All posts by natrichard

Crossing centuries, trades, arts and sciences

Some notes on the spreading calliper, by Marina L. Sardi (UNLP)

Turin, April 12, 2024

Much of scientific activity has been dependent on the use of instruments, whose creation and production with increasing levels of technical complexity has been one of the most conspicuous aspects of the last 250 years. Its representation has highlighted objects such as telescopes, microscopes, clocks, cameras, and others of refined manufacture, which occupy relevant spaces in science exhibitions, or even in art exhibitions, and have frequently been the focus of historical studies.

Physical anthropology, during its period of institutionalization in the 19th century, searched for precision and the replacement of descriptions by “objective” numbers, developing a vast corpus of instruments. As physicians and naturalists organised their skull collections in their cabinets during those years or even earlier, they also acquired measuring instruments, often devoted to phrenological studies. The long-desired precision would be achieved through the accumulation of great amounts of observations and, for this purpose, voyagers, military, religious, authorities and traders were invited to transport and manipulate instruments, collaborating with the anthropological enterprise by sending their measurements from the colonial territories, prisons, or hospitals to scientific societies and institutions.

The French physician Paul Broca (1824-1880), founder of the Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, was the main promoter of the use of scientific apparatus, collaborating frequently with Louis Mathieu (1817-1879), a manufacturer of surgical and orthopaedic instruments. He suggested, however, in his Instructions Générales pour les Recherches et Observations Anthropologiques that “all the instruments used in the arts and industry to study and represent the form of the objects can be applied to man” (Broca 1865, p. 38). Indeed, the practice of craniometry and anthropometry adopted instruments used by the craftsmen who were most familiar with the forms of the human body -tailors, hatters, and shoemakers- or by craftsmen involved in the building industry. Such was the case with compasses, also called callipers.

In the virtual catalogue of the Museo Galileo (2010-2015) in Florence (Italy) a compass is defined as an instrument consisting of two bars of equal length, articulated together, so that they can adopt any relative inclination. There are different kinds of compasses for different operations, from drawing to calculating proportions, from measuring gauges to determining positions at the sea. One of them is known as the spherical or spreading calliper and is characterised by its curved bars -together with a graduated scale- which allow measuring the external diameters of objects, being useful when these do not present a uniform shape. This type of calliper was used by sculptors, architects and builders, to execute columns and other works with precision and to reproduce similar shapes; by the military, to measure the calibre of artillery; also by metal or wood turners, locksmiths, and mechanics.

The spreading calliper was used to measure the cranial maximum length and breadth, in order to calculate the cephalic index, in the inhabitants of different places and times. This index had been proposed in 1842 by the Swedish anatomist Anders Retzius (1796-1860), allowing skulls to be classified as dolichocephalic (long and narrow), mesocephalic and brachycephalic (short and wide) (Blanckaert 2009). It became a racial indicator and was widely adopted by scholars who, inspired by growing feelings of nationalism, searched to know which races had populated a nation (Luyendijk-Elshout 1997). This index was used as a method of personal identification, such as that of Alphonse Bertillon (1893), and was also adopted in the field of criminal anthropology, to explain the greater or lesser development of certain cranial parts that would explain the reasons for criminality. All this suggests that the instruments and measurements not only served science but also political interests, as in the case of instruments for medical use (Cházaro 2017).

As the 19th century progressed, manufacturers in collaboration with scholars in different countries added dozens of instruments for orienting and drawing skulls or bones and for measuring skulls, bones and living persons, many of which served the same function as the thickness calliper, such as the cadre à maxima, proposed by Broca and sold by Mathieu in Paris.

At the end of the 19th century, there was such a diversity of measurement methods that scholars considered that the lack of agreement was detrimental to the advancement of the discipline. Thus, in 1906 and 1912 the Monaco and Geneva Agreements were reached, respectively, reducing the number of measurements to be surveyed with a few instruments: the anthropometer (to measure the body), the tape measure and the sliding and spreading callipers. Callipers, then, have always been part of the basic kit recommended for use in those instructions written for travellers and in manuals for the teaching of physical anthropology.

In the museum system of the University of Turin (Italy), there are instruments, which were, most of them, made by Italian, French and German makers. Spreading callipers are among them and their study allows us to trace some histories of anthropology in Italy and the itineraries of these objects. First, the instruments of the Museum of Human Anatomy “Luigi Rolando”, mostly manufactured by Mathieu, seem to be related to one of the great cranial collections that are housed there, which belonged, until 1913, to the Craniological and Phrenological Museum of the Royal Academy of Medicine (Mangiapane et al. 2017).[i] This museum was the first craniological museum in Italy, created in 1866, due to the efforts of the physician Antonio Garbiglietti (1807-1877), one of the pioneers of Italian anthropology[ii]. Garbiglietti was interested in phrenology, but over the years, with the decline of these theories and the installation in Turin of Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909) in 1876, he focused on anthropological studies, more precisely on the skulls of famous people (Giacobini et al. 2023). By that time, the collection was enriched with archaeological -e.g. Etruscan, Roman- and extra-European -e.g. from Patagonia- skulls as well as plaster casts of famous people – e.g. Napoleon I – and some criminals.  Garbiglietti was succeeded by Alberto Gamba (1822-1901), who strongly promoted this museum through craniological studies. When Gamba died, interest in craniology declined and the museum was transferred in 1913 to the Anatomical Institute (Giacobini et al. 2023). The transfer was accompanied by a “List of the skulls and other material belonging to the Craniological Museum of the Royal Academy of Medicine of Turin, now consigned and arranged in the Institute of Normal Human Anatomy of the Royal University of Turin”, compiled in 1913 and written by Alfonso Bovero (Giacobini et al. 2023). This document gives an account of the instruments that were present at that time; among them, spreading callipers (Fig. 1)


Figure 1. Spreading callipers belonging to the Museum of Human Anatomy “Luigi Rolando”, University of Turin.

Secondly, Cesare Lombroso’s instruments for medical-clinical, stesiological, physiological and anthropometric studies are also housed in the museum system of the University of Turin (Galloni 2009); among them, the calliper this physician used to discern whether “criminals”, “lunatics” and “honest” persons differed in their skulls (Fig. 2). In addition to observing the “cranial anomalies” that would predominate in criminals, Lombroso’s method included similar measurements to those taken by physical anthropologists (Lombroso 1876, 1878). In the archives of the Museum of Criminal Anthropology “Cesare Lombroso” (Turin, Italy) it is possible to detect the measurement of maximum length and breadth, obtained on the skulls of his collection, in order to elucidate whether criminals were brachycephalic or dolichocephalic.

Figure 2. Cesare Lombroso’s spreading calliper, built by Tecnomasio Milano. Museum of Criminal Anthropologia “Cesare Lombroso”, Università degli Studi de Torino.

These files also reveal the strategies applied for data collecting, which required people working in the judicial or hospital system to send lists of numbers or forms with observations made on numerous people. What is remarkable in these files is the enormous amount of blank data. This would result from the fact that the system proposed by Lombroso lacked precision, in which many observations could be made without the use of instruments. However, among the few data recorded, we can observe that the length and breadth of the skull, together with the cephalic index, measured on living and dead people, are frequently given. This tells us that many people in judicial and hospital institutions manipulated a spreading calliper. Returning to Lombroso, his calliper is currently exhibited in the Museum of Criminal Anthropology, in a vitrine dedicated to the numerous scientific instruments used by this researcher (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Vitrine devoted to the Lombroso’s instruments. Note that the calliper is in the centre of the lowest shelf; to the right, in the adjacent room, it is possible to observe Lombroso’s skeleton. Museo di Antropologia Criminale Cesare Lombroso”, Università degli Studi de Torino. Source: https://www.museolombroso.unito.it/visita/pianta-museo/sala-2/

In Turin, the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography is another place that houses instruments. An important part of them belonged to the physician and Egyptologist Giovanni Marro (1875 – 1952), who founded this museum. Other instruments were added in further years, including two sliding callipers with curved branches, one with a graduated scale of 30 cm and the other of 60 cm, more suitable for body measurements (Fig. 4). These would have entered the museum in the 1950s and no further information is available. Finally, the Scientific and Technological Archive of the University of Turin also has three instruments that a doctor surnamed Reginato had in his house and that his family donated, without any additional information. Among them, there is a spreading calliper, manufactured by the German company Zimmerman.

Figure 4. Callipers belonging to the Museo di Antropologia e di Etnografia, Università degli Studi de Torino, fabricados por Luigi Corino. Cortesía de Gianluigi Mangiapane.

These “cose di scienza” (Mangiapane et al. 2017) have been, in the case of physical anthropology, necessary elements in the production of knowledge and the shaping of the disciplinary identity. Their study allows us to think about the relevant role of instruments in the standardisation of methods, how they circulated across places far from those in which they were created, who were their users, and how they mobilised data.

Scientific instruments are cultural assets, although they have not always been treated as such in museums. In some places they were distinguished as specific research objects; in others, they were juxtaposed with workshop tools; or abandoned in toolboxes; in others, they were associated with the name of a prestigious researcher who acquired and used them. Many scientific instruments are preserved and often exhibited in science museums to represent technological progress; but, if there is no explicit conservation policy, they may end up dismantled or in pieces, often occupying marginal spaces in an institution. Conversely, the instruments may not be in warehouses or vitrines, but be in use in laboratories, as is the case of many spreading callipers from the Anthropology Division of the Museo de La Plata (Argentina) that are used for the numerical survey in biological anthropology research projects. These callipers are, in fact, still for sale by many specialised instrument makers.

In sum, the spreading calliper, without having undergone too many changes in its construction or even the addition of digitising devices, has moved through various social worlds and is still useful for scientific measurement. It allows us to tell different stories, but not only that. Its versatility, precision, easy handling and lower cost -compared to other complex instruments- ensure its validity for measurement.

Credits to: Cristina Cilli, Giacomo Giacobini, Gianluiggi Mangiapane and Mara Fausone.

[i] Another part of the collections are derived from the ex-Anatomical Institute of Torino.

[ii] Garbiglietti believed that the progress of science was due to the foundation of museums and the creation of collections of all nations (Giacobini et al. 2023).

References

Blanckaert C. 2009. De la race à l’évolution. Paul Broca et l’anthropologie française (1850-1900). Paris: L’Harmattan.

Broca P. 1865. Instructions Générales pour les recherches et observations anthropologiques. Paris: Victor Masson et fils.

Cházaro L. 2017. Trade in medical instruments and colonialist policies between Mexico and Europe in the nineteenth century”. In Morrison-Low AD, Schechner SJ, Brenni P eds. How Scientific Instruments Have Changed Hands. Leiden: The Netherlands: Brill, pp. 212-226. doi: 10.1163/9789004324930_010

Galloni MR. 2009. Gli strumenti scientifici. In Montaldo S, Trappero P eds. Il Museo di Antropologia criminale “Cesare Lombroso”. Turin, UTET, pp. 153-167.

Giacobini G, Mangiapane G, Picco A. 2023. Alle Origini Della Museologia Antropologica Italiana. Il Museo Craniologico Della Reale Accademia Di Medicina Di Torino. Scientia 1. doi: 10.53134/2974-9433-202301-101

Lombroso, C. 1876. L’uomo delinquente studiato in rapporto alla antropologia, alla medicina legale ed alle discipline carcerarie. Milan: Ulrico Hoepli.

Lombroso, C. 1878. Cranio. In Albertini et al. eds. Enciclopedia medica italiana diretta per le singole specialità dai dottori. Milan: F. Vallardi, vol. 2, parte 2, pp. 1813-1900.

Luyendijk-Elshotu AM. 1997. Opening address: The magic of the skull. “Commercium craniorum” in the nineteenth century. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 7, 571-574.

Mangiapane G, Giacobini G, Malerba G, Cilli C. 2017. La collezione osteologica del Museo di Anatomia umana “Luigi Rolando” dell’Università degli Studi di Torino: un esempio di riordino di “cose di scienza”. Museologia Scientifica Memorie 17, 66-70.

Museo Galileo. 2010-2015. Museo Virtuale. Istituto e Museo di Storia della Scienza. Accessed April 1th 2024 en: https://catalogo.museogalileo.it/approfondimento/Compasso.html

CL: About a label and the Lartet-Christy prehistory collection (Part 1), by Nathalie Richard

Fig. 1 – A label connecting most SciCoMove project partners ©photography by the author.

During my travels with SciCoMove, I came across an object that connects almost all the project partners. It is a label bearing the initials CL, associated with a location and a date (fig. 1). I found it in Barcelona, in the collections currently held by the Archaeology Museum of Catalonia; in Heidelberg, in the collections of the university’s Institute of Prehistory; in Neuchâtel, in the collections of the Laténium; in Mexico City, in the showcases of the UNAM Geology Museum; and in the Museum of La Plata. This label can be defined as a “paraobject”, to borrow a notion coined by José Beltrán (CNRS, TEMOS UMR 9016), now associated with SciCoMove. It is separate from the specimen to which it is affixed, but is intimately associated with it, providing additional information about its history.

What do the initials “CL” stand for?

These two letters refer to two well-known figures in the history of prehistoric archaeology [Coye, 1998; Richard, 2008]. Together, in the 1860s, they excavated the sites in southwestern France whose names appear on the labels.

The first was Edouard Lartet (1801-1871). Born in south-western France, he studied law in Toulouse and Paris. During his stay in the French capital, he became interested in the natural sciences and, on his homecoming, turned away from the practice of law to dedicate himself to paleontology. A full-time amateur, he explored the Sansan site in the Gers department, where he discovered fossil monkey bones. The Ministry of Public Instruction and the Academy of Sciences were so interested in his discoveries that they funded his research, and remains of “Pliopithecus” (1836) and “Driopithecus” (1856) found in the department of Gers were sent to the Muséum national d’histoire naturelle in Paris. These fossils played an instrumental role in the debate on the antiquity of man. Indeed, if it could be asserted that anthropoid apes existed in geologically ancient times, it became credible to assume that man, a related species, also lived in those remote periods. Lartet himself took an interest in this question, and from 1860 onwards undertook excavations, notably in the Aurignac shelter (Haute-Garonne), where he discovered bones of extinct animals and human artefacts [Laurent 1993; Lartet archives online at https://tolosana.univ-toulouse.fr/corpus/archives-prehistoriens ]. Based on the data gathered during his excavations, Lartet proposed the first chronology of prehistoric human times in 1861, suggesting that ages be identified according to the fauna associated with the remains [Lartet 1861, Richard 1992]. He identified the age of the cave bear, the age of the elephant and rhinoceros, the age of the reindeer and the age of the aurochs. Although his ideas were quickly challenged, the term “Age of the Reindeer” has survived to this day. At the end of his life, his national and international recognition as a paleontologist earned Lartet an appointment as a Professor at the Muséum national d’histoire naturelle in 1869. However, his health prevented him from carrying out this function, and he died in 1871.

From 1863 onwards, Lartet collaborated with the British Henry Christy (1810-1865) to carry out excavations on several sites in the Vézère valley (Dordogne).  The letter C on the label refers to this London banker who developed a passion for ethnography and archaeology and, from the 1850s onwards, travelled extensively in Europe and the Americas. In 1856, for instance, he travelled to Mexico with the would-be anthropologist Edward Tylor [Stocking, 1991]. He gathered an extensive collection, which was bequeathed to the British Museum after his death. When he was carrying out fieldwork with Lartet, he was a member of several British learned societies, including the Society of Antiquaries, the Geological Society and the Ethnological Society of London.

In the Vézère valley, Lartet and Christy collected a large amount of archaeological material, the contents of which they published in numerous scientific periodicals. These articles were compiled in a sumptuous 17-volume publication financed by Christy and finalized after the death of the two authors. The publication, entitled Reliquiae Diluvianae (London, Williams & Norgate, 1865-1875), also contained a large number of illustrations. The results of Lartet and Christy’s research at Les Eyzies, in the caves of Laugerie-Haute and Laugerie-Basse, Gorge d’Enfer, Madeleine and Le Moustier were thus described in great detail and widely publicized in the scholarly community. Their findings were also presented in exhibitions. The flints and engraved bones discovered in the Vézère valley featured prominently in the first exhibition featuring prehistory at a World Fair, which took place in Paris in 1867. In the section dedicated to work history, an engraved bone depicting a mammoth discovered at La Madeleine caused a major buzz [Quiblier, 2014]. Objects from the Lartet and Christy collections were also donated to the Musée des antiquités nationales, inaugurated in 1867 in Saint-Germain-en-Laye, near Paris, where galleries were dedicated to prehistory.

Lartet also donated parts of his collection to the Muséum de Toulouse and the Muséum national d’histoire naturelle, where the engraved mammoth from La Madeleine is kept [Paillet, 2011]. Christy, for his part, bequeathed his collection to the British Museum, but the catalogue that was drawn up focused on ethnographic objects and was almost entirely silent on the prehistoric remains it contained [Catalogue of a collection of ancient and modern stone implements […] in the possession of Henry Christy, London, Taylor & Francis, 1862]. In these museums, some of the objects donated directly by the founders bear the CL label. It can be seen, for example, on the reverse of the plaque with the mammoth. It is therefore legitimate to infer that the label was affixed to the objects during the lifetime of the two collectors.

The presence of the “CL” label in a large number of institutions on several continents indicates that a significant fraction of the objects collected by Lartet and Christy did not end up in these museums. What happened to this part of the collection is a complex and as yet unknown story. A large number of specimens travelled via a variety of intermediaries. The reasons and practical modalities of this vast circulation are worth investigating, even if many of the conclusions may remain largely speculative.

To be followed…

Références

Coye N., 1998, La préhistoire en paroles et en actes, Paris, L’Harmattan.

Lartet É., 1861, « Nouvelles recherches sur la coexistence de l’homme fossile et des grands mammifères fossiles réputés caractéristiques de la dernière période géologique », Annales des Sciences naturelles, II, Zoologie, 177-253 ; extraits dans Richard N., 1992, L’invention de la préhistoire : anthologie, p. 105-126, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k48129014

Laurent G., 1993, « Edouard Lartet (1801-1871) et la paléontologie humaine », Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, tome 90, n°1, p. 22-30.

Paillet P., 2011, “Le mammouth de la Madeleine (Tursac, Dordogne)”, PALEO, 22, p. 223-270. https://doi.org/10.4000/paleo.2143

Quiblier C., 2014, « L’exposition préhistorique de la Galerie de l’Histoire du travail en 1867. Organisation, réception et impacts », Les Cahiers de l’École du Louvre [En ligne], 5. https://doi.org/10.4000/cel.470

Richard N., 2008, Inventer la préhistoire. Les débuts de l’archéologie préhistorique en France, Paris, Vuibert/Adapt.

Stocking G. [1991], Victorian Anthropology, New York, Free Press.

Initiales “CL” : A propos d’une étiquette et de la collection de préhistoire Lartet-Christy (partie 1), Nathalie Richard

Fig. 1 – « CL » – Une étiquette qui permet de relier les partenaires du projet SciCoMove. ©photographie de l’auteur

Pendant les déplacements que j’ai réalisés dans le cadre de SciCoMove, j’ai découvert un objet qui relie presque tous les partenaires du projet. Il s’agit d’une étiquette portant les initiales CL, associées à un lieu et à une date (fig. 1). Je l’ai trouvée à Barcelone, dans les collections actuellement conservées au Musée d’archéologie de Catalogne, à Heidelberg, dans les collections de l’Institut de préhistoire de l’université, à Neuchâtel, dans les collections du Laténium, à Mexico, dans les vitrines du musée de géologie de la UNAM et au musée de La Plata. Cette étiquette peut être définie comme un « paraobjet », pour reprendre une notion qui est proposée par José Beltrán (CNRS, TEMOS UMR 9016), désormais associé à SciCoMove. Elle est distincte du spécimen sur laquelle elle est collée, mais lui est intimement associée et fournit à son propos des informations supplémentaires, portant notamment sur son histoire.

Que signifient les initiales « CL » ?


Les deux lettres renvoient à deux acteurs bien connus dans l’histoire de l’archéologie préhistorique [Coye, 1998 ; Richard, 2008]. Ensemble, dans les années 1860, ils ont fouillé les sites situés dans le Sud-Ouest de la France dont les noms figurent sur les étiquettes.
Le premier est Edouard Lartet (1801-1871). Né dans le Sud-Ouest de la France, il fait des études de droit à Toulouse et à Paris. Durant son séjour dans la capitale, il s’intéresse aux sciences naturelles et, de retour dans sa région natale, se détourne de la pratique du droit pour se consacrer à la paléontologie. Amateur à plein temps, il explore notamment le site de Sansan (département du Gers), où il découvre des ossements de singes fossiles. Intéressés par ses découvertes, le ministère de l’Instruction publique et l’Académie des sciences financent ses recherches et des restes de « Pliopithecus » (1836) et « Driopithecus » (1856) découverts dans le Gers sont envoyés au Muséum national d’histoire naturelle à Paris. Ces fossiles jouent un rôle important dans les débats sur l’antiquité de l’homme. En effet, s’il est possible d’affirmer que des singes anthropoïdes ont existé dans des temps géologiques anciens, il devient crédible de penser que l’homme, espèce voisine, a également vécu à ces époques lointaines. Lartet lui-même s’intéresse à cette question, et entreprend à partir de 1860 des fouilles, notamment dans l’abri d’Aurignac (Haute-Garonne), où il découvre des ossements d’espèces animales disparues et des artefacts humains [Laurent 1993 ; archives Lartet en ligne sur le site https://tolosana.univ-toulouse.fr/corpus/archives-prehistoriens ]. S’appuyant sur les données de ses fouilles, Lartet propose en 1861 la première chronologie des temps préhistoriques humains, suggérant d’identifier des âges en fonction des faunes qui sont associées aux vestiges [Lartet 1861, Richard 1992]. Il distingue ainsi l’âge de l’Ours des cavernes, l’âge de l’Eléphant et du Rhinocéros, l’âge du Renne et l’âge de l’Aurochs. Si cette proposition est rapidement contestée, l’expression « âge du renne » nous est restée. A la fin de sa vie, sa reconnaissance nationale et internationale en tant que paléontologue vaut à Lartet une nomination comme professeur au Muséum national d’histoire naturelle en 1869. Sa santé ne lui permettra pas d’exercer cette fonction et il meurt en 1871.


A partir de 1863, Lartet collabore avec le britannique Henry Christy (1810-1865) afin de réaliser des fouilles dans plusieurs sites de la vallée de la Vézère (Dordogne). La lette C qui figure sur l’étiquette renvoie à ce banquier londonien qui se passionne pour l’ethnographie et l’archéologie et entreprend, à partir des années 1850, des voyages en Europe et aux Amériques. Il voyage par exemple au Mexique en 1856 avec le futur anthropologue Edward Tylor [Stocking, 1991]. Il rassemble une importante collection, léguée au British Museum après sa mort. Lorsqu’il réalise ses recherches de terrain avec Lartet, il est membre de plusieurs sociétés savantes britanniques, telles la Society of Antiquaries, la Geological Society ou la Ethnological Society of London.


Dans la vallée de la Vézère, Lartet et Christy collectent un matériel archéologique très abondant, dont ils publient les détails dans de nombreux périodiques scientifiques. Ces articles sont rassemblés dans une luxueuse publication en 17 volumes financée par Christy et achevée après la mort des deux auteurs. Intitulée Reliquiae Diluvianae (London, Williams & Norgate, 1865-1875), elle contient aussi de nombreuses planches. Les résultats de recherches de Lartet et Christy aux Eyzies, dans les grottes de Laugerie-Haute et Laugerie-Basse, de la Gorge d’Enfer, de la Madeleine et du Moustier sont donc décrits avec beaucoup de précision et diffusés largement dans la communauté savante. Leurs découvertes sont aussi présentées dans des expositions. Les silex taillés et ossements gravés découverts dans la vallée de la Vézère figurent en bonne place dans la première exposition de préhistoire au sein d’une exposition universelle, à Paris en 1867. Dans la section dédiée à l’histoire du travail, une plaquette gravée d’un mammouth découverte à la Madeleine fait sensation auprès du public [Quiblier, 2014]. Des objets de la collections Lartet et Christy sont aussi donnés au Musée des antiquités nationales, inauguré en 1867 à Saint-Germain-en-Laye, près de Paris, où des salles sont consacrées à la préhistoire.
Lartet a aussi donné des parties de sa collection au Muséum de Toulouse et au Muséum national d’histoire naturelle, où est par exemple conservé le mammouth gravé de La Madeleine [Paillet, 2011]. Christy a pour sa part légué sa collection au British Museum, mais l’inventaire qui en fut fait se centre sur les objets ethnographiques ne dit presque rien des vestiges préhistoriques qu’elle contenait [Catalogue of a collection of ancient and modern stone implements […] in the possesion of Henry Christy, London, Taylor & Francis, 1862]. Dans ces musées, certaines des pièces données directement par les inventeurs portent l’étiquette CL. Elle figure par exemple au revers de la plaquette au mammouth. Il est donc légitime d’inférer que l’étiquette a été apposée sur les objets du vivant des deux collecteurs.


La présence de l’étiquette « CL » dans de très nombreuses institutions, sur plusieurs continents, indique toutefois qu’une part probablement importante des objets rassemblés par Lartet et Christy n’a pas achevé son parcours dans ces musées. Ce qu’il est advenu de cette partie de leur collection est une histoire complexe et encore inconnue. Des spécimens nombreux ont voyagé en passant par des intermédiaires variés et multiples. Les raisons et les modalités concrètes de cette vaste circulation méritent qu’on s’y attarde, même si plusieurs conclusions ne sont encore que des hypothèses.

Suite au prochain épisode…

Références

Coye N., 1998, La préhistoire en paroles et en actes, Paris, L’Harmattan.

Lartet É., 1861, « Nouvelles recherches sur la coexistence de l’homme fossile et des grands mammifères fossiles réputés caractéristiques de la dernière période géologique », Annales des Sciences naturelles, II, Zoologie, 177-253 ; extraits dans Richard N., 1992, L’invention de la préhistoire : anthologie, p. 105-126, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k48129014

Laurent G., 1993, « Edouard Lartet (1801-1871) et la paléontologie humaine », Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, tome 90, n°1, p. 22-30.

Paillet P., 2011, “Le mammouth de la Madeleine (Tursac, Dordogne)”, PALEO, 22, p. 223-270. https://doi.org/10.4000/paleo.2143

Quiblier C., 2014, « L’exposition préhistorique de la Galerie de l’Histoire du travail en 1867. Organisation, réception et impacts », Les Cahiers de l’École du Louvre [En ligne], 5. https://doi.org/10.4000/cel.470

Richard N., 2008, Inventer la préhistoire. Les débuts de l’archéologie préhistorique en France, Paris, Vuibert/Adapt.

Stocking G. [1991], Victorian Anthropology, New York, Free Press.

IV La Plata Seminario Proyecto Rise SciCoMove: Colecciones científicas en movimiento – March 15, 2024

Viernes 15 de marzo de 2024    De 10 a 15hs

Lugar: Auditorio (Planta baja) de la Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo de La Plata, Av. 60 y 122, La Plata

Transmisión online: canal youtube del Museo de La Plata

https://youtube.com/live/wDsWogdYwFg?feature=share

Organizan: Archivo Histórico del Museo de La Plata y Proyecto Rise SciCoMove, financiado por la Unión Europea a través de su programa Horizonte 2020 para la investigación e innovación científicas y el subsidio Marie Sklodowska-Curie N°

Programa

10Hs – Presentación del Seminario: Irina Podgorny

10:30 hs: Serge Reubi (Museo Nacional de Historia Natural, Francia): “Imagined Communities: Exchanging artefacts over the Atlantic”

11 hs Severine Georgin (Universidad de Le Mans, Francia) “Prehistoric trepanations: emergence and circulation of a scientific object”

11:30- García, Susana V. (Conicet-Museo de La Plata) “La exhibición itinerante de una momia del guano a mediados del siglo XIX”

Intervalo

13 hs. Benjamin Ballester (Universidad de Tarapacá, Chile)Encuentros y desencuentros de momias de Chiuchiu durante la II Guerra Mundial en Europa”

13: 30 hs Kepa Ruiz-Mirazo (Universidad del País Vasco, España) “La vida es casi tan vieja como la Tierra: registros geológicos que soportan un hecho formidable”

14: hs- Debate general y cierre

October 12 2023, Irina Podgorny and Nathalie Richard in Tours

Collection G. Capellini, Museo civico Bologna.

Irina Podgorny and Nathalie Richard will present a paper related to the research carried out in the SciCoMove project at the international conference “De la curiosité humaniste à l’esprit de système. L’évolution du paradigme des savoirs dans les régions entre la mer Adriatique et les Alpes aux XVIIIe et XIXe siècles”.

The paper is entitled: “Bologne, Parme, Buenos Aires: les réseaux mondiaux de l’archéologie préhistorique dans les années 1860”.