ation is the introduction of the UNESCO legislation that has been mentioned in chapter 2. This legislation may have encouraged auction houses, private collectors and antiquities sellers to fend off their collections of mummified remains in the following years (as could be the case for the Leiden museum mummy collection, sold in 1974 and made up of a vari- ety of mummies adjusted as to look as part of one single context (Ordoñez Alvarez, 2014). Other peaks indicate not dates of collection and accession, but rather dates of “rediscov- ery” of collections in storage rooms, such as the Whymper collection found in storage in 1997 at the BM, or the mummies re-accessioned in 2003 at the MEG.
5.3 Where Mummies are Found
In the last few pages, it has been shown that the collecting times across museums can already point to important information regarding global trends in collecting, as well as to the cultural concerns of European museums during the nineteenth century: political re- flection, national identity, public displays of “the other” parts of the world. Furthermore, the relation between these dates of collecting and important political events in the Andes also help to show that there are different levels of interaction that lead to the collecting of mummies. The impact of wars with foreign involvement in the Andes seems to have implied a very relevant opportunity for the collecting of such remains, either personally or as gifts after service. This information also leads to finding commonalities in regards to the “what” and “by whom” of collecting which are explored in more detail later in this chapter. Similar areas are collected because of similar arising opportunities, and war is one of them. Research expeditions are another very relevant opportunity for collecting similar remains. Following the excavations of Reiss and Stübel, other German and French scientists were eager to discover the tombs at Ancón. Many years later, in 1965-1967, young museums like the Naprstek in the Czech Republic looked for mummies in the same regions where other well-known expeditions like those of Bastian, Baessler and Uhle had discovered interesting materials.
The spread of what is collected is another important dataset that needs to be considered. Though the timeframes of collecting point to historically significant moments and motivations, the spread of where these remains are collected can certainly help re- inforce or reject those temporary links. Not only do they convey areas of interaction for collecting, but the locations of collecting point to trade routes of objects and ideas; they speak of limitations of movement as well and, more importantly, they also show a first indication of the cultural representations that are been sought for the Andes, aided by the interactions with local scientists, and reinforced by the continuous visits to the same places that had been already proven to provide a high yield of objects.
In that sense, it is useful to organize the data presented in the previous chapter in terms of provenience. What archival data, accession book entries, and documents alike register
Chapter 5
156
regarding the origin of the mummies in museum collections can differ from one museum cata- log entry to the other. The most commonly used descriptors are a country of origin, an archae- ological site or dig, or the name of the nearest town or region known at the time of collecting. There are many challenges with the interpretation of the locations and point of origin that have been recorded in the available documents, as has been described in chap- ter 2. Because of the unclear descriptions in the documents, and the time that has passed since the objects were collected, sometimes it is easy to misconstrue the name of a town for that of a later formed county, or renamed region. It is also very easy to find several regions with similar names, and therefore one must take into account the routes traveled by the collector, the cultural descriptor of the object, or assign it to a larger area. For ex- ample, in the case of several “Santa Rosa” locations given as a point of origin, the larger region of Lima is used.
In order to avoid mischaracterization of the documentation, the author initially focused exclusively on countries of origin and not on specific regions within those coun- tries. The summary of that information, as found in the documentary information avail- able at each museum, is presented in the graph below.
As can be seen, more than half of the mummies of all the collections are de- scribed as coming from Peru. The second largest provenience is Chile but far behind Peru. In third place we find Argentina, followed closely by Bolivia, and at the very last place Colombia.
The prevalence of Peruvian objects in museum collections from the Andes is not a surprise. Since the 17th century, the fascination with the Inca culture had been a con- stant feature in Europe (Gänger, 2013). It is no wonder then that the objects a museum would be more eager to possess would be those from Peru, land of the Inca Empire. As archaeology developed as a scientific practice, the importance of mummification, textile production, and ceramic decorations of other earlier Andean cultures became increasingly sought after, but not before highlighting Peru and its Pacific coast as a region of intense archaeological and anthropological interest.
Graph 6: Ascribed Countries of Origin for the Mummies in the Collections Part of this Research. Only those countries, or country regions mentioned directly, have been taken into account.
0 120 100 140 80 60 40 20 Argen tina Bolivia Chile Colombia Unkno wn Peru # Mummies Ascribed Country
Figure 6: Ascribed countries of origin for the mummies in the collections part of this research.
Reinventing the Pre-Columbian Past
157