschichte e.V. Nr. 4, 2016, ISSN 0170-6233, ZDB-ID 134475-4, S. 350–366, doi:10.1002/bewi.201601802; Please, see Thomas Hartmann, Britta Lange, Jochen Hennig: (2015): Du hast mein Wort. Juristische und kulturethische Kriterien für die Nutzung der Aufnahmen aus dem Lautarchiv der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin – Dossier zum interdisziplinären Forschungsseminar.

[3]Please, see Thomas Hartmann, Britta Lange, Jochen Hennig: (2015): Du hast mein Wort. Juristische und kulturethische Kriterien für die Nutzung der Aufnahmen aus dem Lautarchiv der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin – Dossier zum interdisziplinären Forschungsseminar.

[4]It should be noted here that the name – “concentration camp” was established only after the Second World War, when under the dictatorship of the National Socialist regime, the youth sports camps, which were initially active, were first turned into labour-correction institutions, and then into punishment institutions for the non-German population (Jews, Gypsies, etc.).

[5]The inscription on one of the photos of the collector, Markus Kreis states that in order to win the Muslim prisoners over, they were treated especially well; they prepared national dishes for these prisoners, and allowed them to observe Ramadan; They even built a chapel for the Muslim prisoners - the first wooden mosque in Germany: http://www.dortmund-postkolonial.de/?page_id=3392

[6]An example of this type of residence is, for example, the British internment camp operating in the district of Ruhleben in Berlin, whose residents-civilians, according to the Geneva Convention, enjoyed certain benefits and humane treatment: http://www.zitadelle-berlin.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Pressemitteilung-Abstrakt-dt.pdf; https://www.maz-online.de/lokales/havelland/falkensee/ueber-das-leben-im-internierungslager-ruhleben-Z545DM3IABDHZOJZMESFBMHKIQ.html; https://dewiki.de/Lexikon/Internierungslager_Ruhleben.

[7]It was the gathering of 1,500 Georgian/Caucasian warriors in the Turkish city of Samsun in 1914 under the command of Major General Leo Kereselidze that initiated the creation of the Georgian Legion; the recruitment of these warriors into the Legion was carried out in 1915 by Friedrich-Werner Graf von der Schulenburg, who was appointed the commander of the Legion in the same year - https://www.enzyklo.de/Begriff/Georgische_Legion. The Legion split up in 1917 due to the conflict between Turkey and the Committee for the Independence of Georgia: http://german-georgian.archive.ge/de/blog/32

[8]The detailed discussion on the Georgian Legion would be straying away from the topic of our publication, especially considering the fact that a number of Georgian and foreign researchers has already taken genuine interest in studying the subject; out of the studies completed on the matter, we will highlight only Werner Zürer’s twenty-page essay, which presents the German-Georgian relations of that period, the interests of both sides and the contributions of the Georgian Legion in the conditions of various intrigues inherent in the imperialist war and inter-state conflicts of interests – the essay conveys all this with an in-depth, impartial insight into the events, and at the same time with some sarcasm: Werner Zürrer (1978).

[9]The main focus was on the dialects of the English language - as an English-phonetician, Wilhelm Diogenes was personally interested in the matter.

[10]The commission members were the following: anthropologist, Felix von Luschan; musicologist, George Schünemann; Africanist and Caribbeanist, Otto Dempwolff; orientalist, Friedrich Carl Andreas; philologist specializing in English studies, Alois Brandl; scholar of Caucasiology,  Adolf Dirr and others.

[11]Lautarchiv – Geschichte und Perspektive (2022).

[12]For communication, they used “Pidgin-Sprache/Pidgin-Deutsch” in order to be able to interact with each other.

[13]The prisoner/supplementary staff should have underlined one of the following four options in the questionnaire: Ja - Yes / Wahrscheinlich - Maybe / Ungewiss – Not sure / Nein - No.

[14]The names of the other volunteers are unknown; the main contributors to the Mannheim records happen to be these two individuals.