Journal of Museum Ethnography, 11 (1999) pp. 95-104

We are grateful to the Chair of MEG and editor of JME for giving us permission to publish this article on the website.

Cataloguing the PRM founding collection

Alison Petch, Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford

In 1994 the Pitt Rivers Museum was fortunate enough to obtain funding from the Leverhulme Trust for a three year research project into its founding collection given by Lieutenant-General Pitt Rivers in 1884. The project's aims were to prepare a fully researched computerised catalogue for all the objects within the collection and contextualise the information.

The project has been generally acknowledged a great success. Not only have all the known objects had full catalogue entries prepared for them but, for the first time since 1884, it is possible accurately to count the accessioned objects and speculate as to the total number of previously unaccessioned objects donated. For a variety of reasons the number of objects in the Pitt Rivers collection has never been successfully quantified, but it can now be confirmed that approximately one in every ten objects in the Museum is from the founding collection. [Note that this is an over-estimate in 2010 where the founding collection now has a proportional relation of less than 1 in 10]

In this paper I wish to focus on what the research project has taught us about Lieutenant-General Pitt Rivers and the nature of his overall collection: summarise what is now known about the collection at the Pitt Rivers Museum, including its size; and discuss future work on the collection.

Pitt Rivers and his entire collection

Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt Rivers was born in 1827 in Yorkshire, his parents' second son. After his father's early death, he moved to London with his mother. Very little is known about his childhood but at the age of fourteen, in 1841, he entered the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst. He remained in the army until 1882 when he retired at the age of 55 with the rank of Lieutenant-General. When he inherited a large fortune and estate in 1880 from a relative, Lord Rivers, he changed his name to Pitt Rivers. [1]

It is believed that Pitt Rivers first began to collect artefacts in the early 1850s as a result of his interest in the evolution of firearm design. He seems to have accumulated both archaeological and ethnographic objects throughout his long career. In later life he undertook archaeological excavations at his estate in Dorset and in Sussex, Yorkshire and Oxfordshire.

Pitt Rivers was a keen supporter of mass education and in 1874 part of his overall collection was loaned to the South Kensington Museum (now the Victoria and Albert museum) and displayed at its Bethnal Green branch. Bethnal Green was stunningly successful with over half a million visitors per annum. [2] In 1878 the display was transferred to the main site in South Kensington where it remained until it was transferred to Oxford in 1884.

After 1874 Pitt Rivers' entire collection was never in one place. The number of objects displayed at Bethnal Green has never been accurately assessed but by the 1870s his collection is thought to have numbered around 14,000 items (Chapman 1981: 370). In addition there was an unquantified number of artefacts in his houses in London and Dorset and, by the early 1880s, displayed in his own museum in Farnham, Dorset. The total will probably never be known because the Farnham collection has been dispersed and the private collection seems never to have been researched. The number of items not sent to Oxford, however, is likely to have been considerable: certainly the volumes which list Pitt Rivers' purchases from 1881 [3] suggest that he continued to acquire objects in great number. The recent research project has not focused on the entire collection and it is to be hoped that this will be studied further.

The Pitt Rivers research project

The Pitt Rivers project started in January 1995. The Leverhulme Trust had funded a researcher post for three and a quarter years and I was asked to carry out the research. As the project progressed it became clear that it would not be possible to physically examine more than a small proportion of the objects in the collection. It would, of course, have been preferable to do so but that would have required twice the level of funding and length of time. Every opportunity has, of course, been taken to review the actual objects.

When the project first started the Pitt Rivers Museum documentation system was in a state of flux. Since 1985 the museum had used an application called Cardbox on old IBM personal computers. This system was increasingly inflexible and the Museum decided to use Apple computers throughout. A change was finally precipitated by the start of the Pitt Rivers project, for which the University purchased new computer equipment, and by the fact that this project generated as many new entries as had been prepared since computerisation of the overall object records had begun.

After some research it was decided that Filemaker was the best application to be used in future and the Pitt Rivers project was used as the test database. Within three months the application was felt to have been successful and it is now used in all documentation databases in the Museum. The Museum also took the opportunity to review its keyword lists and procedures and implement new forms of information recording. Filemaker allows significantly more information to be stored on each entry than had been possible in the old Cardbox system. The Pitt Rivers project proved an excellent test for the system, allowing many refinements to be put in place before the main databases of the Museum were transferred. The documentation procedures and computerisation continue to be monitored and reviewed.

When the founding collection was first received into the Museum in 1884 it came with several primary sources of information. In many cases there was duplication of entries between these sources and for any one object there might be three or more descriptions. These primary sources were as follows, given in historical order so far as it is possible to ascertain it:

i. Pitt Rivers' published catalogue of part of the collection when it was displayed at Bethnal Green Museum (Pitt Rivers: 1874). Unfortunately this only covered the physical anthropology and weapons displays and was never completed, however it is useful in supplementing information available from other sources. All the objects in the catalogue are mentioned in at least one other primary source.

ii. The 'Green book' which provides copies of the South Kensington Museum receipts. It lists some objects transferred to Bethnal Green and South Kensington Museum between 1874 and 1884 by Pitt Rivers but not all the objects which are known to have been on display. The information is based upon the so-called Day or Van books of those museums.

iii. The so-called 'Black', 'Red' and 'Blue' books which list some objects in Bethnal Green and South Kensington Museums between 1874 and 1884. Blackwood described these volumes in 1970 as:

Pitt Rivers Black; Pitt Rivers Blue Red: These two volumes, now bound like the others in the Museum red buckram, were originally notebooks with covers of those colours. They contain (on the right hand pages) a catalogue of the first and largest batch of specimens sent by General Pitt Rivers to South Kensington, entered in groups according to subject, with consecutive numbers, and (on the left hand pages) specimens in the same subject groups sent subsequently, with numbers prefixed by Ag. (Aggregation). See letter to Prof. Moseley ... In making the catalogue now contained in the volumes PR IV, V and VI [ie the Pitt-Rivers founding collection accession books] E.S. Thomas added these numbers on the right-hand side of his pages, followed by the words black, blue, or red... [Blackwood, 1970: 19]

This letter has not yet been identified. [Note: added March 2011, Ag. in the black book is said to stand for 'Agenda' as it is spelt out in full in some entries]

iv. Delivery Catalogues I and II which detail the objects transferred from London to Oxford. They are, however, not a complete list of all the objects now in the Museum. Blackwood describes these as:

I and II Delivery Catalogues. Two volumes indicating what was given to the University by General Pitt Rivers in accordance with the Deed of Gift and Declaration of Trust ratified in 1884. Entries are made in the order in which the objects were put into the packing cases, with the General's numbers appended ... An index of subjects, prepared by T.K. Penniman, is pasted into the front of Vol. I. All the entries (with a very few exceptions) have been incorporated elsewhere, but the volumes are useful for reference in case of doubt.

v. Accession books III and VII (named after the collection was received at the Pitt Rivers Museum but probably created before). These relate solely to the objects collected in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands by E.H. Man, which form part of the founding collection. Almost all of these objects are mentioned in at least one of the other primary sources. Blackwood explains these as:

III Andamanese and Nicobarese Objects. This volume contains a catalogue, dated Jan. 1881, of objects from the Andaman and Nicobar Islands collected by E.H. Man, and presented by him in November 1880 to General Pitt Rivers, whose collection was then at South Kensington. It was sent to the Curator [T.K. Penniman] in 1941 by the Keeper of the Library of the Victoria and Albert Museum (see letter pasted inside the original paper cover). All the objects in this catalogue are entered elsewhere ... They are here numbered consecutively in order of entry, but these numbers were not used in subsequent entries ... [Blackwood, 1970: 18]

VII Nicobar Islands. E.H. Man collection. List of specimens given by E.H. Mn either to General Pitt Rivers or to the University Museum (in 1886, transferred to the Pitt Rivers Museum in 1887). All have been entered elsewhere. ... [Blackwood, 1970: 19]

Most if not all of the above information dates from prior to 1884 when the collection was donated to the University of Oxford. The following sources were (or were probably) compiled after the collection arrived in Oxford.

vi. Accession books IV - VI (only for Pitt Rivers objects). These were compiled by E.S. Thomas, an assistant to Henry Balfour, probably between 1924 and 1936. Blackwood explains them:

IV, V, VI. Catalogue of the collection presented by General Pitt Rivers to the University, arranged according to subjects. This was compiled by E. S. Thomas, sometime Assistant to Henry Balfour, the Museum's first Curator. It incorporates all the entries in I, II and III, with the General's numbers. ... [Blackwood, 1970: 18-9]

The detailed methodology by which the accession books were compiled is not known. Interestingly, although the compilation must have been a considerable task it is not mentioned specifically in the Museum's Annual Reports. These books were used as the basis for assigning accession numbers to the collection. Unfortunately they are not a complete record of the founding collection and since the 1930s additional objects have been found and added (these are always mentioned in one of the other primary sources but until the recent research project it was not always possible to retrieve this information). It is not known why the accession books were incomplete as Thomas was known as a conscientious researcher and worker. It might be that it took a very long time to unpack and organise the founding collection and some objects may have been mislaid.

vii. 'Collectors Miscellaneous' accession book. This book gives information about objects for which there is a named field collector or secondary collector. It is a bound volume made up of a series of differently sized notebooks. Occasionally it contains more information than is available from other sources. Blackwood explains:

Collections XI Miscellaneous. The contents of this volume were found by T.K. Penniman in various parts of the Museum and ultimately bound together after he had checked them with the objects. It contains many of the older collections of the Museum, which had evidently been listed separately by different people. [Blackwood, 1970: 20]

viii. Two card catalogues were compiled from the accession books. Each object in the Museum has two cards, one of which was sorted by provenance (geographical or tribal) and the other by use or type, e.g. Weapons, Pottery, etc. The same information about each object was held in both catalogues. Cards were based upon the accession registers, so do not give a complete record of the Pitt Rivers collection. Some were prepared by volunteers and members of staff working on specific groups of objects; the remainder was completed during the World War II when other work was difficult. You can find more information about these card catalogues in Blackwood, 1970: 21-24.

It was decided to start the 1995-8 research project using Accession books IV to VI as these had been used to assign Pitt Rivers Museum accession numbers, the basic information building blocks of museum documentation. These followed an unusual pattern. Normally for the vast majority of objects, since 1 January 1966, the Museum uses an accession number system which assigns the numbers as Year of Accession / Collection Number / Number of object within collection. So an object numbered 2011.1.1 will represent the first object in the first collection donated in 2011 to the Pitt Rivers Museum. (Before 1966, for a short time, objects were numbered in a similar looking system which in fact denoted Year of Accession / Month / Number of object within month).

For the Pitt Rivers founding collection however, the year of accession was given of 1884, the next number relates to a particular display / type of object and the last to the number of object within that type. So 1884.119.199 is a hammer given by Pitt Rivers in 1884, 119 denotes Copper or Bronze Implements and this is the 199th object in the listing. The hammer's actual entry makes this clear:

Accession Book V entry - 1884.119.1 - 631 Implements Copper Bronze (copper specified when known) - Socketed subcubical ?hammer, 55 mm, sub-quadrangular socket with moulded neck [Drawing]

The accession book information was then added to, using each primary source in turn. As each source was added the existing entries were often clarified and it can be truly said that the result of this exercise has proved that the sum is greater than the parts. Collating all the sources for the first time has meant that much new information has come to light. In addition, for many objects, it has become clear that attribution of provenance or use has altered over time. Finally, as much contextualising information as possible has been added, including details from Pitt Rivers' many publications. Where possible objects have been located and described, but because it took nearly three years to collate all existing forms of data it has not been possible to process more than a small proportion of the overall collection. However other curatorial staff, during the course of normal procedures, will use and add to the research.

Summary of current knowledge about the collection in the Pitt Rivers Museum

The overall collection transferred to Oxford was composed of both archaeological and ethnographic objects. Most of these had previously been on display at the Bethnal Green Museum, and later at the South Kensington Museum. Previous estimates of the overall size of the founding collection have varied from 12,000 to 15,000 objects. As a result of the research project it can now be confirmed that 17,300 objects were definitely received at Oxford and it is possible that a further 7,000 items were donated by Pitt Rivers at the same time. It may seem strange that after a three-year project specifically set up to research a collection it is not possible to accurately count the number of objects, but that is because of the idiosyncrasies of the collection and the way in which the original documentation was prepared.

The 7,000 objects are, for the most part, made up of entries from primary sources other than the accession books, for which matches cannot be made to those objects listed in the accession books. Today all collections are thoroughly described and counted as they are accessioned by the Museum and each object is physically and indelibly numbered with its unique accession number. The Pitt Rivers collection, however, was received before such procedures were in place and the whole accessioning process had to be done retrospectively. In addition, although documentation for each of the objects did accompany them from London it is no longer possible, in all cases, to satisfactorily match documentation to object. Each object may have up to six primary sources of documentation which do not always marry happily together. Further confusion may have occurred because it took at least ten years to unpack and re-display the objects after they had been received at Oxford.

Since the accession books were first compiled, quite a few objects have been found which are definitely part of the collection but not listed in them. Details about these objects have been added in. It is now always possible to match these to other primary sources. The figures given above can therefore be interpreted to mean that 17,300 objects are listed in the three accession books or have been found unlisted between the 1920s and 1996. It seems likely, now that all the primary sources of information have been collated for the first time, that a further 7,000 objects might be stored in the Museum awaiting retrieval and retrospective listing. Of the 17,300 accessioned items, 8,073 are ethnographic objects and 10,069 are archaeological (allowing for some necessary double-counting). Of the 7,000 further objects thought to have come to Oxford, over three-quarters are ethnographic.

By far the largest proportion of the accessioned objects are from Europe. The breakdown of objects between continents is as follows: Europe 9,930; Africa 1,624; Americas (North, Middle and South) 1,460; Asia 2,480 (including SE Asia); Oceania (including Australia) 1,237. Of the objects from Europe, which form such a large percentage of the total, most, as one might expect, are archaeological but there are also significant numbers of ethnographic items. The accessioned items Pitt Rivers himself 'collected' (on trips abroad or by excavation) number around 5,000 (between a quarter and a third of the entire accessioned collection). Of these, the vast majority come from Europe.

The continuing uncertainty about the overall size of the founding collection is unlikely to be resolved in the near future. In the end the Museum will know how many objects were acquired by the University in 1884, but the answer will not come quickly. The only sure way to ascertain the exact number will be to physically retrieve each object and match it against the computerised catalogue - with current staffing constraints and limits of time and space this is not likely to happen in the near future - but with the ongoing documentation of the entire collection eventually it will be resolved. Already the database has made it much easier to provide researchers with the best information we have to date and as each object is retrieved this information can be added to. The real questions about the Pitt Rivers project must be, is the quality of the objects high and is the quality of the accompanying information also good?

The answer to these questions is, I would suggest, yes (in parts) to the first, and no (in parts) to the second. Some, indeed most, of the Pitt Rivers objects are rare and unusual, though many are early examples of more everyday items which few other nineteenth century collectors bothered to amass. However, the accompanying information is often crude and undetailed. The Pitt Rivers collection can provide many examples of 'how not to' provide information about artefacts. A fairly typical example of the type of information which has survived for a Pitt Rivers object, chosen randomly, is:

466, 467. Plain and round cylindrical clubs. Fiji Islands. Fig. 53.[4]

This quotation is from the 1874 catalogue of the display at Bethnal Green Museum and was written by Pitt Rivers. The only plus point is that he did at least include a drawing of one of these clubs (without specifying which one, of course). Another, fuller, example is:

'This weapon, tho' brought by Consul Petherick, with others, from Central Africa, and somewhat resembling them in form, is evidently an Abyssinian Shatel of native manufacture, as described by Mansfield Parkyns. They are used to strike point downwards over the guard of an adversary; two-edged and curved to a semicircle, like a reaper's sickle. The sheath is of red Morocco leather, its point being often ornamented with a hollow Silver ball, called Comita, as large as a small apple. They bend easily and they straighten them by sitting on them. The handle is made of the horn of the rhinoceros, the inner part only of which is suitable for handles. This sword is worn on the right side, the other being occupied with the round shield. See Mansfield Parkyn's Life in Abyssinia'

This information was again provided by Pitt Rivers himself, on a label attached to the object.[5] There are lots of things that could be said about it: all of it is reportage, or a visual description, rather than first hand knowledge; he directly contradicts the field collector's provenance by associating it with objects made hundreds of miles away (there is no evidence to date that Petherick, the field collector, reported that this weapon was a shatel; of course, Pitt Rivers could be right as the object might have been traded into Central Africa); there is no mention of the sheath in any other sources of information about the object and it is likely therefore that either there never was one for this weapon (the wording is ambiguous), or it is no longer associated with the object and indeed may have been lost before it even reached the Pitt Rivers Museum. Both of these examples are fairly typical of the early documentation of the collection.

What makes so many parts of Pitt Rivers's collection badly documented is that for the most part he was not the field collector and did not know any detailed facts about the object. Neither did he obtain from the field collector any of the data which today would be considered so vital. Instead he was most interested in the way that the object, without associated information, could visually be made to fit into evolutionary series showing the development of a particular form or shape or weapon. In some cases better, that is more detailed and less discursive, information about objects in the PR collection is available, but these instances are in the minority.

Numbers associated with Pitt Rivers' objects

Beatrice Blackwood remarked that, '... [the accession books IV to VI were] compiled by E.S. Thomas, sometime Assistant to Henry Balfour ... [they incorporate information from other sources] together with the General's numbers. These take various forms, the reason for which it is now impossible to determine. Examples, chosen at random, are: 394; 4/ 913;17/ 9764; 25/ 12385; 61/ 11932; 1/ 10150. Frequently the same number refers to several objects' (1970:18-19).

The research project has been able to shed some light on these mysterious numbers. The objects listed in the 1874 published catalogue were numbered 1 to 1,247. There are other objects which continue this series of numbers. As the objects listed in the catalogue are known to have been on display at Bethnal Green in 1874 it seems that these were a series of sequentially numbered objects all of which were probably received and numbered prior to display at that Museum.

As Blackwood suggests there are also another series of numbers which are always expressed in fractions as in 4/ 913;17/ 9764; 25/ 12385 as given above. The research project has enabled us to identify that the later part of the fraction number i.e. 9764 or 12385 marks a time difference. The green book shows a series of objects received at Bethnal Green on different days. Each of these receipts is associated with a different fraction number and the numbers increase over time. That is, the smaller fraction number 9764 shows that that group of objects was delivered to Bethnal Green at an earlier date than any objects with the fraction number ending 12385. It is not currently known whether these numbers were assigned by Pitt Rivers prior to delivery or by Bethnal Green or South Kensington Museums. It is thought that the end fraction numbers are a recognition of the block additions of objects: that is 200 objects might have been delivered on 1 January 1882 and been given the numbers 1/ 12385 to 200/ 12385, the next day's delivery would then be numbered 1/ 12586 etc.

The exceedingly complicated numbering systems associated with Pitt Rivers' objects and the uncertainty of how or why they were derived are an obvious example of an area which requires further research. Any reader who has encountered Pitt Rivers' objects at other museums or in private collections which are similarly numbered is asked to contact the author as this might shed useful light on the ways in which the objects' numbers were assigned.

Future work on the collection

The most important aspect of the catalogue is probably its most low-key aspect: as a research tool for others. It provides invaluable data for researchers interested in specific nineteenth century collectors; in nineteenth century collections in general; in specific geographical area collections; in specific field collections which form part of the Pitt Rivers collection; and early examples of many types of objects.

The final stages of the project have now been reached and ways are being examined of publishing aspects of this extensive research. The database itself is over 50 megabytes. Even if there were a proven market for it, it would be impossible to publish even a short run of a comprehensive catalogue of the collections as it would comprise many thousands of pages. It has therefore been agreed that the catalogue should be published and publicised in a number of ways. Short Museum publications about aspects of the project (for example, small booklets about some of the field collectors represented in the collection: Edward Belcher, RBN Walker and John Petherick to name three) will be prepared and a series of journal papers is planned. The Museum has for quite a while been considering the practicalities of making more detailed object-related information available to visitors, and the Pitt Rivers database will form part of whatever solution is found.

The Museum hopes to organise a symposium with many guest speakers to be held in 2000. The main thrust of the symposium will be the process of the construction of collections, rather than collecting in particular, in the second half of the nineteenth century. The symposium will concentrate on the world of institutions, auction houses and secondary collectors: the relationships between all these and museums and, of course, field collectors. The usual presentation on issues of collecting is to consider the conduct of collectors in the field, but this symposium will concentrate on secondary collectors. The aim will be to define the scientific process of collection more closely so that collecting or amassing collections and field collecting can be seen separately. The collection would be seen as a construct of social and historic processes.

The Museum will hold an exhibition starting in late Spring 2001 to bring attention to a hidden area of museum work which affects the way in which all objects are presented to the public. A recent major exhibition, Braving the Elements, which showed the work of the Conservation Department, was highly successful. The new exhibition, the provisional title of which is Constructing Collections, would present curatorial and documentation aspects of museum work to the public, showing how information related to individual objects is dealt with and how curatorial authority is arrived at. The exhibition could show how the (non-monetary) value of objects is diminished by lack of information and provenancing, and how good field information, or research, is invaluable. It would consider how objects have been documented in the museum in the past and how they are now. This could be approached with a general education aim: to show members of the public how museum documentation works and its importance (and to show how objects are worthless without documentation); to show how objects and collections are researched; to show the different ways in which objects have been documented during the past; to bring into the exhibition other aspects such as field and other types of collections and the importance and interest of the history of objects prior to being donated to the Museum. One of the many aspects of the Pitt Rivers Museum's collections which could be considered in the context of this exhibition is the founding collection.

Finally, the Museum has become involved with a HEFCE-funded project (coordinated by the University of Kent at Canterbury) to review the use of multi-media techniques and resources in the teaching of anthropology. The Museum has decided to concentrate on an aspect of the Pitt Rivers research for its part of the project. The researcher prepared the information which has been visually enhanced for use in CD-roms (in the first instance during the trial period) and later possibly over the web. [This resource is now available here] The information might be used in-house, with some modification, for museum visitors.

The Museum's part of the project has been centred around the 38 shields displayed on Screen 2 at Bethnal Green. These were described in the 1874 catalogue. The research project allowed these to be matched to the objects in the Pitt Rivers Museum collection. Starting with the Screen 2 display the project will provide more detailed information about each object, Pitt Rivers himself, his overall collection and the world in which the shields were collected and displayed originally. It will examine the different ways in which such artefacts can be displayed and discuss collection and exhibition of museum objects. Finally specific issues arising from the type of object will be considered: the history of weapons collections, iconography of shields, etc.

Conclusion

This paper can only be a sampler of the kinds of information that have been obtained about the Pitt Rivers project since 1995. Any interested readers are invited to contact the Museum directly to discuss specific issues or to arrange to come and see the database.[6] Many benefits have flowed from the successful conclusion of the project and although it is easy to criticise aspects of the founding collection, no-one who works on it for any length of time will remain ungrateful to Pitt Rivers himself for amassing such a large and wide-ranging collection and for ensuring that so many objects remained intact for 150 years for the education and amusement of museum visitors and the benefit of scholars.

Notes

[1] For more information about Pitt Rivers' life and times see Bowden 1991 and Thompson 1977.
[2] Science and Art Dept, South Kensington Museum 22nd Annual Report, quoted in Chapman (1981: 385).
[3] Currently located in the Manuscripts Department of Cambridge University Library.
[4] Pitt Rivers 1874: 79.
[5] 1884.24.113.
[6] [obsolete phone number]

References

Blackwood, B. 1970. The Classification of Artefacts in the Pitt Rivers Museum Oxford. Occasional Papers on Technology II. Oxford: Pitt Rivers Museum.Bowden, M. 1991. Pitt Rivers: The life and archaeological work of Lt. General Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt Rivers DCL FRS FSA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapman, W.R. 1981. Ethnology in the Museum.Unpublished D. Phil thesis, vols I and II. Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford.
_____1985. 'Arranging Ethnology' in G. Stocking (ed.) Objects and Others. History of Anthropology Series. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.
_____1991. 'Like a Game of Dominoes: Augustus Pitt Rivers and the Typological Museum Idea' in S. Pearce (ed.) Museum Economics and the Community. Vol 2: New Research in Museum Studies. London: Athlone.
Petch, A. 1996. 'Weapons and the "Museum of Museums"'. Journal of Museum Ethnography8:11-22
_____1997.The early history of Lieutenant-General Pitt Rivers's collection and the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford. Oxford: Pitt Rivers Museum.
Pitt Rivers, A.H.L.F. 1874. Catalogue of the Anthropological Collection lent by Colonel Lane Fox for exhibition in the Bethnal Green branch of the South Kensington Museum June 1874. Parts I and II. London: HMSO.
Thompson, M.W. 1977. General Pitt Rivers: Evolution and Archaeology in the Nineteenth Century. Bradford-on-Avon: Moonraker Press.

[Transcribed 3 June 2010 for the Rethinking Pitt-Rivers project by AP]