The 598 individuals and institutions that helped form the second collection of Pitt-Rivers, which is detailed in the catalogue held by the Cambridge University Library, are composed as follows

512 of them are deemed to be individuals (85.6 per cent) *

86 of them are deemed to be institutions (14.3 per cent)*

43 of them are female (7.1 per cent)

469 are male (78.4 per cent)

508 were based in Britain (84.9 per cent) **

90 were based abroad (15 per cent)

The second collection has a lower ratio of males to females contributing than the overall picture for both collections (see here for detail about that). Perhaps this is a sign of growing female emancipation after 1880? Or just that Pitt-Rivers knew more women after this date and solicited more objects from them, or more women knew him and gave objects unsolicited?

*Note that as regards this part of his collection, it is sometimes hard to distinguish between individuals and institutions as so many of his artefacts were obtained from dealers. I have taken the line that when an individual dealer is named they count as an individual but when a company only is named then it is counted as an institution. These figures, therefore, are flawed as this distinction is not particularly meaningful.

** At this time Britain or rather the United Kingdom included what is now known as the Republic of Ireland, these statistics include items from the UK and Republic of Ireland therefore

AP, June 2010

prm logo