817
ditional head studies, in front of the background screen
divided into two inch square by means of silk threads.
The idea was that the measurements of the body could
be read off the scaled photograph so: “the anatomical
structure of a good academy fi gure or a model of six
feet can be compared with a Malay of four feet height
in height.”
Although Lamprey himself is often attributed with
the photographs himself, it would appear that he only
facilitated them on behalf of the Ethnological Society.
Indeed it is not known precisely if he initiated the
system or was merely acting on instructions, nor is it
clear how subjects were recruited, although a number
appear to have been seaman. However the fact the
President of the Ethnological Society, the distinguished
Darwinian biologist, Thomas Huxley, initiated his own
system within months of the publication of Lamprey’s
system, and with no reference to the latter, suggests
that as science the scheme was found wanting in some
way. The photographs themselves appear to have been
taken for the Ethnological Society by Henry Evans,
described as photographer and scientifi c instrument
maker. Evans was prosecuted for the sale of indecent
photographs in March 1870, a high-profi le case which
raised the question of the boarderline between science
and pornography. It has often been assumed that the
photographs probably commissioned by Lamprey were
part of this prosecution. “Men of Science” (probably
senior members of the Ethnological Society) petitioned
on Evans’ behalf, as did artists whom he was supplying
with model photographs, including Rossetti and Burne-
Jones, but to no avail. Although it was clearly stated that
the “scientifi c” photographs were not those that were
the subject of the prosecution, there is another set of
photographs in existence, using the same models which
are of more questionable intent and are not amongst the
sets commonly found in anthropological collections.
As Evans’ whole stock, including the anthropometric
photographs and studies by O. Rejlander, was burned,
after his conviction, we shall probably never know.
None the less the system was quite infl uential, largely
because it was one of the few instructions in the fi eld to
be published. For instance it resonates through the black
and white chequered background used by Portman and
Molesworth for their 1894 anthropometric studies of the
Andamanese and some Lamprey-system photographs
were reproduced in Carl Dammann’s Anthropologisch-
Ethnologiches Album in Photographien (1873–74). The
photographs have become iconic of nineteenth century
racial beliefs and have been published widely in post-
colonial critical studies and art works, for instance
Faisal Abdu’ Allah’ s untitled installation for “The
Impossible Science of Being” (Photographers Gallery,
London, 1995).
Elizabeth Edwards
See also: Dammann, Carl and FrederickFurther Reading
Lamprey, J.H., “On a method of measuring the human form for
the use of students of ethnology,” Journal of the Ethnological
Society of London (1869) 1:84–85.LANCASTER, JAMES & SONS
(1830–1955)
English photography studio
James Lancaster established his business in Birming-
ham as a spectacle maker and optician in 1830. The
company became J Lancaster and Son around 1876 and
in 1905 it became a limited company. It ceased trading
circa 1955.
W. J. Lancaster (died 18 September 1925) was the
driving force behind the company’s rapid expansion into
photographic equipment from the early 1870s leading
one obituary to describe him as “the pioneer of amateur
photography.” This was achieved by the adoption of a
system of production reported on by George E. Brown in
1930: “The great output of his apparatus was organised
on a system which I do not think has been imitated on a
similar scale in the photographic trade. He had no fac-
tory in the ordinary sense. In Birmingham there have al-
ways been a vast number of individual workshops...and
all making for Lancaster.”
The system of using out-workers to produce parts
and to assemble equipment allowed the company to
sell reasonable quality cameras and lenses in very large
numbers. In 1887 they claimed 25,000 cameras sold,
in 1888 sales of over 15,000 Instantograph cameras, in
1894 sales of over 120,000 cameras and 150,000 lenses
in the previous ten years, and, in 1898, they claimed
to be the largest makers of photographic apparatus in
the world with upwards of 200,000 cameras sold. The
fi rm’s success was based on offering attractive goods
at popular prices.
W. J. Lancaster was granted eighteen patents be-
tween 1885 and 1899 which were incorporated into
the fi rm’s products with the rotary and see-saw shutters
being particularly successful. The fi rm’s fi rst cameras
date from the early 1870s when they also offered fer-
rotype equipment and chemicals, but it was the period
from the early 1880s to early 1900s that was the fi rm’s
most successful. Their Le Merveilleux, Le Meritoire,
and Instantograph cameras were introduced in 1882
and remained popular into the early twentieth century
undergoing numerous revisions. The Instantograph
had sold over 100,000 by the end of the century. Their
watch camera was patented in 1886 and two versions
were produced including a compact ladies version, the
Rover (1892) was a popular hand camera and a range of