[article ID:348]

Introduction: basic characteristics of the Seligman collection

[article ID:349]

1.1 Identifying items with a direct Seligman connection

Searching Objects PRM with Seligman in the PRM source field yields 3,817 records (4,882 objects) with accession numbers beginning 1945 or earlier. In addition, there are 82 records (124 objects) for items given by Brenda Seligman (Charles's wife) in 1946. These latter 1,946 records, however, are not further considered here, as their date of donation falls outside the project's date parameters.

Searching Objects PRM with Seligman in the field collector field and excluding all records with Seligman in the PRM source field (i.e. excluding any records already accounted for above), yields just 1 record (2 objects) with a pre-end-of-1945 accession number. This refers to a pair of ear scoops from South Korea (1938.1.22), collected by Seligman and donated to the PRM in 1938 by Louis Colville Gray Clark of the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge. There is also a plate from Algeria (1965.3.190), collected by Seligman and donated to the PRM in 1965 by the Folk-Lore Society. This item has been excluded from the analyses that follow here, however, as it came to the Museum after 1945.

Searching Objects PRM with Seligman in the other owners field, produces just one further record (1 object), a Pueblo pendant with Brenda Seligman in the other owners field, and apparently collected by Barbara Freire-Marreco. This item came to the PRM in 1913, apparently donated by Barbara Freire-Marreco. The Brenda Seligman connection is not entirely clear for this object, and it has not been included in my analysis.

The analysis that follows includes all items known to have a Seligman connection and acquired by the PRM before the end of 1945; i.e. it includes both the 3817 records with Seligman in the PRM source field, and the one record with Seligman in the field collector field but not the PRM source field. Hence the total being considered here is 3,818 records (4,884 objects).

1.2 PRM sources of items with a direct Seligman connection

A direct Seligman connection is here defined as Seligman as field collector or PRM source.

Of the relevant 3,818 records (4,884 objects), the PRM sources – i.e. the last node in the network of relationships along which the items travelled to reach their final destination in the PRM – can be broken down as follows:

Items given by Charles G Seligman himself (150 records/171 objects)

Items given by either Charles G. Seligman or his wife Brenda Z. Seligman (3,655 records/4,699 objects; these comprise the portion of the Seligman collection that came to the PRM in 1940: CGS himself gave some in June 1940, and the rest was given by BZS in October 1940, after CGS's death; it is not possible to tell from the PRM accession records precisely which items fall into the June group and which into the October group, hence the PRM source for all these items is given as CGS or BZS)

Item given by G.W. Murray (possible George William Welsh Murray) via CGS (1 record/1 object)

Items given by Louis Colville Gray Clark (1 record/2 objects)

In other words, all but 2 records (3 objects) pertaining to material with a known, direct Seligman connection, concern items given directly to the PRM by Charles or Brenda Seligman.

[article ID:350]

Working on the basis of numbers of records, approximately 89% of the Seligman collection is archaeological (90% if on the basis of numbers of objects instead), whereas only around 11% (13% if on the basis of numbers of objects) is ethnographic:

The Seligman collection is thus overwhelmingly archaeological in character. Archaeology and ethnography are explored further below, in relation to region and other factors.

[article ID:351]

3.1 Overall statistical profile

Of all records with a direct Seligman connection (i.e. Seligman as field collector or PRM source or both), by far the greatest proportion – 3,121 records, or 81.7% of the whole – have an Africa provenance. The next most significant regions, though a very long way behind Africa, are Europe (266 records, or 7% of the whole) and Oceania (218 records, or 5.7% of the whole).

However, if we look at these regional proportions by numbers of objects rather than by numbers of records, while Africa still remains overwhelmingly dominant (3,474 objects, or 71.1% of the whole), it is slightly less so. Furthermore, the next most significant regions are no longer Europe and Oceania, but Asia (623 objects, or 12.8% of the whole, the bulk of which are from Sri Lanka) and Australia (288 objects, or 5.9% of the whole).

This difference in regional proportions depending on whether records or objects are the basis of enquiry, probably indicates little more than the substantive differences between archaeological and ethnographic collections, both generally with respect to museum documentation procedures (archaeological museum records, for example, are far more likely to cover more than one object in a single record), and more specifically for the Seligman collection (i.e. a relatively large proportion of the Seligman collection is archaeological rather than ethnographic). In other words, because, when object and record numbers are totalled, there will be a greater discrepancy between the two totals for archaeological than for ethnographic records, this discrepancy will pertain especially to collections in which a large proportion of the material is archaeological, as we find with Seligman. It therefore makes sense to take the analysis a little further.

3.2 Archaeological and ethnographic proportions

Looking only at archaeological records – i.e. records with A in the arch/eth field – we find that 88% of these archaeological records have an Africa provenance. The only other percentage over 5% is that for Europe, which is the region given for 7.6% of the archaeological records.

If we look at all records in the Seligman collection (i.e. not only those classified as archaeology), the overwhelming significance of Africa archaeology is even clearer, with 78.5% of the entire collection's records being concerned with Africa archaeology. The only other proportions over 5% are Europe archaeology (6.8% of all Seligman records) and Oceania ethnography (5.6% of all Seligman records.

Again, however, using numbers of objects rather than numbers of records as the basis of analysis yields slightly different results, although of all archaeological objects in the Seligman collection, Africa once again remains dominant at 75%. The next most significant regions amongst the Seligman archaeology objects, however, switch to Asia (12.3%), Australia (6.3%) and Europe (5.9%):

Looking at the entire Seligman collection rather than archaeology only, retaining numbers of objects as the basis of analysis here, Africa archaeology unsurprisingly is still found to be overwhelmingly dominant (68% of entire number of objects), with the next most significant components of the collection (and the only ones around or over 5%) being:

Asia archaeology (11.1% of entire collection)

Africa ethnography (7.2%)

Australia archaeology (5.7%)

Europe archaeology (5.3%)

Oceania ethnography (4.5%).

These proportions of significant components may be regarded as the most meaningful of all the figures above in this section as, although numbers of objects are not reliable as absolute totals, here they probably give the clearest picture of trends and ratios.

It is thus evident that overall ethnography is of much less significance in the Seligman collection. It is still, however, interesting to analyse the regional profile of the collection s ethnographic component.:

In sum, the entire regional and arch/eth profile of the Seligman collection is as follows (where A = archaeology and E = ethnography):

And to repeat, the significant components of the entire Seligman collection, with numbers of objects as the basis of analysis, are:

Africa archaeology – 68%

Asia archaeology – 11.1%

Africa ethnography – 7.2%

Australia archaeology – 5.7%

Europe archaeology – 5.3%

Oceania ethnography – 4.5%

[article ID:352]

A total of 54 countries (as defined by Objects PRM's pop-up list as at October 2002) are represented or possibly represented in the Seligman collection, indicating a very wide coverage indeed. In practice, however, only the following countries are given as the/a possible provenance for 1% or more of the entire Seligman collection (1% of the collection as defined by numbers of records or numbers of objects):

[article ID:353]

5.1 Categories of individuals with a direct connection to the Seligman collection

Using numbers of records as the basis of analysis, Seligman (and note that Seligman is assumed by museum documentation to mean Charles, but could actually be Brenda for many of the objects), is responsible or probably responsible for the field collection of 73.3% of the overall Seligman collection. Looking instead at numbers of objects, Seligman is given as the definite or likely field collector of 94.7% of the collection. The overwhelming proportion of the collection was, therefore, certainly or probably collected by one or both of the Seligmans. However, from the perspective of our wider project it is interesting to look more closely at the 24 other individuals directly associated with the Seligman collection, as field collectors and as donors.

These individuals essentially fall into two groups:

[article ID:354]

D. Cunnington

?Elliot

V. Fergusson

Francis Wallace Grenfell

Leubell

George Andrew Reisner

Isaac Shapera

D.A.F. Shute

Sturge

Bertram Thomas

[article ID:355]

Allan Wolsey Cardinall

Gertrude Caton-Thompson

Louis Colville Gray Clarke

?L. Dale

W. Cooke Daniels

Edward Evans-Pritchard

Francis Llewellyn Griffith

Ernest W Haddon

Charles Kingsley Meek

N. Gordon Munro

G.W. (?George William) Murray

William Matthew Flinders Petrie

Heywood Walter Seton-Karr

V.A. Stein Callenfels/?P V van Stein Callenfels

Emil Torday

Those listed in b above, i.e. those for whom Seligman is not their only connection to the PRM, can be further sub-divided into the following sets (note that there is some intersection of these sets, marked with *):

[article ID:356]

Allan Wolsey Cardinall

*Gertrude Caton-Thompson

*Louis Colville Gray Clarke

W. Cooke Daniels

*Edward Evans-Pritchard

Francis Llewellyn Griffith

Ernest W Haddon

*Charles Kingsley Meek

*N. Gordon Munro

?G.W. (?George William) Murray (his only non-Seligman items have been ascribed to Balfour for convenience, but may actually have been donated by Murray himself)

*William Matthew Flinders Petrie

*Heywood Walter Seton-Karr

*Emil Torday

V.A. Stein Callenfels/?P.V. van Stein Callenfels

[article ID:357]

*Louis Colville Gray Clarke

*Edward Evans-Pritchard

*?Charles Kingsley Meek (database says de Boissiere gave 3 items collected by Meek, but looks like actually Meek was agent for de Boissiere-collected items reaching PRM)

[article ID:358]

*Gertrude Caton-Thompson

*Louis Colville Gray Clarke

?L. Dale

*Charles Kingsley Meek

*N. Gordon Munro

?G.W. (?George William) Murray (his only non-Seligman items have been ascribed to Balfour for convenience, but may actually have been donated by Murray himself; hence he may not belong in this category)

*William Matthew Flinders Petrie

*Heywood Walter Seton-Karr

*Emil Torday

In other words, some of these individuals, as well as being field collectors of material in the Seligman collection are also direct donors to the PRM in their own right, though not field collectors of items in collections other than their own and Seligman's. Still others are not only donors in their own right, but also field collectors of items in other collections. Furthermore, of those who are also donors in their own right, some have donated only material collected by themselves, whereas others lead us into further networks by having donated material collected by others.

These sets can be represented pictorially as shown in separate file, Seligman & PRM figures.

[article ID:359]

With the exception of Murray, none of these individuals with a direct association to the Seligman collection is significant in terms of the proportion of the Seligman collection with which they are connected. None is associated with over 1% of the collection as a PRM source or other owner, and Murray is the only individual, barring the Seligmans themselves of course, who by both number of records and number of objects is associated with over 1% of the collection as a field collector (2.9% in terms of records, and 2.3% in terms of objects).

Looking at the PRM 's object collections as a whole to the end of 1945, and based on my calculations rather than those done by Alison,[1] only five of the individuals directly associated with Seligman (excluding Seligman himself) are reckoned to have field collected, donated, and/or be otherwise associated with more than 400 objects:

Evans-Pritchard (622 objects), Seton-Karr (623 objects), Petrie (904 objects), Clarke (1301), and Griffith (5415 objects), with only Griffith having field collected more than 1% of the PRM s overall collections to the end of 1945.

[article ID:360]

[article ID:361]

This appendix lists individuals with surnames other than Seligman and other than native/local donors,[2] who are named in direct association with the Seligman collection, and details their connections with the PRM collections up to 1945 other than with the Seligman collection itself or with any of our other named collectors (including Mills and Hutton). That is, this appendix lists how far these individuals are represented in the PRM collections to 1945 other than in direct association with Seligman or any of our project's other named collectors. It is therefore a list of first level connections in a Seligman/other named collector-centric network diagram.

The other PRM connection is given in the form of two numbers, e.g. (from the Tylor file) 149/193 coll/?coll by A Montgomerie Bell and himself as PRM source – this means that 149 records/193 objects are said or thought to have been collected and donated by A M Bell.

If there are sometimes inconsistencies/apparent contradictions between information given here and that given in section 5 above, they are explained by the absence in the information below, but not in section 5, of direct connections with other of our named collectors. For example, in section 5.4 of the tylor file, William Crooke is named as someone who is also a field collector or possible field collector named in PRM collections other than Tylor's or their own, whereas below his connections other than via our named collectors are given only as items collected and donated by himself; this is because in his case the other collection in which he is named as a field collector, is Balfour's, and as Balfour is one of our project's named collectors he is omitted from the information below (instead, for direct connections through Balfour [or Pitt Rivers et al.], see separate Balfour [or whoever] file[SD1]).

The methodology used to generate the information below was as follows:

I used the version of objects PRM cloned in May 2003, containing only accession numbers up to 1945 inclusive (objects prm to 1945 14-05-03.fp5)

I conducted 3 searches for each individual in the lefthand column:

searching for that individual in the field collector field, but omitting records with that individual in field collector field AND (each of following in separate level of search criteria) Blackwood (in notes field), Pitt Rivers (in PRM source field), Balfour (in notes field), Mills (in PRM source field), Hutton (in PRM source field), Seligman (in PRM source field), and Tylor (in PRM source field).

searching for that individual in the PRM source field, but omitting records with that individual in PRM source field AND (each of following in separate level of search criteria) that individual in field collector field, Blackwood (in notes field), Pitt Rivers (in PRM source field), Balfour (in notes field), Mills (in PRM source field), Hutton (in PRM source field), Seligman (in PRM source field), and Tylor (in PRM source field).

searching for that individual in the other owners field, but omitting records with that individual in other owners AND (each of following in separate level of search criteria) that individual in field collector field, that individual in PRM source field, Blackwood (in notes field), Pitt Rivers (in PRM source field), Balfour (in notes field), Mills (in PRM source field), Hutton (in PRM source field), Seligman (in PRM source field), and Tylor (in PRM source field).

Cardinall, Allan Wolsey

Clarke, Louis Colville Gray

Cunnington, ?D.

Dale, L. could be Langham Dale

Dale, E. (?L. Dale?)

Daniels, W. Cooke

Elliot or Elliott [prob same person], Elliot or Elliott, ?R.

Elliott, E.A.

Evans-Pritchard, Edward Evan

Fergusson, V.

Grenfell, Francis Wallace

Griffith, Francis Llewellyn / [& Laurence Kirwan]; Oxford Excavations in Nubia / Excavated during the Oxford Excavations in Nubia

Haddon, Ernest W.

Leubell

Meek, Charles Kingsley

Munro, Neil Gordon

Murray, G.W. [?may be George William Welsh Murray]

Petrie, William Matthew Flinders

Reisner, George Andrew

Schapera, Isaac

Seton-Karr, Heywood Walter

Shute, D.A.F.?

Shute, Mrs?

Sturge, William Allen Sturge?

Thomas, Bertram Sidney

Torday, Emil

van Stein Callenfels, P.V (also V.A. Stein Callenfels probably P.V. van Stein Callenfels)

Sandra Dudley 2003

Additional Seligman Stats:

Fran Knight, January 2004

Countries in descending order:

The classes in the following chart are not mutually exclusive. This means that the following chart can only be taken as a rough indicator of the spread of the top twenty classes. It does not represent 100% of the Seligman collection and should be used with caution.

Accession dates

[1] The figures quoted by Alison in her field collectors tables differ from mine because she calculated numbers of field collected objects as documented in the whole of Objects PRM, i.e. with accession numbers beginning with up to 2003. As previously agreed, however, my calculations only cover items with accession numbers beginning with years up to and including 1945.

[2] The native/local donors have been left out not because they are considered generally less significant, but because they are not included in our current research into PRM-centred collecting and object-moving networks in the colonial era. In later research stages, however, these individuals may take on a more central role.