If you’ve spent any time scrolling through history forums or TikTok "unsolved mystery" threads, you’ve probably seen it. A grainy, sepia-toned image of a woman with a distinct silhouette, labeled as a Sarah Baartman real photo. It looks authentic. It’s got that 19th-century grit. But here’s the thing: it’s a total lie.
Photography as we know it didn't even exist when Sarah Baartman was alive.
Sarah died in Paris on December 29, 1815. Louis Daguerre didn't even start tinkering with the first practical photographic process—the daguerreotype—until the late 1830s. Simple math tells the story. Sarah had been gone for twenty years before the first camera could have possibly captured her likeness. So, what are you actually looking at when these "photos" pop up? Usually, they are pictures of other women from the late 1800s, often from "human zoos" or colonial "ethnographic" studies, mislabeled for clicks.
The Sarah Baartman Real Photo Myth vs. The Gritty Truth
Basically, the "photo" people keep sharing is a ghost.
What we actually have are sketches. Watercolors. Cruel, exaggerated caricatures that European artists made to satisfy a public obsessed with "otherness." Sarah, a Khoikhoi woman from South Africa, was taken to Europe in 1810. She was exhibited as the "Hottentot Venus," a title meant to be a sarcastic, mean-spirited joke.
🔗 Read more: At Home French Manicure: Why Yours Looks Cheap and How to Fix It
In London and Paris, she was forced to stand on platforms while people paid two shillings to gawk at her body. Specifically, they were obsessed with her steatopygia—a natural accumulation of fat in the buttocks and thighs common in some Southern African populations.
Why the visual record is so messed up
The images that do exist aren't snapshots; they are propaganda.
- The 1810 Etchings: These were often used as "posters" for her shows. They depict her in a tight, flesh-colored suit that made her look naked to a Victorian audience.
- Scientific Drawings: In 1815, French zoologists like Georges Cuvier and Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire had her "studied." The drawings they produced were designed to make her look less than human—animalistic, even.
- The Plaster Cast: This is the closest thing to a "real photo" we have. After she died, Cuvier made a plaster cast of her body. For over 160 years, this cast, along with her skeleton and brain, was displayed at the Musée de l'Homme in Paris. It wasn't until 1974 that it was finally taken down, and 2002 when her remains were finally sent home to South Africa.
What Most People Get Wrong About the "Photo"
Honestly, the spread of fake photos is more than just a historical error. It’s a continuation of the same objectification she faced in the 1800s. When people share a fake Sarah Baartman real photo, they are often just looking for a spectacle. They want to see the "miracle of nature" that the London posters promised.
But Sarah wasn't a spectacle. She was a woman who spoke several languages. She had a contract (likely a coercive one, but a contract nonetheless). She tried to fight for her rights in a London court in 1810, though the case was dismissed because she "claimed" she wasn't being held against her will. You've got to wonder how much "free will" a person has when they are thousands of miles from home with no money.
💡 You might also like: Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen Menu: Why You’re Probably Ordering Wrong
The actual visual evidence of her life is found in things like the "Les Curieux en Extase" (The Curious in Ecstasy) print from 1815. It shows a group of wealthy French people looking at her through spectacles. It’s a meta-commentary on the very thing people are doing today when they search for her "real photo."
The impact of misidentification
When we look at a random photo of an unnamed African woman from 1890 and call it Sarah Baartman, we erase two people. We erase the woman in the photo, and we replace the real, complex Sarah with a generic image of "suffering."
Historian Rachel Holmes, who wrote The Hottentot Venus: The Life and Death of Saartjie Baartman, emphasizes that Sarah was a person of agency who was trapped in a horrific system. A fake photo strips that nuance away.
Why her image still matters in 2026
You might think, "Why does it matter if the photo is real if the story is true?"
📖 Related: 100 Biggest Cities in the US: Why the Map You Know is Wrong
It matters because of E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness). In a world of AI-generated history, knowing the difference between a 1810 watercolor and a 1890 photograph is the only way to respect the dead.
The struggle to bring Sarah home was a decades-long battle led by activists like Diana Ferrus. When her remains were finally buried in Hankey, South Africa, on August 9, 2002 (National Women's Day), it was supposed to be the end of her being a "visual object." By searching for a Sarah Baartman real photo, we are inadvertently putting her back on the pedestal.
Actionable Steps for History Enthusiasts
If you want to honor Sarah Baartman's memory without falling for the "real photo" trap, here is how you can actually engage with her history:
- Verify the date: If you see an image claimed to be a photo of someone who died before 1839, it's a fake. Period.
- Look for the "Léon de Wailly" portraits: These 1815 watercolors are considered the most accurate (though still clinical) representations of her facial features.
- Support South African heritage sites: Instead of looking at exploitative images, read about the Sarah Baartman Centre of Remembrance in the Eastern Cape.
- Question the "Human Zoo" archives: Many photos labeled as Sarah are actually from the 1889 or 1878 World’s Fairs in Paris. Recognizing this helps stop the spread of misinformation.
Sarah Baartman’s life was defined by people looking at her for the wrong reasons. In 2026, the best thing we can do is stop looking for the "spectacle" of a photo that doesn't exist and start looking at the reality of the woman who did.
To continue learning about the legacy of the Khoikhoi people, research the works of modern South African historians like Yvette Abrahams, who have spent years decolonizing Sarah’s narrative. You can also explore the archival records of the British Museum and the Royal Collection Trust, which house the original 1810 prints—the only true contemporary visual records of her time in London.