
Category Archives: Miscellaneous
Le Mans training session #2 – May 27-31, 2024
Campus Le Mans Université, bâtiment enseignement lettres, room 105


A través de los siglos, los oficios, las artes y las ciencias.
Algunas notas sobre el compás de espesor, by Marina L. Sardi (UNLP).
Gran parte de la actividad científica ha sido dependiente del uso de instrumentos, cuya creación y producción con crecientes niveles de complejidad técnica ha sido uno de los aspectos más conspicuo de los últimos 250 años. Su representación ha destacado objetos como los telescopios, microscopios, relojes, cámaras y otros de refinada ejecución, que ocupan lugares relevantes en las exhibiciones de ciencia, o de arte inclusive, y han captado frecuentemente la atención de los estudios históricos.
La antropología física, durante su etapa de institucionalización en el siglo XIX no fue ajena a la búsqueda de precisión en sus observaciones y al reemplazo de las descripciones por números “objetivos”, desarrollando un vasto corpus instrumental. A medida que médicos o naturalistas formaban colecciones de cráneos en sus gabinetes por aquellos años, o incluso antes, también adquirían instrumentos de medición, frecuentemente para estudios frenológicos. La tan deseada precisión, finalmente, se lograría sumando grandes cantidades de observaciones y, para esto, se invitaba a los viajeros aficionados, militares, religiosos, funcionarios, o comerciantes a que trasladasen y manipulasen instrumentos, colaborando con la emprensa antropológica y enviado sus mediciones desde los territorios coloniales, cárceles u hospitales, a las instituciones o sociedades científicas.
El médico francés Paul Broca (1824-1880), fundador de la Sociedad de Antropología de París, fue el principal promotor del uso de aparatos, colaborando regularmente con Louis Mathieu (1817-1879), un fabricante de instrumentos de cirugía y ortopedia, aunque sugería también en sus Instrucciones Generales para las Investigaciones y Observaciones Antropológicas que “todos los instrumentos empleados en las artes y la industria para estudiar y representar la forma de los objetos pueden ser aplicados al hombre” (Broca, 1865, p. 38). Efectivamente, la práctica craneométrica y antropométrica, se valió de la adopción de instrumentos utilizados por los artesanos que mejor conocían las formas del cuerpo humano -sastres, sombrereros o zapateros- o de artesanos vinculados a la construcción. Tal fue el caso de los compases, también llamados calibres.
En el catálogo virtual del Museo Galileo (2010-2015), de Florencia (Italia), se define a un compás como un instrumento formado por dos varillas de igual longitud, articuladas entre sí, de modo que puedan adoptar a voluntad una inclinación relativa. Los hay de distinto tipo para distintas operaciones, desde dibujar hasta calcular proporciones, desde medir calibres hasta determinar la posición en el mar. Uno de ellos es conocido como compás esférico o de espesor y se caracteriza por sus varillas curvas -junto con una escala graduada- que permiten la medición de los diámetros externos de los objetos, siendo útil cuando estos no presentan una forma uniforme. Este tipo de compás era utilizado por escultores, arquitectos y constructores, para ejecutar columnas y otras obras con cierta precisión y reproducir similares formas; por militares, para medir el calibre de la artillería; también por torneros, cerrajeros y mecánicos.
El compás de espesor se utilizaba para medir el largo y el ancho máximos de cráneos o cabezas, para calcular el índice cefálico, en los habitantes de distintos lugares y épocas. Este índice había sido propuesto en 1842 por el anatomista sueco Anders Retzius (1796-1860), permitiendo clasificar a los cráneos como dolicocéfalos (largos y angostos), mesocéfalos y braquicéfalos (cortos y anchos) (Blanckaert 2009). Se constituyó en un indicador racial y fue ampliamente adoptado por los estudiosos quienes, inspirados en crecientes sentimientos de nacionalismo, buscaban conocer qué razas habían poblado una nación (Luyendijk-Elshout, 1997). El índice se utilizó como método de identificación personal, como el de Alphonse Bertillon (1893), y fue también adoptado en el ámbito de la antropología criminal, para explicar el mayor o menor desarrollo de ciertas partes craneanas que explicaran en porqué de la criminalidad. Todo esto nos sugiere que los instrumentos y las mediciones no solo sirvieron a la ciencia, sino también a intereses políticos, como en el caso de los instrumentos de uso médico (Cházaro 2017).
A medida que avanzaba el siglo XIX, los fabricantes en colaboración con los estudiosos de distintos países fueron agregando decenas de instrumentos para orientar y dibujar cráneos o huesos e instrumentos de medición para cráneos, huesos y personas vivas; muchos de los cuales cumplían la misma función que el compás de espesor, como el cadre à máxima, propuesto por Broca y vendido por Mathieu en París.
A fines del siglo XIX había tal diversidad de métodos de medición que los estudiosos entendían que la falta de acuerdo era perjudicial para el avance de la disciplina. Por lo tanto, en 1906 y 1912 se alcanzaron los Acuerdos de Mónaco y Ginebra, respectivamente, reduciendo la cantidad de medidas a ser relevadas con pocos instrumentos: el antropómetro (para medir el cuerpo), la cinta métrica y los compases deslizante y de espesor. Los compases, entonces, siempre han formado parte del kit básico que se recomendaba utilizar en las instrucciones escritas para viajeros y en los manuales destinados a la enseñanza de la antropología física.
En el sistema museal de la Universidad de Turín (Italia) existen acervos instrumentales que fueron, en su mayoría, elaborados por constructores italianos, franceses y alemanes. Entre ellos se encuentran diferentes compases de espesor y su estudio nos permite trazar algunas historias de la antropología en Italia y de los itinerarios de estos objetos.
Podemos mencionar, en primer lugar, los instrumentos del Museo de Anatomía Humana “Luigi Rolando”, fabricados en su mayoría por la casa Mathieu, que parecen relacionarse con una de las grandes colecciones craneanas que se custodian y que hasta 1913 pertenecían al Museo Craneológico y Frenológico de la Real Academia de Medicina (Mangiapane et al. 2017).[i] Este museo fue el primer museo craneológico de Italia, creado en 1866, gracias al empeño del médico Antonio Garbiglietti (1807-1877), uno de los pioneros de la antropología italiana.[ii] El interés inicial de Garbiglietti se vinculaba a la frenología, pero con los años, con el ocaso de estas teorías y con la instalación en Turín de Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909) en 1876, dirigió su atención hacia los estudios antropológicos, más precisamente a los cráneos de personajes famosos (Giacobini et al. 2023). Para esos años, la colección ya se había enriquecido con cráneos arqueológicos -i.e. etruscos, romanos- y extraeuropeos -e.g. de la Patagonia-, así como moldes de yeso de personajes reconocidos -e.g. Napoleón I- y algunos criminales. A Garbiglietti lo sucedió Alberto Gamba (1822-1901), quien impulsó fuertemente a este museo a través de estudios craneológicos. Cuando Gamba murió el interés por la craneología se debilitó y el museo fue transferido en 1913 al Instituto Anatómico (Giacobini et al. 2023). Un documento que acompaña la transferencia es una “Lista de los cráneos y otro material perteneciente al Museo Craneológico de la Real Academia de Medicina de Turín, ahora consignados y ordenados en el Instituto de Anatomía Humana Normal de la Real Universidad de Turín”, compilada en 1913 y redactada por Alfonso Bovero (Giacobini et al. 2023). Este documento da cuenta de los instrumentos que había en tal momento; entre ellos, compases de espesor (Fig. 1).

En segundo lugar, se encuentran en el sistema de museos de la Universidad de Turín los instrumentos para estudios médico-clínicos, estesiológicos, fisiológicos y antropométricos de Cesare Lombroso (Galloni 2009). Entre ellos está el compás que este médico utilizó para discernir si las personas “delincuentes”, “alienadas” y “honestas” diferían en sus cráneos (Fig. 2). Además de observar las “anomalías craneanas” que predominarían en los criminales, el método de Lombroso incluía similares mediciones a las que tomaban los antropólogos físicos (Lombroso 1876, 1878). En los archivos del Museo de Antropología Criminal “Cesare Lombroso” (Turín, Italia) es posible detectar la medición de la longitud máxima y el ancho máximo, obtenidos sobre los cráneos de su colección, con los que esperaba dilucidar si los delincuentes eran braquicéfalos o dolicocéfalos.
rino.

Se infieren asimismo en estos archivos las estrategias aplicadas para la colecta de datos, que requería que personas que participaban del sistema judicial u hospitalario enviaran listas de números o formularios con observaciones realizadas en numerosas personas. Lo notable de estas páginas es la enorme cantidad de datos en blanco. Esto resultaría de la falta de precisión del sistema propuesto por Lombroso, en el que muchas observaciones podían realizarse sin el uso de instrumentos. En cambio, de los pocos datos registrados a lo largo de los años, se encuentran frecuentemente la longitud y el ancho del cráneo, junto con el cálculo del índice cefálico, medidos sobre personas vivas y muertas. Esto nos indica que muchas personas en instituciones judiciales y hospitalarias manipulaban un compás de espesor.
Volviendo a Lombroso, su compás actualmente se exhibe en el Museo de Antropología Criminal, en una vitrina dedicada a numerosos instrumentos científicos que este médico utilizó (Fig. 3).

En Turín, el Museo de Antropología y Etnografía es otro lugar que guarda instrumentos. Una parte importante de ellos pertenecieron al médico y egiptólogo Giovanni Marro (1875 – 1952), quien fundó este museo. A ellos se fueron agregando en etapas posteriores otros instrumentos, entre los que hay dos compases deslizantes con ramas curvas; uno, con la escala graduada de 30 cm de longitud y, en el otro, de 60 cm, más adaptado para medidas corporales (Fig. 4). Los mismos habrían ingresado al museo en la década de 1950 y no hay más información al respecto. Finalmente, el Archivo Científico y Tecnológico de la Universidad de Turín también tiene tres instrumentos que un médico de apellido Reginato tenía en su casa y que su familia donó, sin ninguna otra información. Entre ellos, hay un compás de espesor, fabricado por la casa alemana Zimmerman.

Estas “cose di scienza” (Mangiapane et al. 2017) han sido, en el caso de la antropología física, elementos necesarios en la producción de conocimiento y la conformación de la identidad disciplinar. Su estudio permite reflexionar sobre la importancia de los instrumentos en la estandarización de procedimientos, en cómo circularon por sitios alejados de aquellos en los que originalmente se crearon, en quiénes fueron sus usuarios y el modo en que movilizaron datos.
Los instrumentos científicos constituyen bienes culturales, aunque en los museos no siempre han adquirido similar estatus. En algunos fueron distinguidos como corpus específicos destinados a la investigación; en otros fueron yuxtapuestos con herramientas de taller; o abandonados en un armario; y en otros fueron asociados al nombre de algún investigador prestigioso que los adquirió y utilizó. Muchos instrumentos científicos son preservados y frecuentemente exhibidos en museos de ciencias para representar el progreso tecnológico; pero, si no hay una política explícita de conservación, pueden terminar desarmados o despedazados, ocupando frecuentemente espacios marginales de una institución. O, por el contrario, los instrumentos pueden no estar en depósitos, ni en vitrinas, sino estar en uso en los laboratorios, como es el caso de muchos compases de espesor de la División Antropología del Museo de La Plata (Argentina) que se utilizan para el relevamiento numérico en proyectos de antropología biológica. Estos compases continúan, de hecho, en venta por numerosas casas especializadas en la fabricación de instrumentos.
En síntesis, el compás de espesor, sin haber sufrido demasiados cambios en su construcción y sin siquiera habérsele añadido dispositivos de digitalización, se ha movido a través de diversos mundos sociales y continúa prestándose a la medición científica. Permite contar distintas historias, pero no solo eso. Su versatilidad, precisión, fácil manipulación y menor costo -respecto de otros instrumentos complejos- garantizan su vigencia para la medición.
Turín, 12 de abril de 2024
Agradecimientos: a Cristina Cilli, Giacomo Giacobini, Gianluiggi Mangiapane y Mara Fausone.
Referencias bibliográficas
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. París: Victor Masson et fils.
Cházaro L. 2017. Trade in medical instruments and colonialist policies between Mexico and Europe in the nineteenth century”. En 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. En 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. En 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. Accedido el 1 de abril de 2024 en: https://catalogo.museogalileo.it/approfondimento/Compasso.html
[i] Otra parte de las colecciones son derivadas del ex Instituto Anatómico de Turín.
[ii] Garbiglietti creía que el progreso de la ciencia se debía a la fundación de museos y la creación de colecciones de todas las naciones (Giacobini et al. 2023).
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)

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.

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).

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.

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
SciCoMove on Radio Alpa (Le Mans), April 03, 2024, 19.00.
Nathalie Richard at “L’amphi” radio program tonight.
Live on Radio Alpa 107.3 FM, new broadcast on April 4, 2024, at 9.00 AM. Podcast available on Radio Alpa website, from April 5 on : https://radioalpa.com/emissions/lamphi/
CL: About a label and the Lartet-Christy prehistory collection (Part 1), by Nathalie Richard

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.
Call for applications for a fellowship in Argentina, Irina Podgorny’s project
Click on the link for more informations:
Compte rendu du colloque « Archives, histoire et savoir », Université de La Plata, 10 juillet 2023
par Magalie Moysan
Archives en contexte, archives en réseaux : compte rendu du colloque « Archives, histoire et savoir », Université de La Plata, 10 juillet 2023
Le 10 juillet 2023, s’est tenu le colloque « Archives, histoire et savoir » à l’université de La Plata en Argentine, dans le cadre du projet SciCoMove. Réunissant des archivistes et chercheuses en histoire, littérature, civilisation britannique, entomologie ou encore en archivistique, cet événement a proposé une lecture interdisciplinaire sur la place des archives dans la construction des savoirs.
La journée a commencé par une intervention de Laura Casareto, directrice des archives historiques de l’université nationale de La Plata, sur les normes, pratiques et stratégies de préservation du patrimoine archivistique. Sa présentation inscrit les pratiques archivistiques dans le contexte de l’Argentine : les politiques de mémoire menées depuis 1984 conduisent à une évolution de la législation et des usages en matière d’accès à l’information. Beaucoup d’universités ont mené des actions de réparation et l’université de La Plata conduit une politique en la matière. María Eugenia Rasic, chercheuse en littérature à l’université de La Plata et spécialiste de la poésie, présentait quant à elle un projet de constitution d’archives pour conserver et valoriser les archives d’écrivaines et d’écrivains des territoires ruraux de la province de Buenos Aires. Elle part ainsi à la rencontre d’artistes et écrivains qui conservent leurs propres archives pour les faire connaître au grand public. Oriana Pelagatti et Renata Alonzo (Université de Cuyo, Mendoza) proposaient ensuite une analyse croisée du rôle des archives et bibliothèques dans la province de Mendoza entre 1820 et 1930. Elles ont analysé le rôle de ces corps professionnels au moment où se construit le discours historique, mettant en avant le développement et les ruptures dans la constitution des bibliothèques et archives. Venues présenter leurs travaux dans le cadre du projet SciCoMove, Adeline Soulier, Maud Michaud et Magalie Moysan ont évoqué chacune un aspect des collections scientifiques en musées. Adeline Soulier a présenté les pratiques de collecte des hémiptères – une catégorie d’insectes – au Muséum national d’histoire naturelle à Paris. La collection s’est accrue au 19e siècle puis a connu des périodes de stagnation. On trouve actuellement 40 millions d’insectes conservés au Museum, dont 7 millions d’hémiptères, répartis entre la collection générale et des collections nominales constituées par un donateur. Le muséum a fait le choix de laisser les types au sein des collections, en dépit de leur statut particulier. Maud Michaud a fait état de ses recherches sur les collections scientifiques constituées et gérées par les missionnaires. Ces organisations affiliées à l’église d’Angleterre collectaient des végétaux, les conditionnaient et les photographiaient. Les missionnaires ont développé des relations avec les jardins botaniques britanniques dont Kew Gardens constitue le nœud central. Certains missionnaires envoyaient ainsi des objets scientifiques aux musées de leur ville de naissance. Enfin, Magalie Moysan a proposé un panorama des archives en musées en France, analysant leur périmètre, les problématiques et réseaux qui s’y constituent. Elle y montre que, malgré une législation centralisatrice en matière d’archives publiques, les musées confient peu leurs archives aux Archives nationales, départementales et municipales. Souvent gérées par d’autres types de professionnels au sein des musées (documentalistes, bibliothécaires), les archives des musées sont peu interrogées dans la littérature archivistique française.
Ce colloque a permis de questionner le rôle et la place des archives, dans les collections scientifiques et de manière générale. Au-delà de constituer des sources pour l’historien, les archives servent d’abord à documenter des processus, des activités : au Muséum national d’histoire naturelle parisien, les étiquettes rattachées aux spécimens les caractérisent, leur permettent de faire sens dans l’ensemble de la collection. Ces étiquettes documentent par leur contenu mais aussi par leur forme : Adeline Soulier souligne ainsi certains modèles d’étiquettes attestent de contacts avec Londres. La photographie sert aussi à documenter les pratiques de recherche des missionnaires, à les contextualiser. En France ce continuum entre l’objet et la documentation de l’objet est d’ailleurs l’un des arguments mis en avant par les musées pour conserver les archives au sein des musées. Au-delà de la trace, les archives servent aussi à faire preuve, comme le souligne Laura Casareto. Des preuves qui servent aujourd’hui dans le cadre des démarches de réparation, mais qui attestent aussi plus généralement de l’action de l’État. Ainsi, face aux difficultés de conservation des archives électroniques, le gouvernement argentin est revenu sur une disposition qui permettait de détruire l’original papier après numérisation. Les archives permettent également de constituer « une mémoire politique des territoires » selon María Eugenia Rasic, de rendre visible des catégories de populations invisibilisées dans la société (femmes, populations rurales). Des archives au service d’archives, le processus de constitution d’un ensemble cohérent oriente la finalité des documents. Dans la province de Mendoza, la fonction judiciaire du service d’archives, prédominante dans les années 1980, cède progressivement le pas à la fonction historique jusqu’à la scission entre deux entités (Renata Alonso).
Le colloque a enfin permis d’aborder la question des réseaux autour des archives, notion centrale dans le projet SciCoMove. Adeline Soulier et Maud Michaud ont montré l’importance des réseaux lors de la constitution des collections scientifiques, le dynamisme des collaborations et des échanges se retrouvant directement dans la variété des spécimens conservés. Aujourd’hui, la mise en place de réseaux entre centres d’archives permet de retisser des liens entre ces collections scientifiques, à partir par exemple de plateformes en ligne. Ils constituent également des dispositifs d’entraide et de collaboration entre professionnels, comme le montre la création d’un réseau Archives en musées en France en 2011.

Report on the “Archives, history and knowledge” symposium, University of La Plata, July 10, 2023
by Magalie Moysan
Archives in context, archives in networks: report on the “Archives, history and knowledge” symposium, University of La Plata, July 10, 2023
On July 10, 2023, the “Archives, History and Knowledge” symposium was held at the University of La Plata in Argentina, as part of the SciCoMove project. Bringing together archivists and researchers in history, literature, British civilization, entomology and archival studies, the event offered an interdisciplinary reading of the role of archives in the construction of knowledge.
The day began with a talk by Laura Casareto, head of historical archives at the National University of La Plata, on standards, practices and strategies for preserving archival heritage. Her presentation placed archival practices in the context of Argentina: the policies of memory pursued since 1984 have led to changes in legislation and customs concerning access to information. Many universities have undertaken reparation initiatives, and the University of La Plata has a policy in this area. María Eugenia Rasic, a literature researcher at the University of La Plata and a specialist in poetry, presented a project to set up an archive to preserve and promote the archives of writers in the rural areas of Buenos Aires province. She set out to meet artists and writers who are preserving their own archives in order to make them known to the general public. Oriana Pelagatti and Renata Alonso (University of Cuyo, Mendoza) then proposed a cross-analysis of the role of archives and libraries in the province of Mendoza between 1820 and 1930. They analyzed the role of these professional bodies at a time when historical discourse was being constructed, highlighting the development and ruptures in the constitution of libraries and archives.
Presenting their work as part of the SciCoMove project, Adeline Soulier, Maud Michaud and Magalie Moysan each discussed one aspect of scientific collections in museums. Adeline Soulier presented the collecting practices of hemiptera – a category of insects – at the Muséum national d’histoire naturelle in Paris. The collection grew in the 19th century, then went through periods of stagnation. The Museum currently holds 40 million insects, including 7 million hemiptera, divided between the general collection and nominal collections set up by a donor. The Museum has chosen to leave the types in the collections, despite their special status. Maud Michaud reported on her research into scientific collections built up and managed by missionaries. These Church of England-affiliated organizations collected plants, conditioned and photographed them. The missionaries developed relationships with British botanical gardens, of which Kew Gardens was the central node. Some missionaries sent scientific objects to museums in their home towns. Finally, Magalie Moysan presented an overview of museum archives in France, analyzing their scope, issues and networks. She showed that, despite centralizing legislation on public archives, museums rarely entrust their archives to the national, departmental or municipal archives. Often managed by other types of professionals within museums (documentalists, librarians), museum archives are rarely examined in French archival literature.
This symposium examined the role and place of archives, both in scientific collections and in general. As well as serving as sources for historians, archives are first and foremost used to document processes and activities: at the Muséum national d’histoire naturelle in Paris, the labels attached to specimens characterize them, allowing them to make sense within the collection as a whole. These labels document not only their content, but also their form: Adeline Soulier points out that certain label models attest to contacts with London. Photography also serves to document and contextualize the research practices of missionaries. In France, this continuum between the object and the documentation of the object is one of the arguments put forward by museums to keep archives within museums. As Laura Casareto points out, archives not only serve as traces, but also as evidence. Today, this evidence is used in reparation procedures, but also more generally to attest to the actions of the State. For example, given the difficulties of preserving electronic archives, the Argentine government has reversed a provision that allowed the original paper copy to be destroyed after digitization. According to María Eugenia Rasic, archives also make it possible to constitute “a political memory of territories”, and to make visible categories of populations that are invisible in society (women, rural populations). From archives to archive, the process of creating a coherent whole guides the purpose of the documents. In the province of Mendoza, the judicial function of the archive, predominant in the 1980s, gradually gave way to the historical function, until the two entities split (Renata Alonso).
Finally, the symposium addressed the issue of archive networks, a central notion in the SciCoMove project. Adeline Soulier and Maud Michaud demonstrated the importance of networks in building up scientific collections, the dynamism of collaborations and exchanges being directly reflected in the variety of specimens conserved. Today, the establishment of networks between archive centers is making it possible to reestablish links between these scientific collections, using online platforms for example. They are also mechanisms for mutual assistance and collaboration between professionals, as demonstrated by the creation of an Archives en musées network in France in 2011.

IAUB ARCHAEOLOGY TALKS
By Irina Podgorny
May 23th/ 23 de maig de 2023, 16:30 h
Sala Jean Adams, Facultatde Geografia i Història
Barcelona
