MAX UHLE, 1856-1944

A MEMOIR OF THE FATHER OF

PERUVIAN ARCHA:EOLOGY

BY

JOHN HOWLAND ROWE

UNIVERSIIY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS IN AMERICAN

ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY
Volume 46, No. 1, pp. 1-134, plates 1-14

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS.

BERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES

1954

MAX UHLE

A portrait made near the end of his life

Reproduced by permission of the Museum fur VoIerkunde, Hamburg

MAX    UHLE, 1856-1944

A MEMOIR OF THE FATHER OF

PERUVIAN ARCHAEOLOGY

BY

JOHN HOWLAND ROWE

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS

BERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES

1954

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS IN AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY

EDITORs (BERxiEY): E. W. GIFFORD, D. G. MANDELBAUM,

T. D. MCCOWN, R. L. OLSON

Volume 46, No. 1, pp. 1-134, plates 1-14
Submitted\by editors February 26, 1954

Issued November 15,1954

Price, $1.75

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS

BERKELEY AND Los ANGELES

CALIRNIA

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

LONDON, ENGLAND

PRINTED IN THE UNIlTED STATES OF AMERIOA

In Americanist studies, the
first thing that had to be done
was to introduce the idea of time,
to get people to admit that the
types could change.-MAX UHLE

PREFACE

To MY GEAT regret I never met Max Uhle, and the folowing account of his life
and work is a piece of historical research. It turned out to be a very complex one,
which has left me deep in the debt of many friends and colleagues. First of all
I want to call attention to the important part played by Dr. Clement W. Meighan,
of the University of California Archaeological Survey, in the library research
which lies behind the text. He compiled a preliminary bibliography, which is the
basis of the one accompanying this study, and assembled much information on
Uhle's movements and archaeological work which served to guide my own investi-
gations. He also contributed the assessment of Uhle's contribution to the archae-
ology of California.

Dr. J. Alden Mason, of the University Museum in Philadelphia, and Miss
Bruckner, the Museum's Recorder, were kind enough to assemble and make avail-
able the records of Uhle's work for the University of Pennsylvania in 1895-1898
and 1917. Miss Dorothy Menzel deciphered Uhle's German script and extracted
the necessary information from this material, and she also consulted Adolph
Bandelier's journal for me at the American Museum of Natural History. Dr.
Gerdt Kutscher of the Latein amerikanische Bibliothek in Berlin, the repository
of Uhle's notes and manuscripts, kindly supplied much information and some
reprints. Dr. Martin Gusinde of the Catholic University of America sent me three
pages of invaluable data on Uhle's life in Chile. Dr. Gordon R. Willey of Harvard
University supplied a glimpse of Uhle's last year in Peru, which I have quoted in
the account of his life. For other personal impressions of Uhle I am indebted to
Drs. A. L. Kroeber, Ronald L. Olson, and Robert H. Lowie of the University of
California. I want to thank also Mr. Junius Bird of the American Museum of
Natural History, Dr. Alfred Kidder II of the University Museum, Dr. William
Duncan Strong of Columbia University, Dr. Greta Mostny of the Museo Nacional
de Historia Natural, Santiago, Dr. Henry Wassen of the Etnografiska Museet in
Goteborg, Dr. Herbert Baldus of the Museu Paulista, and Sr. Jorge C. Muelle of
the Museo Nacional de Historia, Lima.

My data on Uhle's early life come from a biographical report which he supplied
for the Biobibliographical Service of the President's Office of the University of
California in 1905. For the years when he worked for the University of California
I have used the catalogue and correspondence file of the Museum of Anthropology
at Berkeley. For his field work done for the Berlin Museum and for his career
from 1906 on I have had to depend on the published records, which are scanty,
for in these periods Uhle published little about his own work and others reported
it only sketchily.

Except as otherwise noted, the impressions of Uhle's character and ideas are
my own, based on a very extensive sampling of his writings.

This memoir should not remain the last word on the subject. Uhle is an im-
portant enough figure in the history of anthropological field work to deserve a
full biography. The task of doing Uhle real justice, however, is more than I can
undertake at present, and I would rather make what information I have available
than delay it until I can track down the answers to all the questions that remain.
Berkeley, California, May 1,1952                              J.H.R.

CONTENTS

PAGE

Max Uhle, 1856-1944...                             .         1

Bibliography of Max Uhle .  .       .       .       .       26

A. Uhle's Writings .....                                   26
B. Discussions of Uhle and His Work . . .     .      .     47
Appendix A. The Aims and Results of Archaeology, by Max Uhle . .  54

Lecture 1          .            .55
Lecture 2         .             .65
Lecture 3         .             .78
Lecture 4 ..90

Appendix B. Letters from Argentina and Bolivia, 1893-1895, by Max Uhle 101

Extract from a letter from Max Uhle to J. D. E.

Schmeltz, written from Salta in 1893 . . .   .    .     101
Letter from Dr. Max Uhle about his journeys in

South America, Tupiza, November 16, 1893  .....         101
Letter from Dr. Max Uhle about his journeys in

Bolivia, La Paz, April 16, 1894  ..        .   .103
Letter from Dr. Max Uhle about his journeys in

Bolivia, La Paz, January 22, 1895  ..        .   .      106
Appendix C. Documents Relating to the Years 1903-1906 ..... 109

Letter from Kroeber to Uhle, March 6, 1903  . . .  .      109
Extract from a letter sent to Uhle, in Peru, by F. W. Putnam,

October 8, 1904 .....109
Draft of a letter from Uhle to Putnam, Supe, November 3, 1904 . . . . 110
Letter from Uhle to Putnam, Lima, November 22, 1905 . . .  111
Letter from Uhle to Kroeber, Lima, November 22, 1905 .    112
Letter from Uhle to Mrs. Hearst, Lima, December 21, 1905 .....114
Letter from Charlotte Uhle to Kroeber, Lima, April 15, 1906  115
Plates .        .                                           121

MAX UHLE, 1856-1944

BY

JOHN HOWLAND ROWE

THE FOUNDATIONS of Andean archaeology were laid by Max Uhle between 1892
and 1905, and no important modification or extension of his framework of styles
and periods was suggested until W. C. Bennett's Excavations at Tiahuanaco was
published in 1934. When Uhle started work, American archaeology was wholly
without depth. A good deal of digging and collecting had been done and local
styles were fairly well known in some areas, but American antiquities were all
simply "pre-Columbian." It was Uhle who first applied modern principles of
stratigraphy and seriation to American materials and sorted them out into a
chronological sequence. This is only part of his achievement, but it is probably the
part that will be longest remembered.

Uhle did more field work in western South America than anyone else who has
ever lived. Most of it was archaeological, though some of it also had to do with
ethnography and the analysis of Indian languages. He was so interested in gather-
ing data that he never got around to publishing most of them. There are extensive
collections of his in Philadelphia, Berkeley, Berlin, Quito, Lima, and Santiago,
and smaller ones in Goteborg and SaJo Paulo, for the most part documented by de-
tailed catalogues and preliminary field reports in the form of letters. His notes
and many unpublished manuscripts are in Berlin. Kroeber's publications based
on the Uhle collections at Berkeley have demonstrated the value of the sort of
study that can be made of data-accompanied museum collections. This account
of Uhle's life and work is presented in the hope that it will stimulate more such
studies and contribute in some degree to the completion of the work which Uhle
himself left unfinished.

Max Uhle was born in Dresden, Saxony, on March 25, 1856. His full Christian
name was Friedrich Max, but he used the full form only on official documents.
His father was named Friedrich Ernst Uhle, and the son probably preferred to
use his middle name to avoid confusion with his father. His parents were people
of some substance in Dresden. His father was Royal Staff Surgeon Major of
Saxony (Kiniglich sdchsischer Oberstabsartzt), and his mother, Anna Kunigunde
Lorenz, was the daughter of a royal judge, Wilhelm Lorenz (Koniglich sachsischer
Gerichts-Director). In 1869 the boy was sent to boarding school at the Koniglich
Siichsische Fiirsten- und Landesschule, St. Afra bei Meissen, about twenty miles
northwest of Dresden. He graduated in 1875 and went immediately to the Uni-
versity of Leipzig for the summer. In the fall he began a year of military service
in the artillery, after which he went to the University of G6ttingen for a year.
In the fall of 1877 he went back to Leipzig, and stayed there until he took his
Ph.D. degree in 1880. This was in linguistics, and his thesis was on a point of
medieval Chinese grammar. Apparently the thesis subject was chosen to suit the
professor's interest rather than the student's, for Uhle never wrote again on
Chinese philology.

[1 ]

2        University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

A year after taking his degree, Uhle got his first job, as assistant to the director
of the Konigliches Zoologisches und Anthropologisch-Ethnographisches Museum
in Dresden (1881-1888). His publications while at Dresden indicate broad an-
thropological interests, with some emphasis on Malaya and New Guinea, probably
because of the nature of the museum collections.

The period of Uhle's work at Dresden coincided very nearly with the dates
of publication of Das Totenfeld von Ancon in Peru by Reiss and Stiibel (3 vols.,
Berlin, 1880-1887; simultaneous English edition: The Necropolis of Ancon in
Peru). This work, the first descriptive report on a scientific excavation in the
history of Peruvian archaeology, created a considerable sensation in anthropo-
logical circles and roused widespread interest in the Andean area as a field for
research. Uhle not only felt the influence of the book but had the personal en-
couragement of one of its authors. Alphons Stiibel lived in Dresden and knew Uhle
well, and it was largely his inspiration that led the young museum assistant to
dedicate his life to Andean anthropology.

In 1888 Uhle left the Dresden Museum to become Assistant at the K6nigliches
Museum fur V6lkerkunde in Berlin, which was then under the directorship of
Adolf Bastian. Berlin at that time was probably the most stimulating place in
Europe for an aspiring Peruvianist. Bastian himself had traveled in the Andes
and was writing Die Culturldnder des alten America (3 vols., Berlin, 1878-1889).
Wilhelm Reiss, Stiibel's colleague at Ancon, was also there, and there were others
with similar interests.

Uhle was only in Berlin for four years, but they were years of tremendous
activity. He was an assistant secretary to the VII International Congress of
Americanists (Berlin, 1888), along with Seler, Steinen, Luschan, and other illus-
trious contemporaries, and he prepared both a book and a paper to present to
the congress. The book was a series of essays on outstanding archaeological speci-
mens from Mexico, Colombia, and Peru in the Berlin Museum, and in the essays
Uhle discussed a number of archaeological problems that had been debated at the
previous congress, notably the use of molds in ancient America. The paper was
on the classification of the Chibcha languages. Uhle related Chibcha proper to the
languages of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta and to Talamanca of Costa Rica
and Guaymi of Panama. He called attention to a series of systematic sound cor-
respondences, and thus made one of the first applications of the comparative
method of Indo-Europeanists to native American lanlguages. This paper has many
defects as a linguistic study, but it remained for twenty years the basis of the
classification of the Chibcha family.

Another major publication of Uhle's Berlin years was his Kultur und Industrie
sildamerikanischer Volker (1889-1890), a two-volume study of the archaeological
and ethnographical collections at Leipzig assembled by Stiibel, Reiss, and Koppel
from all parts of South America. A series of excellent plates with commentary,
this work is still indispensable and has been unjustly neglected by recent scholars.
Finally, in 1892, appeared Uhle's Die Ruinenstdtte von Tiahuanaco, a detailed
description and interpretation of the great Bolivian site on the basis of photo-
graphs and measurements made by Alphons Stiibel in 1876 to 1877. This book

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                     3
served to define the style of Tiahuanaco and established it as pre-Inca, and thus
laid a firm basis for the archaeological chronology Uhle was to build up later in
Peru. Somehow Uhle also found time in these years to write a series of articles
on various subjects: house types in Holstein, Costa Rican gold, and ancient Mexi-
can featherwork. He belonged to the Berliner Gesellschaft fur Anthropologie,
Ethnologie und Urgeschichte and to the Gesellschaft fur Erdkunde zu Berlin
and took an active part in their meetings. Thus, when his chance came to go to
South America for field work in November, 1892, Uhle was already widely known
as a productive scholar and somewhat of an expert on South American problems.
He was only thirty-six.

His first field trip, to Argentina and Bolivia, was made under the auspices of
the Prussian government and the Berlin Museum, and his field reports were made
to Bastian as director of the latter institution and sponsor of the work. Uhle
landed at Buenos Aires and went overland to Cordoba. Thence he went to Cata-
marca by mule, and from Catamarca by way of Chumbicha to Tinogasta. This
town in the southwestern part of the province of Catamarca was his base for ex-
ploration of the archaeological sites between Fiambala in Catamarca and Chilecito
in La Rioja. In April, 1893, he shipped to Berlin a collection from the sites of
Medanito, Tinogasta, Aimogasta, and Aniyaco-Watungasta in this area. After
this work he moved north to Belen, where he explored the Belen valley, and then
northeast to Tucuman, via Andalgala. From Tucuman he went on to visit the sites
of the Calchaqui valleys, which he explored from Fuerte Quemado to Molinos.
Then he went on via Conchas to Salta, to ship off his collections and prepare to
go on to Bolivia. From Salta he wrote to J. D. E. Schmeltz of the emotional and
intellectual impact his field work was having on him; he felt as if he were dis-
covering a new world and at the same time improving his research methods and
broadening his intellectual horizons (see App. B). At the very beginning of his
work in America he acquired the passion for field work which later often inter-
fered with his plans for publication or settled academic life.

To enter Bolivia he chose the route via San Antonio de los Cobres and the
region of Cochinoca and Casabindo. A stopover at these two towns gave him a
chance to explore some dry rock shelters, which yielded a large collection of well-
preserved burials. With a load of skulls and mummy bundles, he went on by the
Quebrada of Talina to Tupiza in Bolivia, arriving there in November, 1893. South-
ern Bolivia fascinated Uhle; the archaeology was not spectacular, but the popula-
tion, still Indian in speech and customs, stimulated him to make ethnographic
observations. He did not stay very long in one place, however; soon he was off on
an excursion of several weeks into the interior of Lipes, the little-known south-
western corner of Bolivia, visiting Esmoraca, San Antonio de Guadalupe, San
Pablo, and Cerritos. After this trip Uhle took another short one, in which he re-
visited Talina; then he continued his northward journey by way of Cotagaita
to Potosi, and from there went by way of Challapata to Oruro, along the east
shore of Lake Poopo. Oruro was his base for a month's excursion to the interior of
Carangas, which he undertook early in 1894 at the height of the worst rainy season
in years. Carangas is rough country at best, but Uhle had to struggle through miles

4        University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

of marsh, following inundated trails and finding little in the way of comfort in
the towns where the roads ended-Totora, Curahuara de Carangas, Turco,
Huachacalla, Corque, and Chuquichambi. He found the archaeological remains
scanty, though there were hundreds of burial towers (chulpas) in northern Caran-
gas. One of the purposes of this trip was to visit the Uro village of Chipaya, near
Lake Coipasa; but he found, on reaching Huachacalla, that the road to Chipaya
was completely impassable. His disappointment was somewhat lessened by the
discovery that there were two Uro families living at Huachacalla, and he spent
three days and nights in February questioning them with the aid of an Aymara
interpreter. The result was an Uro vocabulary of more than four hundred words
and a sketch of the grammar. Of all this Uro material, only about nineteen words
of the vocabulary have ever been published. Uhle struggled back to Oruro and
then went direct to La Paz, arriving there at the beginning of March.

One of the first things Uhle did after he reached La Paz was to pay a visit
(April 20-21) to the ruins of Tiahuanaco, which he already knew intimately from
Stiibel's notes. To his horror he discovered that the Bolivian regiment stationed
at Tiahuanaco was usinXg the sculptures of the site as targets for rifle practice.
He wrote immediately to the Minister of Government protesting this piece of
vandalism and sent a copy of his letter to the newspaper El Comercio, of La Paz.
The paper published it on May 7, 1894; other papers, such as Ecos Liberales, took
up the scandal (May 13), and the shooting was stopped. It was more than ten
years, however, before any adequate protection was provided for Bolivia's most
famous site.

From April to September, Uhle was stranded in La Paz, in such financial straits
that he had to borrow money to live on. The reason for this situation was a change
in his sponsorship, which took some months to work out. In 1893, while Uhle was
still in Argentina, Mrs. Zelia Nuttall heard his praises in Berlin from Bastian and
Stiibel and proposed to her friend Mrs. Cornelius Stevenson, a patron of the Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania, that the university take over Uhle's work. Bastian had
planned on further German support of the explorations but was willing to re-
linquish Uhle to Pennsylvania if the Americans wanted him. The difficulty was
that it took many months to raise the necessary money in Philadelphia, and it
was not until early in 1895 that Uhle actually went to work for the University
of Pennsylvania.

He managed to make his stay in La Paz profitable, however, by making an in-
tensive study of the Aymara language. He wanted to learn.it, and he was also
interested in working out various problems of the grammar. He had a copy of
E. W. Middendorf's Aymara grammar (1891) and in going over it became con-
vinced that Middendorf had obtained only part of the verb conjugation and had
missed various other details. In studying Aymara he had the stimulation of work-
ing with a number of Bolivian friends who spoke the language well and were in-
terested in its grammar; he apparently used them as informants and not the
Indians themselves. He felt, after some four months of work, that he had the notes
for a better Aymara grammar than any that had yet appeared; but like most of
the rest of his linguistic data it remained in manuscript. He published only the
table of verb forms which he had worked out (Uhle, 1902a, 1912c).

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                       5
One of his most severe trials during his stay in La Paz was the presence of a
rival anthropologist. Adolph Bandelier arrived in August to undertake a pro-
gram of archaeological and ethnographic research in the same area in which Uhle
wanted to work, and Uhle felt rather bitter about his own enforced idleness. The
two men established a reasonably cordial though cautious relationship. They saw
each other fairly frequently when they were both in La Paz, and made at least
one short trip together; but each told the other as little as possible of his own re-
search, and each was critical of the other's results.1

Between September, 1894, and the end of the year, Uhle made two trips to the
shores and islands of Lake Titicaca, still for the Berlin Museum. He was in the field
continuously during these months except for the first eleven days of October.
He went first to Copacabana, where he visited various sites, including Lloqepaya,
opposite the island of Anapia. He visited the island of Coati twice, seven days
in all, and spent thirteen days on the island of Titicaca, describing and meas-
uring the InJca sites there, which were also later published by Bandelier. After
this work he crossed the lake to Achacachi and followed the shore northward to
Huaycho, just short of the Peruvian border. He found this whole expanse thickly
sown with fortified hilltop villages roughly built of fieldstone and associated with
the coarsest and least-decorated pottery he had yet seen. Since Uhle found in them
a few pots of Tiahuanaco style and also some Inca material, he concluded that these
sites had probably been occupied down to the Spanish conquest.

After this trip he spent a couple of months in La Paz, writing reports, shipping
off his collections to Berlin, and waiting for the worst of the rainy season to be
over. Early in March of 1895 he was off again, this time working for the,University
of Pennsylvania. He spent the rest of March and the first half of April surveying
the southeast shore of Lake Titicaca around Aygachi and Copahancara, and the
neighboring islands of Paco, Cumana, Intja, Taqueri, and Quevaya. On this trip
he dug a number of graves, measured a great many ruined buildings, and collected
scraps of ethnographic information. He ended his work in this region with a study
of the Tiahuanaco-style ruins of Wilaqollo on the Finca Lucurmata at Huacullani.
Here he had some difficulties with the Indians because of local political troubles,
and left somewhat precipitately after three days, having completed the notes he
wanted. From Huacullani he went via Lacaya to Tiahuanaco.

From April to July, Uhle was working at Tiahuanaco, making measurements
and photographs, taking squeezes of the sculpture, and making collections. He
was unable to do any digging at the site because, after the scandal he had raised
about vandalism there in the previous year, the government had prohibited all
digging, and his attempts to negotiate with the local authorities and with those
at La Paz were alike fruitless. It was an ironical situation, a bitter disappointment
to Uhle, and a blow to the development of Bolivian archaeology. Uhle had to be
content with collections of surface sherds, what objects he could purchase, and
ethnographic specimens.

I For example, Uhle says, "Most of the plans which Bandelier has furnished of the ruins on
the island of Titicaca suffer from numerous errors" (Uhle, 1917d, p. 157). Since Uhle's plans
of these ruins have not been published, it is difficult to know who is right. I discovered, however,
when I compared Bandelier's plans of Sillustani with the ruins themselves in 1941, that Bandelier
was not above mapping nonexistent walls which he thought ought to be there.

6        University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

Although he was at Tiahuanaco off and on for two and a half months, one month
of that time was taken up with trips to La Paz, Chililaya, Desaguadero, and
Lacaya. He covered some of the same territory in August and September, visiting
Aygachi, Tiahuanaco, Taraco, Desaguadero, and Hachiri. The attraction at Desa-
guadero was the Uro community of Iruwitu, four to five leagues south of Desa-
guadero town. Uhle had planned to make extensive linguistic and ethnographic
studies of these Uro, whom he found closely related linguistically to those at
Chipaya; but the news of his mother's death, received in September, cut short
his field work, and he returned to La Paz on September 17, 1895. Still, he had
collected a considerable amount of information on the Uro, certainly enough to
make a worthwhile publication. It was never written.

The rest of the year Uhle seems to have spent in La Paz, except for another
ten-day trip to Desaguadero in December and January. He was winding up his
Bolivian investigations and preparing to go to Peru; the frustration of being
unable to dig and his treatment at the hands of Bolivian officials had trought him
to the point where he declared himself "utterly wearied of Bolivia." He left La
Paz on January 14, 1896, went down to the coast of Peru and, following the coast
overland, reached Lima on the twenty-second.

Uhle began work in Peru almost immediately with a small excavation at Ancon,
and then moved on to Pachacamac. His excavation there was the greatest he ever
undertook, and the one which, because his findings were promptly published, had
the most immediate and lasting effect on American archaeology. He worked at
Pachacamac for a full year, finishing only in February, 1897. His headquarters
were at the Hacienda San Pedro, owned by Don Vicente Silva, and he was close
enough to Lima to be able to go to town frequently to ship collections and attend
to other business. Uhle was not exclusively occupied with Pachacamac during this
year; he also dug at Marques, four leagues north of Lima, and purchased collec-
tions from Trujillo, Huacho, Chancay, and the valley of Lima. Sometime in 1897
he closed his Peruvian field work and sailed for the United States to write up his
report at Philadelphia.

Uhle was in Philadelphia from 1897 to 1899, writing his report on Pachacamac
and some shorter papers and giving lectures. It was in this period that he met the
girl he was later to marry, Charlotte Dorothee Grosse, daughter of Johannes
Bernhard Grosse, M.D., and Luise Sophie Wulkop. Miss Grosse was charged with
the translation into English of Uhle's German manuscript on Pachacamac, and
her work naturally brought her into frequent contact with the author. Just at
this point, however, Uhle's fortunes underwent a crisis. His chief patron at the
University of Pennsylvania, Dr. William Pepper, physician, former Provost of
the University and President of the Department of Archaeology and Palaeon-
tology, died on July 29, 1898, at the age of fifty-five. Uhle foresaw a black future
for himself without Dr. Pepper's support, but he soon found himself in good
hands. Mrs. Phoebe Apperson Hearst, a close friend of Dr. Pepper and a person
with similar archaeological interests, came to his support and offered to finance
a new Peruvian expedition for him under the auspices of the American Explora-
tion Society of Philadelphia. Uhle was happy to accept this chance, and came to
work for the University of California. Mrs. Hearst transferred the official spon-

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                     7
sorship of the expedition in May, 1900, to this institution, and the collections Uhle
made in his field work between 1899 and 1905 are therefore at the University of
California.

Although he had written no report on the work at Tiahuanaco or on his two
years of field work for the Berlin Museum, Uhle sailed for Peru again on June
19, 1899, from New York. He had long wanted to work on the north coast of
Peru and planned his next campaign in that area; but first, arrangements had
to be made in Lima, and it was August 27 before he got to Trujillo. In the mean-
time, he took advantage of the delay to make a week's trip to Tarma and Tarma-
tambo in the central highlands, primarily to make some ethnographic observa-
tions which he hoped would enable him to interpret some of his Pachacamac
finds. He took notes on costume and various aspects of material culture and also
looked over the local ruins.

The valley of Trujillo proved just as interesting as he had hoped. He visited
Chanchan and Moche and other sites there, and then determined to concentrate
his work at Moche, since this site showed promise of yielding earlier material
than the others. He dug first on Cerro Blanco and then on and around the Huaca
del Sol and Huaca de la Luna; sometime in November he located an undisturbed
Early Chimu cemetery (site F) at the west foot of the Huaca de la Luna. Uhle
opened thirty-two graves in this cemetery and catalogued all the specimens by
grave provenience. Although many more extensive Early Chimu cemeteries have
been excavated, both before and since, Uhle's Cemetery F collection remains to
this day the only one with recorded grave associations, and since its publication
by Kroeber in 1925 it has been the type collection for the Early Chimu style. Other
parts of the Moche site yielded Tiahuanaco-influenced pottery and Late Chimu
materials, and Uhle was able-by an argument based primarily on style analogies
with Pachacamac-to arrange these materials in the following order: Early
Chimu, Tiahuanaco-influenced, Late Chimu; an order confirmed many years later
by stratigraphy.

The excavation of Cemetery F continued through January and February, 1900;
after that, Uhle had to give some time to organizing and packing the materials
collected. On April 2 he left for the highlands to study sites in the neighbor-
hood of Huamachuco. This trip lasted until June 24. Its objective was to deter-
mine what lay behind the great archaeological centers on the coast; and Uhle
worked at Marca Huamachuco, Viracochapampa, Cerro Amaro, and a number
of other sites, measuring and describing the ruins and assembling collections of
stone sculpture, pottery, metal objects, and so forth, by excavation and purchase.

Late in July, Uhle returned to Lima. He spent the next two months attending
to expedition business, with short visits to Maranga and other sites in the valley
of Lima and to the neighboring valley of Lurin. In September he moved down to
the south coast and worked at Chincha from September 22 to the early part of
December. He next went to Ica valley and worked there through May of 1901.
It was during this work at Ica, specifically at Hacienda'Ocucaje, that Uhle local-
ized, and hence in a real sense discovered, the Early Nazca pottery style, known
previously only from isolated specimens in the Berlin Museum. There was also

8        University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

much interesting later material from Ica, including rich tombs of the Inca period
yielding carved wood, jewelry, and some gold and silver.

In his work at Chincha and Ica, Uhle had bracketed the intermediate valley
of Pisco, but he wanted to visit it also because it was the starting point for one
of the principal Inca roads leading to the highlands. He spent a month and a
half there (August 23-October 11), chiefly occupied in measuring and photo-
graphing the extraordinarily well preserved Inca palace of Tambo Colorado.
Then he followed the Inca road up into the mountains to Huaitara, where he
found that the village church was a converted Inca building with little more than
the facade added-the only well-preserved example of such re-use known any-
where in Peru. He returned from Huaitara on October 23, went back to Lima,
and sailed for San Francisco on the Pacific Steam Navigation Company's S.S.
Chile. He landed on December 3, exhausted by the most active, and in some ways
the most spectacular, field trip of his career.

To house the collections that were arriving for the projected university museum,
Mrs. Hearst had built on the University of California campus at Berkeley a
temporary storage building-a building still occupied fifty years later by the De-
partment of Anthropology. This was where Uhle was to work, but like many other
members of the university community lie preferred to live in San Francisco and
commute to Berkeley. He had little time to rest; within a few weeks of his arrival,
Professor J. C. Merriam had talked him into participating in the excavation of
a huge shellmound at Emeryville, near Berkeley, and he had agreed also to give
a short series of lectures. Since Uhle's English was still poor, in spite of his two
years at Philadelphia, he gave the lectures in German (February 3-10, 1902).
The Emeryville excavations started a week after the lectures were over and lasted
until May 1. For once in his career, Uhle went to work immediately on the report,
and his manuscript was completed by the middle of June. Dr. Clement W.
Meighan characterizes Uhle's Emeryville work as the first scientific archaeology
done in California and notes that Uhle recognized, in the small sample of ma-
terials secured, elements of stratigraphic difference which were later confirmed
by more extensive work. The site was so poor in comparison with Peruvian ones
that Uhle misjudged the amount of digging that would be necessary in order to
secure an adequate sample; he therefore did not get enough material to make any
very elaborate chronological distinctions. The Emeryville work may have served
to stimulate his interest in shellmounds in general and thus contributed to his
discovery of the Early Ancon shellmound site on his next trip to Peru. It is true
that Uhle had visited and described two shellmounds at the mouth of the Ica
River in 1901, and they perhaps would have been enough to call his attention
to the shellmound problem. Still, it is an interesting coincidence that Uhle's first
shellmound excavation in Peru followed his work on a similar California site.

Most of the rest of Uhle's stay in San Francisco was taken up with unpacking
and studying his collections and the writing of reports. Uhle wrote the text of his
reports in German, but this was the least part of the job. He had hundreds of
photographs and drawings made for use as illustrations and had materials and
shells identified by specialists at Berkeley; his work was also complicated some-
what by the transfer of the museum collections from Berkeley to the Affiliated

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                      9
Colleges building in San Francisco in the summer of 1903. He took a few vaca-
tions, notably a holiday trip to Yosemite in August, 1902, and a trip to New York
in October of the same year to attend the meeting of the XIII International Con-
gress of Americanists.

In March, 1903, Mrs. Hearst offered Uhle a three-year contract to cover another
expedition to Peru (see App. C). Uhle himself had been hoping that he would be
offered a teaching post; the prospect of more field work, however, was also very
attractive, and he was given an academic title (Hearst Lecturer in Peruvian
Archaeology) even though he would not be in Berkeley to teach. He accepted
the field-work contract, and it was agreed that the three-year term would begin
whenever he had finished writing his report and was free to take it.

On the strength of the new contract, Uhle married Miss Grosse, the translator
of Pachacamac. They were married in Philadelphia on June 10, 1903, and came
back to San Francisco soon after, because Uhle was still working on his reports.
It was now decided that Mrs. Uhle should undertake the translation of the latest
group of reports and that she should take the manuscripts with her on the new
expedition so as not to delay the field program any more than was necessary.

The reports were finished by October 7, 1903, in the form of seven manuscripts
of unequal length. It was planned to group these into three memoirs to be issued
by the University of California, and all three were listed as "in press" on the
covers of early issues of the University's Publications in American Archaeology
and Ethnology. The plan of publication was not exactly as Uhle wanted it; he
favored large publications in portfolio like his earlier ones on Tiahuanaco and
Pachacamac, with the idea that the larger page size made it possible to print the
photographs on a larger scale. His colleagues at California were less tractable in
this respect than the authorities at Pennsylvania had been, and he was forced
to accept a quarto format, but he was never happy about the idea. As things
worked out, the decision to let Mrs. Uhle do the translating proved disastrous;
she completed the translation of only two of the seven reports, and the manu-
scripts were never sent back to California, although Kroeber asked for them re-
peatedly in later years. Uhle kept the manuscripts, plans, ink drawings, and
original field notes with him, and they passed, at his death, to the Latein ameri-
kanische Bibliothek in Berlin. The photographs remained in Berkeley, together
with the collections, Uhle's field catalogues, and the long and informative letters
he had written from the field as preliminary reports.

The job of writing out of the way, the Uhles sailed from San Francisco on No-
vember 7, 1903, for the second University of California expedition to Peru. They
reached Callao on December 10 and were ready to start work early in January.
To give his wife a chance to adjust easily to life in Peru, Uhle arranged to do his
first digging of the trip at Anc6n, a charming and fashionable summer resort near
Lima, at the height of its season during the months they would be working. Uhle
had always been interested in the Anc6n site because of the work done there by
Reiss and Stiibel, and he had already done some digging there on a small scale in
1896 and 1897. His 1904 work was more extensive (January-May) and added
much new information, for Uhle found chronological differences where Reiss and
Stiibel had described all their finds as simply prehistoric. Uhle also noticed that

10       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

in addition to the cemetery, long known for its rich graves, there was a shell-
mound on the south side of the modern town that had been ignored by all previous
visitors. Here he found unpainted black pottery decorated by incision and related
techniques and a cultural inventory notably poorer than that of the cemetery.
This is the Early Ancon material, the first archaeological culture belonging on
the so-called Chavin horizon. It was a discovery as momentous as his localization
of Early Nazea in 1901 but much more difficult to fit into the chronological scheme.
As happened several times in his career, Uhle reached the right conclusions by
the wrong argument. He dated Early Ancon at the beginning of his sequence be-
cause he regarded it as primitive in an evolutionary sense. Since the more recent
discoveries of great architectural sites and stone sculpture associated with similar
pottery, we are more inclined to attribute the poverty of the Early Ancon site
to local economic considerations, but the style belongs stratigraphically exactly
where Uhle put it.

There was plague in Lima when the Uhles finished at Ancon, so they took a
launch direct to Chancay valley instead of returning to the capital. They worked
in this valley from May to September, digging at five different sites. Again Uhle
discovered new pottery styles-this time two, now known as Interlocking and
White-on-Red, which were found together on the south slope of Cerro de Trini-
dad, Kroeber's site E. Uhle decided that both these styles were pre-Tiahuanaco
and that Interlocking was earlier than White-on-Red. His argument involved
interpretation of some confused associations in the ground and some reasoning
about style development which is not very convincing. For some reason, possibly
because the graves were poor and much of the pottery was broken, Uhle did not
record the 'grave provenience of the material as he usually did. Hence, nothing
much could be done about checking Uhle's sequence until more digging could be
undertaken. It was not until 1941-1942 that the question was settled; Gordon R.
Willey found a stratigraphic sequence with White-on-Red earlier than Inter-
locking. Uhle's error in this dating was the only serious one he ever made re-
garding style sequence in Peru.

While working at the Late Chancay site of Huaral Viejo (site D), Uhle had
a serious accident. He fell head foremost into an excavation ten feet deep and
sprained his neck severely (see App. C). He wrote later that he had recovered
completely and that his work had not been interrupted, but one cannot help
wondering whether the damage was not more serious than he admitted. For
whatever reason, the quality of Uhle's reports shows a distinct falling off after
the Chancay work. They become less frequent, less specific, and more concerned
with interpretation at the expense of description.

The Uhles moved north to Supe valley in September, and after a reconnais-
sance settled down to work at the site of Chimu Capac on the Hacienda San
Nicolas. The remains found here are of the period of Tiahuanaco influence, and
the collection is notable for the fine preservation of textiles and wooden objects.
Late Chimu and Inca specimens were also found in the Supe valley. Near Puerto
de Supe, Uhle located two more sites of the Early Ancon type. The notes he sup-
plied on the work at Supe are notably less clear and detailed than those on pre-

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                     11
vious collections; for example, he nowhere tells us when the Supe work was
finished. It was probably about the end of the year.

In 1904, Mrs. Hearst decided to retrench her archaeological work, and Uhle
was notified by a letter of October 8 that he should plan to finish his field work
in time to get back to San Francisco and write up his report within the span of
his contract; that is, before November 3, 1906. Uhle received and answered this
letter while he was working at San Nicolas (see App. C). He agreed to comply
with the new instructions, but it is clear that he felt that the future looked very
insecure and that he might well find himself unemployed in San Francisco in 1906.

Nevertheless, the work went on. In the first half of 1905, Uhle undertook a
long trip to Cuzco and the interior of southern Peru because he felt he ought to
know more about the highlands and more about the original home of the Incas.
He sent back a long report on this trip, but it contains very little information on
his movements and does not cover all the research he did. For example, he reported
to the XXIII International Congress of Americanists in 1928 that he had meas-
ured a hitherto unknown section of wall in the Temple of the Sun at Cuzco in
1905; this discovery is not mentioned in the report he sent to Berkeley.

The Uhles were shocked by the complete lack of sanitation at Cuzco, and stayed
outside the town, believing that the country was more healthful. The archaeo-
logical problems were quite different from those on the coast, and Uhle found his
methods not very effective in the Cuzco area. He looked for cemeteries and found
very few, and most of those had been looted. He found some graves on the road
to Pisac, between Cochahuasi and Huancalli; others near La Recoleta; and a
looted burial cave at Colmay, one and a half leagues northwest of Chinchaypuquio.
In addition, he did enough digging near the fortification walls of the fortress of
Sacsahuaman to satisfy himself that it had been built by the Incas. The collection
Uhle made at Cuzco is a small one, and he got relatively little new archaeological
information there. He was naturally much interested to discover that there were
still descendants of the Inca nobility living in the neighborhood of Cuzco, and
he made some interesting notes on their ayllu system as found at San Sebastian
and San Geronimo and on present-day festivals.

On the way back to the coast, the Uhles visited the ruins of the great Temple
of Viracocha at Cacha, collected modern Indian herb remedies in Sicuani, took a
side trip from Puno to visit Hatun Colla and Sillustani, and made two small
excavations near Arequipa. He wrote his report at Chala, on the coast road to
Lima, on September 9, 1905. By November 22 he was back in Lima. Between
these dates he had crossed the desert from Lomas to Nazea and Ica and had made
a fine collection of Early Nazea pottery, which he sent to Berkeley to complement
his much better documented Ica collection of 1901.

On his return to Lima, Uhle was approached by the Peruvian government with
the proposal that he undertake to found a national archaeological museum in
Lima under contract with Peru. The scheme was an attractive one for many
reasons. There was an enthusiasm for the country's antiquities previously un-
heard of in Lima intellectual circles, and as a result of it the Instituto Historico
del Peru' had been formed in 1905. The government was disposed to support the
museum project and was interested in the protection of the ancient sites, a matter

12       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

dear to Uhle's heart ever since his experience at Tiahuanaco. Uhle liked Peru,
and he felt that there was no limit to what he might find there if he could con-
tinue his field work. Besides, there seemed to be little future in continuing to work
for Mrs. Hearst, since she had made it clear that she was not planning to renew
his contract. Uhle accepted the job in Lima without hesitation, and Mrs. Hearst
willingly released him from the remainder of his contract with her, terminating
it on December 31 (see App. C).

The arrangements that had to be made about the new job required Uhle's pres-
ence in Lima from time to time, and he decided to spend the last six weeks of
his work for Mrs. Hearst digging in the valley of Lima. His extraordinary skill
at picking coastal sites was evident again, for he chose the cemetery at Nieveria,
not far from Cajamarquilla, as the place to work. The collection includes a variety
of the Interlocking style, which Uhle now calls "Proto-Lima," and some interesting
Tiahuanaco-influenced materials of a new and distinctive style. Uhle never sent
a report on the Nieveria excavation, but his field catalogue includes grave asso-
ciations for thirty-four graves, comprising about half the collection.

Because he had continued digging until his new contract began, Uhle had to
find time at the start of his work for the Peruvian government to pack and ship
his collections. This work was finished by early April, 1906, probably in the in-
tervals between field trips for his new museum. Mrs. Uhle sent also, as a gift
to the University of California, a collection of specimens which she had picked
up on the surface or had purchased at sites to which she had accompanied her
husband. The most notable specimens in her collection are a series of pottery
molds from Chancay, probably the largest such series in existence (see App. C).

The new job was somewhat different from his previous ones in that Uhle's
administrative duties took a much greater proportion of his time. Also, he no
longer had a sponsoring institution at a distance to which he had to make periodic
reports. As a result, he did less and less field work and wrote less and less about
it. After 1905 it becomes impossible to date all Uhle's excavations or even list
them, and all his activities in this period are known in less detail.

The new museum was organized in two sections or departments; the Seccion
de la Colonia y de la Repuiblica was under the direction of Jose Augusto de Izcue,
while Uhle directed the Seccion de Arqueologia y de las Tribus Salvajes. The
museum as a whole was known as the Museo de Historia Nacional. Izcue is listed
as general director at first, but after 1907 this position fell to ULhle. For quarters
the new institution had the second floor of the former Palacio de la Exposici6n,
an attractive but jerry-built structure which needed a great deal of remodeling
for its new purpose. The collections had to be made almost from scratch; about
all there was to start with was the famous Raimondi Monolith from Chavin. Uhle
twent to work with his usual industry to build up the museum's holdings,
and by the time of the official opening on July 29, 1906, he had assembled an im-
pressive collection from the valley of Lima, the most notable unit of which was
a group of specimens from Cajamarquilla. He also purchased the Lui's N. Larco
Collection from the Trujillo area. There was a small ethnographic collection too,
mostly from the Aguaruna, a Jibaro subtribe living on the Marano6n River.

Uhle remained at the head of the national museum in Lima through the year

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                    13
1911. Many of his archaeological activities during this period can be reconstructed
only by a process of elimination: we know where he had worked in Peru before
1906, and when he mentions a site where he had not worked before he took over
the Lima museum, we can assume that he worked there between 1906 and 1911.
One of his first projects was to visit the Peruvian part of the Lake Titicaca basin
and bring down to the museum the two famous carved pillars of Hatun Colla,
which he had seen on his 1905 trip. I assume that this expedition was carried out
between 1906 and 1908, because in the latter year Uhle mentions having been to
Acora on the west shore of Lake Titicaca. It was probably on this trip that he
visited Arapa, north of the lake, and photographed a carved stela there which is
very similar to an aberrant carving at Tiahuanaco. He was in Cuzco in 1907 and
excavated some tombs at Qhatan near Urubamba, discovering there the first
examples of the Early Inca pottery style.

He also did a great deal more work in the valley of Lima, a convenient field for
exploration because he could also keep an eye on museum affairs. He worked
again at Nieveria in 1908 and 1909, and sometime before 1910 dug around Copa-
cabana in the Chillon valley (a northern extension of the valley of Lima) and
located refuse deposits at Bellavista, near Callao, which are probably contempo-
raneous with Early Ancon. In 1909 he also worked on the south coast, excavating
a cemetery on the Hacienda Chavinia, which yielded among other things a choice
lot of wooden spear-throwers. This list of his archaeological activities during the
Lima years is undoubtedly incomplete.

One of the highlights of the Lima years was probably Uhle's part in the XVII
International Congress of Americanists held at Buenos Aires, May 17-23, 1910.
Uhle attended, with his wife, and was the official Peruvian delegate and an honor-
ary vice-president of the congress. He took a prominent part in the proceedings
and had to make a number of official speeches in addition to delivering his own
paper on the origin of the Incas. After the meetings in Buenos Aires, an official
excursion to Bolivia and Peru was organized, and Uhle became a sort of informal
guide to the delegates. He had an unparalleled chance to show off all that he had
learned in some twelve years of field work and to revisit the sites of his earlier
exploits. He and his wife crossed to Valparaiso to enter Bolivia from Chile, while
another party went by rail through Argentina. The congress group reassembled
in La Paz. There a session of papers was held on June 18, and Uhle spoke on the
historical position of the Aymara; on the twenty-first the delegates all went out to
Tiahuanaco. Here Uhle was horrified at the destruction that had taken place
since 1895; pot hunting and railroad construction had damaged the site so much
that Uhle said he would hardly recognize it. The tour next took the party to the
islands of Titicaca and Coati, to Copacabana, Puno, and Cuzco; they returned
by rail, went down to Arequipa and Mollendo, and proceeded to Lima by boat.
From Lima there were excursions to all Uhle's near-by sites: Pachacamac, Ancon,
Cajamarquilla. There was a final session of papers at the Sociedad Geografica,
at which Uhle again read a paper, this time on Inca ayllus, and the party broke
up on July 21.

It was very probably on his visit to Chile in 1910 that the ground was laid for
the invitation to come to Santiago, which Uhle accepted in 1911. The reasons

14        University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

for the move are obscure because we have no information on the financial situa-
tion and political difficulties of the Lima museum. There is no reason to think
that the Uhles were personally unhappy in Lima; they had a lovely house on the
Avenida de La Magdalena with all their family things in it, and Uhle says spe-
cifically that his wife was most unhappy to leave (Uhle, 1937a). Nevertheless,
they went; and Uhle spent the next four years (1912-1915, inclusive) organizing
an archaeological museum in Santiago.2

Uhle went to Chile under contract with the Chilean government to do field
work, lecture, and generally build up Chilean archaeology. His base was to be a
new Museo de Etnologia y Antropologia, organized as a section of the Museo
Historico de Chile, itself a new institution created only in 1911. There seems to
have been not a little jealousy between the new Museo Historico and the older
Museo Nacional, especially as it was proposed to transfer the archaeological col-
lections of the latter to the former. However, Uhle went ahead with the new
Museo de Etnologia y Antropologia. Its quarters were in the Calle de la Moneda,
and here was brought the small archaeological collection of the Philippis, all the
relevant material already in the Museo Historico.

In Santiago, as in Lima, there had recently been a burst of interest in history
and archaeology, which led to the foundation of a new society, the Sociedad
Chilena de Historia y Geograffa. This society met in several sections, one of which
was devoted to anthropology. Uhle was elected to the society in April, 1912, and
in May became president of the anthropological section, a post he held as long
as he was in Santiago. The society provided him with much intellectual stimula-
tion and a vehicle for publication, and he took a very active part in its proceed-
ings. He also lectured at the University of Chile.

Uhle's field work in Chile, although not as extensive as that in Peru, was still
considerable. In July and August, 1912, he dug in the cemetery of Chunchuri near
Calama on the Rio Loa. This site had been partly excavated by Seneschal de la
Grange in 1904; but Uhle found a much richer section, which yielded 1,100 objects
and more than 200 skulls and mummies in a space of 55 square meters. Uhle visited
other sites in the Rio Loa region as well. He also stopped off in Antofagasta and
secured as a gift the Echeverria y Reyes Collection, a noteworthy lot of antiquities
from Chuquicamata and San Pedro de Atacama. This material got the new mu-
seum off to a fine start.

In 1913, Uhle went north again and worked from May to September near
Pisagua, mostly at Pichalo, a mile and a half away. Here he found three ceme-
teries, each yielding a different style; he arranged these styles in chronological
sequence according to their resemblances to Peruvian styles. Surface finds con-
stituted a fourth style. He also dug a cave at Pichalo and reported that he found

2 One of the last things Uhle did in his capacity of director of the Lima museum was to make
a collection of Peruvian archaeological specimens for the Museu Paulista in Sao Paulo. The
request for this collection had been submitted to the Peruvian government by the Brazilian
legation, and all restrictions on the export of archaeological specimens were waived as a matter
of international courtesy. The Brazilians provided a sum of money and asked Uhle to pick out
for them a collection as broadly representative of Peruvian styles as possible from the materials
available in the antiquity shops of Lima. Uhle went further; he did some collecting himself in
the neighborhood of Lima to supplement the purchased materials. The catalogue which he sup-
plied with the collection in March, 1912, runs to 320 numbers. Dr. Herbert Baldus, the present
director of the Museu Paulista, kindly provided me with a copy of it.

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                     15
the deposit stratified. The Pichalo sites were also very rich, and Uhle took back
forty-one cases of objects for his museum.

In January and February of the next year Uhle visited Constituci6n, in the
south, and found there an extensive rubbish site about three hundred meters
northwest of the Alameda. It was full of ashes and rich in chipped-stone imple-
ments which Uhle considered crude enough to be regarded as typologically palaeo-
lithic. This was the "Palaeolithic Station of Constitucion," about which a con-
siderable stir was made at the time. Uhle claimed no great antiquity for it; in
calling it "palaeolithic" he was merely exercising the comparative method of the
cultural evolutionists. A year later, in January and February, 1915, he was back
in Constitucion digging in some burial caves. Only the scantiest notes on these
two seasons in southern Chile have been published, and little can be said about
the results.

Uhle also took time early in his Chilean period to write a series of summary
articles on the Peruvian field work he had done for the University of California
(on Moche, Uhle, 1913e, 1915c; on Ica, 1913h; on Ancon, 1913c). These articles
are useful summaries of his conclusions, but they contain little of the description
which should have documented his views, and they are poor substitutes for the
reports he had written and never published. It is probably no exaggeration to
estimate that Uhle's failure to publish his full reports at this time set Peruvian
archaeology back at least ten years. Uhle's full reports might have had something
of the impact that Kroeber's did between 1924 and 1927.

The Uhles lived in a small house in the northern part of Santiago, comfortably
but not luxuriously furnished. Martin Gusinde, to whom I owe all my informa-
tion about Uhle's personal life in Chile, recalls that Uhle complained often that
his house was not large enough to accommodate his large library. The Uhles did
no entertaining at home.

Uhle's contract with the Chilean government was for four years, and when
it came up for renewal, the economy-minded authorities wanted to pay his salary
in Chilean currency rather than in the gold he had been getting. Uhle was always
quick to feel that people were trying to take advantage of him, and at the same
time he was anxious to get back to Germany and did not believe that the war
would last much longer. Consequently, he turned down the new contract and
determined to live on his savings until he could get passage home.

Not much is known of Uhle's activities during the war years. He left Santiago
on May 26, 1916, with a commission from the government to go to Taltal in
northern Chile and make a report on Augusto Capdeville's claims that he had
found a palaeolithic station there. Uhle spent most of June at Taltal and went
on to Arica on June 24. He was much interested in the site but did not find the
stratigraphy that Capdeville claimed he had found.8

For the next year, until the middle of 1917, Uhle was engaged in exploring
and excavating sites in the neighborhood of Tacna and Arica, with his head-
quarters at Arica. This work was financed, at least in part, by the University
of Pennsylvania, and the collections are now in Philadelphia. The report on
this work was published in Quito (Uhle, 1919a; 1919c; 1922c), but the manu-

8 See the discussion of the T'altal question in Bird, 1943, pp. 381-382.

16       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

script, for some reason, is in Arequipa. Then followed two years in which Uhle
did a minimum of archaeological work. He was still living at Arica and writing
now and then (the reports on his 1917 work and an article published at the time
of his death-Uhle, 1944), but I have no idea what his other activities were.
Arica was probably a relatively economical place to live, and, as the war dragged
on, his savings were heavily drained. At war's end, it was arranged that Mrs.
Uhle would go back to Germany alone to attend to the family affairs. She started
overland for Buenos Aires, but had a heart attack on the journey and arrived
there very sick. She died in the Argentine capital probably early in 1919.

Her husband had not accompanied her, because he had decided to accept an
invitation to go to Ecuador. In this country also a new archaeological movement
was under way, led by Jacinto Jijon y Caamaino and a handful of others with
historical and archaeological interests, who had founded the Sociedad Ecua-
toriana de Estudios Historicos Americanos (later the Academia Nacional de
Historia). Jijon himself had done a great deal of digging in highland Ecuador
and was a great admirer of Uhle's work. Fortunately, he was both personally
wealthy and very influential; when travel became possible again after the war,
he was thus able to extend to Uhle an invitation to come and work in Ecuador.
As he had done twice before, Uhle responded eagerly to an invitation to help
the local enthusiasts organize their own archaeological program in an Andean
country. He went to Ecuador in 1919, happy, in spite of his sixty-three years,
to do field work in a new area, and he remained in that country until 1933.

Uhle's last project in Chile was to make a small representative collection of
the antiquities of the Arica region for the Ethnographical Museum in G6teborg,
at the request of his friend Erland Nordenski6ld. He got together some thirty-
three specimens for this purpose, without doing any major digging, and sent
them off in April, 1919, with a characteristic Uhle catalogue.

After Uhle's arrival in Ecuador, his trail becomes much harder to follow, since
published records of his activities in this period are fewer. There is probably
an extensive file of his letters to Jijon y Caamafno and other documents in Quito
from which the story can one day be written, but I have had no opportunity to
consult them. Uhle's work in the north began with a visit to a part of Peru he
had never previously visited: the region of Piura (April-July, 1919). Here
he visited some sites near Sullana and inspected the big Elias and Eguiguren
collections. Next he worked in the southern highlands of Ecuador, around Loja
and Cuenca (1919-1922). He excavated the temple of Chinquilanchi at Loja;
and thirty-three kilometers north of that town, near San Lucas, he dug at the
ruins of Tambo Blanco, a site mentioned by Cieza de Leo6n. At Cuenca he iden-
tified and excavated the ruins of the Inca town of Tomebamba, the location of
which had always been a subject for controversy among Ecuadorian writers.
Near Cafnar he dug at the great site of Cerro Narrio, for which he announced
a series of pottery styles. By this time, however, his ability to distinguish styles
had become definitely impaired; subsequent work by Collier and Murra at Cerro
Narrio failed to find any trace of the "Maya" and "Tiahuanaco" influences which
he reported.

In 1923 and 1924 he was in Quito for at least part of the time and gave a most

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                     17
interesting series of lectures at the university on the methods and aims of archae-
ology, his only extensive statement of his general views on archaeological problems.
These lectures are so important for the evaluation of Ulhle's work that I am
including a translation of them as Appendix A.

In August, 1924, he went to Sweden for the XXI International Congress of
Americanists at G6teborg. He was the official delegate of Ecuador at this congress
and was a vice-president of it. His paper, on the Central American origin of
Moundbuilder and Pueblo cultures, was in many ways one of the worst he ever
wrote and displays the dominant idea of his later years: that all the "higher
civilizations" in the New World had a common origin and that this origin was
to be sought among the Maya. I will come back to this question in discussing
the history of Uhle's ideas. Even the worst of Uhle's papers contain some impor-
tant observations, however, and this one includes the first recognition of negative
painting in the southeastern United States, as Gordon Willey was kind enough
to point out to me. On his way back to Ecuador, Uhle stopped off at Panama for a
few days in October and studied the archaeological collections there.

In 1925 a chair of Ecuadorian Archaeology was created at the Universidad
Central in Quito, and Uhle was named to it. He was also charged with creating
a national archaeological museum at the university, his third South American
museum. He opened his professorship with an interesting series of lectures on
the problems of Ecuadorian archaeology; three of these have been published
(Uhle, 1925c and 1929d). Soon afterward he was in the field again, excavating a
cemetery at Cumbaya, less than ten kilometers east of Quito. Next he went down
to the coast and explored the province of Esmeraldas and the northern part of
Manabi. In March, 1926, he dug at Cuasmal in the province of Carchi.

The XXIII International Congress of Americanists met at New York in Sep-
tember, 1928, and again Uhle was the Ecuadorian delegate. He read three papers,
one of general statement of his theories on the development of American culture,
another on some observations he had made at the Temple of the Sun at Cuzco
in 1905, and the third on a very curious discovery he had recently made at
Alangasi, twelve kilometers east of Quito. In a well-known fossil deposit there,
mastodon bones had been discovered associated with painted pottery. Uhle's paper
gives a careful description of the find. The possibility that the pottery is of
Pleistocene date struck him as nonsense, and he interprets the evidence to mean
that the mastodon survived until relatively recent years in the Ecuadorian high-
lands. Uhle's colleagues are still puzzled by the association.

The year after his return to Ecuador, the Universidad Central was badly dam-
aged by fire, and Uhle's museum with it (November 9, 1929). What the fire spared
was destroyed soon after by the carelessness of the repair crew. All the collec-
tions which Uhle had made since 1925, together with many gifts and purchases,
were lost in this disaster, and it was almost more than he could bear. Nevertheless,
he salvaged what he could and went to work to build up the museum again.
He made several more field trips (Manta, August-October, 1930; the Panteon
Viejo of San Gabriel, Carchi, December, 1931; and the Inca site of Cochasqui
on the south slope of the Cerro Mojanda, December, 1932); but his day was over
now, and he knew it. In September, 1933, he went back to Germany to enjoy a

18        University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

pension offered him by the German government. He had done his last field work
at the age of seventy-six, forty years after he visited his first American site in
Argentina.

Uhle was not a man to retire fully while he could talk or write, and he settled
in Berlin to work as he could at the Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut and to lecture
at the University of Berlin. He continued to write articles and had plans for a
great "History of Ancient Peru"-a work which he never wrote. On the occasion
of his eightieth birthday, in 1936, he was showered with honors. Peru conferred
the Orden del Sol, grado de Comendador, on January 17; Ecuador raised his
decoration "Al Merito" from the rank of Comendador Ordinario to that of Comen-
dador de Nuimero in March. Germany conferred the Goethe Medal.

There were still meetings to attend. Uhle was honorary president of the German
delegation to the XXVI International Congress of Americanists, in Seville in
1935, and was much interested in the Paracas textiles which were part of the
Peruvian exhibit on that occasion. In 1939 he was preparing to represent Ecuador
at the VI International Congress of Archaeology in Berlin when he was invited
by the president of the XXVII International Congress of Americanists in Lima to
attend that. He went to Lima with the support of the German government and
was caught there by the outbreak of the war.

In this crisis the Peruvian igovernment took him under its protection; and he
remained in Peru until 1942, living in Bellavista, near Callao. The group of
American archaeologists who worked in Peru in 1941 and 1942 for the Institute
of Andean Research spoke of him often at their meetings in Lima and met him
occasionally in the National Museum, but only Gordon R. Willey went to see him.
He describes the incident as follows:

In January, 1942, I invited Uhle out to see my diggings in the Ancon shell heaps. He was
then well over 80. Lucio, the chauffeur, picked him up in Bellavista and brought him out to
the dig. He arrived impeccably clad in a white palm beach suit with his notebook and a new
Argus camera. He seemed completely dazed by the appearance of Ancon, and continually
remarked that it had changed so much since his work there almost 40 years before. He did not
recognize the shell heap location although his old trenches were only a few meters from ours,
and he insisted that he had never excavated in that part of the site. However, when I showed
him some of the Anc6n Incised pottery he immediately brightened up and observed that this
was the old "fisher-folk culture" which one found in Peru long before the true civilizations
arrived from China. Then we went down into the Necropolis where Marshall Newman was
digging some Middle Anc6n tombs. Uhle recognized the Necropolis area and took a great interest
in the tomb excavation, sitting on the dump heap and commenting on the various pots which
were being brought out. He was still keenly accurate on such things as Coast Tiahuanaeo influ-
ence, etc. He upbraided me for using the term "Epigonal," as, in his words, "Young man, every
culture has its epigonal. You will have to be more specific."

Afterwards we drove him back to Bellavista and he invited us into his study which was
packed to the ceiling with books and manuscripts. He also treated us to a glass of wine and
all in all it was a very pleasant afternoon. In general, he was extremely excited and elated
about his junket and about our interest in him. It was as though he were being brought back
into the professional fold after being somewhat neglected and pushed aside for some years.
He dutifully made notes on the Necropolis diggings and took some pictures with his new Argus.

A week or so after this, as the result of the Rio de Janeiro Agreement, the Peruvians rounded
up all the Germans and either sent them to the States or back to Germany. Some of us pro-
tested about Uhle's being treated in this manner and at the last minute I understand that the

Rowe: Max UhMe, 1856-1944                     19
Peruvian Foreign Office relented, allowing the old man to remain in Peru. This was too late,
as by this time he was incensed and refused such amnesty, sailing with his compatriots.

There was not much time left. On May 11, 1944, Max Uhle died at Loben in
Upper Silesia at the advanced age of eighty-eight.

Uhle was a man of medium height, thickset, with dark hair and a large bushy
mustache. He wore glasses as early as 1900, to judge from the few available pic-
tures. Kroeber remembers him as being somewhat untidy in his dress and rather
jerky in his movements. He was proud and a little touchy and at the same time
fundamentally a very shy person. His shyness showed in a number of ways. One
gets the impression from his letters that he did not make friends easily and
that he had few intimates. It is probably also significant that his ethnographic
research was concerned almost exclusively with artifacts and with language; that
is, he got the kind of information one can obtain without building up a friendly
intimacy with his informants. There were, however, other factors besides shyness
behind this emphasis in his ethnographic field work; he was trained as a philologist
and museum man and therefore felt most at home with material culture and lin-
guistic data. I suspect that he was also incurably optimistic; each new venture
filled him with enthusiasm, and then, if it did not turn out well, he was deeply
discouraged and seized eagerly on the next new project. He was restless in his
field work, skimming the cream off an archaeological site and then moving on,
never to come back to it except for casual visits. An exception to this statement
perhaps is the site of Nieveria, where he worked twice (in 1905 and in 1908-1909);
but here he may have wanted to secure a second collection for the Lima museum
because he had sent the first one to California. In contrast to his restlessness in
field work, he was very tenacious of ideas. For example, in spite of his bitter
experience at Tiahuanaco, where his attempt to secure government protection
for the site had resulted in government refusal to let him excavate it, he again
and again advocated legislation to regulate excavations (see Uhle, 1917c). He
never accepted the hard fact that such legislation only prevents scientific archaeo-
logical work; the pot hunters will dig anyway. Other examples of Uhle's tenacity
of ideas can easily be found in his writings on Peruvian chronology or on the
migration of cultures.

Uhle's writings show little interest in theoretical problems; one gets the impres-
sion that he accepted a body of theory about cultural history early in life and
that it did not occur to him to question it later. He seems to have regarded theory
as a tool which one used to investigate anthropological facts; he did not try to
use the facts to test the theory. For example, he states as a law the principle that
art develops always from the realistic or figurative to the conventionalized and
geometric. He found this principle very useful for dating styles when there was
no other evidence available (see App. A; Uhle, 1924b, pp. 197-198). The fact
is that in Peru, as elsewhere in the world, examples can be found of the reverse
development. The important point here is not that this particular principle was
wrong, but that Uhle regarded it, not as a hypothesis to be tested but as a law
to be applied.

20       University of Ca7lifornia Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

If the contradiction was not too obvious, Uhle, like many more recent writers,
was quite capable of following two inconsistent ideas at different points in an
argument. He was a wholehearted diffusionist, from his youth; he was, for exam-
ple, always ready to assume that even the most remote similarity between culture
traits indicated large-scale historical connections. At the same time he could
be an evolutionist when it suited him, looking for a paleolithic stage in the archae-
ology of Peru and Chile.

His greatest theoretical achievement was one of strictly local application, the
relative chronology of Peruvian styles. This chronology was not built up by the
application of any radically new method. Uhle knew and favored the stratigraphic
principle of the paleontologists: that, when layers are superimposed, the upper
one is later than the lower. But because he preferred to dig in cemeteries, he
found only one clear-cut case of stratigraphy-at Pachacamac-and that was a
superposition of graves. This case of stratigraphy was not vital to Uhle's reason-
ing either; it merely confirmed inferences he had made on other grounds. His
procedure throughout his work in Peru was one of seriation of styles, and it was
well started before he ever left Germany. In 1888, the year he went to Berlin,
the museum there acquired the Centeno Collection of Inca antiquities from Cuzco.
This was one of the few collections from Cuzco in Europe, and it gave Uhle a
magnificent opportunity to familiarize himself with authentic specimens of the
Late Inca style. This familiarity shows in his work; he was always able to recog-
nize Inca pieces without hesitation wherever they were found. Next, he went to
work to write up Stiibel's notes on Tiahuanaco. He noted immediately that the
style of Tiahuanaco sculpture was different from Inca style, and he found state-
ments by sixteenth-century Spanish writers that Tiahuanaco was already in ruins
then and that the Inca inhabitants of the area did not know who had built it.
He could then infer that the Tiahuanaco style was older than the Inca style.

In his work at Pachacamac, Uhle found specimens in Tiahuanaco style and
also specimens in Inca style. In addition, he found a style that showed no par-
ticular Tiahuanaco influence but was associated with Inca pieces. It was reason-
able to arrange the new styles between Tiahuanaco and Inca in a chronological
scheme. At Moche, on the north coast, he found a similar series of Tiahuanaco,
local styles with and without Tiahuanaco influence, and Inca; he also found the
style which has since been called Early Chimu. As the Early Chimu style showed
neither Tiahuanaco nor Inca influence and was not associated with any of the
other styles, Uhle inferred that it was earlier than Tiahuanaco. This gave him a
basic framework of an early, pre-Tiahuanaco period, a Tiahuanaco period, a late
but pre-Inca period, and an Inca period. This scheme seemed to work all along
the part of the coast where Uhle dug, and he applied it to all his material.

In this review of the logic behind Uhle's chronology, I have deliberately over-
simplified Uhle's argument, giving essentially those points which were convincing
to Kroeber when he reviewed the evidence and which therefore validated the
sequence in the minds of Uhle's successors. Uhle used all sorts of other arguments
based on his ideas regarding the universal development of style, resemblances
of styles between valleys, and so forth. Uhle's own reasoning is often so obscure

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                     21
that one wonders whether it would have had the effect that it did without Kroeber's
lucid exposition.

Except for the fact that a number of new styles have been discovered since Uhle's
time, the sequences summarized in Uhle's tables have been modified only in detail,
and his old tables look strikingly modern. The main differences lie in correla-
tions between one valley and another; here, where the only evidence was style
similarity, Uhle's judgment was often worthless. Often it is not possible to tell
what observations he had been making when he equates two distant styles or
when he says that one substyle is earlier than another, for he states his conclu-
sion without presenting any evidence. Unfortunately, the intuition in which he
had so much faith was a shaky guide. In his excavations at Moche F, for example,
he picked out one large grave lot as more "archaic" than the others; in the Moche
sequence, this lot is Moche III, right in the middle in relative date, for the ceme-
tery covers the subperiods Moche I-II to Moche IV.

When Uhle went on to work in Chile and Ecuador, he did not develop new
chronologies for these areas but simply tried to extend his Peruvian sequence
to cover them, by looking for similarities in style. This sort of extension was
possible in northern Chile, where both Inca and Tiahuanaco influences are very
clear; but it worked poorly in Ecuador, where there is no real Tiahuanaco at all.

In his later years, Uhle became intensely preoccupied with tracing diffusion
over large distances, claiming, on the one hand, that all American "higher civili-
zations" had their ultimate origin in the Maya area and, on the other, that their
ultimate source was the mainland of Asia. His writings on this subject have led
many people to say that Uhle went crazy in his old age. There is some basis for
such a statement, but it needs to be carefully qualified.

In the first place, it is not so much the conclusions as the arguments Uhle
advances for them which are "crazy." After all, many others have advocated
equally remote historical connections without having their sanity doubted. Uhle's
arguments are unbelievably fantastic, however. They seem to reflect primarily a
certain insensitiveness to style differences. This is a rather odd trait to ascribe to
a man who pioneered in distinguishing local styles throughout the Andean area,
but it cannot be denied. He points triumphantly to Maya and Mexican similarities
in Peruvian and Ecuadorian specimens that, to his colleagues, do not look any
more Maya or Mexican than they do Greek.

Uhle's ideas of the common origin of Central and South American cultures
developed gradually from beginnings which were quite obvious even before he
left Germany. At first he merely noted similarities; he says, for example, that
before he ever went to Peru he and Bastian commented on resemblances between
Nazea pottery, of which the Berlin Museum had a few specimens, and the Maya
style (Uhle, 1914e). Uhle returned to such comparisons in 1904 and 1913, appar-
ently with the idea that they were probably significant but that not enough evi-
dence was available to make possible any conclusions. By 1917 he thought that
Central and South American connections were very probable, and by 1923 he
was sure that he had the full proof. Actually, very little more evidence had come
to light between 1913 and 1923. All that had happened was that Uhle's standards
of proof had become lower.

22       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

It should also be pointed out that Uhle was not subject to any very strong intel-
lectual influences that were opposed to the loose sort of diffusionism in which he
became increasingly involved. P. Martin Gusinde brought the Kulturkreis doc-
trines to Chile while Uhle was there, and although Uhle criticized some details of
Father Schmidt's historical reconstructions, he may well have been influenced
by the type of remote diffusion that the Kulturkreis theory postulated. In Ecuador
his patron, Jacinto Jijon y Caamafno, was a wholly kindred spirit. In other coun-
tries, few people cared to give a frank opinion of Uhle's articles, either out of
respect for the useful work he had done earlier or simply because they did not
read them.

Even in Uhle's "best" period, his papers display much the same sort of naivete
we associate with his old age, whenever he strayed very far from discussing the
immediate local relationships of specific archaeological styles or simply recording
his observations. In 1888 he offered a fantastic reconstruction of the migrations
of the Chibcha-speaking peoples as the conclusion to his paper on the relation-
ships of the Chibehan languages, a reconstruction based on exaggerations of the
similarities between Cauca valley and Costa Rican artifacts, deductions from
mythology, statements by Spanish writers about the warlike or peaceful character
of various tribes, and the repeated assumption that, if the languages of two tribes
belong to the same family, their culture and character must be similar also. This
nonsense follows several pages of sound and critical linguistic comparisons.

Because Uhle is read chiefly by archaeologists, it is the deterioration of his
discussion of archaeological styles that has been chiefly noted. There was at the
same time a corresponding decline in the quality of his philology, which took
the form of a misuse of the evidence of place names. The most extensive example
of this misuse is probably his paper on the "Fundamentos etnicos de la region
de Arica y Tacna" (1919), but its beginnings go back to his entry into Bolivia in
1893. He began immediately to collect place names which suggested to him that
there had been an Aymara occupation of southeastern Bolivia before the establish-
ment there of Inca speech. He seizes on the name Membrilluni (from Spanish
membrillo, quince, plus Aymara -ni, locative suffix) as proof that Aymara was
still spoken in the area in comparatively recent times (see App. B, third letter).
It seems never to have occurred to him that the suffix -ni might have been bor-
rowed into Inca, which has no exactly equivalent suffix, and used to form new
names by people who had no knowledge of Aymara at all. This is precisely what
has happened farther north in Puno. He probably owed this obsession with place
names to Middendorf, whose Aymara grammar he had with him. The descriptive
work he did on the Aymara and Uro languages, however, was far better than
anything his contemporaries in the area were capable of. For one thing, he caught
phonemic distinctions which Middendorf had entirely missed.

We can sum up the foregoing discussion of Uhle's interpretative work by saying
that some of it-his comparison and classification of Chibcha languages and his
relative chronology of Peruvian archaeological styles, for instance-was thorough
enough and critical enough to render his results useful and important. Generally,
however, even from his earliest work, his attempts at historical reconstruction
were surprisingly naive. The "craziness" of his later work represents chiefly an

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                     23
increased preoccupation with the sort of problem that he had never been able to
handle.

When we turn to his descriptive work, we find more to admire, and our chief
reason for regret is that Uhle's declining interest in the description of his dis-
coveries after 1904 has deprived us of much indispensable information. He con-
tinued to do field work until 1932; but more and more, instead of presenting the
evidence, he expected his colleagues to take his word for its significance.

For his generation, Uhle's archaeological field methods were good but were not
comparable, for example, with George Reisner's. Reisner, who dug in Egypt for
the University of California while Uhle was digging in Peru, took full notes on
all associations and published his results so systematically that the reader of one
of his reports can pick out any single specimen and determine not only in what
grave it was found but where it lay in the grave and what the grave looked like.
Uhle, whose sites were entirely comparable to those excavated by Reisner, merely
listed the objects from each grave in his catalogues, usually without any infor-
mation about the appearance of the tomb or the relative positions of the objects.
His Moche F catalogue, for example, includes sketch plans of only two of thirty-
two tombs, and it contains no cross references that would enable the reader to
find out which pots came from which corner. It is possible that he had additional
information in his notes, buf if so, it was not deposited with the collection. He
took many photographs during his work at Moche, but only one shows the appear-
ance of an opened grave before the specimens were removed. In the Moche cata-
logue, the graves are not even numbered systematically. Some have no designation
at all, and others are labeled with Greek letters. On the plan published with his
"Die Ruinen von Moche" (1913) appears an entirely different series of numbers,
which cannot be matched with the Greek letters of the catalogue. Later, at
Nieveria, he numbered each grave with a Roman numeral, but still gave no descrip-
tion of the graves. His report of his work at Cumbaya (published in 1926) includes
plans, cross sections, and descriptions of seventeen of thirty-four tombs; but
for the specimens illustrated he gives no grave provenience and he shows no whole
,grave lots. In other words, Uhle noted archaeological associations but did so in a
seemingly capricious manner, without the systematic thoroughness that was char-
acteristic of Reisner's work and which Reisner left as a legacy to present-day
American archaeology.

The same partial lack of system appears in Uhle's general discussions of his
results. He did not define carefully the styles which he distinguished, and he did
not name them until about 1910. The terminology of Peruvian styles in use today
is very largely that contributed by Kroeber.

However, if Uhle's field methods seem erratic when compared to Reisner's, they
were incomparably better than those practiced by most other so-called archaeolo-
gists in the New World. Thorough and systematic field techniques came into
general use in North America between 1910 and 1920, in part as a result of Reis-
ner's influence on such thoughtful students as A. V. Kidder, who took his course
in field method at Harvard. Important contributions to this development were
made independently by Boas, Kroeber, Nelson, Spier, and a few others. In South
America it was not until Kroeber's 1926 expedition that any work better than

24       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

Uhle's was accomplished, and Kroeber's work was directly inspired by Uhle's.

There is little doubt that much of the present importance of Max Uhle's work
is due to the publication of his collections at Berkeley by Kroeber, Strong, Gayton,
and O'Neale (1924-1930). Their studies made clear sense out of Uhle's data in a
way that he had rarely been able to do himself, and presented the evidence in
such a way that others, without access to the collections, could use it. In strict
fact, it is their publications, not those of Uhle, which mark the beginning of
modern archaeology in the Andes. Uhle's Pachacamac (1903) is an early landmark,
but it served merely to point the way, and Uhle himself did not follow it up as it
deserved. Without his work of collecting, however, there could have been no publi-
cation program in the years between 1924 and 1930. His contribution was the
finding of the materials and the placing of them where they could be studied,
with enough notes on provenience and associations to make sense to people who
had never been to Peru. This contribution, though it may seem simple, is of
enormous importance, for Uhle thus provided material which can serve genera-
tions of students working on problems which he could not have foreseen. And
these students must go to Uhle's collections because, with inconsiderable excep-
tions, there are no others even in Peru with as much documentation as his.

Uhle was appreciative of the careful and considerate way in which Kroeber
and his associates published his collections, and he cited their studies with pride.
lie also commended Bennett's work at Tiahuanaco, and gave generous praise to
others who did what he would have liked to have done in a way that he could
approve (Uhle, 1937c, 1943a, and 1943c). He had no direct disciples who carried
on his work. A young French officer, Captain Paul Berthon, sat at his feet in
1904 and 1905 to learn Peruvian archaeology, and then made a big and poorly
documented collection on which he published a report in 1911; Uhle reviewed the
publication unfavorably (Uhle, 1913d). In Chile, P. Martin Gusinde was a dis-
ciple of Uhle in a sense, but Gusinde went on to do a very different type of work
from anything that Uhle attempted. Uhle undoubtedly influenced other associates,
such as Aureliano Oyarzuin in Chile and Jacinto Jijon y Caamanio in Ecuador,
but not in any very profound way. Yet he lectured constantly, both to the public
and at the universities at Santiago, Quito, and Berlin, and maintained an extensive
correspondence.

The collections he made are one of his most valuable legacies to posterity. They
are all where he left them, except for the one he made for his museum at Lima;
this has suffered some curious vicissitudes. The Lima museum, after a couple of
years of virtual abandonment, passed into the hands of an ambitious young
Peruvian doctor named Julio C. Tello, who had studied abroad and was filled
with an enthusiasm for archaeology. Uhle's collections were arranged by site and
association, as he had catalogued them, so that they could be of maximum use to
students; Tello rearranged them all according to his own somewhat mystical ideas
of style, to make them illustrate his theories on Peruvian prehistory. Tello was
eased out of the museum in 1915, but he never lost his ambition to direct it. Under
the patronage of Victor Larco Herrera, he built up a new collection of purchased
materials, which was bought by the government in 1924. Soon afterward, Tello
got control of Uhle's collections again and transferred them to the new building

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                    25
which Larco had built on the Avenida Alfonso Ugarte. A new shift in the Peruvian
political situation in 1930 brought Luis E. Valcfarcel to the directorship of the
consolidated museum, and Tello retired to the University of San Marcos. Repeat-
ing his earlier tactics, he now built up another rival museum in the suburb of
Magdalena Vieja, and finally in 1945 he was again given control of the collection
at Alfonso Ugarte, which he moved immediately to Magdalena. Here, in the "Museo
Nacional de Antropologia y Arqueologla," Uhle's collections are overshadowed
by the much larger ones assembled by Tello, in presentation as well as in numbers.
There is something symbolic about this situation; it marks the climax of Tello's
lifelong effort to subordinate Uhle's contribution to Peruvian archaeology to his
own and create the impression, at least in Peru, that Tello was the father of the
subject.

Uhle's bibliography is a long one and includes many important contributions,
only a few of which have been touched upon in the foregoing review of his life and
work. Others which deserve mention are his articles on the quipu (Uhle, 1895a,
1897a), which anticipate by twenty to thirty years most of what Locke said in
his classic monograph of 1923 (see Uhle, 1923e) ; his bibliographies of the anthro-
pology of Ecuador (Uhle, 1926a, 1927a, 1929b, and 1929c); his rejection of the
historical authority of Juan de Velasco (Uhle, 1930d); and his studies of the
use of snuff (Uhle, 1898, 1913f, 1915d) and of spear-throwers (1885b, 1887e, 1888a,
1889b, 1907d, 1909b) in ancient America. Even his shortest notes and his book
reviews often contain important bits of descriptive information and valuable
suggestions for interpretation which he never published in any other connection.

Much of Uhle's most important work has never been published, and it could
still be published with profit. It would be especially important to have studies
of his other collections, such as the ones Kroeber and his associates made of the
materials at Berkeley; and at least some of his unpublished manuscripts should
be issued. Dr. Gerdt Kutscher, of the Latein amerikanische Bibliothek in Berlin,
who is the custodian of most of Uhle's personal papers, has announced a projected
edition of some of the more important ones; but this will be only a start. In many
respects, it would be even more valuable to publish his letters, as the reader can
judge by examining the four presented in Appendix B. It will be many years
before we are in a position to pass final judgment on Max Uhle's contributions
to Andean anthropology.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MAX UHLE

TM: BEST previous bibliography of Max Uhle is the one which appeared in the
Revista del Museo Nacional, tomo IV, no. 1, I semestre, pp. iv-xi, Lima, 1935.
This bibliography and the accompanying biographical sketch seem to have been
furnished by the Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut, Berlin, probably with Uhle's col-
laboration. The bibliography contains 124 items, but it is neither complete nor
accurate. Most of the work of compiling the new bibliography which follows was
done independently of the 1935 one, and the new list is much more extensive (232
items). However, I am reasonably certain that it is not complete. Complete files
of all the journals in which Uhle might have published articles are not available
in Berkeley, and most of the journals not checked are ones which were not regu-
larly indexed by contemporary bibliographers. There are probably about twenty
more reviews, letters, short articles, and reprints of articles by Uhle which should
be added. Some important items undoubtedly appeared only in South American
newspapers which I have had no opportunity to examine.

In an attempt to secure maximum accuracy for the references, I have rechecked
personally every available title. The ones I have not seen are marked with an
asterisk; I have taken the references to these from the best available bibliography.

The second part of the following bibliography-that listing publications about
Uhle and his work-makes no pretense to completeness. I have listed those titles
which proved useful to me in writing the preceding biographical sketch, and
some others which give either factual information about Uhle's activities or im-
portant opinions regarding the significance of his work.

About half of the original work of compiling these bibliographies was done by
Dr. Clement W. Meighan.

A. UHLE'S WRITINGS

1880

Die Partikel t     ,wei' im Schu-king und Schi-king. Ein Beitrag zur Grammatik
des vorklassischen Chinesisch. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doctor-
wiirde der Philosophischen Facultiit der Universitiit Leipzig, vorgelegt von
Friedrich Max Uhle aus Dresden. Leipzig, Druck von Alexander Edelmann, Uni-
versitats-Buchdrucker. x, 107 pp.

The vita on p. 107 gives some interesting information about Uhle's university career: "Als
Student der Philologie bezog ich dann auf ein Semester die Universitiit Leipzig, diente ferner
als Einjiihrig-Freiwilliger in Dresden, und studierte dann weiter auf den Universitaten G6ttingen
und Leipzig Philologie und Indogermanistik.

"Mich. 1878 trat ich aus dem philologischen Seminar in Leipzig, dem ich ein Jahr angehort
hatte, aus, und wandte mich ganz der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft zu, als Herr Prof. G. v.d.
Gabelentz seine Vorlesungen erlffnete, und meine lange gehegten linguistischen Neigungen
dadurch einen besonders starken Impuls erhielten. Unter Herrn Prof. v.d. Gabelentz studierte
ich von da ab ostasiatische Sprachen, wurde ausserdem durch Herrn Prof. Loth in das Tiirkische,
durch Herrn Prof. Windisch in das Sanskrit eingefuhrt, und horte philosophische Collegien
bei den Herren Proff. Wundt und Heinze.

[ 26]

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                        27
"Ich denke mich der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft dauernd zu widmen." It was a short
lived resolution.

Copies of this work are now rare; I consulted it in the New York Public Library.

1881

*Beitrage zur Grammatik des vorklassischen Chinesisch: 1. Die Partikel

wei im Schu-king und Schi-king, mit autographierten Schrifttafeln. T. 0. Weigel,
Leipzig. x, 106 pp.; 18 pls. of Chinese text.

1883

a. Ueber den Gott Batara Guru der Malaien. Verhandlungen der Gesellsehaft
fur Erdkunde zu Berlin, Band X, no. 3, pp. 143-158. Berlin.

b. *(With A. B. Meyer.) Zur Dippil-Sprache in Ost-Australien. Jahresbericht
des Vereins fur Erdkunde zu Dresden, Band 4, nos. 18-20, pp. 129-136. Dresden.
(Tafel 1.)

1884

a. Prosperpinen im Malaiischen Archipel. Das Ausland [Band 57], no. 2, 14
Januar, pp. 31-34. Miinchen.

b. Ueber ethnologisches Reisen. Das Ausland [Band 57], no. 52, 29 Dezember,
pp. 1036-1038. Stuttgart.

Some thoughts on anthropological field work; Uhle's first theoretical comments. "Die Ethno-
logie . . . ist die Wissenschaft vom gesamten geistigen und materiallen Kulturapparat des
Menschen" (p. 1037).

1885

a. (With A. B. Meyer.) Chinesischen und amerikanischen Klangplatten. Ver-
handlungen der Berliner Gesellsehaft fur Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urge-
schichte, Jahrgang 1885 [vol. 17], pp. (312)-(314). Berlin. 2 figs.

b. (With A. B. Meyer.) Seltene Waffen aus Afrika, Asien und Amerika. Konig-
liches Ethnographisches Museum zu Dresden [Publicationen, V]. Leipzig. [ii],
6 pp.; 10 pls.

C.*Sur quelques tam-tams seamois. Memoires de la Societe des Etudes Japo-
naises, Chinoises, Tartares et Indochinoises a Paris, 1 serie, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 153 if.
Paris.

1886

a. Holz- und Bambus-geriithe aus Nord West Neu Guinea (hauptsiichlich gesam-
melt von A. B. Meyer) mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Ornamentik. Publi-
cationen aus dem K6niglichen Ethnographischen Museum zu Dresden, VI. Leipzig.
[iv], 14 pp.; 7 pls.

b. Ueber einige seltene Federarbeiten von Californien. Mitteilungen der Anthro-
pologischen Gesellschaft in Wien. Band XVI (n.f., Band VI), pp. 15-20. Wien.
Figs. 1-2.

c. Zwei priihistorische Elephantendarstellungen aus Amerika. Verhandlungen
der Berliner Gesellschaft fur Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, Jahr-
gang 1886 [vol. 18], pp. (322)-(328). Berlin. 2 illus.

28       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

1887

a. Angebliche Elephantendarstellungen der priihistorischen Zeit Amerikas. Mit-
teilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellsehaft in Wien, Band XVII (n.f., Band
VII), pp. 24-29. Wien.

b. Kupferaxt von S. Paulo, Brasilien. Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft
fur Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, Jahrgang 1887, vol. 19, pp.
(20)-(22). Berlin. 1 fig.

c. Review: J. G. F. Riedel, De sluik- en kroesharige rassen tusschen Selebes en
Papua. s'Gravenhage, Martinus Nijhoff, 1886. 486 S., 13 Karten, 44 Tafeln. Revue
Coloniale Internationale, tome IV, no. 3, Mars, pp. 238-249. Amsterdam.

d. Ueber die ethnologische Bedeutung der Malaiischen Zahnfeilung. Abhand-
lungen und Berichte des K6nigl. Zoologischen Anthropologisch-Ethnographischen
Museums zu Dresden [vol. 1], 1886-1887, no. 4, Berlin. ii, 18 pp.; 20 figs.

e. Ueber die Wurfh6lzer der Indianer Amerikas. Mitteilungen der Anthropolo-
gischen Gesellschaft in Wien, Band XVII (n.f., Band VII), pp. 107-114. Wien.
P1.4.

1888

a. Pfeilschleuderhaken? Internationales Archiv fur Ethnographie, Band I, no.
6, pp. 209-211. Leiden. Figs. 1-12.

Chibeha spear-thrower hoods in European collections.

b. [Remarks on R. Virchow's paper, Sendung aus Surinam.] Verhandlungen
der Berliner Gesellsehaft fur Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, Jahr-
gang 1888 [vol. 20], p. (406). Berlin.

c. Review: A. Bastian, Allerlei aus Volks- und Menschenkunde. 2 Bde. mit 21
Taf. Berlin, Mittler u. Sohn, 1888. XI u. 512, CXX u. 380 S. gr. 8? M. 18. Deutsche
Literaturzeitung, IX Jahrgang, no. 41, 13 October, pp. 1503-1505. Berlin.

Signed: U. .e.

d. Review: Dr. 0. Finsch: Ethnologische Erfahrungen und Belegstiicke aus
der Siidsee, mit einem Vorworte von F. Heger. I. Bismarck-Archipel mit 5 Tafeln
(davon zwei in Farbendruck) in: "Annalen des K.K. Naturhistorischen Hof-
museums," Band III. Wien, 1888. Internationales Archiv fur Ethnographie, Band
I, no. 6, pp. 244-246. Leiden.

e. Review: Internationales Archiv fur Ethnographie, redigiert von J. D. E.
Schmeltz. 1. Bd. H. 1 u. 2. Leiden, 1888. Trap. (S. 1-76 Gr. 4.) pr. 1-2 M. 21.
Literarisches Centralblatt fur Deutschland, Jahrgang 1888 [vol. 39], no. 27,
30. Juni, pp. 913-914. Leipzig.

f. Die Sammlung Censeno [sic] befindet sich in Berlin! Internationales Archiv
fur Ethnographie, Band I, no. 6, pp. 234-235. Leiden.

A letter announcing the acquisition of the Centeno Collection from Cuzco by the K. Museum
fur Volkerkunde, Berlin.

g. Ueber Pfeile aus der Torresstrasse. Internationales Archiv fur Ethnographie,
Band I, no. 5, pp. 173-176. Leiden. Figs. 1-4.

h. Wurfstock (Speerschleuder) von Australien. Internationales Archiv fur
Ethnographie, Band I, no. 5, p. 196. Leiden.

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                        29

1889

a. Ausgewihlte Stuieke des K. Museums fur V6lkerkunde zur Archaologie
Amerikas. Ver6ffentlichungen aus dem K6niglichen Museum fur V6lkerkunde,
Band I, Heft 1, pp. 1-44. Berlin. Pls. 1-10.

Contents: (1) Miinnliche Figur von Thon aus Yucatan; (2) Schaidelmaske aus Mexico und
Analogien aus der Siidsee; (3) Geriathe zum Bastklopfen aus Amerika u. and. Gegenden; (4)
Lippenzierrathe aus Amerika; (5) Altperuanische Topferformen; (6) Yucatekische T6pfer-
form; (7) Modellplatten fur Metallarbeiten nebst Abdriieken, Tschibtscha; (8) Yucatekische
Terracotta.

b. [Remarks on A. Bastian's note, Altmexikanisches Wurfbrett. ] Verhandlungen
der Berliner Gesellschaft fur Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, Jahr
1889 [vol. 21], p. (226). Berlin.

c. Review: Dr. L. Serrurier: De anthropologische wetenschappen.-S.A. aus:
Jaarboek van het onderwijs, Haarlem 1889. Internationales Archiv fur Ethno-
graphie, Band II, no. 1, pp. 75-76. Leiden.

Deals with the classification of anthropology.

d. Review: Kristian Bahnson, Ueber ethnographische Museen in: Mitteil. der
Anthropol. Gesellsch. Wien 1888, XVIII. Uebersetzung aus dem Diinischen der
"Aarboger for Nord. Oldk. og Historie," durch Frl. Mestorf. Internationales
Archiv fur Ethnographie, Band II, no. 1, pp. 74-75. Leiden.

1889-1890

Kultur und Industrie suidamerikanischer V6lker, nach den im Besitze des Mu-
seums fur V6lkerkunde zu Leipzig befindlichen Sammlungen von A. Stiibel, W.
Reiss und B. Koppel. Text und Beschreibung der Tafeln von Max Uhle. 2 vols.
Verlag von A. Asher & Co., Berlin.

Vol. 1: Alte Zeit; vol. 2: Neue Zeit.

1890

a. Das fohringer Haus. Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft fur Anthro-
pologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, Jahrgang 1890 [vol. 22], pp. (62)-(75).
Berlin. Figs. 1-9.

House typeg in Holstein.

b. M6rser aus trachytischer Lava (mit Pistillen aus gleichem Material) von
F6hr. Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft fur Anthropologie, Ethnologie
und Urgeschichte, Jahrgang 1890 [vol. 22], pp. (61)-(62). Berlin. Figs. 1-2.

c. [Presentation of a publication of the Museum fur V6lkerkunde.] Congres
International des Americanistes, Compte-rendu de la septieme session, Berlin,
1888, pp. 737-739. Berlin.

The publication is Uhle, 1889a.

d. [Remarks on R. Hartmann's paper, Peruanischen kartoffelpriiparate Chu-nu.]
Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft fiur Anthropologie, Ethnologie und
Urgeschichte, Jahrgang 1890 [vol. 22], pp. (301)-(304). Berlin.

Includes a discussion of the distribution of New World potatoes.

e. [Remarks on Ulrich Jahn's paper, Ostenfelder und friesische Haus (Hol-
stein).] Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft fiur Anthropologie, Ethnologie
und Urgeschichte, Jahrgang 1890 [vol. 22], p. (536). Berlin.

30       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

f. Verwandtschaften und Wanderungen der Tschibtscha. Congres International
des Americanistes, Compte-rendu de la septieme session, Berlin, 1888, pp. 466-
489. Berlin.

On the classification of Chibeha language.

1891

a. Costaricanische Schmuckgerate aus Gold und Kupfer. Globus, Band 60, no.
11, pp. 163-165. Braunsclhweig. Figs. 1-8.

A collection of ancient jewelry from near Cartago.

b. Das diinische Haus in Deutschland. Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft
fur Anthropologie, Ethinologie und Urgeschichte, Jahrgang 1891, vol. 23, pp.
(493)-(515). Berlin. Figs. 1-13.

c. [Remarks in answer to Ulrich Jahn's comments on Uhle's Das diinische Haus
in Deutschland.] Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft fur Anthropologie,
Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, Jahrgang 1891 [vol. 23], p. (648). Berlin.

d. Zur Deutung des in Wien verwahrten altmexikanischen Federschmuckes.
Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft fur Anthropologie, Ethnologie und
Urgeschichte, Jahrgang 1891 [vol. 23], pp. (144)-(155). Berlin. Figs. 1-6.

1892

(With Alphons Stiibel.) Die Ruinenstaette von Tiahuanaco im Hochlande des
alten Peru. Ein kulturgeschichtliche Studie auf Grund selbstaendiger Auf-
nahmen. Verlag von Karl W. Hiersemann, Leipzig. [140], 68 pp.; 42 pls., map,
all in portfolio.

1893

a. [Extract from a letter written from Tinogasta, April 26, 1893, to R. Virchow.]
Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft fur Anthropologie, Ethnologie und
Urgeschichte, Jahrgang 1893 [vol. 25], p. (306). Berlin.

Announces the sending of a collection of skeletal material.

b. Von Dr. Max Uhle uiber seine Reisen in Suid-Amerika. Tupiza, 16. November
1893. Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft fur Erdkunde zu Berlin, Band XX, no.
10, pp. 521-523. Berlin.

A translation appears in Appendix B, below.

1894

a. *Carta al se-nor Ministro de Gobierno (acerca de las ruinas de Tiahuanaco).
El Comercio, 7 de mayo de 1894. La Paz.

b. Dr. M. Uhle bei den Urus in Bolivia. Globus, vol. 66, no. 1, Juni, p. 16.
Braunschweig.

Extract from a letter to Karl Kiinne.

c. [Extract from a letter written from Salta to J. D. E. Schmeltz.] Interna-
tionales Archiv fur Ethnographie, Band VII, no. 4, pp. 219-220. Leiden.

Gives Uhle's itinerary in Argentina. A translation appears in Appendix B, below.

d. *(With Alphons Stiibel.) Las ruinas de Tiahuanacu en la region alta del
antiguo Peru. Boletin de la Sociedad Geografica de Lima, tomo IV, nos. 4-6, pp.
205-207. Lima.

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                       31
e. Von Herrn Dr. Max Uhle uiber seine Reisen in Bolivia. La Paz, 16. April 1894.
Verhandlungen der Gesellsehaft fur Erdkunde zu Berlin, Band XXI, no. 6, pp.
328-332. Berlin.

Describes Uhle's journey from Tupiza to La Paz. A translation appears in Appendix B, below.

1895

a. Aus Briefen Herrn Dr. Uhle's, ed. A. Bastian. Ethnologisches Notizblatt
[vol. 1], Heft 2, pp. 80-83. Berlin.

Important material on modern quipus.

b. [Extract from a letter written from La Paz, December 31, 1894, to J. D. E.
Schmeltz.] Internationales Archiv fur Ethnographie, Band VIII, no. 3, pp. 131-
132. Leiden.

c. Von Herrn Dr. Max Uhle iiber seine Reisen in Bolivia. La Paz, 22. Januar
1895. Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft fur Erdkunde zu Berlin, Band XXII, nos.
4-5, pp. 311-314. Berlin.

A translation appears in Appendix B, below.

1896

a. Herr Dr. Max Uhle fiber seine Reisen in Bolivia und Peru. Lima, 17. Mai
1896. Verhandlungen der Gesellsehaft fur Erdkunde'zu Berlin, Band XXIII,
no. 7, pp. 357-360.'Berlin.

b. Ueber die Sprache der Uros in Bolivia. Globus, vol. 69, no. 1, Januar, p. 19.
Braunschweig.

Extract from a letter of September 23, 1895, to Karl Kiiunne at Charlottenburg. Describes his
research but gives no linguistic material.

1897

a. A modern kipu from Cutusuma, Bolivia. Bulletin of the Free Museum of
Science and Art of the University of Pennsylvania, vol. 1, no. 1, May, pp. 51-63.
Philadelphia. P1. 1, fig. 2.

b. [Summary of the preliminary report on Pachacamac.] Bulletin of the Free
Museum of Science and Art of the University of Pennsylvania, vol. 1, no. 1, May,
pp. 21-23. Philadelphia.

Summary by the editor, with quotations from Uhle.

1898

A snuffing-tube from Tiahuanaco. Bulletin of the Free Museum of Science and
Art of the University of Pennsylvania, vol. 1, no. 4, June, pp. 159-177. Philadel-
phia. P1. 13, figs. 19-26.

1899

[Extract from a letter to Paul Staudinger about a bronze knuckle-duster from
Bolivia.] Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft fiur Anthropologie, Ethnologie
und Urgeschichte, Jahrgang 1899 [vol. 31], pp. (620)-(621). Berlin.

32        University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

1900

a. La antigua civilizacion peruana. Boletmn de la Sociedad Geografica de Lima,
tomo X, aiio 10, nos. 1-3, 30 de junio, pp. 93-98. Lima.

Reprint of 1900c.

b. La antigua civilizacion peruana. Boletin de la Sociedad Geografica Sucre,
ano 2, no. 20, pp. 109-116. Sucre.

Reprint of 1900c.

c. *La antigua civilizaci6n peruana. La Industria, 12 de mayo de 1900, Trujillo.

The most frequently reprinted of Uhle's articles; a good short statement of his north coast
chronology.

d. Letters of Max Uhie, 1899-1900. [Printed for Mrs. Phoebe A. Hearst, Berke-
ley; no date.] 136 pp.

Uhle's letters and field catalogue covering his work at Moche; the manuscripts are in the
University of California Museum of Anthropology. Copies of the printed pamphlet are exces-
sively rare.

1901

a. Die deformirten Kopfe von peruanischen Mumien und die Uta-Krankheit.
Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellsehaft fur Anthropologie, Ethnologie und
Urgeschichte, Jahrgang 1901, vol. 33, pp. (404)-(408). Berlin.

b. Relacion somera que de sus viajes en Bolivia hizo a la Sociedad de Geografia
de Berlin el Dr. Max Uhle, desde La Paz, en abril 14 de 1891 [sic]. Traducido
por E.O.R. Boletin de la Sociedad Geografica Sucre, aino 2, no. 23, pp. 158-163.
Sucre.

A translation of Uhle, 1894e. The date of the letter should read: Abril 16 de 1894.

1902

a. * [Conjugacion del verbo aimara mufnana, amar.] Academia Aymara, an-o 1,
no. 6, 20 de septiembre, pp. 47-48. La Paz.

See also 1912d.

b. Types of culture in Peru. American Anthropologist, n.s., vol. 4, no. 4,
October-December, pp. 753-759. New York. Fig. 30.

"Presented by title at the meeting of the International Congress of Americanists, New York,
October 20-25, 1902." A general statement of the results of his work in Peru, 1896-1901, with
emphasis on chronology.

1903

a. Ancient South American civilization. Harper's Monthly Magazine, vol. CVII,
no. DCXLI, October, pp. 780-786. New York and London. 10 photos.

A more popular artiele covering much the same ground as his Types of Culture in Peru.

b. Pachacamac. Report of the William Pepper, M.D., LL.D., Peruvian Expedi-
tion of 1896. Department of Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadel-
phia. xii, 104 pp.; 21 pls.; folding map; 122 figs.

Translated by Charlotte Grosse.

1906

a. Aus meinem Bericht uiber die Ergebnisse meiner Reise nach Siidamerika
1899-1901. Ueber die historische Stellung der feinen bunten Gefiisse von Ica
unter den uibrigen priihistorischen Resten von Peru. Internationaler Ameri-

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                        33
kanisten-Kongress, Vierzehnte Tagung, Stuttgart 1904, zweite Hailfte, pp. 581-
592. Stuttgart, Berlin, Leipzig. Figs. i-x.

b. Bericht fiber die Ergebnisse meiner siidamerikanischen Reisen. Interna-
tionaler Amerikanisten-Kongress, Vierzehnte Tagung, Stuttgart 1904, zweite
Hialfte, pp. 567-579. Stuttgart, Berlin, Leipzig. Figs. xvii-xx.

Describes the discovery of the Early Ancon style.

c. [Discurso de incorporacion al Instituto Historico del Peri'.] Revista His-
torica, tomo I, trimestre III, pp. 408-414. Lima.

Portrait of Uhle opposite p. 409.

d. Los 'kjoekkenm6eddings" del Peru. Revista Historica, tomo I, trimestre I,
pp. 3-23. Lima.

A eatalogue of known shellmound sites in Peru.

e. Las Ilamitas de piedra del Cuzco. Revista Historica, tomo I, trimestre III, pp.
388-392. Lima. 2 illus.

Moderu llama figurines from Sicuani.

f. Primera leccion practica dedicada a la Escuela Normal de Varones, Seccion
de las tribus salvajes y arqueologia. Boletin de Instruccion Putblica, afno 1, no. 7,
diciembre, pp. 329-339. Lima.

g. Review: Tarmapap pacha-huaray-Azucenas quechuas, por unos parias.
Tarma, 1905. Tarmapap pacha huarainin.-Apologos quechuas por unos parias.
Tarma MPCCVI [sic]. Revista Historica, tomo I, trimestre III, pp. 393-394. Lima.

Uhle ascribes the works reviewed to Adolf o Vienrich.

h. * [A letter criticizing Posnansky in the Revista Nacional, Buenos Aires.]

1907

a. Algunas observaciones al articulo precedente. Revista Historica, tomo II,
trimestre I, pp. 63-64. Lima.

The "preceding article" is Algo sobre el quipus, by Enrique de Guimaraes.

b. Conferencia arqueologica del doctor Uhle. Revista Historica, tomo II, tri-
mestre III, pp. 450-457. Lima.

A speech delivered July 29, 1906, upon the inauguration of the National Museum and a series
of lectures.

c. The Emeryville shellmound. University of California Publications in Ameri-
can Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1-106. Berkeley. Pls. 1-12, figs.
1-37.

Edited by John C. Merriam.

d. La estolica en el Peru. Revista Historica, tomo II, trimestre I, pp. 118-128.
Lima. Pls. 3-5.

e. La masca paicha del Inca. Revista Historica, tomo II, trimestre II, pp. 227-
232. Lima. P1. 6, fig. 1.

1909

a. La esfera de influencias del pais de los Incas. Revista Historica, tomo IV,
trimestres I-II, pp. 5-40. Lima.

b. Peruvian throwing-sticks. American Anthropologist, n.s., vol. 11, no. 4,
October-December, pp. 624-627. Lancaster, Pa. Pls. 38-39.

A collection of eighteen spear-throwers from a grave at Chavina.

34        University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

c. Tipos de civilizacion en el Peru. Boletin de la Sociedad Geografica de Lima,
ano 19, tomo XXV, trimestre III, 30 de setiembre, pp. 289-294. Lima.

A translation of Uhle, 1902.

1910

a. Las civilizaciones primitivas en los alrededores de Lima. Traduccion del ale-
man al frances por el R. P. Ph. Kieffer, O.S.E., Director del Seminario Frances
de Roma, etc., etc., y del frances al espaiiol por la senforita Maria Wiesse. Revista
Universitaria, ano V, vol. 1 [no. 4], abril, pp. 333-347. Lima.

A translation of 1910f without the illustrations.

b. Datos para la explicacion de los intihuatanas. Traduccion del aleman por la
seniorita H. Stahl. Revista Universitaria, a-no V, vol. 1 [no. 4], abril, pp. 325-332.
Lima.

A translation of 1910g without the illustrations.

c. La posicion de los aymaras en el antiguo Peru. Boletin de la Oficina Nacional
de Estadistica, ano VI, nos. 58-60, segundo trimestre, pp. 350-356. La Paz.

A reprint of 1910d.

d. *La posicion de los aymaras en el antiguo Peru. El Tiempo, no. 368, 21 de
junio, pp. 1-2. La Paz.

A lecture given before the Sociedad Geogrftfica de La Paz on June 18 at a joint session with
the delegates of the XVII International Congress of Americanists.

e. Tiahuanaco y el Sr. Gonzalez La-Rosa.

A critical review of Manuel Gonzales de la Rosa, Les deux Tiahuanaco, leurs probl6mes et leur
solution, Verhandlungen des XVI. Internationalen Amerikanisten-Kongresses, Wien, 9. bis 14.
September, 1908. Zweite Hiilfte, pp. 405-428. Wien und Leipzig, 1910. Uhle's review was con-
tributed to an unidentified Lima newspaper; I have seen a clipping of it in the Peabody Museum
Library, Cambridge, Mass.

f. Ueber die Friihkulturen in der Umgebung von Lima. Verhandlungen des
XVI. Internationalen Amerikanisten-Kongresses, Wien, 9. bis 14. September,
1908. Zweite Hiilfte, pp. 347-370. Wien und Leipzig. Figs. 1-19.

g. Zur Deutung der Intihuatana. Verhandlungen des XVI. Internationalen
Amerikanisten-Kongresses, Wien, 9. bis 14. September, 1908. Zweite Hiilfte, pp.
371-388. Wien und Leipzig. Figs. 1-17.

1911

a. El aillu peruano. Boletin de la Sociedad Geografica de Lima, a-no 21, tomo
XXVII, trimestre 1, 31 de marzo, pp. 81-94. Lima.

Read before a joint session of the Sociedad Geografica and the delegates of the XVII Inter-
national Congress of Americanists, July 20, 1910, with the title "Los ayllos de los Incas."

b. La esfera de influencia del pais de los Incas. Voluimen XIV de los Trabajos
del Cuarto Congreso Cientifico (10 Panamericano) celebrado en Santiago de Chile
del 25 de diciembre de 1908 al 5 de enero de 1909. Trabajos de la III sesion,
Ciencias Naturales, Antropologicas y Etnologicas, tomo II, pp. 260-281. Santiago.

1912

a. [Abstract of a speech delivered May 24, 1910, at the Sociedad Cientifica
Argentina, Buenos Aires.] Actas del XVII? Congreso Internacional de Ameri-
canistas, Sesion de Buenos Aires, 17-23 de mayo de 1910, p. 118. Buenos Aires.

A plea for the expansion of archaeological research on Peruvian problems.

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                        35
b. Arqueologia sudamericana (Thomas A. Joyce, South American archaeology.
An introduction to the archaeology of the South American continent with special
reference to the early history of Peru. With numerous illustrations and a map.
London, Macmillan and Co., 1912. P'ag. IX and 292). Revista Chilena de Historia
y Geografia, a-no II, tomo IV, 40 trimestre, no. 8, pp. 411-425. Santiago. Figs. 1-4.

Partly a review and partly a summary of Uhle's own views.

c. Los indios atacame-nos.

A clipping from an unidentified Santiago newspaper pasted in the pages of a copy of 1914a
in the New York Public Library. A summary of Uhle's 1912 field trip.

d. Los origenes de los Incas. Actas del XVII' Congreso Internacional de Ameri-
canistas, Sesion de Buenos Aires, 17-23 de mayo de 1910, pp. 302-353. Buenos
Aires. Figs. 1-4.

With an anexo: El verbo del aimara, pp. 348-353.

e. Posnansky-Guia general ilustrada para la investigacion de los monumentos
prehistoricos de Tihuanacu e islas del Sol y de la Luna, etc.-La Paz, 1911.
Revista Chilena de Historia y Geografia, afno II, tomo II, primer trimestre, no. 5,
pp. 467-479. Santiago. 16 figs. on 7 pls.

More an article inspired by Posuansky's publication than a formal review. Read before the
Sociedad Chilena de Historia y Geografia, June 26, 1912. Discusses among other things the
relation of Tiahuanaco style sites to the level of Lake Titicaca.

f. Las relaciones prehistoricas entre el Peru y la Argentina. Actas del XVII?
Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, Sesion de Buenos Aires, 17-23 de mayo
de 1910, pp. 509-540. Buenos Aires. Figs. 1-17.

g. Tejidos protonaseas [abstract]. Revista Chilena de Historia y Geografia,
ano II, tomo IV, 40 trimestre, no. 8, pp. 553-554. Santiago.

Read before the Sociedad Chilena de Historia y Geografia, September 28, 1912. Some of the
illustrations were published in the review of Joyce, Uhle, 1912b.

1913

a. [Ausgrabungen im n6rdlichen Chile.] Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie, 45. Jahr-
gang, Heft 6, pp. 1141-1142. Berlin.

Describes Uhle's work at Pichalo, May-September, 1913.

b. Los indios atacamefnos. Revista Chilena de Historia y Geografia, a-no III,
tomo V, ler trimestre, no. 9, pp. 105-111. Santiago.

Describes Uhle's work at Calama in July and August, 1912.

c. Die Muschelhiigel von Ancon, Peru. International Congress of Americanists.
Proceedings of the XVIII. Session, London, 1912. Part I, pp. 22-45. London. Pls.
1-4, figs. 2-10.

English abstract, pp. 42-45.

d. Review: Paul Berthon (Capitaine), Etude sur le precolombien du Bas-Perou.
(Nouvelles Archives des Missions Scientifiques et Litteraires. Nouvelle serie.
Fascicule 4). Paris, 1911. (Patgs. 53-126). Revista Chilena de Historia y Geografia,
ano III, tomo VI, 2? trimestre, no. 10, pp. 471-473. Santiago.

e. Die Ruinen von Moche. Journal de la Societe' des Americanistes de Paris, n.s.,
tome X, fase. 1, pp. 95-117. Paris. Pls. 4-6, figs. 1-20.

f. Tabletas de madera de Chiuchiu. Revista Chilena de Historia y Geografia,
ano III, tomo VIII, 40 trimestre, no. 12, pp. 454-458. Santiago. Figs. 1-27 on 7 pls.

36         University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

g. Tiahuanaco e Inca [abstract]. Revista Chilena de Historia y Geografia, a-no
III, tomo VI, 20 trimestre, no. 10, p. 496. Santiago.

Read before the Sociedad Chilena de Historia y Geografia, April 26, 1913.

h. Zur Chronologie der alten Culturen von Ica. Journal de la Societe des Ameri-
canistes de Paris, n.s., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 341-367. Paris. Pls. 10-11, figs. 1-18.

1914

a. Conferencias sobre etnografia y arqueologfa de los paises americanos desde
Mexico al sur. Imprenta, L itografia y Encuadernacion "Barcelona," Santiago de
Chile. 24 unnumbered pp., printed on recto only.

Apparently the program of a series of eight lectures given under the auspices of the Uni-
versidad de Chile. A short summary of each lecture is given. The titles and dates of the lectures
are: 1. El origen del indio americano, April 24; 2. Naciones y eivilizaciones antiquas de Mexico,
May 8; 3. Las regiones limitrofes entre America del Norte y la del Sur: Centro America,
Colombia, Venezuela y Ecuador, May 15; 4. Las tribus de las' regiones tropicales del este,
May 22; 5. Las naciones y eivilizaciones antiguas del Peru', May 29; 6. El imperio de los Incas,
June 5; 7. El este de Sud America al sur de los tropicos, June 12; 8. Etnologia e historia antigua
de Chile, June 19. There is a copy of this rare pamphlet in the New York Public Library.

b. La estacion paleolitica de Constitucion [abstract]. Revista Chilena de His-
toria y Geografia, a-no IV, tomo X, 20 trimestre, no. 14, pp. 494-495. Santiago.

Read before the Sociedad Chilena de Historia y Geografia, March 28, 1914.

c. (With Aureliano Oyarzun and Tomas Thayer Ojeda.) Informes y otros
antecedentes sobre el valor historico del cuadro "Descubrimiento de Chile" del
se-nor don Pedro Subercaseaux. Revista Chilena de ilistoria y Geografia, anio IV,
tomo IX, ler trimestre, no. 13, pp. 69-94. Santiago. 1 pl.

The report of a committee of the Sociedad Chilena de Historia y Geografia, made at the
request of the Chilean Senate. The committee was appointed November 26, 1913, and presented
its report on December 11. The report contains some very interesting circumstantial informa-
tion about the Spanish invasion of Chile.

d. [Letter to Miss A. C. Breton about his excavations in northern Chile.] Man,
vol. XIV, no. 1, January, article 5, p. 9. London.

An English translation of 1913a. It is not clear whether Uhle wrote separately to Miss Breton
or whether she simply translated his German account without indicating the source.

e. The Nazea pottery of ancient Peru. Proceedings of the Davenport Academy
of Sciences, vol. XIII, pp. 1-46, February, pp. 1-16. Davenport, Iowa. Figs. 1-3.

Dated at Lima, December, 1911.

1915

a. Investigaciones arqueologicas en Constituci6n [abstract]. Revista Chilena de
Historia y Geografia, a-no V, vol. XIV, 20 trimestre, no. 18, p. 493. Santiago.

Read before the Sociedad Chilena de Historia y Geografia, May 1, 1915. See also 1915b.

b. Las piedras de tacitas [abstract]. Revista Chilena de Historia y Geografia,
ano V, tomo XIV, 20 trimestre, no. 18, p. 493. Santiago.

Read before the Sociedad Chilena de Historia y Geografia, May 15, 1915. A continuation of
1915a. The "piedras de tacitas" are like North American bedrock mortars.

c. Las ruinas de Moche. Boletin de la Sociedad Geografica de Lima, a-no 1914,
tomo XXX, trimestres tercero y cuarto, pp. 57-71. Lima. 2 photos, figs. 1-20.

A translation of 1913e by H. H. Urteaga, who introduces it with a note entitled: Las estu-
pendas ruinas de Moche y Chanclhan, p. 57.

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                        37
d. Los tubos y tabletas de rape en Chile. Revista Chilena de Historia y Geo-
grafia, a-no V, tomo XVI, 40 trimestre, no. 20, pp. 114-136. Santiago. Pls. 1-2,
fig. 1.

1916

a. [Carta al se-nor Carlos Vicunia Mackenna, Presidente de la Sociedad Chilena
de Historia y Geografla, agradeciendole su nombramiento como socio correspon-
diente. Tacna, 20 de julio de 1916.] Revista Chilena de Historia y Geograffa, a-no
VI, tomo XIX, 3er trimestre, no. 23, p. 477. Santiago.

b. Sobre la estacion paleolitica de Taltal. Una carta y un informe. Publicaciones
del Museo de Etnologia y Antropologia de Chile [vol. 1], a-no 1, no. 1, pp. 31-50.
Santiago.

A letter written from Taltal, June 11, 1916, to Aureliano Oyarzun, and a report to the
Ministro de Instrucci6n Pflblica, Arica, July 1, 1916.

c. Sobre la estacion paleolitica de Taltal. Una carta y un informe. Revista
Chilena de Historia y Geografia, aiio VI, tomo XX, 40 trimestre, no. 24, pp. 47-66.
Santiago.

Same as 1916b.

1917

a. Los aborigenes de Arica. Publicaciones del Museo de Etnologia y Antropologia
de Chile, ainao 1 [vol. 1], nos. 4-5, pp. 151-176. Santiago.

Uhle discusses his earliest finds in northern Chile and relates them to his finds in other areas.
Chronological table on p. 176.

b. *Los aborigenes de Arica y el hombre americano (Conferencia leida en el
Instituto Comercial el 26 de noviembre de 1917). "La Aurora," Arica.

c. Conveniencia de dietar una ley uniforme en los paises americanos, para
proteger y estimular el estudio y recoleccion de material arqueologico y antro-
pologico. Proceedings of the Second Pan American Scientific Congress, Wash-
ington, U.S.A., Monday, December 27, 1915, to Saturday, January 8, 1916. Section
I, Anthropology. Vol. 1, pp. 386-408. Washington.

Includes four appendixes with samples of legislation. The text contains some interesting
information on the havoc wrought by South American pot hunters. A draft of this paper was
read before the Sociedad Chilena de Historia y Geografia, August 21, 1915.

d. Fortalezas incaicas: Ineallacta-Machupichu [sic]. Revista Chilena de Historia
y Geografia, aiio VII, tomo XXI, primer trimestre, no. 25, pp. 154-170. Santiago.

A review of Nordenski6ld's article on Ineallacta in Ymer, 1915, and of Bingham's In the
Wonderland of Peru, National Geographic Magazine, 1913.

1918

a. Los aborigenes de Arica. Revista Historica, tomo VI, entrega I, pp. 5-26.
Lima.

Reprint of 1917a.

b. Los aborigenes de Arica y el hombre americano. Revista Chilena de Historia
y Geografia, a-no VIII, tomo XXVII, 3er trimestre, no 31, pp. 33-54. Santiago.

See 1917b.

1919

a. La arqueologia de Arica y Tacna. Boletin de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de

38        University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

Estudios Historicos Americanos, vol. III, nos. 7-8, julio-octubre, pp. 1-48. Quito.
Pls. 1-27, figs. 1-26.

Based on the work done for the University of Pennsylvania.

b. [Carta al senior secretario de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Estudios Hist6ricos
Americanos, agradeciendole su nombramiento como socio correspondiente. Arica,
15 de marzo de 1919.] Boletin de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Estudios Historicos
Americanos, vol. II, no. 5, marzo-abril, p. 322. Quito.

c. Fundamentos etnicos de la region de Arica y Tacna. Boletin de la Sociedad
Ecuatoriana de Estudios Historicos Americanos, vol. II, no. 4, enero-febrero,
pp. 1-37. Quito. P1. 1.

Consists mostly of deductions from place names, but gives some interesting bits of informa-
tion; for example, a few Uro words on p. 6.

1920

a. Apuntes sobre la prehistoria de la region de Piura. Boletin de la Sociedad
Ecuatoriana de Estudios Historicos Americanos, vol. IV, no. 10, enero-febrero,
pp. 165-167. Quito. P1. 48.

Extracts from Uhle's letters to Jacinto Jij6n y Caamafno, edited by the latter.

b. Los principios de la civilizacion en la sierra peruana. Boletin de la Academia
Nacional de Historia, vol. I, no. 1, julio-octubre, pp. 44-56. Quito. Pls. 1-7.

A criticism of an article by P. A. Means; the illustrations show pots from the Rio Napo.
This issue of the Boletin was printed as Boletin de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Estudios His-
toricos Americanos, vol. V, nos. 13-14, julio-octubre, 1920, and a new title was added when
the name of the society was changed.

c. Los principios de las antiguas civilizaciones peruanas. Boletin de la Sociedad
Ecuatoriana de Estudios Historicos Americanos, vol. IV, no. 12, mayo-junio, pp.
448-458. Quito.

A criticism of P. A. Means, La civilizaci6n precolombiana de los Andes, in no. 9 of this
series. Uhle's argument with Means over chronology leads him to present a very good chrono-
logical table of his own. The article is a step in Uhle's "proof" of connections between Mexico
and Peru but also contains important observations, for example, on Peruvian coast architecture.

d. Review: Doctor Erich Zurkalowsky.-Observaciones sobre la organizacion
social del Peru antiguo.-"Mercurio Peruano", 1919, II, paginas 337-352. 480-
495. Boletin de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Estudios Historicos Americanos, vol.
IV, no. 12, mayo-junio, pp. 505-507. Quito.

1922

a. [Carta al Dr. Remigio Crespo Toral (Cuenca), fechada el 17 de enero de 1922,
sobre el descubrimiento de entierros ricos en oro cerca de Can-ar.] El Comercio,
2 de febrero. Quayaquil.

b. *The excavations at Caniar. The Pan-American Magazine, vol. 34, no. 4, April,
pp. [?].NewYork.

c. Fundamentos etnicos y arqueologia de Arica y Tacna. Segunda edicion.
Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Estudios Historicos. Imprenta de la Universidad Central.
Quito. [iv], 100 pp., 27 pls., 26 figs.

Based on 1919a and 1919c, with some modifications.

d. Les huacas de Canar. Journal de la Societe des Americanistes de Paris, n.s.,
vol. XIV, pp. 242-244. Paris.

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                       39
Uhle's letter to Dr. Crespo, 1922a, in the original Spanish with an introductory paragraph
by Paul Rivet.

e. Influencias mayas en el alto Ecuador. Boletin de la Academia Nacional de
Historia, vol. IV, nos. 10-11, marzo-junio, pp. 205-240. Quito. Pls. 1-50.

f. Influencias inayas en el alto Ecuador. Epilogo. Boletin de la Academia Na-
cional de Historia, vol. V, nos. 12-14, julio-diciembre, pp. 1-3. Quito.

g. Origenes centroamericanos. Boletin de la Academia Nacional de Historia, vol.
IV, no. 9, enero-febrero, pp. 1-6. Quito.

h. El problema paleolitico americano. Boletin de la Academia Nacional de His-
toria, vol. V, nos. 12-14, julio-diciembre, pp. 302-316. Quito. Pls. 1-5.

i. Sepulturas ricas en oro en la provincia del Azuay. Boletin de la Academia
Nacional de Historia, vol. IV, no. 9, enero-febrero, pp. 108-114. Quito.

See also 1922d.

1923

a. Civilizaciones mayoides de la costa pacifica de Sudamerica. Boletin de la
Academia Nacional de Historia, vol. VI, nos. 15-17, enero-junio, pp. 87-92. Quito.
Pls. 1-4.

On p. 89, n. 1, Uhle gives his own account of the development of his idea of the Maya origin
of Andean civilization.

b. Cronologia y origen de las antiguas civilizaciones argentinas. Boletin de la
Academia Nacional de Historia, vol. VII, no. 18, julio-agosto, pp. 123-130. Quito.
Pls. 1-4.

An answer to Eric Boman's Ensayos. de establecer una cronologia prehispanica en la region
diaguita.

c. [Extracto de una carta a Augusto Capdeville, 4 de julio de 1918.] Boletin
de la Academia Nacional de Historia, vol. VII, no. 18, julio-agosto, p. 35. Quito.

Printed by Capdeville in an article entitled: Un cementerio Chincha-Atacameflo de Punta
Grande, Taltal, pp. 34-49.

d. Review: Ernest Fuhrmann, Band i Reich der Inca. Band 2 Peru 2. Principio
de una serie de publicaciones iguales como introduccion a las culturas de la tierra,
con el titulo: "Kulturen der Erde. Material zur Kultur- und Kunstgeschichte
aller V6lker. 1922. Folkwang Verlag, Hagen i.W." Boletin de la Academia Na-
cional de Historia, vol. VI, nos. 15-17, enero-junio, p. 160. Quito.

e. Review: L. Leland Locke, The ancient quipu or Peruvian knot record. The
American Museum of Natural History, 1923. Pag. 84 con lam. 59. Boletin de la
Academia Nacional de Historia, vol. VI, nos. 15-17, enero-julio, pp. 160-162.
Quito.

Contains important notes on the quipu question.

f. Review: P. Rivet, La orfevrerie precolombienne des Antilles, des Guyanes et
du Venezuela dans ses rapports avec l'orfevrerie et la metallurgie des autres
regions americaines. Journal de la Societe des Americanistes de Paris, Nouv. Ser.
-tome 15, pags. 169-182 con planche 4, y pags. 183-213. Boletin de la Academia
Nacional de Historia, vol. VII, no. 19, septiembere-octubre, pp. 270-272. Quito.

g. Las ruinas de Tomebamba. Conferencia leida por el Dr. Max Uhle en el
Centro de Estudios historicos y geograficos del Azuay. Academia Nacional de
Historia-Quito; Centro de Estudios Historicos y Geograficos del Azuay-Cuenca.

40        University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

Imprenta y Encuadernacion de Julio Saenz Rebolledo, Tipografo-Editor, Quito.
[iv], 12 pp., 6 pls., 11 maps.

The last of UhIe's field reports to appear in his favorite large format. It is primarily an ac-
count of his excavations in the ruins of the Inea city of Tomebamba which he identified on the
outskirts of Cuenca; brief notes on other sites in southern Ecuador are included. The maps and
site plans are on an admirably large scale (1:250 to 1:60,000). There are three plans of Tome-
bamba and details, two of Tambo Blanco, one each of Vinoyacu, Dumapara, Minas (Jubones
valley), and the Incapirca of Sulupali (Yunguilla valley). One shows the Inca road and some
small ruins along the Jubones River. As usual, the text gives no information about the dates and
circumstances of Uhle's work at these sites. Nevertheless, this is the most important single
report published by Uhle in his Ecuadorian period.

h. Toltecas, mayas y eivilizaciones sudamericanas. Boletin de la Academia Na-
cional de Historia, vol. VII, no. 18, julio-agosto, pp. 1-33. Quito. Pls. 1-15.

1924

a. Ancient civilizations of Ica valley. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 21, no. 3, Appendix C, pp. 128-132.
Berkeley.

"The summary concluding a lengthy field letter dated at Ocucaje February 26, 1901" (n. 24).
Edited by A. L. Kroeber and W. D. Strong in: The Uhle pottery collections from Ica.

b. Conferencias del doctor Uhle. Anales de la Universidad Central, tomo
XXXII, no. 249, abril-junio, pp. 159-203. Quito.

Versi6n taquigrfifica. Contents: Presentaci6n del Dr. Uhle. Discurso del Vicerector de la
Universidad, pp. 159-161; la. conferencia, 9 de mayo de 1923, pp. 162-179; 2a. conferencia,
16 de mayo, pp. 180-203.

These lectures are not titled, but Uhle begins by saying: "La arqueologia, de cuyos fines
y resultados me propongo trater en el presente curso de conferencias.. ." A translation of these
lectures appears in Appendix A.

c. Conferencias arqueologicas del Dr. Uhle. 3a. conferencia. Anales de la Uni-
versidad Central, tomo XXXIII, no. 250, julio-diciembre, pp. 159-179. Quito.

"Versi6n taquigrifica de la conferencia dada el 31 de mayo." A continuation of 1924b. A
translation appears in Appendix A.

d. Cronologia y relaciones de las antiguas civilizaciones paname-nas. Boletin de
la Academia Nacional de Historia, vol. IX, nos. 24-26, julio-diciembre, pp. 190-
207. Quito. Pls. 1-8.

e. Explorations at Chincha. Edited by A. L. Kroeber. University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 55-94.
Berkeley.

Final report sent by Uhle from Barranco, Peru, to Mrs. Phoebe A. Hearst, July 30, 1901.

f. Notes on Ica valley. University of California Publications in American Ar-
chaeology and Ethnology, vol. 21, no. 3, Appendix A, pp. 121-123. Berkeley.

"Extracted from field reports by Max Uhle," by A. L. Kroeber and W. D. Strong, in: The
Uhle pottery collections from Ica.

g. Notes on sites and graves excavated, extracted from catalogue of Max Uhle.
University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology,
vol. 21, no. 3, Appendix B, pp. 123-127. Berkeley.

"Condensed from comments in the excavator's specimen catalogue," by A. L. Kroeber and
W. D. Strong, in: The Uhle pottery collections from Ica.

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                        41

1925

a. La balance romaine au Perou. Journal de la Societe des Americanistes de
Paris, n.s., tome XVII, pp. 335-336. Paris. Fig. 1.

A note by Uhle in Spanish on a specimen collected in the Tarma market in 1899. The French
title was supplied by the editor.

b. Conferencias arqueologicas del Dr. Uhle. 4a. conferencia. Anales de la Uni-
versidad Central, tomo XXXIV, no. 253, junio-julio, pp. 201-220. Quito.

"Versi6n taquigrafica de la conferencia dada el 6 de Junio de 1924" [should read 1923 ].
A continuation of 1924b and 1924c. A translation appears in Appendix A.

c. Estado actual de la prehistoria ecuatoriana. Anales de la Universidad Central,
tomo XXXV, no. 254, agosto-setiembre, pp. 1-44. Quito.

"Versi6n taquigrafica de la confereneia dada en la Universidad, el 27 de abril de 1925,"
pp. 1-18. Same, 4 de mayo de 1925, pp. 19-31. Same, 11 de mayo de 1925, pp. 32-44. A series
of three lectures giving an introduction to the archaeology of Ecuador. Reprinted as 1929d.

d. [Extracts from Uhle's field catalogue and notes on his Ancon excavations.]
Edited by W. D. Strong, in: The Uhle pottery collections from Ancon. University
of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 21, no.
4, pp. 168-179. Berkeley.

e. Der mittelamerikanische Ursprung der Moundbuilder- und Pueblo-civilisa-
tionen. Congres International des Americanistes. Compte-rendu de la XXIe Ses-
sion, deuxieme partie, tenue a Goteborg en 1924, pp. 673-698. Goteborg. Figs.
1-36.

f. Report on explorations at Supe. [Appendix to A. L. Kroeber, The Uhle pot-
tery collections from Supe.] University of California Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnoloigy, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 257-263. Berkeley.

1926

a. Bibliografia sobre etnologia y arqueologia del Ecuador. Anales de la Uni-
versidad Central, tomo XXXVII, no. 257, pp. 167-177. Quito.

b. Los elementos constitutivos de las civilizaciones suramericanas. Anales de la
Universidad Central, tomo XXXVI, no. 255, enero-marzo, pp. 1-12. Quito. Pls.
1-2.

A review of Rivet's article in the proceedings of the XXI International Congress of Ameri-
canists.

c. Excavaciones arqueologicas en la region de Cumbaya. Anales de la Universi.
dad Central, tomo XXXVII, no. 257, pp. 5-37. Quito. Pls. 1-10.

d. Report on explorations at Chancay [Appendix to A. L. Kroeber, The Uhle
pottery collections from Chancay.] University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 293-303. Berkeley.

1927

a. Adenda a la bibliografia sobre etnologia y arqueologia del Ecuador. Anales
de la Universidad Central, tomo XXXVIII, no. 259, pp. 234-235. Quito.

b. Las antiguas civilizaciones esmeraldeinos. Anales de la Universidad Central,
tomo XXXVIII, no. 259, pp. 107-136. Quito. Pls. 1 and 2.

c. Estudios esmeraldenios. Anales de la Universidad Central, tomo XXXIX,
no. 262, pp. 219-279. Quito. Pls. 1-32, maps and profiles 1-3, figs. 1-6.

42       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

1928

a. Las ruinas de Cuasmal (informe elevado al Ministerio de Instruccion Puiblica
por el Sr. Dr. Max Uhle). Anales de la Universidad Central, tomo XL, no. 264,
abril-junio, pp. 183-234. Quito. Pls. 1-15, figs. 1-6.

b. Valioso obsequio para el Museo de Arqueolo'gia. Anales de la Universidad
Central, tomo XL, no. 264, abril-junio, pp. 356-360. Quito.

Inventory of the Vorbeck Collection of specimens from central Ecuador.

1929

a. *Apuntes arqueologicos acerca de la isla Puna. Revista de la Universidad de
Guayaquil, tomo I, pp. 79-88. Guayaquil.

b. Bibliografia ampliada sobre etnologia y arqueologia del Ecuador. Anales de
la Universidad Central, tomo XLII, no. 267, enero-marzo, pp. 53-83. Quito.

Designed to replace 1926a. Contains 338 titles.

c. Bibliografia ampliada sobre etnologia y arqueologia en el Ecuador. Anales
de la Universidad Central, tomo XLIII, no. 270, pp. 453-489. Quito.

Expanded from 1929b; contains 384 titles.

d. Estado actual de la prehistoria ecuatoriana. Conferencia del arqueologo pro-
fesor Dr. Dn. Max Uhle. Gobierno del Ecuador, Oficina de Informacion y Propa-
ganda del Estado, publicacion no. 14. Talleres Tipograficos Nacionales, Quito.
ii, 48 pp., 9 pls.

A reprint of 1925c with illustrations added.

e. Informe del delegado ecuatoriano al XXIII Congreso Internacional de
Americanistas, que tuvo lugar en Nueva York del 17 al 22 de setiembre de 1928.
Anales de la Universidad Central, tomo XLIII, no. 269, julio-setiembre, pp. 71-
87. Quito.

Report addressed to the Ministro de Instrucci6n Puiblica. Contains some interesting theoretical
comments.

1930

a. El desarrollo de la prehistoria ecuatoriana en los primeros cien anos de la
republica, in: El Ecuador en cien aiios de independencia, 1830-1930, ed. by J.
Gonzalo Orellana, tomo primero, pp. 1-22. Escuela Tipogr'afica Salesiana, Quito.

A thoughtful and informative account of the history of Ecuadorian archaeology.

b. Desarrollo y origen de las civilizaciones americanas. Proceedings of the
Twenty-third International Congress of Americanists, held at New York, Sep-
tember 17-22, 1928, pp. 247-258. New York. Figs. 1-14.

c. Informe del profesor de arqueologia, Sr. Dr. Max Uhle, delegado ecuatoriano
al XXIII Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, que tuvo lugar en Nueva
York del 17 al 22 de setiembre de 1928. Boletin de la Academia Nacional de His-
toria, vol. XI, nos. 30-32, junio-diciembre, pp. 209-221. Quito.

Same as 1929e.

d. El reino de Quito. Boletin de la Academia Nacional de Historia, vol. X, nos.
27-29, enero-mayo, pp. 1-17. Quito.

An able article arguing against the veracity of Juan de Velasco's famous history.

e. Review: Dr. K. Th. Preuss.-Monumentale vorgeschichtlihee [sic] Kunst.
Ausgrabungen im Quellgebiet des Magdalena in Kolumbien und ihre Ausstrahl-

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                        43
ungen in Amerika. Band 1: Text; 2: 87 Tafeln und 193 Abbildungen. G6ttingen,
Vanderhoek & Ruprecht. 1929. Boletin de la Academia Nacional de Historia, vol.
XI, nos. 30-32, junio-diciembre, pp. 278-282. Quito.

An attempt to date the sculptures of San Agustin by comparing them with other American
styles.

f. Review: R. Lehmanm   [sic] Nitsche.-Mitologia sudamericana IX. La con-
stelacion de la Osa mayor y su concepto como huracan o dios de la tormenta en la
esfera del mar caribe. Revista del Museo de la Plata, tomo 28, p'ags. 103-145.-
Buenos Aires, 1924. Boletin de la Academia Nacional de ilistoria, vol. XI, nos.
30-32, junio-diciembre, pp. 273-276. Quito.

Uhle was interested in this article because he felt that it emphasized the role of diffusion
in culture history as he wanted to do.

g. Spiite Mastodonten in Ecuador. Proceedings of the Twenty-third Inter-
national Congress of Americanists, held at New York, September 17-22, 1928,
pp. 247-258. New York. Figs. 1-10.

An association of mastodon bones and pottery, near Alangasi, 12 km. east of Quito.

h. El Templo del Sol de los Incas en Cuzco. Proceedings of the Twenty-third
International Congress of Americanists, held at New York, September 17-22,
1928, pp. 291-295. New York. Figs. 1-4.

1931

a. Las antiguas civilizaciones de Manta. Boletin de la Academia Nacional de
Historia, vol. XII, nos. 33-35, enero-junio, pp. 5-71. Quito. Pls. 1-11.

Although inspired by a field trip in 1930, this article tells almost nothing about the archae-
ology of Manta, being concerned with historical reconstruction.

b. [Discurso de agradecimiento pronunciado en la celebracion de sus bodas de
oro profesionales en Quito.] Anales de la Universidad Central, tomo XLVI, no.
275, enero-marzo, pp. 228-232. Quito.

1932

Ursprung und Chronologie der alten Kulturen des westlichen Suidamerika.
Forschungen und Fortschritte, 8. Jahrgang, no. 20, 10 Juli, p. 255. Berlin.

1933

a. Estudio sobre las civilizaciones del Carchi e Imbabura. Anales de la Uni-
versidad Central, tomo L, no. 284, abril-junio, pp. 351-409. Quito. Pls. 1-9, figs.
1-4.

Contents: Observaciones generales, pp. 353-391; Hallazgos en el "Pante6n Viejo" de San
Gabriel, pp. 393-402. Ap6ndice: Hallazgos legitimos mayas en el Ecuador.

b. Estudio sobre las civilizaciones del Carchi e Imbabura. Informe al senor
Ministro de Educacion Puiblica. Talleres Tipograficos Nacionales, Quito. 62 pp.,
pls. 1-9, figs. 1-4.

c. Review: Rafael Requena, Vestigios de la Atlantida. Caracas, 1932. Anales
de la Universidad Central, tomo L, no. 283, enero-marzo, pp. 339-341. Quito.

d. *Las ruinas de Cochasqui. El Dia, 23 de enero de 1933. Quito.
See also 1935e, 1937d, 1939e.

44        University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

e. Die Ruinen von Cochasqui (nordlich von Quito). Ibero-Amerikanisches
Archiv, Jahrgang VII, Heft 2, Juni, pp. 127-134. Berlin. Figs. 1-6.

See also 1933d, 1937d, 1939e. The report on Uhle's last field trip.

1934

a. *Las antiguas civilizaciones del oeste sudamericano. Ibero America, organo
de la Asociacion General de Estudiantes Latino-Americanos, no. 1, octubre-
noviembre, pp. 8-9. Berlin.

b. Die Darstellung des Mastodon in der Kunst der Maya. Ibero-Amerikanisches
Archiv, Jahrgang VIII, Heft 3, Oktober, pp. 285-289. Berlin. Figs. 1-5.

Comments inspired by K-arin Hissink's Masken als Fassadenschmuck, untersucht an alten
Bauten der Halbinsel Yukatan, Strassburg, 1934.

c. Ernesto Quesada.t Ibero-Amerikanisches Archiv, Jahrgang VIII, Heft 1,
April, pp. 1-6. Berlin.

An obituary notice.

d. Los geroglificos de la portada de Tiahuanaco. Actas y trabajos cientificos del
XXV? Congreso Internacional de Americanistas (La Plata, 1932), tomo II, pp.
199-220. Buenos Aires. Figs. 1-5.

Nonsense, like almost everything else written on this subject.

1935

Die alten Kulturen Perus im Hinblick auf die Archaiologie und Geschichte des
amerikanischen Kontinents. Wilhelm Siisserott Verlag, Berlin. 50 pp., figs. 1-20.

Publication financed by the Notgemeinschaft der deutschen Wissenschaft for presentation to
the XXVI International Congress of Americanists in Seville.

1936

a. [Carta a la Academia Nacional de Historia agradeciendo una carta y un
telegrama de felicitaciones. Berlin, 27 de mayo de 1936.] Boletin de la Academia
Nacional de Historia, vol. XIII, nos. 36-39, enero-junio, p. 128. Quito.

b. [Carta a la Academia Nacional de Historia agradeciendo una carta de felici-
taciones. Berlin, 18 de junio de 1936.] Boletmn de la Academia Nacional de His-
toria, vol. XIV, nos. 40-41, julio-diciembre, pp. 130-131. Quito.

c. Un folleto del Prof. Max Uhle. Boletin de la Academia Nacional de Historia,
vol. XIII, nos. 36-39, enero-junio, pp. 5-12. Quito.

An extract and summary in Spanish of Uhle, 1935, by R. P. Eduardo Kaesen, S.J.

d. Review: Karsten, Rafael: "The head-hunters of western Amazonas." The
life and culture of the Jibaro Indians of eastern Ecuador and Peru. Helsingfors,
Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1935. 598 S., 1 Karte, .4 Bildtaf., viele Bilder i.
Text. 80. Ibero-Amerikanisches Archiv, Jahrgang X, Heft 3, Oktober, pp. 345-
346. Berlin.

e. Review: Nomland, Gladys Ayer: "New archaeological sites from the state of
Falcon." Venezuela [sic], University of California Press. Berkeley, California
1935. Pag. vi, and 113 (incl. 5 Tafeln und 20 Seiten Figuren). Ibero-Ameri-
kanisches Archiv. Jahrgang X, Heft 3, Oktober, pp. 362-363. Berlin.

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                        45

1937

a. Una carta del Prof. Max Uhle. Revista del Museo Nacional, tomo VI, no. 1,
I semestre, pp. 92-94. Lima.

Undated letter to Luis E. Valckrcel written from Wangenheimstr. II, Berlin-Grunewald.
Uhle thanks Valeareel for the honors paid to him and gives new data on his earlier work.

b. Herkunft und Alter der friihgeschichtlichen Denkmiiler von San Agustin
in Kolombien. Ibero-Amerikanisches Archiv, Jahrgang XI, Heft 3, Oktober, pp.
327-332. Berlin.

A review of the San Agustin problem inspired by Lunardi's El Macizo Colombiano en la
prehistoria de Sud Am6rica, 1934, and La vida en las tumbas, 1935.

c. Review: Bennett, W. C.: Excavations at Tiahuanaco. Anthropol. Papers of
the Am. Mus. of Nat. History. Vols. XXXIV. Pt. III. New York, 1934. S. 357-
491. 9 Taf. und 35 Figuren. Ibero-Amerikanisches Archiv, Jalirgang XI, Heft 3,
Oktober, pp. 408-409. Berlin.

d. Las Ruinas de Cochasqui. Traducido por Julio Nieto. Revista del Museo
Nacional, vol. VI, no. I, I semestre, pp. 86-91. Lima.

Translation, without the illustrations, of 1933e.

1938

a. Die Herkunft der alten peruanischen Kulturen. Forschungen und Fort-
schritte, 14. Jahrgang, nos. 20-21, 10. und 20. Juli, pp. 229-230. Berlin.

b. Review: Lunardi, Federico: 0 Angasmayo ou os verdadeiros limites septen-
trionaes do Imperio Incaico. Rio de Jalneiro: Typ. do Jornal do Commercio 1935.
40 S., 5 Taf., 3 Karten. 8?-Dasselbe: 2a. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Imprensa Nacional
1935. v. 30 S., 5 Taf., 3 Karten. 80 Ibero-Amerikanisches Archiv, Jahrgang XI,
Heft 4, Januar, p. 536. Berlin.

1939

a. La antigua civilizacion peruana. Revista del Museo Nacional, tomo VIII, no.
II, segundo semestre, pp. 187-189. Lima.

A reprint of 1900c.

b. La antigua civilizacion sudamericana. In: Tihuanacu (antologia de los prin-
cipales escritos de los cronistas coloniales, americanistas e historiadores bolivi-
anos), ed. Gustavo Adolfo Otero, Biblioteca Boliviana, no. 2, pp. 175-194. La Paz.

"Publicaciones del Ministerio de Educaci6n, Bellas Artes y Asuntos Indigenas." A reprint of
1900c.

c. [Carta al se-nor doctor don Julio Tobar Donoso, presidente de la Academia
Nacional de Historia, renunciando la representacion de la Academia en el Con-
greso Internacional de Arqueolpgia en Berlin.] Boletin de la Academia Nacional
de Historia, vol. XVII, nos. 50-53, enero-junio, pp. 214-215. Quito.

d. El origen de las antiguas culturas peruanas (traducido por el Doctor Juan
Odermatt, director del Observatorio de Quito). Boletin de la Academia Nacional
de Historia, vol. XVII, nos. 50-53, enero-junio, pp. 5-8. Quito.

e. Las ruinas de Cochasqui. Boletin de la Academia Nacional de Historia, vol.
XVIII, no. 54, julio-diciembre, pp. 5-14. Quito. 5 photos on 1 pl.

A translation of 1933e.

46        University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

1940

Un kipu moderno procedente de Cutusuma, Bolivia. Revista del Museo Nacional,
tomo IX, no. 2, II semestre, pp. 183-190. Lima. Figs. 1 and 2.

A translation of 1897a by J. Eugenio Garro.

1942

a. La marcha de las civilizaciones. Actas y trabajos cientificos del XXVII0
Congreso Internacional de Americanistas (Lima, 1939), tomo I, pp. 369-382.
Lima. Figs. 1-26.

b. Procedencia y origen de las antiguas civilizaciones americanas. Actas y
trabajos cientificos del XXVII? Congreso Internacional de Americanistas (Lima,
1939), tomo I, pp. 355-368. Lima. Figs. 1-18.

1943

a. Alter und Herkunft der Ruinen von Tiahuanaco. Revista del Museo Nacional,
tomo XII, no. 1, I semestre, pp. 14-18. Lima.

A favorable review of Bennett's Tiahuanaeo report.

b. La antigua civilizacion sudamericana. In: Tihuanacu, seleccion de Gustavo
Adolfo Otero, Colecci6n Buen Aire [no. 28], pp. 101-111. Emece Editores, Buenos
Aires.

Another edition of 1939b.

c. Antiguiedad y origen de las ruinas de Tiahuanaco. Trad. de J. C. Muelle.
Revista del Museo Nacional, tomo XII, no. 1, I semestre, pp. 19-23. Lima.

Translation of 1943a, revised and somewhat amplified by the author; see note, p. 23.

1944

Grausamkeiten und Menschenopfer in den alten Kulturen Perus. Ibero-Ameri-
kanisches Archiv, Jahrgang XVIII, Heft 1-2, April-Juli, pp. 32-53. Berlin and
Bonn.

"Aus dem Nachlass herausgegeben von Gerdt Kutscher." The editor says that it was probably
written soon after 1917.

1948

La antigua civilizacion peruana [abstract]. Archives Ethnos, no. 1, May, Series
A, no. 3. Buenos Aires.

An abstract of 1900b.

1951

Las antiguas civilizaciones del Peru frente a la arqueologia e historia del con-
tinente americano. Universidad Nacional de San Agustin de Arequipa, Revista,
ano XXIII, no. 33, primer semestre, pp. 81-142. Arequipa. Figs. 1-20.

"Traducci6n del alemain por Pablo M. Bosman, corregida por Julio C. Guerrero." A transla-
tion of 1935.

IN PREPARATION

Zusammenfassende Ergebnisse der archaiologischen Forschungen in Peru, ed.
G. Kutscher. Collection "Americana," Studien zur Amerikakunde [no. 2 ?]. Berlin.

Announced in American Anthropologist, n.s., vol. 50, no. 4, p. 722. Menasha, Wis., 1948.

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                      47
B. DISCUSSIONS OF UHLE AND His WoRK
ANONYMOUS

1897. [Max Uhle's excavations at Pachacamac.] Globus, vol. 72, nos. 6, 7,

August, pp. 99-100. Braunschweig.

1906a. Anthropologic miscellanea: Dr. Max Uhle. American Anthropologist,

n.s., vol. 8, no. 1, January-March, p. 202. Lancaster, Pa.

1906b. Incorporaci6n del doctor Uhle e inauguracion del Museo de Historia

Nacional. Revista Historica, tomo I, trimestre III, pp. 402-423. Lima.
4pl.

Portrait of Uhle opposite p. 409.

1936. Bibliografia del Dr. Max Uhle. Revista Chilena de Historia y Geografia,

tomo LXXX, no. 88, mayo-agosto, pp. 204-212. Santiago.

117 items. See also Valearcel and others, 1935.

1944. Notas historicas y geograficas. El Dr. Max Uhle. Revista Chilena de

Historia y Geografia, no. 104, enero-junio, p. 284. Santiago.
BASTIAN, ADOLF

1895. Peruanische Quipus. Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft fur An-

thropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, Jahrgang 1895 [vol. 27],
p. (96). Berlin.

Calls attention to Uhle, 1895a.
BERTHON, PAUL

1911. Etude sur le precolombien du Bas-Perou. Nouvelles Archives des Mis-

sions Scientifiques et Litteraires, n.s., fascicule 4, pp. 53-126. Imprimerie
Nationale, Paris. Pls. I-XXIV. 20 figs.

See Uhle's review, 1913d.
BIRD, JUNIUS B.

1943. Excavations in northern Chile. Anthropological Papers of the American

Museum of Natural History, vol. XXXVIII, part 4, pp. 169-318. New
York. 46 figs.

BORJA, L. F., and A. I. CHIRIBOGA

1936. Homenajes al Dr. Max Uhle. Boletin de la Academia Nacional de His-

toria, vol. XIII, nos. 36-39, enero-junio, pp. 126-128. Quito.

Correspondence relating to Uhle's medal.
BRETON, ADELA C.

1913. A stone implement of early type from Ancon, Peru. International Con-

gress of Americanists. Proceedings of the XVIII. Session, London, 1912.
Part I, pp. 46-49. London. 1 pl., figs. 1-2.

All the photographs were taken by Uhle, and the text reports his ideas.
CAPDEVILLE, AUGUSTO

1923. Un cementerio Chincha-Atacameino de Punta Grande, Taltal. Boletin de

la Academia Nacional de Historia, vol. VII, no. 18, julio-agosto, pp. 34-
49. Quito. Pls. 1-5.

This item includes Uhle, 1923c.

COLLIER, DONALD, and JOHN V. MURRA

1943. Survey and excavations in southern Ecuador. Field Museum of Natural

History, Anthropological Series, vol. 35, pp. 1-108. Chicago. 54 pls., 18
figs.

48        University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.
DEBENEDETTI, SALVADOR

1912. Excursion del XVII? Congreso Internacional de Americanistas a Bo-

livia y Peru (del diario de viaje). Actas del XVII' Congreso Inter-
nacional de Americanistas, Sesion de Buenos Aires, 17-23 de mayo de
1910, pp. 625-676. Buenos Aires.
DUN, ALEJANDRO L.

1910. Proyecto de alfabeto para escribir la lengua aymara. Boletin de la Oficina

Nacional de Estadistica, aino VI, nos. 61-63, tercer trimestre, pp. 471-
473. La Paz.

"El alfabeto aymara que tengo el gusto de presentar i la Sociedad Geografica de
La Paz, fu6 indicado a un grupo de aymaristas, por el Profesor Max Uhle, el afio...
[1894]. Ese grupo se componia de los RR. PP. Jose Cardenas y Jos6, [s8i] Maria
Valle, el Presbitero Aranaez y el suscrito."' Uhle's orthography for writing Aymari
and Inea-an extraordinarily good one. The article was reprinted in the same journal
in 1912.

GAYTON, ANNA H.

1927. The Uhle collections from Nieveria. University of California Publica-

tions in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 305-
329. Berkeley. Pls. 91-97, figs. 1-11.
GAYTON, A. H., and A. L. KROEBER

1927. The Uhle pottery collections from Nazea. University of California Publi-

cations in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 1-46.
Berkeley. Pls. 1-21, figs. 1-12.
GRIJALVA, CARLOS EMILIO

1937. La expedicion de Max Uhle a Cuasmal, o sea, la protohistoria de Im-

babura y Carchi. Prehistoria, tomo I. Editorial Chimborazo, Quito.
pp. 7-296, 22 pls.

Since the year 1939 is mentioned on p. 9, the work was probably published later
than the date (1937) that appears on the title page. It is a discursive controversy
with Uhle over archaeological interpretation which leaves the reader with the im-
pression that both principals were probably wrong. In the correspondence quoted
by Grijalva is a letter to him from Jacinto Jij6n y Caamaflo dated Quito, June 1,
1929, which contains some interesting remarks about Uhle (p. 285):

"Ma,x Uhle siempre fud intractable, caprichoso y falto de tacto social, pero fu6
un investigador muy distinguido, su cronologia peruana ha sido confirmada por
estudios posteriores de otros arque6logos; pero a juzgar por sus uiltimos tragajos,
principiando por aquel sobre las antiguas eivilizaciones de Panama, que se public6
en el Boletin de la Academia y siendo la corona y remate el famoso Informe [our
Uhle, 1928a-J.H.R.], motivo de su estudio, demuestran a todas luces que esta ya
chocho; son obras de decrepitud mental, indignas de sus anteriores producciones.... "
GUsINDE, MARTIN

1916a. El Museo de Etnologia y Antropologia de Chile. Publicaciones del Museo

de Etnologla y Antropologia de Chile [vol. 1], aino 1, no. 1, pp. 1-18.
Santiago.

1916b. El Museo de Etnologia y Antropologia de Chile. Revista Chilena de His-

toria y Geografia, a-no VI, tomo XIX, 3er trimestre, no. 23, pp. 30-47.
Santiago.

Same article as 1916a.

Rowe: Max Uhle, .1856-1944                       49
HARCOURT, RAOUL D'

1922. La ceramique de Cajamarquilla-Niveria. Journal de la Societe des Ameri-

canistes de Paris, n.s., tome XIV, pp. 107-118. Paris. Pls. 1-7, figs. 1-5.

Most of the pieces illustrated are from Uhle's collection in Lima. "Niveria," of
course, is for "Nieveria." See Gayton, 1927, above.
HARSCHBERGER, JOHN W.

1898. The uses of plants among the ancient Peruvians. Bulletin of the Free

Museum of Science and Art of the University of Pennsylvania, vol. 1,
no. 3, April, pp. 146-149. Philadelphia.

Includes comments on plant remains in Uhle's Pachacamac collection.
HAUTHAL, RUDOLF

1911. Reisen in Bolivien und Peru, ausgefiihrt 1908. Wissenschaftliche Ver-

offentlichungen der Gesellschaft fur Erdkunde zu Leipzig, Siebenter
Band. Leipzig.

Hauthal was a geologist; Uhle took him to visit the archaeological sites of Anc6n
and Bellavista, and Hauthal comments on them on pp. 142-144. His fig. 12 gives the
only published cross section of the famous refuse deposit at Bellavista.
KROEBER, ALFRED Louis

1904. Dr. Uhle's researches in Peru. American Anthropologist, n.s. vol. 6, no.

4, July-September, pp. 576-577. Lancaster, Pa.

A preliminary note on the excavations at Ancon, including the shellmound ma-
terial.

1905. The Department of Anthropology of the University of California, Uni-

versity of California Publications. The Press, Berkeley. 38 pp.

1906. Recent progress in American anthropology. A review of the activities of

institutions and individuals from 1902 to 1906. University of California.
American Anthropologist, n.s., vol. 8, no. 3, July-September, pp. 483-
492. Lancaster, Pa.

Uhle's work is discussed on pp. 490-4.91.

1925a. The Uhle pottery collections from Moche. University of California Publi-

cations in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 191-
234. Berkeley. Pls. 50-69, figs. 1-5.

1925b. The Uhle pottery collections from Supe. University of California Publi-

cations in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 235-
264. Berkeley. Pls. 70-79.

1926. The Uhle pottery collections from Chancay. University of California

Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 21, no. 7,
pp. 265-304. Berkeley. Pls. 80-90, figs. 1-26.

1927. Coast and highland in prehistoric Peru. American Anthropologist, n.s.,

vol. 29, no. 4, October-December, pp. 625-653. Menasha, Wis.

Review of Uhle's work, pp. 625-631.

1930. Cultural relations between North and South America. Proceedings of the

Twenty-third International Congress of Americanists, held at New York,
September 17-22, 1928, pp. 5-22. New York.

1944. Peruvian archeology in 1942. Viking Fund Publications in Anthro-

pology, no. 4. New York. 151 pp., pls. 1-48, figs. 1-8.

50       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.
KROEBER, A. L., and E. W. GIFFORD

1946. University of California Museum of Anthropology. Report to President

Robert Gordon Sproul for the year ending June 30, 1946. Berkeley. 18 pp.
KROEBER, A. L., and WILLIAM DUNCAN STRONG

1924a. The Uhle collections from Chincha. University of California Publications

in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1-54. Berke-
ley. Pls. 1-24, figs. 1-27.

1924b. The Uhle pottery collections from Ica. With three appendices by Max

Uhle. University of California Publications in American Archaeology
and Ethnology, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 95-133. Berkeley. Pls. 25-40, figs. 1-17.
KUTSCHER, GERDT

1944. Max Uhle zum Gediichtnis. Ibero-Amerikanisches Archiv, Jahrgang

XVIII, Heft 1-2, April-Juli, pp. 1-8. Berlin and Bonn. 2 photos of Uhle.
LEWIS, AUSTIN

1903. Twenty centuries earlier than the Incas. Uhle expedition unearths

amazing proofs of ancient civilization in Peru. American Magazine Sup-
plement of the San Francisco Examiner, Sunday, May 3. Supplement
to vol. LXXVIII, no. 123 [p. 3]. San Francisco. 12 photos.

An interview with Uhie.
LINNt, SIGVAID

1925. The technique of South American ceramics. Goteborgs Kungl. Veten-

skaps- och Vitterhets-Samhiilles Handlingar, Fjiirde foljden, band 29,
no. 5. Goteborg. [vi], 199 pp., figs. 1-44, maps 1-9.

"On visiting the Museum during the recent Congress of Americanists, Professor
Max Uhle was good enough to supply me with valuable particulars from his un-
paralleled experience and knowledge of the archaeology of West-Andean South
America" (p. [iii]).
MCCOWN, THEODORE D.

1945. Pre-Incaic Huamachuco: Survey and excavations in the region of Hu-

amachuco and Cajabamba. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. i-x, 223-400.
Berkeley and Los Angeles. Pls. 8-23, figs. 1-21, map.
MUELLE, JORGE C.

1945. Prof. Max Uhle mayo de 1944. Revista del Museo Nacional, tomo XIV,

pp. 192-193. Lima.
OLIVER SCHNEIDER, CARLOS

1936. El arqueologo Dr. Max Uhle y su obra en la costa del Pacffico. Revista

Universitaria, tomo 21, no. 1, agosto, pp. 17-36. Santiago. Portrait of
Uhle on p. 19.

O'NEALE, LILA M., and A. L. KROEBER

1930. Textile periods in ancient Peru. University of California Publications in

American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 23-56. Berkeley.
Pls. 1-48, figs. 1-13.

A series of later papers by O'Neale and others on the Uhle collection textiles are
ofaitted from this bibliography.

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                       51
OYARZ(JN, AUREuIANO

1936. Max Uhle. Revista Chilena de Historia y Geografia, tomo LXXX, no. 88,

mayo-agosto, pp. 195-197. Santiago.

A not very informative note.
PANHORST, K. H.

1936. Aus dem Arbeitsgebiet des Ibero-Amerikanischen Instituts und der

Deutsch-Ibero-Amerikanischen Gesellsehaft. Ibero-Amerikanisches Ar-
chiv, Jahrgang X, Heft 1, April, pp. 90-92. Berlin. Portrait of Uhle opp.
p.1.

Text describes Uhle's anniversary, p. 90.
POSNANSKY, ARTHUR

1913. I. Una falsa critica de Max Uhle. II. Un par de palabras criticas sobre la

obra Tiahuanaco por Stiibel y Uhle (parte de Uhle). [The author.] Ber-
lin. vi, 20, vi pp.

Published simultaneously in German under the title: Eine falsehe Kritik Max
Uhles. Ein paar Worte der Kritik ilber Stiubel und Uhles "Tiahuanaco." (Teil Uhle.)
A scurrilous pamphlet reflecting Posnansky's rage at reading Uhle, 1912d. Like all
of Posnansky's work, full of misstatements of fact.
RIVET, PAUL

1933. Retour du Dr. Max Uhle. Journal de la Societe des Americanistes, n.s.,

tome XXV, fasc. II, p. 385. Paris.
ROOT, WILLIAM C.

1949. The metallurgy of the southern coast of Peru. American Antiquity, vol.

XV, no. 1, July, pp. 10-37. Menasha. Figs. 8-21, tables 1-26.

Materials from the Uhle collection.
SCHWAB, FEDERICO

1936a. Max Uhle y la arqueologia peruana. Revista Chilena de Historia y

Geograffa, tomo LXXX, no. 88, mayo-agosto, pp. 198-203. Santiago.

1936b. Max Uhle y la arqueologia peruana. Revista del Museo Nacional, tomo

V, no. 1, I semestre, pp. 11-14. Lima.

A brief biographical note.
SINGER, ERNESTINE WIEDER

1936. The techniques of certain Peruvian hairnets. Revista del Museo Nacional,

tomo V, no. 1, I semestre, pp. 16-24. Lima. Pls. 1-8, figs. 1-4.

Twenty-nine hair nets from Uhle's Pachacamac collection.
SPIlLMANN, FRANCISCO

1928. Estudio comparado de craneos humanos antiguos procedentes de la pro-

vincia del Carchi, Ecuador. Anales de la Universidad Central, tomo XL,
no. 264, abril-junio, pp. 235-240. Quito. Pls. 1 and 2.

Six broken skulls collected by Uhle.
STAUDINGER, PAUL

1899. Ein eigenthiimliches Bronze-Artefact aus Bolivien. Verhandlungen der

Berliner Gesellschaft fur Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte,
Jahrgang 1899 [vol. 31], pp. (619)-(620). Berlin. 1 fig.

See Uhle, 1899.

52        University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.
STRONG, WILLIAM DUNCAN

1925. The Uhle pottery collections from Ancon. University of California Publi-

cations in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 135-
190. Berkeley. Pls. 41-49, figs. 1-11.

1948. Cultural epochs and refuse stratigraphy in Peruvian archaeology. Mem-

oirs of the Society for American Archaeology, no. 4, pp. 93-102. Menasha,
Wis.

STRONG, W. D., GORDoN R. WILLEY, and JOHN M. CORBETT

1943. Archeological studies in Peru, 1941-1942. Columbia Studies in Arche-

ology and Ethnology, vol. 1. New York. x, 224 pp., 21 pls., 33 figs., tables.
THORPE, FIANCIs NEWTON

1904. William Pepper, M.D., LL.D. (1843-1898), Provost of the University of

Pennsylvania. J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia and London. 555
pp., 11 pls.

TscHuDI, JOHANN JAKOB VON

1887. Kupferaxt von S. Paulo, Braxilien. Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesell-

schaft fur Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, Jahrgang 1887,
[vol. 19], pp. (592)-(593). Berlin.

Comments on Uhle, 1887b.

UNIVERSIDAD CENTRAL DEL ECUADOR

1931. Bodas de oro profesionales del se-nor doctor Max Uhle. Anales de la

Universidad Central, tomo XLVI, no. 275, enero-marzo, pp. 226-233.
Quito.

VALCIRCEL, Luis E., and others

1935. Homenaje a Max Uhle. Revista del Museo Nacional, tomo IV, no. 1, I

semestre, pp. i-xi. Lima. Portrait of Uhle.

Contents: El jubileo del profesor Max Uhle, pp. i-ii. Biobibliografia del profesor
Max Uhle, ii-xi. The bibliography appears on pp. iv-xi. It consists of 119 numbers
(124 items) and covers the years 1880-1934. Reprints of this were titled: El jubileo
del prof. Max Uhle. Su biobibliografia.

1936. Homenaje al prof. Max Uhle en su 800 aniversario. Revista del Museo

Nacional, tomo V, no. 1, I semestre, pp. 3-14. Lima. Portrait of Uhle.

1939. El XXVII Congreso Internacional de Americanistas. Revista del Museo

Nacional, tomo VIII, no. 2, II semestre, pp. 179-187. Lima. 11 photos,
including one of Uhle on p. 180.
VILLAR C6RDOVA, PEDRO E.

1936. Dos palabras sobre el ilustre peruanista profesor Dr. Max Uhle. Revista

del Museo Nacional, tomo V, no. 1, I semestre, pp. 7-8. Lima.
VIRCHOW, RUDOLF

1894. Schiadel aus Suid-America, insbesondere aus Argentinien und Bolivien.

Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft fulr Anthropologie, Ethnologie
und Urgeschichte, Jahrgang 1894 [vol. 26], pp. (386)-(408). Berlin.
P1. XII, 4 figs.

See especially the discussion of this paper, pp. 408-410, by Waldeyer, Virchow,
Bastian, and Seler. The last two give much information about Uhle's field work.

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                       53
VITERI LAFRONTE, HOMERO

1924. El sabio Max Uhle en la Universidad de Quito. Anales de la Universidad

Central, tomo XXXII, no. 249, abril-junio, pp. 154-158. Quito.

The introduction to Uhle's lecture series on archaeology.
WARDLE, H. NEWELL

1936. Belts and girdles of the Inca's sacrificed women. Revista del Museo Na-

cional, tomo V, no. 1, I semestre, pp. 25-38. Lima. Pls. 1-7, figs 1-10.

A study of objects from Uhle's Pachacamac collection. A letter, p. 15, offers this
paper and that of E. W. Singer as a tribute to Max Uhle.
WILKEN, G. A.

1888. Iets over de mutilatie der tanden bij de volken van den Indischen archi-

pel. Opmerkingen naar aanleiding van Uhle's "Ueber die ethnologische
Bedeutung der Malaiischen Zahnfeilung." Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-
en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch Indie. vijfde volgreeks-derde deel
(deel XXXVII der geheele reeks), pp. 472-504. 's Gravenhage.

APPENDIX A

THE AIMS AND RESULTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY

BY

MAX UHLE

TRANSLATOR'S NoTB.-In 1923 Uhle delivered a series of four general lectures on archaeological
theory and method at the Universidad Central del Ecuador in Quito. They were delivered in
Spanish, apparently from notes, for the published text (1924b, c, 1925b) is based on a steno-
graphic record rather than on the author's manuscript. The university's Anales in which they
appeared had a very poor distribution in 1924 and 1925, and very few of the people who are
interested in Uhle's work have had a chance to read these lectures. They are sufficiently im-
portant for an understanding of Uhle's views to warrant translation and republication in this
study of Uhle's career.

Uhle's books and articles deal mostly with specific archaeological problems or with his
theories concerning the origins of particular civilizations, and the argument is often difficult to
follow because there is no statement of the theoretical framework within which the author is
operating. Theoretical statements are traditionally omitted in archaeological reports, but the
omission usually raises no serious problems, because the author's theoretical views are funda-
mentally rather close to those of his readers. In Uhle's case, there was no such basis for under-
standing, though Uhle remained entirely unaware of it. He assumed a series of laws of cultural
development based on the theories of cultural evolution which were current in his youth and a
number of postulates about diffusion reminiscent of Graebner. His "explanations" of archae-
ological facts are in terms of these principles; but he does not state them, because, he assumes
that his readers share them. His readers, however, thought either in terms of a much less de-
tailed evolutionism, or, following the lead of Franz Boas, regarded all generalizations as
hypotheses to be tested by facts instead of as infallible guides to interpretation. It is no wonder
that Uhle's conclusions often seemed "crazy" to them.

The importance of the 1923 lectures lies in the fact that they contain the only explicit state-
ment of his theoretical framework that Uhle ever made, and they consequently throw a flood of
light on his reasoning in particular papers. No one who tries to use any part of Uhle's work
should fail to read them.

Like all Uhle's papers, the lectures also contain many interesting comments on details of
Andean archaeology and a few constructive ideas for interpretation. There are many references
to Uhle's own field work, especially his almost unknown explorations in Ecuador.

It may also be noted that these lectures constitute the first reasonably systematic statement
of archaeological theory and method by an Americanist; hence they have a place in the history
of American archaeology in spite of the scant influence they had on its development. Uhle always
had a way of being first.

The translation is a reasonably free one in which I have taken the liberty of clarifying some
of the more involved expressions of the original text, without, I hope, doing exeessive violence
to Uhle's meaning. His written style had a tendency to be jerky and somewhat confused no
matter in what language he was writing, and I have refrained from editing out these qualities
entirely in the translation. A few of Uhle's technical terms need brief comment: "method" in
these lectures means "theory," as it does in German; "anthropology" is physical anthropology;
and "civilization" means "culture"-or rather, "advanced culture" in the evolutionary sense.
The title of the series is supplied from the first sentence of Lecture 1.

Uhle quotes several times from W. M. Flinders Petrie's Methods and Aiims in Archaeology
(Macmillan and Co., London, 1904). All these quotations have been verified, and page refer-
ences, lacking in the original text, have been added. Uhle thought very highly of Petrie and of
Petrie's work, and he evidently learned certain things from this book; but he also disagreed

[ 54 ]

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                          55
with Petrie, as he did with almost everyone, and these lectures are by no means a mere summary
of Petrie's exposition.

With few exceptions, all the examples Uhle cites from South American archaeology are from
his own experience. The fact may not have been entirely obvious to his original audience, how-
ever, for many of the examples are given impersonally. His statement "Cemeteries of the earliest
Peruvian civilization of Proto-Nazea, formerly unknown, were discovered by the clue of a frag-
ment of a vase lying on the ground . ..," for instance, is a reference to his work in the Ica valley
in 1901. The chronological outline of Uhle's field work given in the preceding memoir will clarify
most of these references.

It should not be necessary to warn the reader that modern archaeology should not be judged
by Uhle's prineiples.-J.H.R.

LIECTURE 1, MAY 9, 1923

Archaeology: its meaning, origin and development; differences from and relations with other
sciences-The archaeological method and its basis-Classes of archaeological evidence-Archae-
ological conclusions-Archaeological chronology-Examples pertinent to Ecuador.

Archaeology, the aims and results of which I propose to discuss in the present
series of lectures, can be defined as the study of lost civilizations, beginning with
the earliest forms of the human race which prepared the way for the progress of
the civilizations of the present.

It is the youngest of the sciences which have increased the circle of the impor-
tant branches of knowledge created, for the most part, long before our time. It
was the last to arise, perhaps for the very reason that it is more directly concerned
with man himself, and concerns him more nearly, than any of the older sciences.
These last, many of which trace their origin to ancient times, like physics, mathe-
matics, astronomy, psychology, and medicine, either concern themselves with the
world around us, or, when they deal with man, deal only with one aspect of him.
Archaeology, however, investigates all the products of our species, shows what
man did in all the centuries before our time, explains his mental state, his thoughts,
his tastes, his ways of feeling, and, by revealing the road which the human race
has traveled since its beginnings, explains the very origin of our existence.

More than history, which is concerned with the political evolution of states or
the achievements in intellectual culture of the nations; more than anthropology,
which even in the widest sense of the term only describes in systematic fashion
the stature of man and the ways he reacts to nature, archaeology reveals to us in
chronological order the details of the struggle which has carried our species from
its first insignificant beginnings to the heights of the civilizations of the present.

The archaeologist finds the raw materials for the construction of this story
mostly in the ground. Literary documents and the invention of writing reach back
only a few thousands of years. The poorly developed writing which the Spaniards
found in parts of the American continent is of only the scantest help in the archae-
ologist's task. The written documents of Egypt and of Babylonia, even though
they are helpful in other respects, do not explain the form, the history, and the
origin of their civilizations as well as could be desired. Hundreds of earlier cen-
turies, going back to the time of the first appearance of man, with no written
document of any kind to explain them, would thus remain in complete darkness
for us if we had not learned to read all the principal events which still interest
us at this distance in the material remains left in the ground by ancient man

56       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

with the same precision as if they were written in books in an alphabetic script.
The reading of these material documents forms the task of the archaeologist.

Archaeology practiced in this way promises to be of immense utility to the
generations of the present. It offers them a more liberal education than any other
branch of knowledge. Because it teaches how man has risen to his present position
in our changing world, archaeology is potentially one of the broadest of studies
and one of the best fitted to suggest new ideas and produce that breadth of interests
and general tolerance which form the most lofty product of any type of culture.

Knowing the road which man has traveled down to our own time and the stages
of his progress reached after thousands of years, we are also better equipped to
understand the laws which govern our own progress toward a perfection which
the future will bring us.

Moreover, it is the duty of any people to know the history of its own land, be-
cause only with such knowledge comes a true feeling of ownership. Peoples who
lack such knowledge live in their territory much like aquatic plants which float
rootless on the surface of a lake, and which may be destroyed or swept away by
any storm because they have no anchor to hold them firm.

A country which devotes the attention to history that Ecuador does is thus
continually preparing an anchor which may hold it firm in the storms that can
assail any country at any time.

The breadth of the concept of archaeology and the details of its character are
best seen through its own history, just as everything in the world is properly
understood only from the way in which it came to be.

Archaeology as a science takes its name from the Greek word arche, "begin-
ning," from which have been formed also the Greek words archaiein, "begin," and
archaios, "primitive," and with the derived meaning "ancient."

It was Winckelmann, the founder of Classical archaeology, who, about the
middle of the eighteenth century, invented the term "archaeology" to designate
the study of ancient Greek and Roman art. In its classical sense, archaeology
still means the study of Greek and Roman antiquities, such as the legal system,
state organization and admilnistration, customs, and rites, and is based primarily
on the evidence relating to these subjects found in the works of Greek and Roman
writers. One of its branches is the study of monuments and artistic objects, facili-
tated by excavations of various kinds of remains, such as buildings or buried cities
like Pompeii.

The purpose of these studies is exclusively that of making clearer to us the
character of ancient civilization and the beauty of ancient art, but generally
without any preoccupation with explaining the origin of civilization itself. It was
for this reason that the excavations of Schliemann in Troy and Mycene caused
so much surprise when they showed that Classical civilization could be explained
by the development of others.

There is now also a "Christian archaeology" for the purpose of finding the
sources of the art style which now dominates the religion. Its purpose is strictly
limited, like that of the science previously discussed; and neither of these can
properly be compared for breadth of aims with "prehistoric archaeology," as

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                    57
the branch of learning which studies all lost civilizations and which concentrates
on the whole history of man is also called.

The difference between the aims of this last science and those of the ones pre-
viously mentioned is most clearly seen if we examine its origin and note the dif-
ference of time which was necessary to its establishment.

Modern archaeology matured about a hundred years after the origin of the
archaeology concerned with Greek art. All branches of modern archaeology were
products of the development of modern science, which, as is well known, stimu-
lated almost simultaneously the most diverse branches of learning.

About the end of the eighteenth century the new term "ethnography" first
appeared, but only to designate a kind of study or interest connected with geog-
raphy. Since the last years of the eighteenth century it has been accompanied on
a roughly equal basis by anthropology, later related to "Urgeschichte," or primi-
tive history, which in the beginning was modestly restricted to the problems of
the earlier history of European man. However, in 1828 the first remains of fossil
man were discovered; and the first essay on "The origin of primitive society,"
written in 1829, was published in France a few years later.

Interest in a general empirical concept of the world had meanwhile been grow-
ing stronger daily in other fields with historical interests.

In 1804 Alexander von Humboldt returned from his American journeys, and
his researches had a very broad influence on the development of science. The
German scholar Grotefend had already deciphered the first cuneiform inscrip-
tion in 1802. The French scholar Champollion followed him in 1822 with the
reading of the famous "Rosetta stone" in Egypt. These discoveries indicate that
a curiosity with respect to the ancient civilizations of Babylonia and Egypt had
already been aroused.

Soon thereafter, Humboldt began the series of great scientific travels in
America. The first to follow his example were Prince Maximilian of Wied and
Spix and Martius in Brazil between 1815 and 1820. In 1831 Lord Kingsborough
published his costly work containing reproductions of Mexican art. Alcides
d'Orbigny was at the ruins of Tiahuanaco in Bolivia in 1843 and made notes there
which were later published in his great book of South American travel.

In 1841 John L. Stephens' work entitled "Incidents of Travel in Central
America, Chiapas and Yucatan" produced a well-known revolution in people's
ideas about the importance of the ancient monuments of Mexico. J. J. von Tschudi
published his work on Peruvian antiquities in Vienna in 1851. About the same
time, Lewis Morgan, Squier, Davis, and Schooleraft started the study of the an-
tiquities of the United States.

In 1858 Desjardins published valuable information about ancient Peruvian
ruins, and even before this there had appeared the great travel work of Castelnau
with many illustrations of ruins and of Peruvian artifacts. In 1866 [sic] E. G.
Squier began his exploration of the monuments of Peru, the results of which,
published some eleven years later, even today give the impression of a completely
modern study.

Thereafter, through the excavations of Wilhelm Reiss and Alphons Stiibel in
the necropolis of Ancon, whole Peruvian civilizations were brought out into the

58       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

light of day, ensuring a continued interest in ancient varieties of culture which
was no longer in any danger of declining.

Long before, systematic excavations had already begun in the Tigris and Eu-
phrates region and in Egypt. Botta, and after him Layard, undertook large-scale
excavations in Babylonia and Assyria in 1842.

Meanwhile, the study of prehistoric European man had also developed in a
surprising fashion. In 1836 Thomsen, in Denmark, published his classification of
primitive history into stone, bronze, and iron ages. The Swedes and the Swiss
followed with their relative chronology. The French undertook another line of
study, working into history from geology, the so-called "palaeo-ethnology" form-
ing the link which joined these two fields closely together.

It was Boucher de Perthes, the famous antiquarian of Abbeville, who dis-
covered the first evidence of the existence of man during the Diluvium, or Qua-
ternary period of the earth, in 1836 in the Somme Valley near Amiens. He was
derided at first by the Paris geologists, but finally secured full recognition of his
extraordinary observations in 1859, with the aid of the respected English geolo-
gist Charles Lyell.

On the occasion of a fall in the level of the lake of Zurich in 1853, as the result
of a drought, the whole civilization of a primitive people appeared for the first
time in the lake bottom; and excavations near the salt pans of Hallstadt, in
Austria, begun as early as 1846, revealed the full range of a civilization of the
bronze and iron ages.

The theories of Darwin on the development of species and the transformation
of types gave a notable stimulus to interest in the evolution of the human race
from the more primitive forms to the historic ones of our time, beginning in the
1860's.

Then, in 1866, a Palaeo-ethnological Congress convening in Neufchatel gave
shape to the new science. The following year, at a new congress meeting in Paris,
it appeared with the name of "prehistoric archaeology," its definitive title hence-
forward.

Museums were also being built everywhere, following the urging of the Dutch-
man von Siebold, who had recommended the installation of "collections of archae-
ology and ethnology" as early as 1843.

The only undesirable feature of the situation was that at that period ethnology
was still considered the more important branch of knowledge, with archaeology
as its assistant, charged with the task of illustrating the character of lost civili-
zations by means of works of art.

Consequently, the excavations in Babylonia and Egypt had, at first, no other
purpose than that of bringing to life again the civilizations of those regions. It
was more curiosity than scholarly interest which dictated the nature of the expe-
ditions of that time.

Similarly, the first American archaeological collections deposited in the mu-
seums of ethnology served only the purpose of giving an idea of the greatness
of the civilizations represented and contributed nothing to their study. As a con-
sequence, the museums acquired chiefly collections assembled with the assistance
of huaqueros (pot hunters), consisting of mixed specimens without indications

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                     59
of provenience and selected to eliminate the less attractive objects. Cultural dif-
ferences were not indicated in these collections, and consequently their formation
implied the destruction of the cemeteries from which they were made rather than
a contribution to our knowledge of the civilizations they represented.

No one thought, at that time, of the possibility of reconstructing the types of
the civilizations involved, much less their application to the reconstruction of
history.

A scholar of the caliber of Adolf Bastian, who traveled through the chief
American countries of ancient civilization and took back with him extensive new
materials for the exhibits on ancient civilizations in the Berlin Museum, sadly
summarizes the scientific result of the observations he made during his travels
by saying that wherever one looks on this continent there appear the remains
of great civilizations of the past, but for lack of writing it will never be possible
in the whole of future time to reconstruct their history from the tiny crumbs that
have remained.

Meanwhile, the studies of Babylonian, Assyrian, and Egyptian antiquities had
been organized in the form of independent branches of learning because of the
importance of objects found and the variety and detail presented by these civili-
zations. Little by little they developed an appropriate research method in which
cuneiform and hieroglyphic written documents proved very useful.

For Americanist studies as well, the time now seems to have arrived for their
emancipation from ethnology. For half a century their representatives have met
every two years in special congresses. Their material for study has grown enor-
mously and continues to grow greater daily. They were originally attached to
ethnology for the purpose of illustrating ancient types, but they have now de-
veloped their own method, with results which would never have been possible under
the former dependence on ethnology, the methods of which are diametrically op-
posed to those which Americanist studies are compelled to adopt by the very needs
of their subject matter.

The current method used in Americanist studies is derived from the well-known
one of European prehistory, involving the documentation of ancient civilizations
by artifacts alone, without the aid of writing.

The use of this method is becoming more and more general among the Ameri-
canists of this continent. Even in Mexico, where the old-fashioned ethnological
and philological method was followed longer than elsewhere because of the excel-
lent results which this yielded when applied to the rich Mexican materials, a
change is now occurring, especially since Boas studied the stratification of civili-
zations in the ground at Azeapotzalco in 1912.

Modern archaeology can be regarded as divided into several specializations:
prehistoric archaeology, Assyriology, Egyptology, and Americanist studies; and
new specializations can appear at any time through the further development of
studies in such areas as India, China, and so forth. Buried cities have also been
studied in recent years in Turkestan, yielding many documents in the Uigur
language.

I said at the start that archaeology is the science of the development of the
human race from its insignificant beginnings up to its entry on the highway of

60       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

modern times. The present separation of its different specializations as independ-
ent sciences may appear to contradict this definition and mark it as premature.
Nevertheless, the development of the science in this direction is an absolute neces-
sity.

General prehistory, which begins with the beginnings of the human race, has
as its objective to trace the development through successive periods, from an
earliest age of the use of stone implements through another of the use of bronze
implements to a final one of iron implements. The later ages of bronze and iron
implements have been studied in Europe. At the same time, Egyptology and
Assyriology, in their study of tombs, find a progress from the use of stone tools
to others of bronze and finally to tools of iron. Prehistoric archaeology, Egyp-
tology, and Assyriology must, accordingly, meet inevitably at some point in their
studies, since the first works down and the other two work up; and combined they
can give us a complete history of the development of humanity up to its expansion
in the civilizations of medium culture.

The situation of American archaeology is not very different. Primitive stone
implements made by man have already been found in nearly all parts of the
globe- in north and south Africa, India, Siberia, and China-with nearly the
same forms as the ones found in Europe.

The first age of man in America, also one of stone implements, displays the same
forms as in the Old World. In America, as in Asia, Africa, and Europe, the first
progressive civilizations were raised on the basis of the use of primitive stone
implements. Examples of such implements, of the most ancient type known,
have been found in Yucatan, afterward the home and place of origin of the high-
est American civilization. With proof of the theory that American man originated
in the Old World, the day will also come when American history will be shown
to be directly connected with the development of the Old World civilizations.

Thus we find archaeology, already united in our time, in the midst of neighbor-
ing sciences such as geography, ethnology, and anthropology on the one hand, and
geology and paleontology, with which it has old associations, on the other.

Geology and paleontology give constant aid to our science, determining the
age of strata which contain valuable human remains, either by the succession of
geological layers alone or by the age of the fossil animals or plants which they
contain. We have already noted that in France the science of most ancient man
took geology as its point of departure.

With geography, our science of man, whose dwelling has always been the earth,
naturally has numerous relationships. The geographical laws which determine
the location of towns, the dependence of the forms of life on conditions of the
earth, natural routes of commerce, and migrations also hold for archaeology.

With anthropology, in the narrowest sense of the word, taking it as the science
of the features constituting the physical man, archaeology naturally also has
many relationships. It is only necessary to recall the variation in physical char-
acteristics in the most primitive tribes, for example, the aborigines of Arica-
the thickness of the skull, the proportions and curvature of the long bones, the
breadth of the jaw and the form of the teeth-which indicate a certain inferiority
and also a greater antiquity for this race than for others which have been studied

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                     61
archaeologically. The proportions of the head in whole races, whether a tribe
belongs to a dolichocephalic or long-headed race or to a brachycephalic or short-
headed one, have an intimate connection with archaeological problems such as
those of the origin and descent of the tribes and possible migrations. The different
artificial deformations of the head in infants present a problem which is ethnolog-
ical and archaeological in the fullest sense but is also a matter of anthropological
concern.

Archaeology has also done a great service to anthropology, giving it a chance to
correct its earlier methods in the search for the distinctive characteristics of hu-
man races. Anthropology seemed completely lost in wasting its time taking irrele-
vant measurements of the skull and determining its capacity and brain volume.
This earlier work seemed for a long time to be quite fruitless. However, the archae-
ological discovery of the remains of Homo primigenius, with very different char-
acteristics from those of recent man, has shown anthropology which are the
essential characteristics in distinguishing human races, and since then it has de-
veloped new standards of procedure which now are beginning to yield excellent
results.

Archaeology is also in a close and active relationship with ethnology, which
studies primitive tribes. It assists ethnology by determining the stage reached in
the general sequence of civilization by each of the tribes now existing. It deter-
mines the origins of many types and forms, such as those of stone axes, the shapes
and decoration of pottery products, and even the ancestry of whole peoples and
races which inhabit different parts of the world.

At the same time, it receives help from ethnology, a subject which has the ad-
vantage of a better acquaintance with the ways of life of the tribes of today. With
this information we can supplement our knowledge of the ways of life of prehis-
toric man, whose remains are found in the ground only in an incomplete state.
For example, the mere fact that the pigmy tribes of the interior of Africa have
preserved the most primitive ways of life enables us to say that people of this
stage of development in ancient times already had religious ideas.

An archaeologist is never safe in disregarding present customs when he is trying
to explain ones of the past. I recall a pertinent example.

Small figures of llamas made of stone or wood, each with a hole in the back,
found in Inca tombs, exist by the hundreds in our museums. Their use was un-
known and had been the subject of scientific discussion for decades without any
satisfactory solution having been reached. Once [in 1905], when I was crossing
the plaza of Sicuani, a small town situated between Cuzco and Puno, I noticed
similar small figures of modern make being offered for sale. By asking the obvious
question I found out that the modern substitutes were still used in a religious
ceremony. They were buried with an offering placed in the hole in the back as
payment to the goddess Pachamama for the grass eaten by the llamas during a
year. In this case the stone figure replaced the sacrifice of a live llama.

The archaeologist who observes the foods and drink of the modern Indians, the
ceremonies carried out in their religious festivals, and innumerable other cultural
details is continually reminded of the type of culture found in his excavations.

Finally, archaeology has numerous relationships to general history as well as

62       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

to the history of art and to the art of our own civilization. The production of art
began very early in the evolution of the human race. For this reason, every book
on the history of art allots whole chapters to the description of the prehistoric
monuments of Europe, the ancient Mexican temples, the marvelous architecture
of the Mayas in Yucatan, and the monolithic art of the Bolivian civilization of
Tiahuanaco. It is well known all over the world that Inca masonry, in its class,
has never been equalled or surpassed in any other part of the globe.

The designs of ancient Peruvian textiles have sometimes been copied, even
industrially, producing, in a number of cases, extremely handsome works of art.

The success of a science depends entirely on the method it follows.

"A science can hardly be said to exist until it has a developed system of work,
and its possibilities of value for teaching purposes depend entirely on the organi-
zation of its methods. Geology was a chaos before the generalization of the suc-
cessive order of the strata, and the method of the determination of a stratum by
its fossils, gave the subject a working system. Astronomy was a maze until the
Newtonian laws produced methods of analysis. Chemistry could not be said to
have any methods until the use of the balance and the theory of atomic combina-
tion made possible the last century of development" [Petrie, Methods and Aims in
Archaeology, p. 122].

Archaeology also carries out its operations according to certain rules, for the
most part quite fixed ones. The development of the science will show the extent to
which these rules can be increased, in whole or in part.

Good method is derived from the observation of the relevant laws governing
the subject matter studied.

Archaeology has two aims, one descriptive and the other historical. Its subject
in both cases is man as a living organism.

For one thing, all existing 'art objects have an intrinsic interest as creations of
man and crystallizations of ideas which perhaps were only produced once. They
thus have the same value as personalities. We must always lament, therefore, the
loss to human history, and to our knowledge of the breadth of man's nature and
thought, occasioned by the loss of any idea which has ever been produced or imag-
ined and which disappears from history without being preserved for the future.

This is the value of the description of the objects which archaeology discovers,
a value which has always been recognized and which was formerly considered the
chief one, especially in Americanist studies. The cultural interest and value of
the objects is preserved in all archaeological work, because every study of existing
ruins or excavation necessarily begins with the recording and location of the types
found.

In another sense, this activity can be considered only a preliminary in the ac-
cumulation of materials from which conclusions regarding the origin, date, and
relationships of civilizations are drawn.

When I submitted the report on my first studies made at Pachacamac, some of
the authorities of the American university complained that I had gone beyond
the limits of my task, which they regarded as restricted to the description of the
objective character of the finds. They felt that I should leave the conclusions for

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                    63
them to draw, an illustration of how narrow the prevailing conception of archae-
ology was at that time.

Others, when told that the archaeologist ought to know what he is looking for,
said that this was nonsense because such calculated purpose would falsify the
results.

Nowadays, all the important representatives of the science have a very different
attitude toward the matter. It is now generally recognized that the archaeologist
ought to know from the beginning what his goal is, and his goal can only be one of
a historical nature. The well-known Egyptologist Flinders Petrie states the postu-
lates in this way: "The old saying that a man finds what he is looking for in a
subject, is too true; or if he has not enough insight to ensure finding what he
looks for, it is at least sadly true that he does not find anything that he does not
look for" [Petrie, p. 1].

Many details which are important for the ultimate conclusion can be observed
in archaeology only at the instant of their uncovering and are lost as the work
proceeds. An archaeologist who merely pocketed the objects with the idea of
undertaking a study of them in his office would find that he had left behind most
of the observations he needed, in the field, where they remain forever lost. For
this reason, at the very beginning of his work the archaeologist should have a
thorough acquaintance with the method he will need to follow.

All forms of life, and inorganic substances as well, are subject to the laws of
evolution, the determination of which as the most important factor in the move-
ment of the world's affairs is the outstanding result of the scientific discoveries of
the last century.

According to these laws, all forms are derived from one another in a regular
evolutionary order, appearing successively in time and spreading out in space,
changing and perfecting themselves continually to adapt themselves better and
better to their environments. In this case they are products of a nature which
operates by causes which are accidental at each moment but are controlled by fixed
laws. This way of regarding change is the only one consonant with the inductive
method of modern science.

Without it, each form of life represents a type which is apparently stable and
which, as far as we can observe, is changed only gradually, although the forces
behind its change are always active. The appearance of stability is the result of
man's limited capacity for observation. Continual change is the eternal law of the
world.

We can thus speak of types, but the types are not lasting. What is true for
living forms is equally true for the products of art or for ideas, these being the
effects of living forms, and indeed for all the elements or external types of culture.

These conclusions, derived from the fundamental laws of all the inductive
sciences, form the basis of the method which archaeology applies in its opera-
tions in order to secure results of permanent validity worthy of being recognized
as advances in our knowledge of the origin and development of the human race.

A cultural type forms to some degree a personality, composed of various ele-
ments consistent with one another. The type strives to preserve itself, but it
cannot do so, because the law of change, influenced by a variety of factors, internal,

64       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

external, or externally accessory, is always active. There exists within the type
itself a certain inertia or resistance to change, but internal or external influences
always change it.

Small involuntary variations, with their effects concentrated, produce con-
stant change in the type. The development is slow and easy. "Nature makes no
jumps" we say with good reason. Furthermore, a type is always related to some
previous type by the connection of having developed from it. Consequently, there
are no creations from nothing-there is nothing completely new. Each form, each
type, each ornament has its antecedent which formally resembles it. No one invents
a design without remembering, even though subconsciously, others he has previ-
ously known. Similarly, the shape of our knives is not the product of the free
imagination of some original inventor but is derived from the shape of blades
split from a stone nucleus which served as the knives of primitive man, and the
shape itself consequently represents nothing more than the reproduction in
another material of the original shape of the knives of primitive man. The copper
or iron axe of today preserves the shape of the original stone axes. The well-
known copper or bronze knives of the Incas, shaped like a T, reflect the shape
of a segment of a circular stone which once served the primitive tribes of the
area as a knife, and the change of shape amounts to no more than the addition
of a handle which makes up the vertical part of the T.

The intrinsic inertia of types, taken together with gradual changes to keep
them always adapted to the environment, and the continual reaction of types
upon one another with influencing back and forth give us, in consequence, the
fundamental law of change in ethnological and archaeological types and, further-
more, an adequate basis for a method of recognizing the type of civilizations,
the changes that take place in them, and the causes of these changes, whether
internal or in a particular way brought in from outside.

In a similar fashion Spengler has tried to explain the origin of the Spanish
culture type. On the soil of Spain various types of culture mingled continually,
aiding or inhibiting each other in the process. Each type of civilization seems
to him to have the characteristics of a personality, with distinctive tastes, ideas,
and qualities. Each one, meeting another which is different, must make an adjust-
ment, even one involving resistance, and it is lost if it cannot win its battle. In
their old age, civilizations become paralyzed and send out below the surface new
offshoots by a process which he calls pseudomorphosis. He considers civilization
to some extent as a paradigm of the occurrence of such pseudomorphoses, its
whole character consisting of forms produced by the struggle of different cul-
tural types.

Obviously, the ways in which the general principle of archaeology is applied
can be refined to a certain extent with the advance of the science and the natural
growth of its results, but no basic change in the method is possible.

The results which have been achieved by the application of this method are
already enormous in number and importance. Equality of style must equal
equality of time and equality of culture. On this principle, numerous types of
culture formerly unknown have been determined with respect to their content
as well as with respect to their geographical extension.

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                      65
Furthermore, it has been possible to determine, in the same way and almost
in every case, their relative position in time, their source, and their relation to
later types of culture; and innumerable series of successive culture types have
been built up which now form the basis of our knowledge of the origin, early
development [and progress of mankind (The text is obscure here).].

Since the change of one type of culture to another is produced chiefly through
the influence of neighboring types, we have also learned, in this way, the numerous
forms of connection between one type and another, and thus have been able to
construct a true history of the types of culture in different regions of the world,
a history which daily is being extended further by endless new discoveries.

These great results attained in the definition of the past, of generations which
are thousands and thousands of years removed from our time, are ample recom-
pense for the unavoidable fact that this type of history has a more summary
character than that based primarily on written documents; without archaeological
studies we would know nothing about the origin of our species and about the
events of immensely long later periods. In the possession of this knowledge we
should feel ourselves richer than with the often less significant details of modern
history.

LECTURE 2, MAY 16

Paleontology and archaeology-The antiquity of man in America;-Ameghino's theory-Methods
and aims of archaeology and archaeological evidence Chronology and archaeology.

I discussed in my first lecture the origin of archaeology, how and from what
necessities it arose, the specialties into which it is divided, and the general bases
of its method, which differs from the methods of other sciences because, in under-
taking the task of writing the history of the human race without having literary
documents to consult for the greater part of his work, the scholar must depend
on material remains left in the earth, which naturally demand a different treat-
ment from written works.

We have also seen that the science has from its early days been divided into
different branches, such as prehistoric archaeology, Assyriology, Egyptology,
and studies of ancient American man, and that, with the discovery of further
varieties of civilization the number of these branches may increase in various
ways in the future.

Recognizing that each of the branches of the science has its special method
adapted to its own conditions, I propose to explain in the present lecture the
principal rules which govern Americanist studies, according to the circumstances
encountered in this field. They are the rules of most immediate concern to those
of us who live in American countries, and we have constant occasion to apply
them. All of us, even those who will never dedicate themselves to this study, may
be interested at some time or other to know how a discovery may throw light on
the history of ancient American man.

In contrast to other specialties of our science, Americanist studies include an
interest in two periods of different character. First, in studying the period of
the first inhabitants of the continent, Americanists seek to find out how long
ago these people settled it, whence they came, and what has been their fate up to

66       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

the time of the beginning of the American civilizations. Second, in studying the
period of the civilizations themselves, they try to learn how these civilizations
originated. The study of the first period is undertaken, in large part, by paleon-
tology and anthropology, since it involves examining the original racial type
and comparing it with others, or investigating remains found in geologically
ancient layers or in caves associated with the remains of extinct animals.

Florentino Ameghino, for example, was the author of a theory that the human
race originated in the preglacial period in Argentina. This theory has already
been rejected by North American geologists and anthropologists, who proved
that the geological levels which contain these human remains are of more modern
origin, that the types of skulls found correspond to those of modern Indians,
and that the artificial deformations of the skulls assigned to the Tertiary and
Diluvial epochs are comparable to those used in the period of civilization. The
study of the types of deformations and the determination of the period when
their use began in a particular part of the world is, of course, also a matter of
great interest to archaeology.

In the soil of the Argentine pampas, fragments of pottery have been found
beside the bones of extinct animals such as the glyptodon, an association which
appears to indicate that men of advanced culture were contemporary with such
fossils. But archaeology must show that this pottery certainly originated long
after the Quaternary, and hence suggests that the animals in question survived
much nearer to our own time rather than that men of advanced culture lived in
the Diluvial epoch contemporary with these animals.

Similarly, it was claimed that some finely made stone mortars were found
with a human skull in the Tertiary or preglacial layers of a California gold mine;
but they could not have belonged to that period because man only began to manu-
facture such objects late and in relatively modern times.

Some excellent anthropologists have claimed that there is no need to attribute
a greater antiquity than about three thousand years to American man, basing
this conclusion on the distribution of the American population in only three races,
the first of which, according to this theory, reached South America only a few
centuries before our era. Such narrow time limits are inacceptable to archaeology,
which must explain the great diversity of the American nations, considers that
their record goes back at least three thousand years from the present, and looks
for an origin before that. Hence, the conclusions of anthropology must be based
on some error which it is the duty of archaeology to correct.

Similarly, the discovery of types of stone implements resembling the oldest
ones used by the human race in various parts of the continent, for example in
the lower levels of ancient shell heaps, indicates the arrival of man in the continent
in a very early period, because there can be no suspicion of a continuation of the
connection in very recent centuries in America or in Asia.

Likewise it has been said that the general use of pottery in the New World
indicates that man could only have migrated there in some postglacial period
contemporary with or later than the one which marks the invention of pottery
making in Europe. Archaeology, however, shows that the supposed general dis-
tribution of pottery did not exist in ancient times in this continent, and that

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                        67
consequently American man arrived in an earlier period and pottery making
was introduced and its use generalized only later on.

The discovery of axes of an extremely primitive type buried in strata of geo-
logical antiquity in Patagonia and on the surface of such strata in the United
States is a fact which closely concerns American prehistoric archaeology; hence
it is necessary for an archaeologist who concerns himself with the history of
man in this continent to be familiar also with the rules and method of European
prehistoric archaeology, so as to be prepared at any moment to pass judgment
on problems and questions related to the antiquity of man.

Sometimes also it is only the archaeologist who can determine whether objects
found with the remains of animals of truly Diluvial origin, as, for example,
slivers of bone in Californian caves, have the character of human artifacts, in
order to determine the presence of man at the same date as the animals.

I will now turn to a discussion of the method which is needed in the study of
more developed civilizations.

Flinders Petrie, the famous Egyptologist, has attempted to set up certain rules
dealing with this subject. The twelfth chapter of his useful book Methods and
Aims in Archaeology deals with archaeological evidence and begins as follows:

The nature of proof is more complex than it seems to be at first sight. True enough, all
proof is merely a matter of common sense; it does not appeal to any different faculty. And
though a proof may follow as simply as possible from the facts, yet it cannot be understood
by one who is not familiar with the facts to begin with. Trigonometry is the most obvious
common sense to any one familiar with the formulae; and the formulae themselves are only
common sense to any one who takes the trouble to argue them through. Yet, for all that, trig-
onometry is not obvious to the ignorant. In the same way the evidences about the past of
man are simple and clear when the facts and methods from which they are deduced are already
known. Yet it requires a good familiarity with the material before the conclusions can be felt
to be self-evident results [p. 136].

Petrie then classifies archaeological evidence under four headings, which he
takes from legal evidence: witnesses, material facts, exhaustion (that is, exclu-
sion of other possibilities), and probability.

The evidence of witnesses, of the exclusion of other possibilities, and of prob-
ability appeals directly to the most obvious common sense and is used in all
sciences; there is nothing distinctive about the logic used in archaeology. These
classes of evidence can thus be eliminated from the list of rules which are peculiar
to our science. There remain material facts; and although it is certain that few
archaeologists are capable of utilizing them with such skill and ability as Petrie
does, it is none the less true that the explanation he gives in the following twenty-
eight pages [pp. 141-168] is more a series of examples of the application of the
method than a set of rules for its use.

The principal rules, themselves resulting from fundamental scientific law, re-
main to be explained so that anyone will be able to apply them at any time.

We have already seen that equality of style in certain objects implies equality
of date and also of culture. Styles are consequently an index to the type of
civilization. Civilizations resemble personalities, which are permanent or change
according to the influences brought to bear on them. The principal procedures of

68       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

the archaeologist consequently consist of the definition of cultural types, the ob-
servation of their variations, the determination of the causes of these variations,
and determination of the relationships between civilizations and the influences
which they bring to bear-on one another.

There were formerly a number of archaeologists who considered the types of
civilizations as things that were fixed and never changed. The limited temporal
duration of these types seemed to them a strange idea. They considered different
styles as indicating different civilizations existing alongside one another, all con-
temporary because they were found side by side in the ground, and characterizing
only different neighboring tribes. They had no thought of a succession of styles.

They also explained the designs found as entirely lacking precedents; hence
their interpretations often were very peculiar. In Americanist studies, the first
thing that had to be done was to introduce the idea of time, to get people to
admit that the types could change.. We now have several sequences of types in
Peru, Bolivia, northern Chile, Riobamba, Ambato, Azuay, Caniar, and Loja, suc-
ceeding one another in time; and it is only in this way that ancient history can be
reconstructed.

The speed with which civilizations develop can vary according to circumstances,
some remaining more stable than others. Some types of shape or design, if of
simple nature, may continue in use without change for many centuries, such as
the small rectangular baskets used in Peru for holding spindles and other spinning
equipment, or cooking pots of a primitive and natural type.

The rate of development in the scale of civilization can also vary. Thus, the
culture of the Indians of eastern South America has remained backward in
comparison with the types of culture of the Andean highlands and of the west
coast, wherever this latter area was suitable for advanced ways of life.

In the countries around the Mediterranean, culture developed more rapidly
than in the countries of northern Europe. The Lacandones of Yucatan, a people
of the same stock as the other Maya, have remained primitive, whereas numerous
tribes of the same family reached the peak of American culture.

Lake dwellings on piles, a trait which can appear repeatedly at certain levels
of development, appeared in Italy between 2000 and 1000 B.C.; in Roumania
and the Caucasus about 500 B.C. They are still used in New Guinea and also in
the Lake of Maracaibo, where the pile dwellings of the Carraus [sic; Paraujanos]
can be observed even today.

It was formerly believed, also, that the most primitive forms of stone imple-
ments found in America must indicate the same glacial antiquity for man as in
Europe, whereas the fact is that the development of these forms was slower and
its duration longer in other regions than in Europe.

The term "convergence" is used to designate the independent appearance of
the same shapes and designs of artifacts and of identical customs in different parts
of the globe, when these are due solely to a law of natural development, an example
being the volute design. The mere appearance of this design in Greece or Egypt
and in ancient Peruvian or Central American art does not, in consequence, indi-
cate a historical connection between these civilizations. Frequently enough, inex-
pert observers think they see a similarity between types of civilization where

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                      69
none exists, usually on the basis of a general impression which is without justi-
fication. In all cases, a careful comparison of details is necessary to establish
relationships between civilizations.

Convergences exist between numerous types of culture, but in matters of detail
rather than in the type of each particular civilization as a whole.

One of the most surprising convergences is one of shape, technique of manu-
facture, character, and detail presented by certain large pottery vessels made in
Attica in Greece in the eighth century B.C. which, in spite of the peculiarity of
the style and the infinite complication of the details of the decoration, are so
similar to the corresponding Inca vessels that it would be very easy to mistake
one for the other. There can be no historic relationship, because no type created
more than two thousand years before the Incas could be preserved unaltered for
so long a period, according to the unbreakable law of the eternal change of types.

Such extraordinary exceptions to the law that individual types always char-
acterize a single time and a single culture are extremely rare in the history of
civilizations. In any case, they can well be merely reflections of a similar mental
state, for the human mind also follows eternal laws in its development. Thus,
in a certain stage of the general evolution, complicated forms which are entirely
alike may be produced, although uisually only on a larger scale.

Looked at from this point of view, the parallelism between the immediate pre-
cursors of Greek art, the most classic art thus far produced in the world, and
Inca art, arouses speculation about the destiny of Inca culture if, instead of
being cut off by the sword of Pizarro, it could have continued for some centuries
more as one of the flowers of the development of the American civilizations.

Since differences of style indicate differences of culture or of date, and equality
of style in objects indicates equality of date and culture, it follows that pieces
representative of a particular style found at some distance from their original
home demonstrate the transportation of the cultural form from one region to
another, and, in consequence, commercial relations or migrations of people.

It makes no difference whether the distance between the two points is small
or great.

The equivalence of a style found in some part of Ecuador or in another South
American country with Mexican or Central American styles consequently is evi-
dence of the migration of people from the latter regions, no matter by what route
it took place.

In this way it was possible to establish the fact that the Maya people, of Central
American origin, occupied great stretches of the Ecuadorian coast and laid the
foundations of civilization in the highlands as well, from Loja to the region of
Ibarra.

Similarly, it was possible to prove that Central American civilization had been
taken to the south coast and to the interior of the United States.

Inca culture, like all other cultures, had its peculiar style and its own type.
At first it was not recognized as such, but the preponderance of the style in
great collections from Cuzco, the seat of Inca government, led to its identifica-
tion. Similar remains scattered all over the Andean area from Mendoza in Argen-
tina to the Colombian border enabled archaeology to verify the reports of the

70       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

extension of Inca conquests in South America; and innumerable remains of build-
ings, temples, palaces, and fortresses, identified by their Inca style, then gave
us an explanation of the character of the methods the Incas used to facilitate
the incorporation of the conquered provinces into their empire. Similarly, we
were able to determine that, many centuries before, the civilization of Tiahuanaco,
the monuments of which are preserved on the shores of Lake Titicaca, spread
its influence as far as Catamarca in Argentina and northward to Riobamba in
Ecuadorian territory.

Not so long ago, similarities of detail between widely separated civilizations
attracted little attention as indications of the relationship between the civiliza-
tions. Now, however, the reason for the existence of these relationships over
so broad a geographical area has become clear. The trait of indicating a second
mouth in human figures, found both in northern Chile and in Costa Rica, and
the identity of certain fishhooks found on the coast of Florida with those from the
Peruvian coast and the coast of Chile as far south as Antofagasta, are results
of the diffusion of the civilizations of Central America-a diffusion which, in
ancient times, united the coasts of Chile with the distant shores of the United
States.

Likewise, elements of one style copied in the artifacts of another demonstrate
the existence of relationships, whatever the nature of these relationships may
have been.

It has been believed at times that the Incas were a people of extra-American
origin, but the complete repetition of coastal styles of the same latitude in the
Inca style is sufficient proof that Inca civilization developed in its own home, the
American continent.

Numerous pottery seats were excavated in the search for tombs containing
gold in Cerro Narrio near Cainar. They belonged to a style which at the time
seemed new and difficult to explain. However, seats of identical form and decora-
tion have since been found in Costa Rica, and this discovery establishes the Central
American origin of the style.

The frequency with which objects are transported in commerce to other regions
should not be forgotten either. Commerical relations and commercial routes are
almost as old as the human race. From the earliest times, flint, deposits of which
occur only near the northern coasts, was traded almost all over Europe for the
manufacture of stone implements. The Phoenicians sought tin for their bronze
in Spain and in the British Isles. After the end of the Stone Age, there was a
sea traffic between Greece and Egypt in oil, hides, wood, dates, grain, and so on;
and as early as the time of King Agamemnon precious electrum was brought all
across Europe from the northern coasts to Mycene.

We have found no traces of the trade in cloth which is authenticated for the
time of Pizarro all along the northwest coast of South America. However, pearls,
which are not found in Peruvian seas, have been found in tombs in the valley
of Lima, and fragments of the red shell of Spondylus pictorum and similar shells
which exist only in the warm seas around the central part of America are found
spread over the whole Andean region to beyond the desert of Atacama; these
shells, then, are the products of a commerce carried on in South American seas

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                     71
perhaps over a period of thousands of years. Bits of volcanic glass, or obsidian,
can be found in tombs and in the soil of settlements throughout Ecuador, although
this material is generally not found in natural deposits; it must have diffused
through trade. The frequent discoveries of shells from the Pacific Ocean on the
other side of the Cordillera on Argentine soil might also be mentioned.

However, to explain the presence of many of the objects found in foreign terri-
tory as the result of commerce would do violence to the facts. Such objects are
often the best evidence of the influence of other civilizations and of changes in
the native culture as a result of it, especially if the objects, as has happened
several times in Central America, are stone sculptures which no one would be
likely to carry along simply for trading purposes. Those who disbelieve in cul-
tural change have overemphasized the importance of trade, since this factor would
not affect the stability of cultural types.

It has been suggested to me a number of times as an objection that a super-
position of two great types of civilization in one place might be matched by a
sequence of the same types in the reverse order in another. For example, the
civilization of Tiahuanaco, which existed earlier on the shores of Lake Titicaca,
might have arrived later in the region of Trujillo. This suggestion defies the law
of equivalent styles occurring only at a single time, this law having the implica-
tion that even when the styles are found in another country they represent the
same date. In the Old World, the interchange of products between the civiliza-
tions of Egypt and Mycene proved their absolute contemporaneity at the points
of origin and destination. The exchange of objects between contemporary civiliza-
tions at Pachacamac and Trtijillo has confirmed the same rule.

Because of the necessary contemporaneity of the same civilization in two places,
it was possible to establish that the Maya style of Cuenca, which is of Mexican
origin, must have dated from the same period in Mexico also. The implications
of this fact served to correct the whole chronological system recently put forward
for ancient Mexico.

I want to add to the discussion of the general laws an account of some rules
which will facilitate the archaeologist's work in special situations.

Sometimes traits of one period are found combined with those of another.
Then the archaeologist must be very discriminating to avoid errors.

For example, sometimes the same tomb has served for burials in two different
periods. The usual consequence is that objects of the two periods are found mixed
up together and all may be taken mistakenly as representing one of the periods,
with resulting distortion of the picture.

Sometimes stone implements of one period have been re-used in another, with
some reworking in the later style. The combination of the two methods of stone
working in such artifacts may lead to a misinterpretation of one of them if the
archaeologist fails to distinguish between them.

Large-sized huacas of the Proto-Nazea period in Chincha valley, with numerous
pits dug in their surfaces, appear to belong in all details to a single period. Exca-
vations in the sides of the pits brought to light burials with Inca objects. It
would, however, be a mistake to consider the whole huaca as an Inca construction
or to attribute the tomb type to the Proto-Nazea period to which the huaca itself

72       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

belongs. The fact is that the Incas were looking for dry ground for burials and
took advantage of a much older temple.

Town sites have generally been occupied in a number of different periods. For
this reason, it is a great mistake for museums to exhibit collections of ancient
objects excavated from a single cemetery at one of these cities-Pachacamac for
example-as representative of the historic character of its whole occupation.
The city of Rome has existed for more than twenty-five centuries and has seen a
great number of different periods pass over its soil. The city of Constantinople
is more than fifteen centuries old. Berlin is constructed on the site of an ancient
Slav town. Cuzco is a city of at least two periods, the Inca and the Spanish.
In the streets of various modern towns in Bolivia, fragments of pottery can be
picked up from the ground. Even the character of cemeteries is sometimes mixed.
Furthermore, modern cemeteries can sometimes be found laid out in the middle
of ancient ones. Hence, it is the constant duty of the archaeologist to try to find
all the periods represented in a particular place by careful studies. The histories of
Pachacamac, of the fishing village of Ancon, of the city of Cholula in Mexico,
and of the ruins of Moche and Chanchan near Trujillo in Peru are good examples
of the occupation of a single site during several periods.

Another type of error may arise from the attempt to judge the age of certain
remains from the depth at which they are found. Because of recent floods and
landslides the level of the ground may have risen, increasing the depth at which
tombs or isolated objects of recent type are found. Such objects have been found
in various parts of the United States at depths of more than six meters and have
been taken erroneously as evidence of very ancient man. Sr. Jacinto Jijon y
Caamano, working at Quimsacruz, near Quito, found graves at a depth of twelve
meters because the original ground level had been covered with new soil brought
down by the rains from Mount Pichincha.

- In front of ancient temples, ancient burials often occur at great depths because
of the collapse of parts of the facade, when the temples are built of adobe.

Even when there are no floods or landslides, the depth of graves is no sure
indication of their relative antiquity. It was therefore a mistake when a recent
writer considered the most ancient Argentine graves as being of relatively recent
origin on the ground that they were found near the surface of the earth. The
graves of the aborigines of Arica are found for the most part at a depth of only
thirty to fifty centimeters below the surface of the ground; those of the early
Proto-Chimu period in Peru generally at depths of one and a half to two meters;
Inca burials rich in gold and belonging to the latest period are found near Iea
in Peru at a depth of seven meters.

In many cases the earliest men did not yet have adequate tools for digging
holes in the earth; their respect for the resting place of the dead, however, was
often stronger than in later periods, so that there was no need to bury their dead
deeply in the earth.

The difference between the level of the ground at the time the graves were
dug and the present level should always be carefully noted, however, because it
may indicate the relative antiquity of the various graves. Each year the Nile

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                    73
deposits a new layer of earth over the ground, and the rise in ground level can
be used to measure the antiquity of the remains.

An archaeologist's conclusions from obvious facts may be premature in some
cases and much too slow in others. In all his observations the archaeologist needs
to exercise a calm and serene judgment, but also a decisive one.

A slide of Tertiary strata in the neighborhood of Cuzco exposed a walled grave,
and some archaeologists attributed to it an antiquity of sixty thousand years,
without taking into account the scanty probability of so great an age or the fact
that the wall was of Inca-type construction. A second expedition was necessary
to correct the mistaken estimate of the chronological position of the grave.

In the ancient lake dwellings of Switzerland, enormous quantities of nephrite
and jadeite axes were found, and these specimens attracted attention because
the materials were not common in that area but were native to Persia and China.
It would have been too hasty to conclude that the materials for these axes had
been traded from Persia and China to ancient Switzerland without first studying
the geology of the neighboring country and taking into account the small prob-
ability of such an importation taking place just for Switzerland. In the end,
nephrite and jadeite were found in the Swiss rivers, and this discovery yielded
the expected solution to the problem.

The archaeologists who did not accept the fact of Greek influence in the earlier
periods of Egypt, in spite of the presentation of the evidence over long periods,
were too slow in their judgment. They held back the progress of the science
unnecessarily by their hesitation.

The evidence for Maya influence on the earliest South American civilizations
went unrecognized for many years until the discovery of a Maya civilization in
the Cuenca region changed the course of existing theories.

Faced with the question of the existence of an ancient Cara empire in the Quito
region, of which P. Velasco has told us much, and of the presence of the Incas
in Ecuadorian territory before their spread from the region of Cuzco, the archae-
ologist finds himself in somewhat the same position as those who defended Greek
influence in Egypt. In spite of the fact that the abundant existing archaeological
materials offer no confirmation of the theories mentioned, there are always some
people who attribute more value to tales and traditions than to conclusive scien-
tific evidence. The existence of an ancient Cara empire in Ecuador cannot be
accepted archaeologically, because nowhere do we find evidence of a high civiliza-
tion of the type postulated, extending over different provinces, and nowhere the
unity of provincial types which should exist as the consequence of imperial unity
if there is a single grain of truth in the traditional stories. Furthermore, neither
the style of archaeological finds nor the geographical names confirm the arbitrary
legend of an earlier presence of the Incas in Ecuador. The value of archaeology
in forming conclusions is absolute. The whole ancient history of Ecuador can be
easily put in order after the elimination of these ill-founded tales and legends.

Up to this point I have been discussing the general laws and practical rules
which govern the study of any kind of somewhat more advanced civilization.

We have already seen, however, that each archaeological specialty has its own
special method determined by the nature of the material available. Egyptology

74       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

thus has a method, and we should not expect that Americanist studies, which
deal with rather different materials, should have exactly the same one. Studies
of the Copper and Bronze ages in central Europe will also present conclusions
of a somewhat different nature.

This last field took as its point of departure a period division based on the
materials used-stone, copper, or bronze. Certain types of culture were then given
special names derived from the names of places where they are most typically
represented. The development of the study of Greek culture, as at Mycene, led
further to the establishment of cross dating between features of the northern
civilizations and those of Mycene, and thus provided a sort of comparative chronol-
ogy which can be improved further in the course of time.

Egyptology is in a very fortunate position from every point of view. In Egypt
there are thousands of well-preserved tombs from many periods. Many of them
are situated on the edge of the desert, where they are less exposed to depreda-
tions than are those of most American regions, where the ancient cemeteries are
often close to modern towns and have excited the activity of huaqueros until
tomb plundering has become almost an honorable profession. Egyptian tombs
usually contain a variety of pottery objects. Egyptian pottery has a great variety
of shapes but less variety of ornamentation than is found in the pottery of the
American civilizations. Egyptology's greatest advantage consists in the use of
writing, beginning with the fifth millennium B.C. Even in tombs of the First
Dynasty, about 3400 B.C., stelae carved with the names of kings are found.

Flinders Petrie, not content with comparing ceramic types, undertook the for-
mation of a catalogue, or -corpus, of the pottery types existing in Egypt, and
after listing about one thousand shapes in this way he estimates the total number
necessary for all Egyptian pottery at about three thousand.

Designating each type with a number and a letter, he can record the content
of all graves in an abbreviated manner, and graves found after the system is set up
can be dated from the variations of types found in them as if in a statistical chart.

The method of American archaeology must be different for various reasons.
The number of graves available for study is now much reduced because of the
continuous and still uncontrolled activity of the huaqueros all over the conti-
nent. Furthermore, the graves of many periods are poorly furnished with objects
through which we can study the civilization of the time. Writing is lacking. The
character of a number of civilizations is not very precise as revealed in its objects,
which are consequently less well suited to the formation of a corpus, or general
catalogue, of all the shapes of the civilization. Inca civilization, that of Tiahuanaco,
and several Ecuadorian and Peruvian civilizations of Maya origin are exceptions
to this statement.

On the other hand, it is an advantage that in most parts of the continent there
have developed a large number of small civilizations, varying from province to
province and often from valley to valley, which thus furnish materials for the
comparative study of the types.

There is also a great variety in the pottery because of the extensive use of
painted or incised ornament, and this variety is an additional advantage in com-
parative work.

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                      75
In all civilizations, pottery products are extremely useful for the identifica-
tion and comparison of the civilization. The multiplicity of features found in
the paste, technique of manufacture, shape, and ornament especially attract the
archaeologist's attention. Pottery products change more readily than art objects
because of their great fragility; they break and must be replaced frequently, and
thus facilitate a constant change in type. For these reasons they merit being
taken as a guide, in archaeological work, for the identification of types of civiliza-
tion in the same way that remains of extinct animals determine the age of layers
in geology. The great development of pottery art in the American civilizations
makes up in many respects for their other defects, even to some extent for the
lack of writing.

One of the easiest ways to determine the relative age of decorated vases, or
figured textiles, stone, or metal when these are available, is by comparing the
designs with similar ones in comparable objects. There is a law governing the
development of design, namely, that representational ornament breaks down and
degenerates in the course of time until it becomes purely geometric. Examples
of this process can be found in all parts of the globe. The law rests on the fact
that people's mentality is not capable of maintaining the representational type
of design when it is introduced in their art, partly because of the law of general
weakening, as in the development of writing, which was originally figurative and
developed later into hieroglyphs and abbreviated characters; partly because
tribes of inferior mental development who try to imitate the designs of a superior
culture are not able by themselves to maintain the level of the original concepts.
A more broken-down representational element is consequently always less ancient
than another which has better preserved its original form. The existence of designs
derived from representational ones in itself indicates the previous existence of a
higher culture from which it is descended. By the aid of this principle it was
possible to recognize that the civilization of the Mound Builders of North America
originated in civilizations of higher type, even before the discovery of its Maya
origin.

Following these laws, it is not necessary, in spite of what Flinders Petrie says,
to know the point of departure of a development in order to determine the direc-
tion in which it proceeds [see Petrie, p. 128].

The reverse idea, that geometric ornament may, through a slow development,
be transformed into representation, is the product of ideas elaborated by theoreti-
cal ethnologists working in museums, where they have plenty of opportunity to
form abstract theories without verifying them against practical observation in
excavations.

Another belief formed in this way is that the origin of ornament is to be sought
in the technique of manufacture. Threads crossing at right angles in textiles
would, according to this theory, be taken as the origin of ordered design, com-
pleted later by the introduction of representative ideas. Taking this theory as a
base, there have even been attempts to invert the whole chronological system
of civilizations, taking the earliest designs for the latest and designs with textile
ornament as the earliest.

It was easy to set things where they belonged in this case by the evidence of

76       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

excavation. Thus, archaeology supplies theory to ethnology, and there is no reason
why it should accept the reverse influence.

The volute in ancient North American civilizations, which derives from tech-
nical processes, offered no explanation of the origin of the civilizations. The key to
their origin lay in representational designs derived from Mexico, indicative of the
source of the whole civilization.

Sometimes archaeology is assisted in its task of determining the relative age
of civilizations by stratification, the superposition of the remains of one civiliza-
tion on those of another. Such observations were the starting point at Pachacamac
for the chronological arrangement of civilizations and were used later on at
Trujillo and in other places.

The great number of different types encouraged us from the beginning to make
up the full series of civilizations represented in each valley or each province,
as far as possible without leaving gaps in the complete series. This procedure was
relatively easy because of the general parallelism and contemporaneity of the
civilizations in different regions. The arrangement itself showed up any gaps
there might be in the series, and they could then be filled by more active study
in the direction indicated.

The different profiles of the development and succession of civilizations in
different areas, when matched against one another, revealed without more ado
the sources of each of the civilizations, in the same area or in another where
the same type had been preserved. Thus it was possible to obtain the whole
genealogical tree of the civilizations.

There are two kinds of chronology, absolute and relative. The first arranges
events by dates taken from chronicles or successive governments, or carefully
determined from coins (see Petrie [p. 127] ). Relative chronology only puts them
in order among themselves, as, for example, in the arrangement of the stone,
bronze, and iron ages as successive. The whole arrangement of prehistoric periods
in Europe was at first only by relative chronology.

Chronological arrangement of civilizations is the most important task and aim
of all archaeology. With the determination of the sequence of civilizations in
different parts of South America, fixing the ante quot and post quot [sic] of
each of them, we have secured a chronology as the first important result of this
work.

Ethnologists, and sometimes archaeologists as well, have believed that archae-
ology is only good for arranging civilizations in a chronological sequence, in
Europe and elsewhere, but that it will not explain their origins one from another.
Nevertheless, it must be observed that if civilizations have a foreign origin, as
Hallstadt, for example, has an Etruscan one, their origin cannot be explained
in the country where they exist. In many parts of America, in the south, for
example, the civilizations have a mixed character. They go back in part to others
which preceded them in the same area and in part to influences received from
foreign civilizations. Nevertheless, all can now be explained, and consequently
it is unjust to assert that the task of archaeology is ended when the civilizations
have been arranged in order. The only thing lacking is the determination of their
absolute age.

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                     77
The determination of the relative age of a civilization naturally is only an
insufficient satisfaction of our curiosity. I have frequently been faced with the
question of how old, in an absolute sense, the marvelous civilizations of South
America are; and recognizing the propriety of such questions on the part of
interested people, I thought to find an absolute relative measurement in the aver-
age of the duration of periods of similar culture in other parts of the world,
such as those of Crete, ancient Greece, and central Europe. Five hundred years
for each period seemed to me a more or less reasonable span.

In the absence, at first, of any better method of measuring age, this procedure
seemed enough to prevent anyone from attributing a very recent origin to a
civilization separated from our own time by one year or several thousands of
years. I thus arrived at the conclusion that the first South American civilizations
must have had an antiquity of two or even three thousand years, certainly not
less; and later work proved me right.

However, American archaeology still was in an unfavorable position in com-
parison with European prehistory, at least so far as the important civilizations
of South America were concerned. Many periods of central Europe could be
placed in relation to others elsewhere, such as those of Etruria, Mycene, and the
ancient Gauls, but nothing similar could be done with the postulated dates of
the ancient South American civilizations.

All this has now changed, thanks to the discovery of their connection with the
better-dated ones of Central America. Since the earliest South American civiliza-
tions correspond in style to known Central American ones, it is clear that the
dates of the South American civilizations must be the same as those of the iden-
tical Central American ones, according to the law of the contemporaneity of
civilizations of the same type.

The Maya monuments are marked with dates expressed in hieroglyphic series,
which, through the laudable efforts of the Mexicanists can now almost all be read.
These dates correspond to a calendar which distributes time in cycles of 400
years and periods of 20 years, and the years in 18 months, each month containing
20 days. We now know that the calendar began approximately with the year
3450 B.C.

There was still a difficulty at first in determining the relationship of this calen-
dar to dates of the European calendar. Furthermore, we have dates in the Maya
calendar only for a period of time of about six hundred years.

A number of different Maya dates were suggested as equivalents for dates in
the European calendar, and the count was then made in different ways. There
were differences, in the calculation, of as much as eight hundred years. Fortun-
ately, the relatively great antiquity of the first South American civilizations
which were parallel to Central American ones allowed us to exclude the possi-
bility of very recent dates for materials contemporary with the South American
ones. Because of the long sequence of civilizations in South America, the begin-
nings of the South American development could not have occurred as late as
about A.D. 1000, for instance. With the mere elimination of this possibility there
was no longer any great difference of opinion regarding the date of the start of
the Maya calendar and its correlation with Christian era dates. The calendar

78       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

correlation established by the North American Bowditch, with minor later cor-
rections, is the one which is now accepted. We thus arrive at the date 3450 B.C.
for the start of the Maya calendar. Accordingly, the date Cycle 9, Period 3, found
on one of the monuments of the ancient Maya city of Tikal in Yucatan, corre-
sponds roughly to A.D. 210, and gives us the date of the associated monuments.

Designs identical with those on the monuments of Tikal-for example, repre-
sentations of birds flying with the wings spread-have been found in the Proto-
Nazea style of Peru, with the result that we can now be absolutely certain that
the great development of the Peruvian civilizations began about the year 200,
a date which can be confirmed in another way, because the same type of design
figures is found again in the first Toltec monuments of Teotihuacan near Mexico,
representing a civilization which is likewise generally calculated to have begun
about the year 200.

All that now remains to be done in order to fix the majority of the dates for
the South American development is, then, the preparation of a very detailed
chronology of all the types of Mexican and Central American civilizations which,
in different centuries, diffused their influence to the South American ones. Thus
far we have adequate dates only for the first South American civilizations of
Peru and Ecuador. There is hope of determining dates down to about A.D. 600
because Central American influence in South America lasted several centuries
longer, the corresponding period in Central America being well dated.

In establishing a perfect chronology of the Central American civilizations, it
would be very useful to assemble a corpus of all the forms existing before these
civilizations, together with a complete record of the presence of each of the forms
in the graves. This record would also be useful in facilitating the systematic
recording of the South American civilizations.

Sr. Jijon undertook the formation of a corpus of the pottery types represented
in an Inca cemetery of Quito and of other types from the region of Imbabura,
but without a record of their individual occurrence in the graves. If such a record
had accompanied the descriptions, this corpus could have proved useful at some
future time in reconstructing the development of the civilizations of South
America.

LECTURE 3, MAY 31

Rules for archaeological research and advice to the investigator-The principal elements in
the investigation: the investigator, the objects found, and how to study them.

In my earlier lectures I discussed the foundations of the science, defining the
term "archaeology" as the designation of the science of the beginnings of the
human race and its progress toward civilization, so far as its history can be de-
deduced from the remains or traces hidden in the ground.

We also set forth the method needed to read the history of the past in these
documents.

Our explanation of archaeological science would be incomplete if we were now
to proceed directly to the presentation of its results. The quality and quantity
of the results themselves depend heavily on research practice and on the way the

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                     79
studies are carried out. Consequently, I must answer the question which has often
been put to me: "But how do you find all the things you do ?"

I have no doubt that the more fully I can explain the way the results of archae-
ology have been achieved, the greater will be your appreciation of the results and
the greater the personal interest you take in the science. Furthermore, each of you
can fit himself to make observations which will be profitable to this science when
occasion arises, and there are always opportunities.

It seems to me, further, that I would fail to do justice to the dignity of this
University, which is preparing to establish a new Faculty of Philosophy and
Letters, one of the tasks of which will be the cultivation of history, if I tried to
describe only the problems and results of this science without showing also how
the results have been achieved.

I will therefore discuss the practical procedures of archaeology in this lecture
and the following one, and I am sure that this method of presentation will increase
my hearers' interest in the exposition of the results to which these procedures have
led.

I can picture the condition of the continent when it was still empty of man
and occupied only by animals which originated in it or had immigrated in recent
geological periods. Man arrived, either by origin in this continent or by immigra-
tion from some other regions of the world which were already inhabited. The new
occupant left remains of his history in all parts of the continent. How can we
profit from this evidence, in large part hidden, for the reconstruction of the past
up to the beginning of the new era which commenced with the entry of the Euro-
pean race? To achieve this result we need first of all a great network of systematic
observations, continually reduced to order in the form of conclusions.

The effectiveness of the observations for the end desired depends entirely: (a)
on the personnel engaged in making them; (b) on the sum of the objects available
in each case to give us information about the history of the past; and (c) on the
way in which the observations are utilized. If there is a deficiency in any of these
three factors, all equally prerequisite to the desired result, the observations will
also be deficient, and their contribution to the progress of history will be forever
lost.

There is perhaps no science in which the subject matter available for observation
is as limited as it is in archaeology. If the chemist's experiment turns out badly,
he can repeat it another day; the observation of a star overlooked on one night can
be repeated by the astronomer on another. But once the materials which might
serve for the reconstruction of human history are destroyed, they cannot be re-
placed, and the chance for observations has been lost forever.

The so-called huaqueros have caused irreparable damage to the documents of
ancient history throughout the continent.

As soon as the news of a great find of ancient gold spreads in some part of
Ecuador, people who are as ignorant as they are avaricious gather from great
distances and set to work digging, in a frenzy to destroy the existing remains that
gives them no rest until the last hope of finding more gold has vanished. This is
what has happened in Chordeleg, in Sigsig, and two years ago at Cerro Narrio,
near Caniar; and now it seems likely that it will happen again near Cayambe.

80       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

Ancient buildings are treated as quarries, throughout the continent and not
least in this country, where, as a direct consequence of this activity, the ruins are
to some extent in worse condition than those in either of the neighboring countries.

In Peru I have seen the state devote more care to the protection of the huaqueros
than to the studies of scientists and their efforts to preserve the monuments.

In consequence, it is of the greatest importance that the state always devote
some of its attention to appropriate measures for the preservation of the archae-
ological remains which still exist, and that these measures be administered by
trustworthy employees.

The archaeologist himself may do damage if he lacks personal aptitude for the
special kind of work which is necessary.

To secure worthwhile and decisive results, an archaeologist should be dedicated
to the pursuit of an ideal by means of solid, precise, and constant work. For this
reason Flinders Petrie distinguishes two kinds of scholars in archaeology: those
who live to study and those who study to live (see Petrie [Methods and Aims in
Archaeology, p. 2] ). Only the first kind will be certain of success in archaeology,
for results are achieved not by work alone but by the steadfast pursuit of an ideal
without any wavering. Flinders Petrie rightly says, "The engineering training of
mind and senses which Prof. Perry advocates will really fit an archaeologist better
for excavating than book-work can alone." He continues [p. 3]: "Best of all is
the combination of the scholar and the engineer."

Archaeologists who think that all they need to do to get results is to put enough
men to work and come around in the evening to look things over and take the
objects found in the excavation away to their lodgings will never get any results
which will further the progress of science. For this purpose it is essential that the
man who directs the work maintain a continuous and strict observation of the
proceedings everywhere and at all times.

Furthermore, the archaeologist must possess a talent for observing, even from
a distance, the most minute circumstances which appear during the course of an
excavation and which may relate to the problems being investigated. If this talent
is lacking, none of the excavations undertaken will yield any results.

An archaeologist who, in the course of an excavation, does not know enough to
distinguish the representation of a caballito, a primitive Peruvian form of raft,
from the representation of a horn (as occurred in the case of the author of one of
the most recent books on Peruvian antiquities) does not have the aptitude to
understand the meaning of a representational ornament and hence lacks the skill
to understand alien modes of thought; such an archaeologist would find the road to
valuable results closed against him.

The archaeologist should know how to distinguish the character of styles and
be able to group together instantly things which have the appearance of belonging
together. If he has good preparation, he will know how to analyze the design of
any tapestry into elements of different national origins, and when he walks through
a ruin he will recognize immediately the period in which the building was used
from the pottery fragments scattered on the ground.

Cemeteries of the earliest Peruvian civilization of Proto-Nazea, formerly un-
known, were discovered by the clue of a fragment of a vase lying on the ground,

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                     81
the rim painted dark red like the earliest styles then known, which roused hopes
of discovering features of at least equal age.

The archaeologist accordingly needs an excellent memory which will remind
him at any time of a type he has once seen, so that he can make comparisons with
it. Knowledge which has once been acquired should never be forgotton. Each new
observation should be recorded in the memory instantly and in its proper context,
and the archaeologist must have the ability to picture the position of an object in
relation to other cultural forms which are already known. Fragments of painted
pottery, scattered in an old railroad cut near Chancay in Peru, were noted and
led to a two weeks' project which resulted in the discovery of the Proto-Lima style,
one of the most important of the earliest Peruvian styles on the central coast.

The archaeologist needs also a special sense to grasp the character of the topog-
raphy of an area.

At Anc6n, nine leagues from Li'ma in the middle of an extensive plain near the
sea, the necropolis is situated in depressions scattered among a hundred or so
mounds, seven to ten meters high and the same color as the adjacent desert. Messrs.
Reiss and Stiibel introduced a new era in the development of Americani$t science
with their excavations in these cemeteries, but they failed to notice the artificial
nature of the mounds. An excavation carried down ten meters in one of them re-
vealed the artificial character of them all. The fishermen of the place had heaped
them up with their refuse over a period of innumerable centuries. The general
level of the desert was reached at the base of these mounds, and the ancient ceme-
teries continued in part below them.

Some hills near the resort town of Ancon which were apparently natural were
distinguishable by their color from the whitish surface of the adjoining desert.
Trenches revealed that the upper layers consisted of shell midden containing
remains of Central American civilizations even older than the other Peruvian
civilizations.

The archaeologist who wants to succeed should have, then, a profound knowl-
edge of the results attained in earlier studies and should combine with an intrepid
enthusiasm the ability to make new observations at any time.

When the need arises, he should be able to make a drawing of anything which
crops up in the course of the work. It should be no problem to him to apply the
rules of trigonometry to making a plan of a ruin. He must frequently be able to
take photographs. All this is easily learned when needed. Further, he needs to
know some rules of chemistry that will serve him for the identification of the
material of which objects are made, so that he can apply the best method of pre-
serving them.

In an excavation the workmen are assistants and agents for the execution of the
work and must be guided by the director at all times, as the pilot guides the helm.
In this way, what the workmen do is in a sense done personally by the archaeolo-
gist. The latter, for his part, must be aware of the condition of the work at all
points where it is being carried on and must be ready at any time to furnish new
instructions, even without looking over the situation himself.

Generally, the archaeologist is also the busiest man on the job, for he must con-
stantly examine the character of the finds, put them in order, label them, and be

82       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

ready to intervene directly in the work if his instructions have not been under-
stood.

Furthermore, the excavation is only the beginning of the archaeologist's task.
He must also arrange the transportation of the objects found to a place of storage,
taking care that there is no loss or breakage in the process; he must report on the
progress and principal results of the excavations and supervise and arrange the
packing and transportation of the finds to their definitive resting place. Only the
publication of the results marks the end of his obligations.

The way in which the work is organized is also a matter of great importance
for the success of the excavation. On no account should the archaeologist employ
more men than he can watch and keep constantly busy; the laziness of some
always has a contagious effect on the others. The workmen should be carefully
chosen, if possible. If they have had no experience in the special requirements of
the work, they must be shown and taught. They should be honest in handing
over everything they find. At the same time, the director of the work must be on
the lookout for cases of inexperience, carelessness, and possible dishonesty. It may
sometimes be desirable to reward the men for a discovery or for finding the miss-
ing part of a broken object.

The number of workmen should vary according to the kind of work being done.
I had excellent results digging the shallow graves of the aborigines of Arica with
one or two men. In the excavation of ancient cemeteries, four or five men can
usually be used with profit if the burials are not too scattered. With too many
workmen there is always the risk that the director will be unable to keep up with
the work. More men can be employed in the excavation of ruins. In the work at
the ruins of Tomebamba I frequently had as many as forty-four.

It improves the organization of the work to hire a foreman who can act as inter-
mediary between the director and the workmen, the director remaining in charge
of scientific matters. The foreman should himself understand the nature of the
work and should take the same interest as his employer in its successful conclusion.
His understanding of the work should be sufficient to allow the archaeologist to
discuss with him the best method of procedure. Foremen who know nothing about
the work or who take no interest in it do more harm than good, and their worth-
lessness is likely to spread to the workmen.

The number of foremen should also vary with the nature of the job. In the
excavation of ruins like Tomebamba two or three for some forty workmen may be
enough. Working with tombs, one foreman for every five or six workmen seems
to be about right.

We must also say a few words about the variety of objects which can serve as
evidence of man's activity and hence are the subject matter of the archaeologist's
observations.

Some are immovable, others are movable.

Among the most important movable objects-important because of the infor-
mation they yield-are those found in graves. Such objects not only can be studied,
they can be taken away and put in museums.

Immovable objects can only be studied: they can be excavated, recorded, meas-
ured, drawn, and photographed; and they can be made the subject of maps, archi-

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                     83
tectural plans, and so forth. The plans of the tombs, their type and shape differ-
ences, belong in the class of immovable remains; however, because of the important
relationship of the tomb and its contents, it is better to consider them with the
movable objects.

To the class of immovable objects belong: (1) buildings or similar construc-
tions; (2) other modifications of the earth's surface; (3) impressions made on
nature by the hand of man; and (4) certain natural formations which must be
studied because they are closely related to human customs and consequently con-
tain human remains.

The best ancient buildings in Ecuador are those left by the Incas; unfortu-
nately, most of them are now in poor condition. The best buildings in the whole
of America are those constructed by the Mayas and by some other Mexican nations,
such as the Zapotecs, the Totonacs, the Toltecs, and so forth.

In Ecuador, solid buildings have been built in all periods. There are foundations
of stone buildings of the first Maya period, for example, on the Hacienda Huan-
carcuchu near Cuenca and on the Hacienda Carmen near the confluence of the
Cuenca River with the river of Sigsig; there are substantial remains of buildings
of the Tuncahuan period in Garcelan, near the junction of the river of Leo6n with
the river of Santiago; there are remains of several buildings of the San Sebastian
period, contemporary with Tiahuanaco, at Macaji near Riobamba, formerly
covered with volcanic sand and partially excavated by Sr. Jijon y Caama-no; and
there are extensive remains suggesting a Caniar city at Dumapara near Cochapata.
Inca buildings formed an extensive city at Tomebamba, of which only the plan
and the foundations remain; military and administrative centers, made up of
several buildings, are found, among other places, at Tambo Blanco near San
Lucas, at Paquinzhapa at the place called Minas in the valley of the Jubones,
and on the road between Cuenca and the coast. The buildings of Incapirca near
Ca-nar and those of Callo were tambos [resthouses on the road].

More or less isolated buildings are found in many places. The buildings
found include palaces, temples, royal tambos, fortified places, the residencies of
governors, and so forth. Another type of building is the tower-shaped chulpa,
used for tombs, found in Bolivia and in parts of Peru. Stone defense walls en-
close cities or fortresses in many places. A curious construction is a well, ten
meters deep and faced with stone, of the Tiahuanaco period-more than twelve
hundred years old-found on the summit of Cerro Amaro near Marca Huama-
chuco in Peru. In spite of its exposed position, it never lacks water, which it
receives through subterranean channels from a near-by hill. Stone sculptures
in the shape of dragons were found beside it as guardians. From the deep mud at
the bottom, mud as old as the well itself, many kilos of objects of different-colored
stone and shell were washed out; these represented beads, plaques, and imitations
of animal feet. There were also some metal objects. All were evidently ancient
offerings to Pachamama in gratitude for the constant supply of water in the well.
These remains gave evidence of one of the most ancient Peruvian periods.

You can see that the remains of stone construction are of the most varied
character and furnish abundant material for the study of ancient history, in
South America in general and in Ecuador in particular.

84       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

Europe and neighboring parts of the ancient world yield some further types,
rarely represented on American soil or not represented at all, such as dolmens
(rooms made of gigantic rough stones); menhirs (monolithic columns); crom-
lechs (circles or squares of such elements), and so forth. To this category belong
certain chulpas of very large stones in the Bolivian region, the enclosures of mono-
lithic stones among the monuments of Tiahuanaco, a monolithic column near
Tafi in Argentina, and so forth.

Buildings of the same type as those listed as built of stone are found in South
America built of adobe, and in immense numbers. They occur chiefly all along
the coast but are also found in the highlands, many of them fallen so that they
now resemble natural hills, but with the whole type of the building preserved in
the interior.

They fall into different classes according to the construction elements: some
are made of tapia, a uniform mass of adobe like Roman cement; others of round
balls of adobe; and others of rectangular adobes, small or large depending on the
age. The constructions of round balls of adobe in Peru are considered to be among
the most ancient buildings.

Immense edifices, temples of 300 meters in length and often up to 25 meters
high, with an occasional one as high as 45 meters, were constructed of these ma-
terials in South America, most of them at the beginning of the great civilizations.

The largest of these buildings are found in the valleys of Pisco, Chincha, Lima,
and Trujillo.

Many Peruvian valleys contain also ruins of extensive towns, built of adobe,
with hundreds of walls, streets, and spacious houses, most of them well preserved,
lacking only the roofs. The city of Chanchan covers an area three-fourths by one-
fourth of a league, and a man can get lost walking around in it.

Buildings can be observed and studied from very different points of view.

In the first place, there is the construction material; was it taken from the
neighborhood, or from the bed of a river where all sizes of stone are found, or
from special quarries? It appears that blocks found in the near-by river and on
the site itself were used in the construction of the buildings at Tomebamba. The
idea that the materials for the construction of Inca buildings were brought from
Cuzco has not been confirmed in any particular case and is doubtless a legend.
The fortress of Sacsahuaman at Cuzco is built in cyclopean fashion of enormous
stones, as large as 8 by 4 by 31/2 meters. We know that they were brought from
limestone quarries only about a kilometer away. The great stones used in the build-
ings of Ollantaytambo were dragged a distance of more than two leagues and
across the river. The material used in the monolithic constructions of Tiahuanaco
near the shores of Lake Titicaca is varied. We know that blocks of 60 and 100 tons
found there were brought by human hands from quarries on the slopes of Cerro
Quimsachata, more than two leagues to the west.

The technique of construction is important, because it can be used to determine
the variety of styles. The technique and type of construction used by the Incas is
very different from that found at Tiahuanaco. In Cuzco itself, some five different
styles can be distinguised, each representing a different period, in the same way
as in Rome, where the cyclopean style of the wall of Servius Tullius is found

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                     85
only in the earliest period of the ancient city. In Cuzco likewise, a small-scale
mosaic of cyclopean type is the characteristic construction style of the earliest
times, this observation permitting the localization of the first center of settlement
of the city.

Certain types of buildings are found repeatedly in the styles of America. Thus,
for example, the Inca style is characterized by houses with a dividing wall down
the center (the type found in tambos); long houses with many entrances on a
side (barracks); houses arranged on four sides of a patio (dwellings), and so
forth.

These are the fundamental types, and they occur also in combination and de-
veloped in different ways, as can be seen, for example, in the city of Tomebamba.

It is also interesting to observe the line of development and derivation of the
fundamental construction types. For example, the type of the great pyramidal
temple with three spacious terraces, like the temple dedicated to the Sun at
Pachacamac, is derived from the great Acapana temple at Tiahuanaco, the latter
having served as its model. The Acapana, in turn, is built on the model of various
Central American temples.

An indirectly related type is the pyramidal form with high, steep sides of the
great Proto-Chimu temple at Moche, which has a pyramid set on top of it. This
form of temple is copied directly from the Maya temples of Copan in Honduras
and Monte Alban in the Zapotec country in Mexico. By tracing back to a common
origin on Central American soil the forms of the temples of Tiahuanaco and
Pachacamac, on the one hand, and the form of the Proto-Chimu temples on the
other, the unity of origin of all these forms is established. Their relationships to
one another resemble more or less those of the different types of Christian
churches, all of which have their original prototype in ancient Roman buildings,
specifically in the basilicas which served as law courts in Rome.

In many parts of the Andean region, the tops and slopes of the hills have been
transformed into strong points by ditches surrounding them. There are a number
of these fortifications in Ecuador too, for example in the province of Imbabura,
and there are others in Loja province. The road of El Batan crosses the ditch of
one of these forts, which extends westward from Guapulo along the slope of the
hill. There are other fortifications in flat land, such as the one near Chilecito in the
province of La Rioja in Argentina; these last resemble ancient Roman camps in
their ditch arrangement.

The category of modifications of the surface of the earth by human hands in-
cludes also the tolas, large and small, which are especially frequent in the north
highlands of Ecuador and all along the coast. Although most of them are con-
structed of earth, they sometimes resemble in other respects constructions of
adobe. They were used partly as temples and partly as dwelling places, and be-
cause of this last use a varying number of graves is frequently found in them also.

Other earth constructions include tumuli, some of which cover or contain
burials. There are others in this country (in the valleys of the Catamayo and the
Jubones, for example), and in Argentina as well, which contain no graves or
other materials and remain in consequence rather enigmatic. It has been sug-
gested that they may have had an agricultural use.

86       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

On many parts of the coast, people have lived on the products of the sea from
very early times to very recent ones, piling up their kitchen refuse, especially
shells, until the refuse forms artificial hills. As the hills rose, the houses or huts
built on top of them rose also, and as a consequence, remains of old abandoned
houses are often found in the interior of these mounds.

These shellmounds, of which there are some also in the region of Santa Elena
on the coast of Ecuador, are important to the archaeologist because they are
among the most ancient remains of man, giving evidence frequently of periods
different from those represented elsewhere. So, for example, the lowest levels of
a shellmound at Taltal contained stone implements of the earliest known Euro-
pean types, some fifty thousand years old; hand axes and daggers hitherto not
found in other sites in America and belonging in consequence to a period which
in America also was one of the earliest in relative age. The explanation is that
fishing is the most natural way of life for primitive man, and fishermen cluster
in small settlements at certain places on the coast and leave us evidence of their
earlier presence in the shellmounds.

Shellmounds have another unusual interest because they developed slowly
through different periods and reveal to us in their stratification the way in which
culture slowly developed.

The visible remains of cultivated fields representing an advanced agriculture
form another subject for study. There are enormous quantities of terraces built
for this purpose in the whole Andean region between Ecuador and Argentina,
especially in Peru. These terraces are made by modifying the slopes of hills,
which are too steep in their natural state to be used for agriculture, into a series
of steps rising one above another, with or without the. constructions of walls, and
with corresponding leveling of the soil. Along the Oroya railroad the traveler
can count sometimes as many as 170 or 200 steps or terraces rising directly one
from another on hillsides rising 500 meters and more above the river. They give
excellent evidence of the millennial antiquity of human agricultural industry in
these regions. Terraces representing the work of ancient man can also be observed
in various ravines in the province of Loja.

In less steeply sloping country or where the terrain is nearly flat, as for example
in the valley of Pisco in Peru or in the valleys of Yunguilla and of the Jubones,
the agricultural terraces also rise more gently, following the inclination of the
ground. In such terrain, the terraces are built to facilitate the distribution of
water for irrigation.

Traces of ancient cultivated fields of a special type, in the form of slightly
elevated beds more than a meter in width, are preserved in many places from
ancient times. There are great extensions of them, for example, on the Bolivian
shore of Lake Titicaca, and they are found in Ecuador on the Hacienda El Paso
near Nabon. The beds follow different plans; straight, curved, circular, spiral,
and so forth.

The practice of agriculture is as old as the civilizations themselves in this con-
tinent, although it was undoubtedly imported, in the form in which it was prac-
ticed, from Central American regions. Sometimes one can observe fragments of
pottery of the oldest periods on the surface of the terraces, as occurs in the valley

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                     87
of Lima and also near Chordeleg in the province of Azuay. The ancients also
cleaned their fields, gathering, removing, and piling up the stones in special
places. In the resulting stone piles one sometimes finds characteristic pots of the
earliest periods; at Chancay, for example, Proto-Lima pottery is found in them.
Near Miraflores in the valley of Lima there is one of these piles which covers a
hectare of land to a height of more than two meters and includes remains of the
earliest civilized periods of the valley. In modern fields one looks in vain for
similar care for the success of the crops.

Many of the ancient cultivated fields, and terraces in particular, were arti-
ficially irrigated by carefully graded canals which brought the water from vary-
ing distances, often of many leagues.

The water for the Inca fields of Sumaipata in the valley of Jubones was brought
along the course of the Uchucay River from the highest mountain range to the
east, in a canal seven leagues long.

The Chimu built enormous tanks to store up river water as if with dams until
it could be used more profitably.

Subterranean canals for the irrigation of cultivated fields can be observed in
the valley of Nazea, near Ica, belonging to the earliest Peruvian period.

Also deserving of study are the remains and traces of roads, which served as
lines of communication in all countries. We are informed of the existence of roads
in Peru from the earliest times. The Incas were experts at building them, often
using masonry construction for this purpose. Ecuador also is crossed in many
places by roads leading in the most diverse directions.

The remains of ancient bridges should also be studied. These can usually be
identified from the remains of their abutments, and there are examples in Ecua-
dor also in various places, for instance on an eastern tributary of the valley of
Catamayo and on the Jubones River below the mouth of the Uchucay River. Even
the sides of dry ravines and other cuts sometimes show remains of ancient bridge
abutments where a bridge was built to make the passage easier, as occurs in many
ravines and cuts in the Jubones valley above Minas where nowadays the mules
have to descend and climb again to cross the bridgeless ravines.

Man's workshops should also be observed. These are the places where he found
and worked to some extent the materials which served him for tools or for con-
struction purposes: mines of copper, silver, and gold; open-air workshops where
tools were made; and quarries from which he secured the large stones for build-
ings. There are extensive quarries of riverworn pebbles near Washington on the
banks of the Potomac and Chesapeake rivers which yielded materials for stone
tools made on the spot. Near Mitla in Mexico the visitor can still see the quarries
in which the stones for temple construction were cut, and some stones remain
in an unfinished condition. Two leagues from Ollantaytambo, a site near Cuzco,
the quarries are still visible from which the Incas dragged enormous blocks for
their constructions, and some blocks abandoned on the road can still be seen.
In the desert of Atacama above Taltal there are ancient open-air workshops of
quartz and chalcedony with all the tools left at the spot as perfect as if the Indians
had abandoned them today with the intention of returning tomorrow to take up

88       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

their work again. These workshops are extremely instructive if one wishes to
know where and how tools were made in ancient times.

Among the impressions on nature left by the hand of man I count petroglyphs
and bedrock mortars, cut frequently in solid rock to take the place of portable
ones.

The whole continent, from Central America to the interior of Argentina, east
and west of the Andean region as well as within it, is rich in ancient cliff inscrip-
tions. These consist of figures of men and animals, useful objects, and abbreviated
signs often of a purely ornamental appearance, sometimes regularly arranged
and at other times in disorder. Some of them seem to be the product of idle hands,
done for a game or to pass the time; others probably had a meaning, although
they never were writing in the modern sense. The signs may have served some-
times to mark the limits of the land occupied by a tribe or the limits of fishing
rights along a river; others were evidently the products of religious inspirations
brought on by the special character of a place, the result being figures of a mytho-
logical character. They may at times express a man's ideas about the organization
of the universe, when they include figures of the sun and moon, aA?d perhaps of
stars as well, all drawn together. They may correspond at times to our figures
of Christian crosses often scratched on the cliffs along the roads. Other petro-
glyphs evidently have a historic character, summarizing in a few signs the events
and results of war with a neighboring tribe, telling for example, how many men
went out to fight, how many they killed, what booty was obtained, and so forth.
These seem comparable to the cliff inscriptions with which King Xerxes an-
nounced to the world the victories he had obtained over enemy tribes and empires.
Some of the petroglyphs are thus readable or capable of being interpreted. Most
of them, however, elude any attempt to interpret them.

Petroglyphs are especially frequent in the north and center of Chile and in
Argentina, but they have also been found repeatedly in Peru and Bolivia. Several
are also known from Ecuador, in the Yunguilla valley and on the coast of Manta.
The oldest ones date from the time of the earliest civilizations, such as some in
the valley of Chincha, nine leagues from the coast, which contain Proto-Nazea
motives; others are as late as Inca times.

A very curious petroglyph is an enormous figure 128 meters high and 74 meters
wide dug in the slope of a headland on a peninsula facing the sea, two leagues
south of Pisco in Peru. It can be recognized easily from the sea at a distance of
several leagues. This figure is cut into a salt cliff in lines 2?/2 meters wide and 50
centimeters deep. The sand would have wiped out the lines long ago except that
they have been cleaned regularly for the processions of May 3, the Feast of the
Cross, a symbol which the modern people think the figure resembles. I have been
told that there is a different figure in a similar position facing the sea near Manta,
which probably had the same purpose and may have been made by people with
the same ideas. These petroglyphs may have indicated the boundaries of related
tribes who were in communication with one another along the Peruvian coast.

Bedrock mortars are among the most frequent types of remains left by man,
especially in Chile. They are generally cylindrical, twenty, thirty, or more centi-
meters deep, and always in clusters, several in the same rock. Such mortars are

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                     89
also well known from various places in Argentina, and it is curious that they
occur again in exactly the same form in the south of Ecuador from Macara to
about the valley of Loja. It has often been believed, especially in Chile, that they
are connected with a bloody ancient cult, but they indicate nothing more than
the presence of ancient populations whose women ground grain for the household
in these holes.

Ancient man sometimes preferred certain kinds of places as dwellings or for
the burial of the dead, and such places, recognizable from the known customs
of certain ancient peoples, deserve the special attention of the archaeologist.

Throughout the world, caves, shelters prepared by nature itself, formed a fre-
quent dwelling place for wild animals and man, especially primitive man. The
most important discoveries relating to the earliest history of man have been made
in caves. It is sufficient to recall the caves of the Dordogne in France, those of
Grimaldi in Italy, that of Krapina in Czechoslovakia, and the marvelous paint-
ings of Magdalenian man in the caves of Spain and France to appreciate the im-
portance which caves have always had for human history. Near Arica there are
petroglyphs in caves. At Pisagua I explored a cave which yielded the earliest re-
mains of man known in that region as well as interesting mummies from various
periods.

The region of Saraguro in Ecuador is full of caves which are the products of
ancient earth movements around the Jubones valley. Many of them have been
used for burials, and in them the bones, so rarely found in the highlands, are pre-
served almost intact. Even whole mummies and textiles have withstood the de-
structive effect of time there. Others, near Tanta in the same region, were in-
habited by people representing the first Ecuadorian civilizations, and their
remains, so hard to find -in other areas, are preserved in the caves.

Man preferred to worship, offer sacrifices, and bury offerings to his deities on
the tops of hills. For this reason gold and silver figurines have been found fre-
quently on the tops of hills over the whole area of the Inca empire, among other
places on the top of Cerro Hailli, the highest hill in the neighborhood of Sigsig.
The top of other hills, like that of the isolated hill of Tari near San Bartolome,
were used in ancient times for burial. The graves on Cerro Tari are fifteen to
twenty meters deep and surrounded by a deep ditch, but unfortunately they were
emptied by huaqueros in years past.

The Chibcha nations had a special lake worship. We have a series of Colombian
gold representations of rafts, which depict the cacique taking part in the ceremony
of going out on the lake to offer sacrifices to the highest gods in the form of gold
objects. As a result, a Colombian lake has been drained in modern times in search
of the gold offerings left by pre-Spanish man. The ancient nations of the Ecua-
dorian highlands all belonged to one family, this same Chibcha family, and shared
in consequence the beliefs current among the Colombian nations. An indication
of this is the fact that tales relating to lakes are told also in various parts of Ecua-
dor. For example, there is a story that the divinity of a lake in front of Cerro
Acacana fought with the divinity of another near Cerro Phulla near Saraguro.
In the fight, one vomited gold, the other only copper; but I do not know how the
fight came out. Probably the one who had gold on his side won.

90       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

In the next lecture I -rill discuss the importance of movable remains for archae-
ology, especially those preserved in ancient graves down to our day, and then I
will explain the contributions of archaeology to the primitive history of man.

LECTURE 4, JUNE 6

The importance of graves in archaeology-Principal kinds of graves; how to locate and exca-
vate them-Technical and practical advice for the treatment and study of movable remains.

Movable remains are in some respects the most important ones for the study
of civilizations and the earliest history of man. For one thing, they are found
more widely than ruins, tolas, traces of communications, and so forth, which are
not found in all types of culture. The character of civilizations is established by
science in large part by individual traits found in objects of this kind, and for
this reason they are the most useful for comparison with other types of culture.

The earliest remains of man consist entirely of movable objects, found either
in isolated form in geological deposits or in shell heaps where they were lost or
thrown away by people who rarely piled them up as scanty furnishings accom-
panying a dead man.

For the study of civilizations, the remains found in graves are more important
than those of any other kind. In well-developed civilizations one may sometimes
expect to find works of sculpture, such as statues, stone seats, relief slabs, and so
forth, as for example in the ancient civilizations of Manta, and here it happens
that, for lack of graves, these objects are the most important materials for study.

The importance of graves for the study of civilizations is based on the general
occurrence, among primitive nations, of the belief in continuation of life in the
other world, and the care which, in consequence, is taken to accompany the dead
with everything necessary for the life hereafter. For this reason, it is the utensils
most necessary in this life that are found in the tombs as furnishings for the
journey to the other.

Naturally, food was included in the Peruvian graves, although most of it has
disappeared because of its perishable nature. Sometimes, however, supplies of
maize have been found, and occasionally the preserved food chunio, or cold
tunta, made from potatoes, as well as supplies of peanuts. In the soil of the
Temple of the Sun at Pachacamac even bits of charqui, or dried meat, have been
preserved in so fresh a state that they might serve today for the preparation of
food. The care taken to provide necessities in the other life is demonstrated even
more clearly in the graves by the presence of seeds of cotton or slips of yuca
[manioc], of the sort used for the propagation of new plantings. These seeds and
slips accompanied the dead man so that he could plant them in the other life as
he had done in this one.

Pieces of copper, silver, and gold are often found in the mouths of the dead
or in their hands. Pieces of gold of a value of more than twelve pounds have fre-
quently been found so placed. These were the oboloi with which the survivors
equipped the dead man so that he could use them to overcome the obstacles he
found in the journey to the other world.

Remains of food offered to the dead or kitchen refuse can be observed on the
surface of many graves, representing the custom of giving food to the dead which

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                     91
survives among the Indians in many parts of the Andean region today. To the
same custom pertain shallowly buried jars with holes in the bottom so that the
food can pass through to the dead man, or clay or bamboo tubes which were used
for the same purpose.

In such circumstances it may be assumed to be certain that the grave furnish-
ings represent everything which seemed most necessary for the support of life
at the time the burial was made.

Ancient graves interest us because of the differences in their general types,
and, when they are burials made in the earth, because of their special shapes and
the ways in which the body of the dead is treated and placed in the tomb, even
aside from the furnishings that accompany it, which, as indicative of the type
of civilization, receive most attention in studies.

There are different kinds of graves, above the ground or in the ground, with-
out including the cremations. This last mode of disposing of the body, which is
usually combined with the destruction of all the objects which might have accom-
panied the dead, is in most cases absolutely unproductive for archaeology. For-
tunately, it is rare. Traces of it have been found in Ecuador, for example in the
province of Imbabura, and in Yunguilla valley, and perhaps it was also practiced
in the region of Manta. The custom was rare in Peru also. Traces of cremation
have been found in the ruins of Chimu Capac near Supe, but the implements
used by the shamans were still placed in holes dug for the reception of the dead.

There is considerable variety in the types of tombs above ground. The best
known are the chulpas, towers of stone or adobe already mentioned, which are
found in Bolivia and in part of Peru; they have sometimes been wrongly inter-
preted as having been used for dwellings. In these chulpas the bodies of the dead
are found seated along the walls, with their knees drawn up.

Tombs in natural crevices under overhanging cliffs are quite common in the
highlands. In these the dead are found separated from the world by little walls
of stone or clay.

Often the bodies were simply deposited in caves, but in Bolivia they are some-
times found fitted into narrow cells of clay as in a honeycomb.

Another form of burial is in the interior of the walls of buildings. The face of
the wall in this case gives no hint of the contents, and it is only by striking the
wall and listening to the sound that one can tell that the wall is hollow. Burials
of this type have been found in the walls of the Temple of the Sun at Moche,
which are of adobe; in the stone buildings of Marca Huamachuco; and, I under-
stand, in the east in the fortress of Cuelap near Chachapoyas.

Usually the dead were buried in the ground. If so, the nature and shape of the
holes dug varied, depending on whether the dead were simply covered with earth,
as happened among the aborigines of Arica and to some extent at Ancon and
Chancay, or whether they were placed under fragments of pottery jars, in well-
dug and prepared holes, as commonly occurs in the Andean countries. The shape
of the holes is characteristic of the particular type of civilization. Some are round,
others rectangular, cubical, or deep and narrow. Some are lined with stones and
others are not; some have steps in the inside of the hole, and so forth.

Each type of civilization had its special forms of burial also with respect to the

92       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

way in which the hole was filled and afterward covered with earth, ashes,
branches, leaves, stones, adobe, and so forth. These characteristic forms of burial
sometimes have value in making comparisons with other civilizations; for example,
round shafts two or three meters deep with resting places on the inside and one
or more niches at the bottom, in one of which the dead man was placed, represent
a type which connects some of the Columbian civilizations with graves on the
north coast of Brazil, with others of the civilization of Tacalzhapa and Tunca-
huan in the Azuay region, and with the Tiahuanaco period of Ancon, all being
temporally related.

Instead of in shafts, burial in pots was sometimes practiced, especially for
children, in the earliest periods from southern Peru to Argentina. Numerous
mummies, especially ones of children from the Arica region, show signs of having
been kept in the open air for a long period and having been roughly treated,
the living having taken them along with them in going to their daily work.

The preparation of the dead for burial also reveals many considerable dif-
ferences, the observation of which is very important for the characterization of
the culture type.

The preparation of the body for burial by means resembling mummification
was very general in South American countries. We know that the bodies of dead
Incas were dried over a fire. No doubt the custom of removing the intestines
was common, if we can judge by the good state of preservation noted in all
bodies not damaged by the weather. These practices began in South America
at the very beginning of the civilizations, as is indicated by the mummies of
Arica. These have the abdominal cavity dried out and almost burned by fire,
stuffed thereafter with different kinds of wool and fibers, and finally sewed up
in the form of a cross; in many mummies the cranial cavity was also emptied
and stuffed in the same way. It is interesting and important that mummies have
been found at Arica in which the line of the suture in the abdominal region was
completely recognizable.

In Arica, mummies have also been found wrapped in wet sand and then dried,
a procedure which gives them the appearance of having been cooked in dough.

The bodies were buried in the most different ways and positions. Burial with
the body stretched out on the back seems to have been the original custom; this
was also the practice of early European man. It has been found in various parts
of Ecuador, in Loja for example, and near Lima, at Arica, and at Taltal, the
mummies always belonging to the earliest known times.

The most commonly found position is with the body seated or doubled up,
with the bundle standing, leaning, or lying down, the body in this case having
the knees drawn up. The sitting position with the mummy bundle standing up
can be considered the latest and most developed form. It is characteristic as
early as Tiahuanaco times. The bodies, wrapped in cloths and cotton and then
baled up, have the appearance of a bundle which is provided on the outside
with an artificial head; a face of wood, copper, silver, or gold; and clothing and
ornaments. The dead are equipped as in life with ponchos, a scepter, a club, or a
lance, as if to go to war or practice some other occupation. The bundle thus faith-
fully reflected the dead man's appearance in life.

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                     93
The earliest Maya civilizations brought to South America with them the fre-
quently observed custom of burying only the head, which, however, was adorned
as in life. Often several vases accompanied the head as grave furnishings.

Another common custom was secondary burial. The dead person was dug up
some time after the primary burial and was reburied, the bones being collected
in a disordered pile, with the skeleton often incomplete, and accompanied by
definite grave furnishings. This type of burial was very common in the province
of Imbabura and on the central coast of Peru, at Ancon and Chancay, in the
earliest period. From the desert of Atacama to the south, the bones were given
secondary burial, usually in jars, even as late as Inca times. This custom was
common also in eastern graves.

The archaeologist needs to be aware of all this variety of burial customs in
the course of his excavations so that he will make a note of the form he finds
in each case. Otherwise he will not be prepared to record any new type that
comes to his attention.

The technique used by the archaeologist is important in all its details. This
technique consists in knowing how to find places that interest him, even when
they are not directly visible, in order to profit by existing ruins and other kinds
of ancient remains.

Frequently the presence of ruins is not easy to determine. To find the ruins of
Tomebamba I depended on historical references to the existence of the ancient
city near Cuenca; stones, apparently from Inca constructions, scattered through
the modern city; and fragments of Inca pottery scattered over parts of the
Quinta of Pumapungu, the very name of which indicated a relation to the tradi-
tion of the Incas. All this would not have been sufficient to establish the probable
existence of ruins. However, the tips of some ordinary stones which I noted on
the surface seemed explicable on the basis of the presence of walls in the ground
and consequently as an indication of earlier Inca activity. The progress of the
excavation justified the original hypothesis beyond my hopes, for it resulted in
the discovery of the plan of a whole ancient city. The archaeologist should always
be ready to take such advantage of the scantiest clues to push forward his studies
along whatever lines opportunity offers. Even though the results of an attempt
cannot always be foreseen, it should always be made. Of several attempts, one
will be crowned with success. Disappointments should not discourage the archae-
ologist; on the contrary, one success repays him many times over for all the
failures.

The archaeologist should, then, take note of the nature of the ground surface
wherever he finds himself. The surface, once disturbed, generally looks quite
different. Above ancient graves, the surface is often sunken.

Fragments of pottery or other kinds of remains, either natural or the work
of human hands, may be scattered on the surface of the ground in a way which
does not accord with the nature of the place; these are always indications of an
earlier settlement or of the presence of ancient graves. Their distribution on
the surface is often the result of the fact that when the earth is disturbed for
new burials, objects hidden under the ground or fragments belonging to earlier
burials will usually come to the surface. Similarly, fragments scattered over

94       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

newly plowed fields indicate the presence of ancient graves, though the graves
may have been already destroyed. It seems likely that many ancient cemeteries
were situated in fields which were afterward used for agriculture. Nearly all the
skulls and all the ancient copper axes which are known from the province of
Loja were found accidentally in cultivated fields, and there is no way of cal-
culating the damage done to archaeology by the carelessness and ignorance of the
plowmen.

The plan of buildings hidden in the ground is often indicated on the surface,
as, for example, at the ruins of Tiahuanaco near Lake Titicaca, which as yet are
insufficiently excavated.

Cieza de Lee6n and others speak constantly of a place called Hatun Ca-nar, that
is, Great Caniar. The existing remains, consisting mostly of the ruins of Incapirca
and various intihuatanas, or pagan shrines for the worship of the Sun, seem
inadequate to the prestigious name of the ancient site. However, beside the con-
vent of Incapirca there is a pampa several hundred meters in length and width,
marked out in rectangular shape like a plaza. Irregularities noted in the -ground
at its sides seem by their arrangement to indicate remains of buildings hidden
in the ground. Perhaps if they were excavated they would justify the name by
which the place is known in history.

The presence of shell heaps can sometimes be distinguished only by slight
irregularities in the appearance of the soil. By such clues Augusto Capdeville
found a very ancient one near Taltal, from which stone implements of the earliest
type known on American soil were later taken.

Mounds of earth frequently characterize the site of ruins buried in the earth.
Such mounds were the only indication of the existence of buildings in Tambo
Blanco near San Lucas, and they led to the excavation of an Inca palace. Here
the earth from the disintegrated adobes which formerly formed the upper part
of the walls had covered the stone foundation walls of the building to such an
extent as to make them unrecognizable.

Many buildings on the coast could be reconstructed by simply removing the
disintegrated adobe earth which now covers them to such a degree that they
look like mounds which never contained a building.

Sometimes it is necessary to dig below the surface of the ground with a shovel
in order to see what it contains. Darwin and more recent geologists regarded the
bits of shell scattered on the surface of the island of San Lorenzo, near Callao,
as evidence of the emergence of the island from the sea in recent times. I had
to make a special visit to the island with two famous geologists in order to con-
vince them that, when the surface was excavated, ashes and other remains of
human activity appeared, and that the shells on the surface indicated ancient
shellmounds deposited by man, the supposed evidence for a recent emergence
of the island being thus completely illusory.

The presence of ancient graves may always be suspected in tolas and similar
constructions of adobe, and likewise in the vicinity of temples and shell-heap
settlements and in caves; at least they should be suspected and looked for.

Sometimes tradition preserves a tale originally true of treasures included in
graves. For example, there is a popular legend at Pueblo Nuevo near Ica that

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                     95
there are golden bells in a dune there which always ring at twelve o'clock. Exca-
vations undertaken in the neighborhood revealed the existence of numerous graves
rich in gold in which were buried native caciques who had been vassals of the Incas.

Everywhere on the coast the existence of cemeteries may be suspected in dry
lands bordering the irrigated valley, and they are easily found there by follow-
ing the indications mentioned above. In the highlands, hilltops, steep slopes, and
striking promontories were the preferred places for ancient graves. Elevations
of the ground in the desert pampa near towns, as for example near Tacna, may
contain ancient cemeteries; or an enclosure wall may show where a cemetery ends.

Huaqueros and amateurs are sometimes guided by mistaken ideas in their
search for the sites of ancient graves and tear down monumental remains which
have no relation to the burial sites and which might have been of much greater
utility to ancient history if they had been left in place.

Some people have the idea that petroglyphs, bedrock mortars, and stones which
ring like a bell have no other purpose than to indicate the position of treasures
hidden in the earth. As a result of this idea, various rocks containing bedrock
mortars in Chile have been ruined, and the interesting ringing stones near the
port of Eten, formerly called "Las piedras del Capitan," were broken in pieces.
In Ecuador, wherever one finds rocks marked with petroglyphs, or even with
natural cracks which might possibly be taken for artificial designs, one sees also
remains of excavations in search of treasure, which naturally have been uni-
formly fruitless.

The presence of graves in a site is often best noted by the observation of the
peculiarities which appear in a cut in the ground, whether this cut is a natural
one resulting from a landslide or has been made by human hands for other
purposes. The use of a probe, a pointed iron rod, serves immediately to supple-
ment the preliminary observation made in the cut. The use of this instrument
is based in part on the observation that earth which has been disturbed to make a
grave does not recover the hardness of undisturbed earth even in several centuries.

Huaqueros frequently determine the position of graves by the difference in
sound noted when a crowbar is forcefully jabbed into the ground in the place
where a grave is hidden. This principle is also illustrated by a story told by a
French explorer who said that he galloped over a cultivated field and discovered
the site of a grave by noting the differences in the sounds produced by his horse's
hoofs.

Cuts are often made in the ground by archaeologists to locate more surely the
positions of ancient graves and to observe their relations to one another.

Cuts made by others are also very useful to the archaeologist because of the
opportunity they offer him to make his own observations.

Holes dug in the ground for house foundations frequently bring to light the
most curious products of human industry. Inca graves were found repeatedly
in the excavations for the foundations of the hospital and of the new Instituto
Mejia in Quito. The widening of the street beside the Seminario Menor reveals,
in the cut made in the earth, traces of a native cemetery of Inca times. The excava-
tion of gravel for industrial purposes has led to a number of important discov-
eries: the earliest remains of human industry, found near Taubach in Germany;

96       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

the famous human jaw, of Mauer, near Heidelberg, the oldest actual remnant
of primitive man; some of the earliest remains of American man near Trenton
in New Jersey in North America; and remnants of man of the ancient Mousterian
period in England. A telegraphic news item from Lima mentions the discovery
of a great cemetery of one of the earliest periods of Peruvian civilization in the
course of the removal of earth for a new road between Lima and Callao.

Cuts in the earth for new railroad lines are especially useful for the discovery
of new and important archaeological evidence. The first traces of a very ancient
period of civilization of the valley of Chancay, previously unknown, were first
noted in a cut on an old railroad line between Ancon and Chancay. The con-
struction of this same railroad led to the discovery, in the middle of the desert,
of a cemetery of another civilization rarely represented in this fashion on the
Peruvian coast. The cuts for the new railroad from Sibambe to Cuenca revealed,
at Joyaczhi, ancient cap sites of the Tuncahuan period rarely found in this form
and in this region.

The remains of the Pithecanthropus, long considered the precursor of man on
the earth, were found in cuts made by a river near Trinil in Java. Ravines and
cuts made by the sea along the face of the valley of Lima, near Bellavista south
of Callao, revealed an occupation site earlier than the first Peruvian civilizations.

When there is some reason to think that there are ancient graves in a region,
it is easy to locate them by means of the probe. In some soil the probe goes in
more easily, and consequently longer rods are used. In harder ground such long
rods are not necessary, and the success of the operation depends rather on the
probe finding and bringing to the surface traces or indications of the presence
of building stone or tomb covers, or earth of a different color, or evidence of
pottery or bones in the ground-all these are clues to the existence of graves.

The success of the archaeologist's work depends ultimately on the way in which
he takes advantage of the remains found for purposes of study.

Ruins should be measured and plans of them drawn from the measurements.
In dealing with an extensive group of ruins, such as those at Moche in the valley
of Trujillo, or those of Dumapara near Cochapata, measurements taken with a
metric tape twenty-five or thirty meters long are not sufficient, and trigonometric
procedures must be followed, with an exact instrument for measuring angles,
like a pantograph [sic, for transit], and with logarithmic calculations. The
archaeologist should keep a set of logarithmic tables at hand, therefore, against
the occasion when he needs them. A base for the rest of the observations is first
laid out with a surveyor's chain, a more accurate method of measurement. The
use of a glass to determine distant points is indispensable in this work. A tele-
scope fixed on the instrument used for measuring the angles is the most useful.

For making a plan of a ruin one always needs a surveyor's tape and a good
compass, if possible with a mirror. Distances can also be measured by pacing.
Eighty centimeters is taken as the normal equivalent of a man's pace. However,
this method of measurement can never be very accurate.

A compass is absolutely necessary for making a plan, for it must be used for
measuring angles and determining the orientation of buildings. Ancient build-
ings the walls of which all meet at right angles are very rare, and a plan which

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                     97
does not take these irregularities into account is usually worthless. The plans
of Peruvian ruins given by E. George Squier in his book Peru: Incidents of Travel
all suffer from this defect. It is not that the civilized nations of antiquity did
not know how to distinguish various angles, for we have imposing evidence to
the contrary. Near Huamachuco the Incas laid out the plan of a new city, now
called Viracochapampa, surrounding it with an enclosure wall about five hundred
meters long on each side. The four angles formed by this wall are true right
angles, differing scarcely in minutes. The Incas must have had some good geom-
eters, to lay out the angles so exactly. In their buildings most of the walls met
at right angles, but they also varied, some of them intentionally. There are also
Inca buildings with all the rooms in trapezoidal shape, but even in these build-
ings, the angles at which the walls met was fixed by formula.

The plan of a ruin may be obvious as far as its general layout is concerned,
but the details of the arrangement may be sufficiently obscure to prevent the
drawing of a complete plan. Some details, such as the location of the doorways
and steps which formerly existed, may have been lost because of the poor state
of preservation of the ruins. If so, the missing details must be determined by
means of excavations. The layout of a building should appear in the plan, if
possible, with the same clarity that we would expect in a plan of a modern building.

In order to understand the complete plan of a building better, it is preferable
to excavate it one room at a time, instead of starting to dig in several places
at once.

In making the plan it is advisable to measure the long distances first, instead
of beginning with the small measurements and adding the others later.

Usually, the irregularities of the ground should be shown in the plan as well,
in order to make it a better representation of reality.

Shell heaps must be excavated, and in the excavation the layers of different
cultures must be distinguished and the different materials they contain duly noted.

The objects found should be kept separate according to the layers in which
they were found. A plan of the shell heap must be made, using a level to measure
the different stratifications so that the levels can be indicated in the plan. A
level is also indispensable for determining the elevation of the shellmound over
the adjoining sea or over the land around it, or, as was necessary in a shell-
mound on San Francisco Bay in California, the depth of its base below sea level,
resulting from subsidence in past centuries.

In the excavation of graves, the surveyor's tape is also needed to determine
the dimensions and the depth of the shaft and the .position of the objects inside
it; the compass also, to determine the orientation of the body, an observation
which is often interesting because of the differences of custom between tribes
in this respect.

It is necessary to determine the way in which the grave was covered, the dif-
ference of the level of the ground at the time it was dug from the present ground
level, the kind of earth with which the grave was filled, and the position of each
object deposited in the grave with the dead or laid in some separate place.

Experience has shown that it is easy to distinguish the earth of the fill from
the walls of the shaft, a circumstance which makes the determination of the

98       University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

shape of the shaft easier. The excavation should not be considered complete
until it reaches undisturbed earth at the sides and at the bottom. Innumerable
excavations have failed because this fundaimental principle was not observed,
the most important objects remaining unexcavated in the ground.

No object should be moved from its position in a grave until its location in
the shaft has been recorded. When the objects are removed, they should be kept
together and labeled piece by piece while the circumstances in which they were
found are still fresh in the memory. The director of the excavation should keep
at hand a number of sheets of paper and small boxes in which to preserve any
small and delicate objects that are found. In transporting the objects to his
lodgings, he must use extreme care, wrapping them in paper or packing them
in moss or grass or wheat straw so that they will not be broken or damaged by
rubbing.

Pottery objects need special care. Baked clay often becomes as soft as fresh
clay after remaining in a grave in wet soil. When handled in this condition, a
vase or figure is just as likely to fall apart as if it had never been fired.

When the pottery is uncovered, it should be set for half an hour or so in a
covered place in the shade, so that it will dry; and only after this operation
can it be handled freely.

The painting on pottery also often becomes loose and liable to destruction when
it is thoroughly soaked.

The sherds of a broken vase must be collected, and the earth sifted with appro-
priate screens for this purpose. If this precaution is omitted, the loss of numerous
sherds is absolutely certain, for they become so mixed with the earth that there
is no way of finding them. Naturally, the vases which are the most valuable for
study purposes are often the most broken; it would consequently be criminal
to save only the complete ones and abandon the broken ones, which, if recon-
structed, would have the same study values as the others.

Care must be taken to wrap the fragments in paper for transport so that the
edges will not be damaged.

Everything a grave contains is important for the reconstruction of human
history-important partly in a descriptive sense, for it shows the development
from simple beginnings toward perfection, becoming gradually better in the
course of thousands of years, and partly for use in a comparative study leading
to conclusions regarding the path followed up to the stage represented by the
contents of the grave. There is no type of objects-of cloth, of metal, of wood,
of bone, and so forth-which cannot be used for such comparative studies. Even
the ways in which a body is disposed in the grave present a rigorous sequence,
as one may observe by noting the order of positions followed in Europe-from
the original horizontal burial to the reclining position, then to the partially
flexed position, then to the fully flexed position, and finally the burial of the
head alone, separated from the body-and that this order is repeated in the same
sequence in the South American development, from the primitive period to the
time of the Proto-Nazea civilization.

I will add some notes about certain further details which must be observed
in the excavation of graves.

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                    99
If the body is found intact, it is necessary to examine the skin to see if it shows
tattoo marks, because many representational vases of antiquity show designs
on the body, and often mummies have been found with indications of tattooing,
for example in the valley of Lima. Sometimes, even the toothed implements used
to produce the designs on the skin have been found.

Furthermore, some attention should be given to the possibility of finding
pathological phenomena in the skeleton. Traces of old fractures are common,
and these were usually poorly set; traces of other afflictions which affected the
living are also found; and all these matters need very detailed study.

If one wants to take a photograph of the position in which the dead person
was laid out in the tomb, it is often necessary to alter the color of the earth by
scattering ashes or plaster on it in order to create a color contrast between the
bones and their setting. The same problem often arises in photographing petro-
glyphs, and here it is customary to color the petroglyphs. In any case, a very
much better effect is gained by providing for contrast in the picture.

Any skull encountered in a grave should be saved. Its shape will tell us to
which anthropological group the individual belonged, and it is thus often useful
in solving problems of tribal migration or the movement of whore cultures.

Hair color may be altered chemically; a blonde color consequently may be no
indication that the individual belonged to a different race.

It is important to note indications of artificial deformation in the skulls; some-
times it -is even possible to observe on infant skulls the procedure used to produce it.

Traces of trepanation must be carefully observed on skulls, since these are
primitive attempts at surgery and are of great interest for the history of curing.

It must not be supposed, either, that remains of animals and plants found in
graves lack interest for human history. Both can tell us about the food habits
of the people and the degree of their historic development.

For example, the aborigines of Arica did not yet know agriculture. They lived
on the products of the sea, such as fish, shell fish, and cochayuyo, a marine alga.
In the highlands, the cultivation of quinua was already known at the same period.
Our potato is of American origin and is found represented frequently on vases
of very early Peruvian periods, such as Proto-Chimu; the actual remains of
potatoes are found a little later in graves of the Tiahuanaco period. The cultiva-
tion of maize, of beans, of squash, and of many other agricultural products
seems to have been introduced into South America from Central American regions.
There was a time when the botanists of the Old World believed that beans, squash,
gourds, and the use of cotton originated in Europe and were introduced into
America only at the time of the conquest; and it was only through the actual
discovery of plant remains in the graves that these ideas finally changed. The
origin of the sweet potato is not yet known; it was cultivated in China as well
as in America. The origin of the banana is also a still unsolved problem.

It appears from the discoveries made in the graves that the catching of sword-
fish in the open sea began only in the Tiahuanaco period. Probably watercraft
suitable for putting to sea and risking a fight with this dangerous fish were lack-
ing in earlier times.

In the first Maya period of Ecuador, the use of the llama was still unknown,

100      University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

and only bones of wild deer are found in the graves. Llama bones are also lacking
in the graves of the first part of the Peruvian period of Proto-Nazea, and the
figure of a llama led by a rope appears only rarely painted on the vases of the
same period. Evidently the animal was not yet domesticated, as it was later.
Its use for carrying burdens was perfected between this period and the next.

It is very important to preserve all remains of ancient dogs found in graves.
The dog is the only domestic animal common to the Old World and to America.
The domestication of the dog seems to have been based in America on a different
animal from that of the Old World, and the jackal, which is found in Argentina,
for example, seems to have been used in part for this purpose. The ancient
Peruvians had already bred four different breeds of dog, including a mastiff
and a small dog, just as in Assyria and Egypt different breeds of dogs were
already known in extremely early times. Observations made on the ancient breeds
of dogs may also prove valuable for a study of the ramifications of culture types.

There is thus nothing in the types of civilizations which is not capable of throw-
ing light on the character and ancestry of civilizations, and it should be the
duty of the archaeologist to omit no observation on any object he finds, so that
his results will contribute to the history of civilizations.

APPENDIX B

LETTERS FROM ARGENTINA AND BOLIVIA, 1893-1895

BY

MAX UHI.E

INTRODUCTORY No=-Some of the best of all Uhle's work is in his letters written from the
field to colleagues and sponsors. These letters give all sorts of extremely valuable information
about the country traversed, modern Indians, and the archaeological sites where Uhle worked,
much of it information that never appears in his formal reports and interpretative papers. This
memoir would not be complete without a sample of these letters from the field, and to give
one I have chosen a series of four letters descriptive of Uhle's first field work in Argentina
and Bolivia. These letters were written in German to European colleagues and published in the
Internationales Archiv fihr Ethnographie and the Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft fur Erdkiunde
zu Berlin. They are somewhat better written than the 1923 lectures, and I found less need to
rephrase them in making the translation.

A perusal of the bibliography will indicate that a number of other letters written by Uhle in
Bolivia were published in European journals at the time. There were also many other letters to
Bastian and others that have never been published. These four are selected to give a running
account of his activities during the time he was working for the Berlin Museum.-J.H.R.

EXTRACT FROM A LIETTER FROM MAX UHLE TO J. D. E. SCHMELTZ, WRITTEN

FROM SALTA IN 1893

I cannot describe to you the degree to which personal observation of the regions
in which the pre-Columbian cultural history of America was enacted increases
one's interest in research subjects, changes one's general point of view, stimulates
the development of research methods, and improves the results of one's researches.
It is, scientifically, like attaining a new homeland.

From Cordoba I went on mule back to Catamarca, from Catamarca by way
of Chumbicha to Tinogasta, from Tinogasta north and south, to Fiambala and
Chilecito, then on again by Belen, scouring its mountain valley twice; then by
Andalgala to Tucum'an and from there to the high valley of the Calchaqui, which
I got to know from Fuerte Quemado to Molinos; then on again by Conchas to
Salta. Here I am sitting now and awaiting the final windup of my Argentine
collecting affairs in order to be able to go on soon to Bolivia, the principal field
of my studies. I had formed no conception in Europe of the degree to which
life in the mountains is still Indian, and even here is still like ancient times. Even
the knowledge of firemaking with sticks is still known far and wide, a mental
reminiscence of primitive antiquity which is very significant. (Uhle, 1894c.)

LETTER FROM DR. MAX UHLE ABOUT His JOURNEYS IN SOUTH AMERICA

Tupiza, November 16, 1893
Several roads lead out of Argentina to Tupiza: (1) a road through the Quebrada
of Humahuaca; this road branches off in the neighborhood of Negra Muerta
and rejoins the second again higher up on the Argentine side. (2) Another
through the Quebrada del Toro; this one starts at Salta as the first one does from
Jujuy. It leads in part through uninhabited country and for part of one day's
journey through a district without fodder or water, rejoining the first road in

[101]

102      University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

the neighborhood of Abrapampa. (3) The third one goes by San Antonio de los
Cobres and Poma near the Valley of the Calchaqui; it passes east of Casabindo
and west of Cochinoca, by Tinate, and so forth. The second of these routes is at
present little used by tropas. The through traffic, of small account and restricted
to the regions of Tupiza and Tarija since the construction of the railroad from
Antofagasta to Uyuni and Oruro, goes from Jujuy through the Quebrada of
Humahuaca. By Poma go those who take mules to Bolivia for sale in the late
summer months; this is a perennially flourishing Argentine business. These
men, to the best of my knowledge, circulate northward through part of the Depart-
ment of Lipes in Bolivia. A very good route leads also from the Campo de los
Pozuelos through the Quebrada of Talina to Tupiza and is often used by the
inhabitants of the western Argentine puna district, such as those of Cochinoca,
Casabindo, and so forth. However, one looks in vain for the Quebrada of Talina
on all Bolivian maps, and likewise on the Argentine ones by Mr. Brackebusch
on which this part of Bolivia is shown. This is a sorry introduction to what still
awaits me in the field of cartography in Bolivia, at least in the south where
Pentland and Dr. Stiibel have not worked.

The region between Negra Muerta, Casabindo, and the Bolivian border looks
in no way attractive. To be sure there are many extensive stretches with good
pasto for llamas, which are also found in large numbers. But the greater part
of the country is good only for tola, which affords fodder only for sheep. Cochinoca
appears especially desolate; it seems to me to offer, more than any other part
of Argentina, convincing proof that the water supply of the country has decreased
since the beginning of human memory, as is commonly claimed here. For Co-
chinoca, once better populated, now scarcely has water enough for its handful
of inhabitants; alfalfa fields and seed corn, formerly abundant here, are now
entirely lacking because of the present water shortage.

The region of Cochinoca and Casabindo proved unusually productive for my
antiquarian studies. West of Cochinoca and south of Casabindo occur rugged
sandstone cliffs, at the foot of which the ancient Indians had a marked preference
for burying their dead. They also used natural hollows under fallen blocks of
stone for the same purpose. Since it rains here only for a small part of the year,
perhaps only in two summer months, and the perishable remains are moreover
splendidly protected against damage by the weather, the preservation conditions
were ideal for the long-buried remains in which I was interested, and I was able
to bring here in safety some mummies as well as about 120 skulls, some of which
are magnificently deformed; from here I will send them to the Kgl. Museum fur
V6lkerkunde.

For the first time in this region in which I now find myself my journey has
become really attractive ethnologically. Here I am in the midst of a population
which speaks and understands Quechua to a not inconsiderable degree better than
Spanish, though of course it is not as vigorously pronounced as in Cochabamba
and not entirely pure in its vocabulary. Yesterday evening I witnessed a folk
dance on the street, which, though taking place for a religious festival held that
day, was genuinely Indian and reminded me immediately of the dance of the
Bella Coola Indians I had seen in Dresden. Where is the southern boundary of

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                  103
Aymara? Not near Oruro or far north of Potosi, as is stated in nearly all ethno-
graphic text books, but in the latitude of Tupiza, almost at the southern end
of the Department of Lipes. I will take the opportunity to make the personal
acquaintance of the Aymara of this region. (Uhle, 1893b.)

LETER FROm DR. MAX UHLE ABOUT His JOURNSYS IN BOLIVIA

La Paz, April 16, 1894
I sent my last report to the Gesellschaft fur Erdkunde from Tupiza on November
16 of last year (see the Verhandlungen for 1893, p. 251). In the meantime, still
working out of Tupiza, I have made an excursion of several weeks' duration to
the interior of Lipes, visiting Esmoraca, San Antonio de Guadalupe, San Pablo,
and Cerritos, as well as making another trip to Talina. I reached Potosi by way
of Cotagaita and went from there via Challapata to Oruro. From there I made
another trip of a month to the Department of Carangas, in which the chief places
I visited were Totora, Curahuara de Carangas, Turco, Huachacalla, Corque, and
Chuquichambi; finally I came back to Oruro. From Oruro I came to La Paz in
several days of fast traveling, arriving at the beginning of March.

During this part of my journey I became convinced that Aymara was formerly
spoken in the eastern part of the Bolivian highlands as far south as the neighbor-
hood of Talina. Today only Quechua is found in this district. This fact by itself
has little importance for an understanding of the ancient linguistic situation
in the country, for Quechua everywhere tends to displace Aymara and what is
now happening has surely been going on for centuries. There is a clearly Aymar'a
place name, Skunkani (the name of a peculiarly shaped knob of rock) about
11/2 leguas south of Talina. In the valley of Cotagaita occurs among others the
place name Membrilluni, which supplies proof that even in recent Spanish times
so much Aymara was spoken in this valley that a place could be given a Spanish
name with an Aymara ending. In the narrow river valley of Toropalca between
Cotagaita and Potosi, among its inhabitants who lead a peculiarly unspoiled
and aboriginal Indian life, there exists even today the memory that, although
formerly as now they all spoke Quechua, Aymara was their original speech, and
a few of the older people can still express themselves just as well in the older
colloquial language as they can in the newer one. The fact that in Potosi the
Aymar6a language is entirely unrepresented and that it is only rarely spoken
in Oruro can be sufficiently explained by the recent Spanish origin of these cities.
Because their prestige gives it a slightly higher social status, Quechua is making
decided advances against Aymara in central Bolivia. It is as astonishing as it is
certain, for example, that La Paz is in the exclusive possession of Aymara speak-
ers. To be sure, Aymara has lost much of its original purity; it has accepted
numerous Spanish words into its vocabulary, although not so many as, for exam-
ple, the Quechua of Potosi, which sometimes resembles Spanish put together
according to the rules of an Indian grammar.

With regard to archaeology, the southern part of the highlands of Bolivia
offers only very scanty profits. Archaeological remains first begin to be somewhat
more plentiful in the immediate neighborhood of Lake Poopo. Even there, the

104      University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

region east of the lake is today almost completely exhausted owing to earlier
looting of the adobe burial structures there; whereas, in the region west of the
lake and in the Department of Carangas as well-areas which are almost never
traversed by travelers-the scantiness of the profits can be said to correspond
to the natural poverty of this region, a fact which explains why very little col-
lecting has yet been done in the area. In a valley between Totora and Curahuara,
already praised by Alcide d'Orbigny for its abundant antiquarian remains, I
succeeded in taking from some burial caves a number of mummies and a larger
number of skulls. Here the dead were deposited in great honeycomb-like sections,
or cells, built of adobe. At some distance from the burial place is found also a
stone burial structure of the shape which is usually built of adobe. It is an excel-
lent example of the true cyclopean type of construction, surprising in this place,
for no similar or related construction is otherwise found in the whole region.
There are pictographs to be seen on the cliffs. Near-by hilltops-for example,
one near Curahuara-are fortified with defensive walls.

The north part of the Department of Carangas is full of the peculiar adobe-
built burial structures of which Alcide d'Orbigny and Francis Castelnau have
given inadequate illustrations. The name chulpas, commonly employed for this
type of construction, should not be recommended as a generic name, for chulpa
means not only this type of building but in general designates anything deriving
from the pre-Inca period, such as stone beads, copper knives, stone mortars, and
so forth (Quechua culpa, ancient). These burial structures are found on the
east side of Lake Poopo as well as the west. In the south they apparently begin
in the neighborhood of Quillacas. The traveler coming from the southeast, from
Potosi, comes upon them first in the neighborhood of Ancacatu, and they may
also be found in abundance in Chayanta. In the course of my journey I found
them most numerous in the north half of Carangas. In particular, many such
burial structures, as many as 50 or 100 in the same place, are found near Chu-
quichambi, Curahuara de Carangas, and in the valley of Corque. In the neighbor-
hood of Turco, where suitable clay for adobe construction is lacking, there are
some built of quarry stone. Between Vilacollo and Turco in the north and Huacha-
calla in the south they are almost entirely lacking, for the same reason; they are
again numerous in the neighborhood of Andamarca. It is no exaggeration to
calculate the number of burial structures found in the area between La Barca
on the Desaguadero, Vilacollo, and Turco at 800 to 1,000. Many of these flimsy
structures are already ruined, and the unusually heavy downpours of rain in
the summer months of this year have contributed not inconsiderably to the
destruction of those that remained standing. It is a cause for some astonishment
that although many have decayed until they are level with the ground and of
others only fragments remain standing, nevertheless many hundreds have sur-
vived for about half a millennium. Fear of touching the remains of ancestors is
at present almost nowhere greater than an inordinate desire for the valuables
which people believe are to be found in the burial structures. Hence there can
be now only a small part of these structures the interiors of which have not
been ransacked. Now and then one still finds the abandoned skull in these monu-
ments once destined for the repose of the dead.

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                   105
My trip to Carangas fell in the rainiest month in the year, and clear evidence
of how much more severe than usual the rains of last summer were can be seen,
for example, in the neighborhood of La Paz in the form of roads destroyed by
the rains or covered by landslides. Nothing like it had been experienced for many
years. Because of the rains I suffered doubly in a department so little developed
as Carangas in the amenities of civilization, from the swollen rivers, bottomless
roads, great stretches of swampy country, and frequent downpours, combined
with a lack of civilized comforts. To my sorrow I found that these conditions pre-
vented my visiting a settlement of Uros, some 500 strong, who live at Chipaya
near Lake Coipasa. I found myself in Huachacalla, only 7 leguas away; but there
were no roads, even in name, from there to Chipaya, and any further advance
at this season would have brought serious danger to animals and men. I could
not expose myself to it at this time at so long a distance from Oruro. Nevertheless,
my penetration into Carangas still had important results, for I was able to find
two Uro families living in Huachacalla and to make a detailed study of their
peculiar language, as thoroughly as was possible in the short space of a few days
and with the assistance of an Aymara interpreter. After my return I will be
in a position to make available to science a short grammar of the Uro speech of
these people. The peculiar speech of the Uros, which is spoken only by the popu-
lation of Chipaya in the interior of Carangas, and by them only in their dealings
with one another, has, except for an insignificant number of loarn words, nothing
whatever in common with Quechua and Aymar'a, the Indian languages known
hitherto from the southern part of the Andean highlands. Its grammatical struc-
ture is simpler than that of these latter languages and in general completely
different from theirs. The pronominal particles are not suffixed to substantives
and verbs but are prefixed to the former and placed separately before the latter,
and so forth. I is werel; thou, amki; he, ni; father, ep; mother, andal;
water, kua's; vicuna, 6ka; llama, juala; eye, cuke; ear, ku1nni; sun, tiuiii. For the
numerals the Uro have only one to four (sindalla, pisk, cep, pakpik), and so forth.
My Uro vocabulary amounts to more than four hundred words peculiar to the
language.

The Uros must once have occupied the greater part of Lipes as well as the
Department of Carangas. In this area they are now, except for the tiny remnant
at Chipaya, entirely Aymaraized or, as in part of Lipes, Quechuized. They retain
only various of their physical characteristics, as, for example, their short stature.
There is also a settlement in Coro, south of Toledo and southwest of the Desa-
guadero, the inhabitants of which are distinguished by the name Uro. They
have also preserved the memory of their former tribal relationship, but their
original language is forgotten. Oruro (probably Urouro) also must have been
named for the Uros, who probably were still living several hunded years ago
on the left bank of the Desaguadero. There is another place named Oruro, west
of La Paz in the Desaguadero area, near a place where there is still today a small
colony of Uros who apparently still speak their language. The examination of
the speech of this latter Uro group and a comparison of the results with the
speech of the Uros of Chipaya should assume special importance for the improve-
ment of our knowledge of the Uro population of Bolivia.

106      University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

At present I am staying in La Paz, kept here for the moment by various cir-
cumstances, engaged in theoretical and practical studies of Aymara. The museum
here is insignificant and must in former years have had larger holdings than
now. However, the head of the great monolith from Tiahuanaco which Alcide
d'Orbigny saw at Collocollo and illustrated in his book of travels is now in the
museum. I can unfortunately see no chance yet to continue the compilation of
the cartographic notes which I brought with me from the south, so far as it can
be done in La Paz. (Uhle, 1894e.)

LETTER FROM DR. MAX UHLE ABOUT His JOURNEYS IN BOLIVIA

La Paz, January 22, 1895
If the Gesellschaft fur Erdkunde has heard nothing for so long of the continua-
tion of my expedition devoted to the interests of the K6nigliches Museum fur
V6lkerkunde in Berlin, the cause was a standstill in my undertakings which
kept me in La Paz for six months-an interruption which nevertheless has
turned out to the Museum's advantage, for I found time to become better ac-
quainted with Aymara, the characteristic language of the Bolivian puna. Thanks
to this long time spent in La Paz and to the useful German introductory work
of Dr. Middendorf embodied in his grammar of the Aymara language, I was
able, with some friends living in La Paz, to pursue more detailed studies of this
language than was possible for most of my predecessors in this field. I can already
promise a more complete grammar of this language than those which have ap-
peared so far.

The months from September to December of last year took me twice to the
shores and islands of Lake Titicaca. With regard to these expeditions, special
interest attaches in the first place to the neighborhood of Copacabana and the
islands of Titicaca and Coati, and in the second place to the eastern shores of
the lake in Bolivian territory, from Achacache to Huaycho. The next problem
was to send scientifically precise, complete, and selected material to the Museum
fur V6lkerkunde.

Direct study went hand in hand with collection. I measured the Inca ruins
of the islands of Titicaca and Coati in detail. Unfortunately, they are badly
ruined. The ruin of the palace on Coati is at present the best-preserved one to
be found on the two islands. Next in importance and state of preservation are
those of Pilkokamani, on the south side of the island of Titicaca, which stretches
northward for three leguas. On Titicaca I note some six different groups of
ruins of structures which were all built in the last period of the expansion of
the Inca empire and are distributed on the south, east, and northwest sides of the
island. The ruins of the ancient so-called "Palacio" erected near the north end
of the island, which were the most important from the point of view of area
covered, I found so poorly preserved that their study could add nothing extensive
to my knowledge of the architectural style of the last period of the Inca empire
gained at the other ruins. The style of the whole group of Inca constructions
on the two islands of Titicaca and Coati is homogeneous throughout and basically
different from that of the ancient structures at Tiahuanaco, of which only the
foundations remain in place.

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                    107
Eager to determine the cultural characteristics of the ancient ruins and other
remains to be found on the east side, I crossed from the peninsula of Copacabana
to the neighborhood of Achacache on the east side of the lake. George Squier had
also visited the east shore briefly, in the neighborhood of Escoma. On this shore
there are no Inca ruins like those on Titicaca and Coati, and also no ruins which
appear to correspond in character to those of Tiahuanaco. The result of my jour-
ney of several weeks from Achacache to Huaycho, on which I nowhere pene-
trated more than about 11/2 German miles from the shore of the lake and generally
traveled only in the narrow coastal plain, about 3/4 of a mile wide, was the
knowledge that here lived a population with an entirely different type of culture
from anything I had yet found elsewhere in Bolivia. Both ruins and artifacts
had their own peculiar character. There was no lack of ruins; they seemed nigh
endless. From near Achacache to Huaycho there were innumerable hilltops
crowned with fortification walls, ruins of houses, and so forth, remains of ancient
pueblo-like settlements. These ruins are found mostly on heights 200 to 500 meters
above the smooth surface of the lake. The native population must have been
very dense in this region in ancient times. Here and there one finds hundreds
of ruined houses close together, with numerous alleys between them, surrounded
by imposing fortification walls. But in striking contrast to the density of the
population which eked out its existence in these airy heights is the notable sim-
plicity, the lack of ornament, and the complete barbarism of the construction
style. One has scarcely the right to compare these ruins with the Inca ones of
the islands as regards the fitting of the house walls of unhewn stones, the con-
vergence and inclination inward of the house walls, the frequent actual narrow-
ing upward of the doorways, or the fashion of covering the one-room houses with
long, thin slabs of stone. And the artifacts are wholly comparable. There was a
predominance of stone implements, which, though polished, are of a primitive
sort. They could be found in great numbers. The prevailing style of pottery
was entirely different from anything previously found. The decoration was pre-
dominantly of a primitive plastic sort such as I had scarcely encountered in all
my travels to date. Any approach to ornamental designs in the painting turned
out to be entirely unintentional.

Since I also occasionally found on the ruined sites themselves Inca potsherds
and sherds of other vessels which in painting and shape seemed to me to point
to the culture of Tiahuanaco-the first mentioned were relatively scarce-I be-
came more and more inclined to admit that these peculiar hill pueblos were still
inhabited to some extent in the last period before the arrival of the conquering
Spaniards. From Achacache to Huaycho there is no lack of scattered indica-
tions that the Incas also paid some closer attention to the coastal area. Inca re-
mains are of course incomparably more numerous in the neighborhood of Copa-
cabana and on the two islands. Experience leads the traveler to expect abundant
and pure Inca remains only where the climate is most temperate. Thus one finds
numerous pure Inca remains precisely around Copacabana and on the islands
where the climate is relatively very mild; proportionately many also, among
those of other types, in the more sheltered valley of Tiahuanaco, and propor-
tionately fewer on the colder, more inclement, and generally less hospitable east

108      University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

shore of the lake. Inca remains are also scanty on the Bolivian puna. On the
other hand, it is well known that the Incas went on to settle in the more temperate
valleys of Cochabamba and Sucre and that the mild outlying valleys of the
cordillera in Argentina served them as bases for the expansion of their culture
far to the south.

The barbaric type of culture which centered in the region on the east shore
of Lake Titicaca stretches to the southwest at least as far as the Strait of Tiquina.
There are grounds for suspicion that it can be shown to have extended at one
time to the east, to the upper part of the valleys which drop down to a warmer
climate. On the other hand, it may seem surprising that remains of buildings
and potsherds of the style of those on the east shore can be found on a hill which
projects far out to the east, the hill of Qea on the island of Titicaca, which appears
to be a domain of the pure and fully developed Inca culture.

To pick out only a few points from the abundance in my notes, I may be per-
mitted to remark that it seems to me to be demonstrable that, in those truly
distant centuries in which the unfinished ancient strucures at Tiahuanaco were
begun, Lake Titicaca can have had an average level scarcely 1 to 3 meters higher
than at present. Not only are there Inca structures on the island of Titicaca
which even now stand only 1 meter, or in other places 5 meters, above the lake-
an ancient circular grave, probably that of a noble, is even visible about 1/2 meter
under water in the neighborhood of the Palacio on the island of Titicaca-but
on the south shore of the peninsula of Copacabana opposite the island of Anapia
there is a great terrace-like construction built of regularly hewn stone blocks
which must have been built about the same time as the construction of Tiahuanaco;
it has a total height of 21/2 meters and its foot is only 40 centimeters above the
level of the lake, as I observed it in September of last year. Because of the unusu-
ally heavy rains in the first months of last year, the level of the lake rose about
1.75 meters by April and reoccupied the wide cultivated flats which had always
been considered reclaimed. In September of last year the lake surface was still
0.85 meters above the usual level. (Uhle, 1895c.)

APPENDIX C

DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE YEARS 1903-1906

INTRoDUCTORY NoTr.-The University of California Museum of Anthropology has an extensive
file of letters written by Uhle to Mrs. Cornelius Stevenson and to Mrs. Phoebe A. Hearst, covering
his field work from 1899 to 1905. Extracts of some of these letters have been published by
Kroeber and Strong, but an 'even greater quantity of equally important material remains in
manuscript. These letters describing Uhle's field work are much more important for what they
contribute to Peruvian archaeology than for what they tell about Uhle; they should conse-
quently be edited and printed in a publication that would emphasize their archaeological contri-
bution rather than in a memoir of their author.

Of letters of a more personal nature, the Museum has very few, for Mrs. Hearst turned over
to it only the letters dealing directly with the collections. I did find a few items, however, mostly
dealing with Uhle's second contract and his resignation in 1905 to take' up the new job in Lima.
These are included here as documentation of some of the statements made in the memoir. All
these letters and notes were written in English and are printed here without change.-J.H.R.

LETTER FROM KEROEBER TO UHLE

March 6, 1903
Dr. Max Uhle

700 Van Ness Avenue,
San Francisco.

DEAR SIR:

I have the honor to communicate to you the following resolution of the Depart-
ment of Anthropology:

That an offer be made to Dr. Uhle to return to South America as soon as his
report is finished and continue his work there for three years. Making archae-
ological and ethnological collections in such regions as will give good results, he
is to give a portion of his time to linguistic research in connection with his ethno-
logical work.

The offer is accordingly hereby made to you, and I beg to request the favor of
a reply.

Respectfully,

A. L. KROEBER

Assistant Secretary

Department of Anthropology*
[This offer was formally accepted by Dr. Uhle on March 9.]

EXTRACT FROM A LIETTER SENT TO UHLE, IN PERU, BY F. W. PUTNAM,

OCTOBER 8, 1904

It falls to me to write you the unpleasant information that you will have to cut
short your explorations in Peru. Mr. Clark, who has been empowered to attend to
these matters for Mrs. Hearst, fully realizes that an agreement was made with
you for three years, and that agreement will, of course, be carried out; only, in-

* Letterbook 2, 11 Dee., 1902-9 Dec., 1903, p. 63; in Univ. Calif. Museum of Anthropology.

[ 109 ]

110      University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

stead of passing the three years in Peru, I am requested to have you return to
America in such time as will enable you to prepare your report before the three
years have expired. I am as disappointed as you will be at this outcome; but we
cannot help it. When one has done so much for science and education as Mrs.
Hearst has, we can only try to do our part when the necessity for retrenchment
arises. Therefore I shall feel obliged to you if you will kindly consider this whole
matter and write me when it will be best for you to leave your field work and re-
turn to California so as to have plenty of time to catalogue your recent collection
and complete your report before the three years agreement with you has expired.*

[Dr. Uhle sailed for Peru on November 9, 1903; on this date, accordingly, his
contract began to be operative.]

DRAFT OF A LETTER FROM UHLE TO PUTNAM

Supe, November 3rd, 1904

DEAR PROFESSOR PUTNAM,

After having finished my work in the Chancay valley the most prominent result
of which was the discovery of an unknown pre-Tiahuanaeo civilization, I started
for the north, in search of similar remains in order to widen the oldest historical
and geographical base before entering deeper into the farther antiquity. With
this view I visited the valley of Huacho and Supe and am now settled at San
Nicolas in front of some of the most interesting old Peruvian towns, of which my
present discovery is to give the first knowledge. I received your kind letter of
October 8th which I hasten to answer.

I am indebted to you for your kind information about the fine way in which
my Peruvian collections have been exhibited in the new Museum of the Affiliated
Colleges and shall be certainly much pleased by the development which the Mu-
seum has taken under your direction.

This Museum will stand as a lasting monument of the generous interest, which
Mrs. Hearst has taken in the development of our science, even when Mrs. Hearst
unfortunately will feel the necessity of a general retrenchment of her large bene-
fits. I fully realize the importance of what you express, dear Professor Putnam,
in your letter of October 8th, concerning my work in this respect and shall carry
out the new program of the time of my Peruvian expedition and the work at home
following it, with the utmost loyalty. I am very thankful to Mrs. Hearst that she
allows me to continue for a period on my scientifical investigations. For though
I might have been asked to interrupt my expeditions at once, I am glad that I
am not in the necessity to do so, as the general results of my expedition would
have suffered from it. But I shall now cut the work of my expedition down as
much as I can, and shall return to San Francisco in such time, that my report will
be prepared there before the three years have expired.

Mr. Hartman had heard right, that I met with an accident by falling into an
excavation. This happened at Huaral Viejo in the valley of Chancay. But though
I fell head foremost about 10 feet deep and some of my neck was much sprained
I recovered soon under the care of Mrs. Uhle and my field work was in no way

* From typed sheet in 1903 letter file, Museum of Anthropology.

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                    111
interrupted. But I thank you for your friendly inquiry and for the kind expres-
sion of your sympathy with what fortunately has not been quite so serious.

With best regards for Mrs. Putnam and yourself, in which my wife joins
heartily, I remain dear Prof. P.

Yours very sincerely,

[MAX UFT.]

LETTER FROM UHLE TO PUTNAM

The University of California

Archaeological Expedition to Peru

Lima, November 22d, 1905
Prof. F. W. Putnam,
Boston

DEAR PROFESSOR PUTNAM:

I beg to inform you that the Government of Peru has appointed me Director
of the National Museum of Archaeology which will be initiated under my care
from January the first, 1906. I, therefore, beg to offer my resignation of the
Hearst Archaeological Expedition of the University of California. I regret, that
I am unable to return to America to arrange my new collections and write my
monograph on this last expedition. My reports are very full, and may be sufficient
to give all the necessary information concerning the objects. The journey is so
long and so costly that I could not possibly go to the United States for a few
months and the Government here wished me to begin at once on January 1st.
Therefore, I am obliged to ask Mrs. Hearst to cancel my contract for the remain-
ing part of my expedition period of three years. I have just returned from the
interior of Southern Peru where I followed the traces of my earliest Peruvian
civilization. I have collected during my last trip crossing the desert between
Lomas and Nazea and from there to Ica, a very handsome and representative lot
of objects which I am now about to ship to San F'rancisco in 27 cases. This is the
last collection of antiquities that will leave Peru legally. From January first no
more can be shipped from Peru, nor will any foreigners be allowed to excavate
here. Or if they do so, all the objects secured by them must go to the National
Museum of this country. During the remaining few weeks to January first, I shall
write my report on my last explorations in southern Peru. I have always been
going and had so little time for writing that I feel I need a few quiet weeks to
do it in. My wife is working on the translations of the manuscripts on Moche,
Huamachuco and Valley of Pisco of my former expedition. The reason it is not
yet finished is that she was always with me in the most out of the way places,
where she had a great deal of work to do with our camp house-keeping as we
even could not get good help. We shall send the translations in a box to San
Francisco together with the maps and the manuscripts. Thanking you for all the
kind and helpful interest in my work which you have always shown me, and with

* This draft, in Max Uhle's handwriting, is on the bck of a letter from Mrs. Hearst's agent
forwarding an $800 payment; accession envelope no. 178, Museum of Anthropology.

112      University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

the best regards to Mrs. Putnam and yourself from my wife in which I join her
most cordially, I remain, dear Professor Putnam,

Yours very sincerely, and gratefully
MAX UaLE*

LETTER FROM UHLE TO KROEBER

The University of California

Archaeological Expedition to Peru

Lima, November 22d, 1905
Dr. A. L. Kroeber
Affiliated Colleges,
San Francisco

MY DEAR MR. KROEBER;

It will surprise you very much that I shall not return to San Francisco. The
government of Peru, now well established, will engage my services for building
up the scientifical researches and the National Museum of Peru from the first
of January, and Mrs. Hearst will be glad that her own engagements of financial
character respecting me come to a satisfactory end before the limit, which she
set in my favor. I have to thank you for so many favors shown me during the last
two years, I wish you all luck in your scientifical career and I am sure we shall
meet still often on the camp of science personally on this or the elder continent.
You will keep my copy of my work on Pachacamac as a souvenir and I hope I
have the pleasure to see many of the papers which you will write in the course of
time for the benefit of American science. To-day I have some wishes, which I
beg to express, and Mrs. Uhle, who feels happy in Peru, and greets you cordially,
joins me in them:                    I

Will you kindly send my boxes and other objects of my property left in the
Museum to my direction to Lima, by the next steamer of the Kosmos Line, c/o
Messrs. Rodewaldt y Cia, Callao. The Kosmos agent of San Francisco knows me,
I met him about two months ago at Callao, he promised me to take personally all
sort of care in order, with which I would charge him. My wife has especial wishes
for some of the boxes or barrels.

Some of the barrels may be weakened by this time and it will be unsafe to send
them as they are and my wife begs you to kindly have a carpenter put uprights
and cross pieces on them to hold them together [small drawing in the text to
illustrate], at the same time examining closely the hoops and to renew any that
are weakened, as these barrels hold all her treasures of old porcelain. I believe
there is an old trunk among the lot. This will have to be placed inside of a packing
case and nailed up. My wife thinks there must be a small box with loose fire irons
or fire dogs, if you can come across them please give them to Professor Cauer
for us, as a little keepsake. They are old Philadelphia things and I think the
Cauers have an open fireplace.

There may be one or some boxes containing photographical plates of my prop-
erty. They may be known by their weight. I would be very much obliged [to] you

* From longhand original (3 pp.) in the letter file of the Museum of Anthropology.

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                    113
if you would personally superintend their being opened and being freshly packed
if it is necessary so that they may arrive in good condition. Inside of one of the
smaller boxes is a little trunk full of silver. In case you meet it unexpectedly,
kindly have the box well nailed up. I hope the flat cases containing books and
linen etc. of my wife will be strong yet to bear the journey. I hope the same of my
own book boxes. Tomorrow I shall go to Graces to arrange with them that you
may draw from their San Francisco house the money for the expenses which you
will incur for us in packing, transportation to the steamer and freight. Please
take the best transportation company for the hawling to the steamer so that not
every thing may be broken inside before they are embarked, and kindly enjoin
upon the agent of the Kosmos to have them handled with exceptional care.

Within the' next few days I shall send you my report on Cuzco, while the one
of Chala, Nazea and Palpa etc. is under preparation and will be finished during
December, as well as the shipping of the final 27 or more boxes of exceptionally
interesting and handsome objects from my earliest Peruvian civilization. This
collection comprises about 800 objects. I shall write to Professor Putnam myself
and also inform him of my new appointment. The two cases collected by my wife
under bond now in the University she begs to offer to the Museum as her personal
.gift. One of the 27 or more boxes still here, a very large one, contains the rest
of her collection of moulds, which is quite unique. In all my excavations I have
only found one. My wife sends catalogues. In one of the cases of my wife you
will find a few earthenware pots from Mexico and a few pieces of ancient copper
things. These please keep for yourself if you like that sort of things. The copper
needs polishing and makes pretty wall ornaments.

My wife has been working at the translation as best she could during our
travels. One of the works is entirely finished. We shall return as soon as possible
the manuscripts, translation and maps.

We are hoping to reach Mrs. Hearst by cabling to New York and a letter to her
to the same address will probably be forwarded.

I am sure, that the University Museum under your special care will grow and
flourish and attract attention all through America. I regret that I shall not be
able to see my new collection in place but am sure that you will arrange every-
thing as scientifically as possible.

My copies of Pachacamac, any other books or pamphlets that may have arrived
for me, and some books which were left out when packing at San Francisco and
remained in the Museum, kindly place all together into a box and send with the
other effects.

I shall be glad that I shall have a little more time now for reading and writing
and shall take special pleasure to read more carefully the monographs which you
wrote and kindly sent me.

Both my wife and I remember you with a great deal of friendship and gratitude,
and we hope sometime or other to see you again. We shall be certainly always
most happy to hear from you from time to time and with many thanks before-
hand for all the trouble you will have to take for my things I remain, dear Dr.
Kroeber, your sincere friend always                        MAX UHLEI*

* From longhand orginal (6 pp.) in letter file of the Museum of Anthropology.

114      University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

LE'rma FROM UHLE TO MRs. HF&ARST

Lima, December 21, 1905
Mrs. Phoebe Hearst,
Paris

MY DEAR MRS. HEARST:

Your kind answer to my cablegram of the end of November: "Kindly permit
cancelling contract January appointed Director at Lima." was thus: "Willing
cancel contract."

I thank you with all my heart for this solution of my difficult position between
a contract of not much hope for the future which I had to fulfill, and an invitation
for an ideal position which will give me work, prestige and a settled home per-
haps for all my coming years.

I shall take charge of the new archaeological Museum of the Government here
on January 1st and am intrusted with the development of this Museum as well as
with all the archaeological and ethnological studies of the old Indians of the
country. So I shall have a task for all my life which I could not have hoped to
get at San Francisco. What country for such a life work could be more ideal for
me than Peru, in the study of which I obtained my best spurs. There is no doubt,
my dear Mrs. Hearst, that I owe to you the best part of this happy turn in my
career. For it was you who kindly intrusted me with a new expedition to Peru
when all seemed to have come to an end after the death of Professor Pepper. And
you intrusted me with a second expedition when there were many in the States
who doubted of my scientifical results or at least of their value, and tried to repre-
sent me only as a collector while I was accustomed to a different reputation from
the beginning of my work. And this second expedition was the bridge for me to
my new position in Peru as the head of the archaeological exploration work. I
beg you to consider me always as a grateful debtor who never forgets that you
gave and prepared for me this my new work in life.

There is no doubt that the collections of my second expedition for California
will be easily unpacked and arranged on the hand of my catalogue. I am sorry
that now I cannot write more monographs. But that is always a very expensive
task, and perhaps you will not be dissatisfied of being released of those further
expenses. I have here still one catalogue and two reports, one on my explorations
around Cuzco, which Mrs. Uhle is asked to look through with respect to its Eng-
lish-since some time, and another on my trip to Nazea in October and November,
where I brought together a quite exceptional collection which finally completes
the results of my former studies, and now I am still occupied in some excavations
12 miles above Lima, where I find the oldest type of the civilization of the Lima
valley, which are at the same time the first collections which I send from the
environs of the capital. So I am working to the end of this month to fulfill my
obligations with all earnestness possible to me. As it was impossible to return
to the United States for a few weeks before the beginning of my new duties at
Lima, especially when the largest part of the time would have been lost uselessly

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                    115
on board of steamers (about five weeks in one direction) [I] I had decided that
I was serving you best by making these last studies for fulfilling the time.

Mrs. Uhle is still at work upon the translation of my former monographs in
manuscripts. When she is ready I shall send all over together with the designs
and maps I have in hand, and I shall help as far as I can, in order that the publi-
cation may come out well.

Both my wife and I have written a long letter from Cuzco to you and we trust
that you have received them. I was informed from Philadelphia that a copy of my
work on Pachacamac, which I ordered to be sent to your address, was forwarded
to you to Pasadena, where I trust you received it.

Once more allow me, Dear Mrs. Hearst, to express to you my most heartfelt
thanks, my deepest gratitude which will last to the end of my life, and which
is shared with my wife.

With our best greetings and sincerest wishes for a bright and cheerful Christ-
mas and a happy New Year, I remain

Yours ever gratefully and sincerely,
MAX UHLE*

LETTER FROM CHARLOTTE UHLE TO KROEBER

Lima, April 15, 1906

DEAR MR. KROEBER,

Your kind letter of March 8th lies before me to answer. I am however so deeply
indebted to you for all you have done for us, that first of all I must beg you to
accept both Dr. Uhle's and my own warmest gratitude. You have had an immense
amount of trouble and responsibility with this lot of boxes, and no end of running
and arranging. You have done it all so beautifully and carefully that now they
are all here and only need to be carried ashore from the lighter in Callao harbour.
So far all is smooth and has gone well. At present we are meeting unexpected
difficulties! It was promised to my husb4nd that all our things should enter free-
now they have forgotten their promise and all the boxes shall be subject to their
exaggerated toll regulations, all except the books. So we will have the book-boxes
sent to me at once, while the rest of the things shall remain in bond until they
relent and allow them to enter freely. Since all are articles of long usage I can-
not see why we should pay duties for them, especially as my husband is an officer
of this government. Well, I will wait and see what will come of it!

We are here all settled in a beautiful flat, it is partly furnished with fine old
Spanish furniture that I collected and am still gathering from old Convents and
private houses-cheaper than modern things-and ever so much finer. I have a
cabinet maker at work here in the house who is restoring each piece to its original
fine condition. But we are waiting so for our cups and plates and tea things, and
house-linen-in short for all the small articles that make up a home, and that are
withheld from us at present. The "Luxor" arrived with yellow fever on board,
and was quarantined for a number of days, then the steamer sailed south and
took along what was left aboard of cargo. The agents assure us that our boxes
are in the lighter, and were surely discharged before she sailed!

* From typed copy (3 pp.) in letter file of the Museum of Anthropology.

116      University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn.

I am truly glad that my collection is considered acceptable and worthy of being
set up among the Peruvian collections sent by Dr. Uhle. I felt as if I wanted to
add my mite to his labours by collecting that which according to his instructions
he was not allowed to gather into his own boxes. It would have been a pity to have
all these fine things go to other collectors and other Museums and so I took all
I could afford to buy or what chance sent my way as gifts or surface finds. Of
the latter there are a good many as I always accompanied my husband to the
excavations and wandered miles and miles over the graveyards of Ancon, of
Chancay valley, etc. Only to Nazea-Ica I did not accompany Dr. Uhle, to my deep
regret. It is the most interesting part of all Peru, but well nigh impossible for a
woman to travel through. It must all be done on horseback over wide burning-
hot pampas, (deserts like the Saharah) with no shelter for the night, or with a
bed in a cane-hut of some Cholo, where the pigs squeal under the bed and the
chickens roost above your head, not to mention all the other discomforts there.
The collections from there must have arrived by this time, mostly pottery-
and I am sure, will form the most interesting part of the Peruvian section. With
the last lot of boxes, including objects from the valley of Lima, went my last box
that stood in Callao for over a year. It contains objects from Chancay, things
that I took for their pretty forms or other reasons, or textiles, that are becoming
very scarce now. Of these I collected every variety of cotton and woolen fabrics,
that were made in the Chancay valley, and which are well preserved owing to
the sandy soil of that region. For just such scraps as the smallest and meanest as
those in my collection they charge from 2 to 5 dollars here in Lima, when travellers
want to buy some pieces for souvenirs. I enclose my catalogue such as it is. Of
course you will have to re-catalogue the entire lot and distribute the things among
the various groups where they belong. The moulds of all three boxes (138 or so)
all came from one place, the cemetery of "La Mina," that is a site on a sandy slope
directly over Chancay where at present not a single unopened grave could be
found. I doubt if any more moulds will be found in other parts of the Chancay
valley, and so I feel sure that my little collection of Chancay moulds would be
rather unique.

Dr. Uhle is busy with the new Museum. He has his hands full to get the old
Palacio de la Exposicion reconstructed and renovated. The difficulties .are untold
here in a country where all are alike inert and where workmen and masters are
lazy. Still, some day the Museum will be ready to open its doors, and we will be
able to travel about as before to explore and collect all that was left-it will be
very little in some districts !-Dr. Uhle is happy in having so large and beautiful
a task entrusted to him, and he gives all his time and all his energies to his work.

Whether we shall spend all our days here is another question. After some time
of constant tropical summer there comes a sort of longing for a good honest
winter-day and a nipping frost. I know we shall both want to end our days in a
country where we can have both, and Christmas trees and a cheerful warm fire
with a bright lamp to read by. These big Spanish houses are not homelike to live
in for all one's days, although extremely interesting for a while. You ought to
see the view from our balcony, it is like fairy land, palms and tropical plants, a
real park of them, and beautiful blue mountains in the distance; while of the city

Rowe: Max Uhle, 1856-1944                    117
of Lima we see only the flat roofs and the cupolas of the Churches against the clear
sky, and back of it the distant sea with the island of San Lorenzo looming up in
blue hazy distance. It is all very beautiful. We will see how long it will be our
home !

As to my translations I must say a word of excuse-I could not work at them
during these last few months. It was an awful summer, such as they never had
experienced here at Lima, and even to this day it is warm. At first, when we de-
cided to stay in Peru we took this house and moved into it. I immediately was
taken very ill with Erysipelas and remained half convalescent for a long time
after. I am getting over it now and with the cooler days in sight trust that I shall
be able to work hard and with regularity so as to make up for lost time. I am often
sorry that we did not return to San Francisco, so that we could have told you
all our experiences and adventures on these journeys. I also regret that I never
shall see the objects again which to us are connected with such interesting and
varied experiences! I could have told you stories of all of them almost, I know
each one by sight and regret to have them removed out of my ken for ever and
ever.

If anyone at Berkeley or San Francisco remembers us, I beg you to give him
or her our best regards, Prof. Cauer & family for instance and that of his brother
in law. They were besides yourself dear Dr. Kroeber, the only people who showed
us kindness and bade us a friendly welcome at the shores of the Pacific. I except,
of course, our kindest and noblest Mrs. Hearst, whose charming kindness I shall
never forget, and I trust I may meet her again in person to tell her so. I must
stop, my letter grows too long! Sr. Uhle will write you himself, soon. I thank you
again most heartily, dear Dr. Kroeber, and remain ever sincerely yours

C [HARLOTTE]. UHLE
* From a longhand original in the letter file of the Museum of Anthropology.

PLATES

UNIV. CALIF. PUBL. AM. ARCH. AND ETHN. VOL. 46

View of the west front of the Huaca de la Luna at Moehe. Site F, the ceinetery which is the
type site of the Moehe pottery style, lies at the foot of the structure oln the right. UCMA niega-
tive 15-1759; photograph by Uhle, 1899.

[ 121 ]

[ ROWE ] PLATE I

UNIV. CALIF. PUBL. AM. ARCH. AND ETHN. VOL. 46

h1u1de's only photograph of a AImo-hue graveC lot: Moclhe, Sitce G (around a large r)ock onl the slope
of CeIro B1otllanco) , Grave 3. Specimens showvn are, left to riglht: 235, sktll (not catalogued),
286, 238, 231, 234, and 240. Fhle grave is of thle fMoche III-Vperiod. ICAIA negative ]5-17567.

1 1221

I ROWE I PLATE 2

I      I         ,                 -  ?.

3

11 -          .                                                     I          .        .      I  ...   .1

? I          A    :i .
-'l- .1

-.1 I., .

UNIV. CALIF. PUBL. AM. ARCH. AND ETHN. VOL. 46

General view of the plaza of Huamachuco showing the colonial church and bell tower. UCMA
negative 15-1786; photograplh by Uhle, 1900

[ 123 ]

[ ROWE I PLATE 3

UNIV. CALIF. PUBL. AM. ARCH. AND ETHN. VOL. 46

A\l 1C  it  t   St mi   ScII I( 'lltt II li  l,c  1v hic 1( ' Idc   p t(q1rr'I p IIed(   ill  ;l   cI 11;I Ic I  ()II  t 1cit   li II t)   Al:l; -I I-ca II I,Im   I-
4,1111co. He( tr-ied( Ilixilucc sstulilv to mAcl1; ;i Impertz Xt^squc,()fo it. Th'e(: de(sio'll he( Iden^tified Ns l   cl 01-

-ventionl;liz.ed ("It he'Id,. l(.lic- Is';tive1,19,t p1mtoor.l;1   1    1,1v  19M)\. IOiscuissed ill Illis
MS,   ci;t;l()g-u( s, v(l.  5-, f(ds.  ,-:..

1 24

I ROWE]1 P lAT E 4

UNIV. CALIF. PUBL. AM. ARCH. AND ETHN. VOL, 46

\\(Wavr finlisllinig a lpi(ce of wvarp-stripe (loth o01 a hackstrap loom. Ottizeo, IPerl. V-(MAfA lietra-
tiv' 15.-1 77U  photograph h)v Uhll', 1911.

1 125.

[ ROWE]I PLATE 5

UNIV. CALIF. PUBL. AM. ARCH. AND ETHN. VOL. 46

Genieral view of the tow u of H1lu.it:ii;i in the uipper Pisco v-alley , ni.ide in 1901. TIitereStillo
details of (loiiestie  rcelhitectuie c'.lle obl)served. The c'liiieli (top left) is oine of thie few colonjial
chliirelies in Perui which ale huilt oni Iiiea foundations. Uhle miade detailed iaotes aind phllOto-
graiphs of it. VTMA negative 15-204(0; puotograpuh by 1'lile.

I 12(i ]

[ ROWE]I PLATE 6

UNIV. CALIF. PUBL. AM. ARCH. AND ETHN. VOL. 46

An ancient coastal ruin with a modern house built on top, between Lurin Chincha and Santa
Rosa in the valley of Chincha. The modern house is probably identical with common houses of
antiquity iII this area. UCAMA negative 15-1983; plhotograplh by UIJle, 1900.

[ 127 ]

[ ROWE I PLATE 7

UNIV. CALIF. PUBL. AM. ARCH. AND ETHN. VOL. 46

Excavating an1 Early Nazea ceml(tely: Site F at Oue.caje. TFlhe burial jar in the foregrouniid is
1C\AIA 4-4788; the vessels stacked oni the surface ale fiomii (hraves 4 ;ind 7. V(M\IA negative
15--1886; photogrph)ll by Ulile, 1901.

I 128

[ ROWE]I PLATE 8

UNIV. CALIF. PUBL. AM. ARCH. AND ETHN. VOL. 46

Exeavatiaig a richl IJea period gr ave oii the road hetween Chlulpaca anid Tate, lea valley.
This is Grave Td-8. Somiie of the carved woodeni ceremonial staffs fouiiid in this gr-ave were
shcathied withi tlin1 gold sheets. The specimens shown in this picture disintegrated oni excava-
tioni aind are nowv represented oniy he fragments. U(CM\A  negative 1.5-1901 ; photograpl  hy
1'111c, 1 901.

[ 129 1

[ROWE]I PLATE 9

UNIV. CALIF. PUBL. AM. ARCH. AND ETHN. VOL, 46

1'Xcav:ti ng LaIte p)(Lio(l ,111tlll,l,v Iuindles ill the ((nlil(tr(v oni the 1o0(1d hltw(een (Chuulpaea and
TFate, Itse, I v,alle!. These two 1,aY ov er (Gaxe T -1. The 1nonunoY at the left is VCt MA 4-5429; the
othier (lisilItegla ted anud xxvas not sx (lv. VC M A niega tive 15-1904; photogra1)11 b  I'hile, 1 9(1.

I 1 3 (o J

I ROWE I PLATE 10

UNIV. CALIF. PUBL. AM. ARCH. AND ETHN. VOL. 46

Modeled por-tr'ait head Oil the iieck of a small bottle fromii Mochie, Site F, dating fromii the
Moche IV   sub)p)eriod. Onie of the fiuiest inodeled pieces ill the t'hule (Collectionl. ITCM A 4-2652,
total lheiglht 19 cmii.; photograph by Victor T)nrian, 1953.

l 131 ]

L[ROWE I PLATE 1 1

UNIV. CALIF. PUBL. AM. ARCH. AND ETHN. VOL. 46

E'ffigy  whistle fromll Site  F', (.lnix( e 25, at MIochle. Thell(} spec('imllenIz is 1(f) ('II. hsighe. It is T)is

iolded, and unpainted. Tlie        whllistle is attached to the hack. A       line exam}ile of AMoche-stYle
imiodeliilg dating fr 1'om) the -M oche I  p riol. I    MA 4-:- 14(; photograph       y Victor I)Duran, 1 953

1 1:s2 I

I ROWE]I PLATE 12

UNIV. CALIF. PUBL. AM. ARCH. AND ETHN. VOL. 46

Effigy jar showing a man playing a Panpipe. Site E, Chancay valley, UCMA 4-6762, height,
17 cm. This is one of the most unusual pieces Uhle found at Chancay. It is decorated in three-
color negative. The painter first applied red chevrons in positive technique, then put on a coat
of black paint, reserving rows of circles on the red chevrons; finally, he added another set of
circles in a positively applied white overpaiiit. The piece is undatable in our presenit state of
knowledge; Uhlie assigned it to his "older period" (Interlocking). Photograph by Victor Duran,
1953.

[ 133 ]

[ ROWE I PLATE 13

UNIV. CALIF. PUBL. AM. ARCH. AND ETHN. VOL. 46

"One-man band" from Nazea. One of the most elaborate and peculiar examples of the modeled
style which flourished early in the history of the Nazca sequence. UCMA 4-8481, height 20 cm.;
photographed by Victor Duran, 1953.

[ 134]

[ ROWE I PLATE 14