The construction of a discourse based on the drawings in the archaeological albums of Manuel Martínez Gracida (Oaxaca, 1910) and Liborio Zerda (Bogota, ca. 1895)

Carolina Vanegas Carrasco [1] and Hiram Villalobos Audiffred [2]

VANEGAS, Carolina; VILLALOBOS, Hiram. The construction of a discourse based on the drawings in the archaeological albums of Manuel Martínez Gracida (Oaxaca, 1910) and Liborio Zerda (Bogota, ca. 1895). 19&20, Rio de Janeiro, v. X, n. 1, jan./jun. 2015. https://www.doi.org/10.52913/19e20.X1.03b [Español]

 *     *     *

1. In April 1887, the Mexican newspaper El Partido Liberal published:

2. El Economista Mexicano, a renowned publication issued in New York, has included an article on how important it is that Latin-American nations give some attention to the ethnological study of the races that populated America before it was colonized by Europeans.[3]

3. Both the historical importance and the novelty of this task were present in the late 19th century to the point of being reviewed in the press. This review emphasizes research carried out by Latin American scholars on prehistoric peoples, differentiating them from both North-Americans and Europeans. It is precisely because of their contributions to the emerging field of archaeology, and especially because of the centrality of images in their investigations, that we are studying and comparing two 19th-century researchers: Colombian Liborio Zerda[4] (1834-1919) and Mexican Manuel Martínez Gracida[5] (1847-1923). Coincidentally, both of them produced iconographic albums that remained unpublished: Zerda’s Antigüedades neogranadinas[6] (Nueva Granada Antiquities) and Martínez Gracida’s[7] Los indios oaxaqueños y sus monumentos arqueológicos (Oaxacan Indians and their archaeological monuments).

4. Zerda’s album consists of 128 prints, watercolours, photographs and press clippings, in a horizontal format that measures 32.2 cm long by 46 cm wide. It has no explicit divisions, although it is possible to identify sections that have been named as follows: 1. Introduction; 2. Heraldry; 3. Archaeological objects; 4. Pictographs and petroglyphs; 5. Comparisons. From Martínez Gracida’s work, we know today 393 plates with drawings, watercolours and two photographs, in a vertical format that measures 45 by 30 cm, all organized in five volumes: ceramics, stone artefacts, metal artefacts, architecture and landscapes, and ethnography.[8] Unlike the Colombian case, each image comes with an explanatory caption.

5. Our analysis does not cover the totality or the complexity of these albums, nor does it discuss the interpretation of the artefacts themselves; instead, it focuses on identifying common models of representation of archaeological objects, as well as on how these pieces were represented in the aforementioned albums. We are interested in thinking about the relationship that these “amateurs”, who had different training backgrounds, had with the objects, since in both cases the investigation had collectionism as a starting point. Their enquiries on the subject did not always lead to textual studies, but to approaches with which visual discourses were produced. In order to think of this relationship, it can be useful to apply the concept of “appropriation” advanced by Arnd Schneider, to whom “this should be evaluated as a hermeneutic procedure - an act of dialogic compression - through which artists and anthropologists negotiated the access to and transfer of cultural differences”.[9] We propose that, through the creation of albums, these two personalities sought to go beyond the simple documentation of the objects and, mainly through drawing, constructed an iconographic discourse that conveyed meaning in their nations.

Scientific networks and the documentation of archaeological objects in the 19th century

6. Our starting point is the relationship between technique and meaning of the archaeological objects represented through at least two models: one resulting from the bookish tradition, and the other, due to the reputation of collectors of “antiques” shared by its members, coming from the intellectual networks of the time, through their contacts with other scientists interested in the subject, international exhibitions and conferences of Americanists.

7. Although Liborio Zerda had been studying and collecting antiques in Colombia since the 1860s, research on the history of archaeology in Colombia[10] emphasizes the influence exerted by the request he received from the National University of Colombia to inform the Ethnological Museum of Berlin about indigenous antiques,[11] by the subsequent visit of the founder and director of the museum, Adolf Bastian (1826-1905), and by the possible contact between them during Bastian’s visit to Colombia from October 1875 to February 1876.[12] Also, one of the pioneers in the historical and anthropological studies on the state of Oaxaca, Martínez Gracida was highly reputed for his numerous manuscripts and publications. Interested in pre-Hispanic cultures, he acquired a variety of archaeological objects and took several field trips, in one of which, in 1895, he met Eduard and Caecile Seler.

8. It is necessary to consider the relationship both between Seler and Martínez Gracida, and between Bastian and Liborio Zerda in their approach to archaeological objects. Although Bastian and Seler shared a “gatherer” methodology, the objects were treated differently. Bastian did not consider them as a particular subject matter, because for him studying America “could be useful in order to have a better understanding of European history”, and because prehispanic cultures lacked written documents: “the “collections” [are] a conditio sine qua non for starting his research”.[13] As Manuela Fisher points out,

9. In a theoretical paper on “Anthropological travels”, Max Uhle expresses with amazement that for Bastian “material culture means nothing” [...] While Uhle’s interests revolved around cultural processes reflected in the material culture, Bastian’s concept of materiality is rooted in the Humboldtian sciences of cataloguing the world.[14]

10. The proof of this is that some of his major books, including Die Kulturländer des alten Amerika (1878-1889) were not illustrated with any archaeological objects. Eduard and Caecile Seler, on the other hand, had a different assessment of the material culture and its documentation through drawing and watercolour in order to clarify chromatic aspects. As Ulf Bankman says,

11. In 1910 Seler had copied the patterns painted on the vases of the Peruvian collections and, based on the theoretical assumption that early pottery would also show a correspondence with subsequent ideological concepts, tried to establish a common ground, finding arguments for this in the moralized Chronicle of the Order of Saint Augustine in Peru, by Fray Antonio de la Calancha (1638). This iconographic approach had consequences for the subsequent research on the Moche culture in Germany.[15]

12. In Mexico, the iconographic research and studies conducted by Seler based on drawings of the motifs on ceramic items and the figures in codices are still taken as a reference by historians and archaeologists. Like other German researchers who travelled to America, he turned his attention to the investigation of the Hispanic cultures based on material culture, using iconographic tools that allowed him to both delve into his investigation and to compare them with one another.

13. A different use of documentation techniques can be seen in the paradigmatic  research of German volcanologists Stübel Alphonse (1835-1904) and Wilhelm Reiss (1838-1908), who arrived in 1868 in Colombia, where they possibly met Liborio Zerda, and began a decade-long expedition in America. They documented their observations by means of photography and drawing, and even hired Rafael Troya in Ecuador to draw landscapes, following the Humboldtian spirit.[16] Reiss and Stübel used photography to make records of some places and landscapes, as well as ethnographic types - inspired, as discussed in other research, on the documentation of types and costumes of the world since the 18th century[17] -; drawing for the detailed documentation of archaeological objects; and watercolour for colour textiles and other items found in the excavations.

14. On the other side of the Atlantic, American William H. Holmes began his work as an artist by drawing specimens for a group of naturalists from the Smithsonian Institution. Over the years, he focused his interest on archaeology and in 1882 he was appointed honorary curator of indigenous pottery at the National Museum of that institution.[18] He illustrated the numerous publications he produced with countless detailed sketches and drawings. Holmes, an artist who drew specimens, landscapes, geological features and sections, as well as patterns and ornaments of different American archaeological objects, shows - besides the fine quality of his own strokes - the general characteristics of such pieces by making outlines, several views and sections, something which Gracida’s and Zerda’s plates did not feature. The absence of this type of presentation excludes abstractions or systematizations of the shapes of the objects. This marks the difference of the meaning or intention of the drawings in these albums, establishing connections with other sorts of works.

15. Many of the aforementioned publications circulated mainly through Americanist conferences and universal exhibitions, in which Zerda’s and Martínez Gracida’s participation has been documented. But it is not only through these international networks that we find models on which the research of our two cases are based; it is also necessary to observe the influence exerted by studies or local publications that preceded them.

16. In the late 1880s, Martínez Gracida worked at the Mexican Society of Geography and Statistics for Antonio Penafiel, who published, amongst others, two lithographic albums: Indumentaria antigua mexicana (Ancient Mexican Clothing), in 1903, and Monumentos del arte mexicano (Monuments of Mexican Art), in 1889, for the Universal Exhibition in Paris. In these publications, many major methodological and iconographic coincidences with the album Los indios oaxaqueños (The Indigenous People from Oaxaca) can be identified. Meanwhile, since the 1850s, Zerda had been in touch with the Colombian philologist Ezequiel Uricoechea (1834-1880), who published, in Berlin, in 1854, the first book referring to these topics in Colombia, entitled Memoria sobre las Antiguedades Neogranadinas (Report on New Granada’s Antiques). In fact, one year after its publication, Uricoechea sent a copy of the work to the Mexican Society of Geography and Statistics (society at which Gracida would work years later) and, as a result, he was appointed honorary member of the Society as from January 3rd, 1856. Uricoechea includes four illustrations of archaeological objects from lithographed drawings and stresses the importance of this medium for documenting the pieces, “I have taken great care to make the original drawings as accurate as possible, and all the plates have been printed under my guidance. One of them, the second one, I printed myself”.[19]

17. Besides this, both of them refer to the monumental work México a través de los siglos[20] (Mexico Throughout the Centuries), an oeuvre whose character is - more than scientific - encyclopaedic for the construction and legitimization of history. We believe that this model was a reference not only for its use of images, but also for the way it constitutes series in order to form sets of objects with which to develop its own curatorial script in the format of an album.

The uses of drawing in Zerda and Martínez Gracida: beyond the archaeological record

18. These researchers, as well as their predecessors and contemporaries, faced the difficulty of studying the past based on its material culture. This is why it was essential to add images to the texts, for, as Zerda said, they were more effective than the descriptions. The centrality of the image corresponded to the one seen in the methodology concerning the study of cultures based on their material remains, for, as we have already seen in the case of Adolf Bastian, there were other approaches in which material culture was restricted to the realm of collectionism. From this perspective, drawing was, for the archaeologist, a tool as important as the chisel or the brush. However, it is valid to look into why and how they used to draw in the last third of the 19th and early 20th centuries, in the midst of the development and usage of photographic documentation.

19. On the whole, photography emerged and was assimilated as a tool that would provide a “reliable”, reproducible and less expensive image of reality than other means of representation could offer - a tool that, in many cases, replaced artists and etchers in producing images for illustrated publications. However, archaeological drawing was not completely displaced by photography. In analysing European and American archaeological investigations of the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, we verified that researchers made use of both tools - drawing and photography - for different purposes.

20. Photography was sometimes used to document objects individually, as a documental record, and later, when the archaeological methodology became more stable, it gained an important function in attesting the discovery, documenting the location, the excavation process and the conditions of archaeological monuments at the moment of their discovery, as well as in cataloguing the objects. Photography was usually used for making wide shots of landscape, tombs or “hidden” ruins, capturing the images of archaeologists and explorers, and for substantiating the accumulation - the quantity - of objects found before they were classified, just as a way to document the whole set of objects stacked next to mounds, in archaeological storehouses or large halls. Drawing, on the other hand, and its transition towards lithography and etching, was used to establish the shapes, the decorative elements, the material, and the technique or technology - the quality - of each of the samples or specimens of selected objects.

21. From this, we can address two issues. The first is concerned with the way these albums were formed. The authors apparently did not hire any photographers, but instead used copies or reproductions printed in books, newspapers, magazines and postcards. Clearly, Zerda and Martínez Gracida had been collecting different etchings and printed media, and in the long process of construction of the albums, they made and commissioned watercolours and copies of the material that interested them. This need of collecting images, and, thus, their models - something that other archaeologists contemporary to them did not do - could tackle the problematic unavailability of objects, located in different places and collections, as well as the difficulty in terms of mobility faced by Martínez Gracida and Zerda. The truth is that the album embodies the idea of bringing together certain objects, like in a curatorial script which only exists in the album, in a clear reference to Malraux’s “Imaginary Museum.”

22. The second issue revolves around the existing tension between, on the one hand, photography’s presentation of naturalism or archaeological drawings with scientific or positivist pretensions, and on the other, the representation of a type of drawing and watercolour which has a different historical and regional intention. Why study pre-Columbian objects? For what purpose? Did it have a purely scientific - archaeological - intention? We can pose several hypotheses based on the gathered visual repertoire.

23. Despite the increase in the use of photography as a tool for archaeological record and as an ideal medium due to its “fidelity” to the original, as Vicente Restrepo’[21] thought, Martínez Gracida and Zerda generally used it as a necessary starting point to copy, colour, detail, make changes in the composition, and even represent what had got lost. That is the case of the photograph Examples of the Bendix Koppel collection [Figure 1] and the watercolour Golden jewellery of the Taironas and the indigenous people of Antioquia [Figure 2], where it can be seen that Zerda used the photograph as a starting point for rearranging sets of objects and for including an exhibition space that differs from the photographic one. First of all, only a few of the pieces in this collection are chosen to be placed next to others which, regardless of their origin, are gathered together based on their shape alone. Secondly, the objects in the photograph of the Koppel collection are on a shield-shaped dark background, which Zerda modified, making it a semi-circular nose ring, which, in turn, contains other nose rings of similar shape. This representation  strategy seems to allude to an imaginary exhibition scheme, which only takes place in the drawing. Likewise, one can see in the photograph and drawing Golden Idol of the indigenous people of Antioquia that Zerda copies the figure apparently only in order to obtain an accurate shade of gold, as we can see when comparing it with Figures of gold and copper taken from the Siecha lagoon wasteland. In other words, the drawing allowed him to adjust the evidence he had gathered from known material remains in a  constructed visual discourse.

24. Martínez Gracida, on the other hand, received drawings and etchings mostly executed by non-academic artists from different regions of the country. In them it is possible to observe not only the process of “improvement” and addition of details on the represented objects [Figure 3 and Figure 4], but also a selection based on the commissioner’s rigorous criteria. Untrained strokes, lines and volumes, and the mastery of perspective were criteria based on which Gracida would come to favour one artist or another when choosing the final plates for the album. As documented in the Official Gazette of the Government of the State of Oaxaca on October 6th, 1890, the publication invited the submission of drawings representing a waterspout in the village of Tututepec, and Martínez Gracida verified “the authenticity of the description and design”[22] of the requested drawings, selecting those to be published in the newspaper. The reconstructions and adjusts made to images according to the ideas of the authors of these albums oscillate among different artistic and scientific languages of the time and constitute ambiguous and unstable models, whose intention does not seem to be merely scientific.

25. Other Latin American historians, such as Ecuadorian Federico Gonzalez Suarez (1844-1917), were devoted to the study of pre-Hispanic cultures based on their material culture. In his Atlas Arqueológico (1892), he points out that this work “is a necessary complement to our first volume of the General History of Ecuador, and contains what could be considered the second part of the first book in which we unveil what it was like in Ecuador before the conquest.”[23] It is the History’s complement, but “both works form a single whole” in order not to be “incomplete or defective”. The aim of this “whole” was to investigate the origin of the Ecuadorian indigenous nations “and their relationship with the other American races [...] studying the remains which are still preserved of the industry and the art of these tribes.”[24] He distinguishes between two civilizations, the Peruvian Quechuas and the “genuine Ecuadorians”, of which the Canaris are a highlight, and he also rebukes the archaeological investigations that have always considered the Incas as more advanced, as if “they had been the only civilization that had existed in these parts of America.”[25]

26. Our authors share this feeling, though. Martínez Gracida, regarding the intellectual predominance of the Aztec and Mayan cultures in the construction of the Mexican nation-state; and Zerda in Colombia, with his research on the Muiscas as a culture to be considered within the American landscape dominated mainly by Incas and Aztecs.[26] They were interested in establishing the connections with the other cultures, not only for reasons of archaeological comparison, but also because of their regional importance: the Muiscas in relation to America as a region, and the Mixtec-Zapotec culture in relation to Mexico as a country.

27. At the end of the 19th century, in some Latin American countries, there was a relationship between the construction of the history of the native peoples of America and the composition of archaeological atlases or albums. Archaeology is the anchor of regional history, and it establishes a connection with “History” through the sources and material objects that were not lost, or that were retrieved. Their comparative approach is clear in the texts in Zerda’s El Dorado (1885), or in Martínez Gracida’s El rey Cosijoeza y su familia[27] (1888). These narratives restore the meaning of images of objects or key events of the local cultures, such as the Baptism of Cosijoeza or the Muisca Raft; foundational sites, like the place where the first mass in Oaxaca was held or the Laguna de Guatavita, a ceremonial site of the Muisca culture; and they even help to understand more complex plates which seem to have been made up by the authors, such as the portrait of King Cosijoeza [Figure 5] or the Muiscan coat of arms [Figura 6]. More than a type of archaeological analysis, the drawings suggest an “intention” of exposing, displaying, demonstrating the historical importance of certain cultures for the construction of national discourses or local identities through their artefacts, their landscape and the representation of their territory.

References

BOTERO, Clara Isabel. El redescubrimiento del pasado prehispánico de Colombia: viajeros, arqueólogos y coleccionistas, 1820-1945. Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano de Antropología e Historia; Universidad de Los Andes, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Centro de Estudios Socioculturales e Internacionales, 2006.

BANKMAN, Ulf. Uhle, Seler, el Museo de Berlín y la arqueología de Perú. In HANFFFSTENGEL, Renata von; Cecilia TERCERO V. Eduard y Caecilie Seler: Sistematización de los estudios americanistas y sus repercusiones. México: UNAM, INAH, 2003.

BROCKMANN, Andreas; STÜTTGEN, Michaela. Tras las huellas: dos viajeros alemanes en tierras latinoamericanas. Bogotá: Banco de la República, 1996.

Etnología. In: El Partido Liberal, México, April 24th 1887.

FISHER, Manuela. Adolf Bastian’s travels in the Americas (1875-1876). Available at: <http://www.academia.edu/1852361/Adolf_Bastian_s_Travels_in_the_Americas_1875-1876>  Access on: 28/09/2013.

_____.  “La misión de Max Uhle para el Museo Real de Etnología en Berlín (1892-1895): Entre las ciencias humboldtianas y la arqueología americana”. Available at: <http://www.academia.edu/1565553/La_mision_de_Max_Uhle_para_el_museo_real_de_Etnologia_en_Berlin_1892-1895_entre_las_ciencias_Humboldtianas_y_la_arqueologia_americana>.  Access on: September 19th 2013.

GONZÁLEZ SUÁREZ, Federico. Historia General de la República del Ecuador. Guayaquil: Publicaciones Educativas Ariel, 1975.

Informe del doctor Zerda sobre antigüedades indígenas, 1873. In: Anales de la Universidad Nacional. Tomo VIII, noviembre 1873, pp. 180 - 186. Available at: <http://www.banrep.gov.co/blaavirtual/letra-d/docpais/dorado.doc>. Access on: September 10th 2013.

MAJLUF, Natalia. Pattern-Book of Nations: Images of Types and Costumes in Asia and Latin America, Ca. 1800-1860. In: MAJLUF, N. (curator). Reproducing Nations: Types and Costumes in Asia and Latin America, Ca. 1800-1860. Nueva York: Americas Society, 2006.   

MARTÍNEZ GRACIDA, Manuel. El rey Cosijoeza y su familia. Oaxaca: Oficina tip. de la Secretaría de fomento, 1888.

MARTÍNEZ GRACIDA, Manuel. Tromba Marina en Periódico Oficial del Estado de Oaxaca, Oaxaca, 6 de octubre de 1890, p. 3.

MELTZER, David J. The archaeology of William Henry Holmes. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992.

RESTREPO, Vicente. Catálogo de los objetos que presenta el Gobierno de Colombia a la Exposición Histórico - Americana de Madrid. Madrid: Est. Tipográfico “Sucesores de Rivadeneira”, 1892.

RIVA PALACIO, Vicente (dir.) México a través de los siglos. México: Ballesca y Comp. Ed / Barcelona: Espasa y Comp. Ed., (5 tomos), 1882-1889.

SCHNEIDER, Arnd. Appropriations. In: SCHNEIDER, Arnd; WRIGHT, Christopher (editors). Contemporary Art and Anthropology. Oxford: Berg, 2006.

URICOECHEA, Ezequiel. Memoria sobre las Antigüedades Neogranadinas. Berlín: Librería de F. Schneider & Cia., 1854.

VANEGAS C., Carolina. La imagen arqueológica en la construcción de la imagen de la nación en Colombia. El álbum Antigüedades neogranadinas de Liborio Zerda. In: Revista Antípoda, no. 12, Bogotá, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Departamento de Arqueología, Universidad de Los Andes, ene- jun, 2011, pp. 113-138. Available at: <http://antipoda.uniandes.edu.co/view.php/179/index.php?id=179>. Acces on: January 1st 2011.

VILLALOBOS A., Hiram. La Refundación de Oaxaca con el entorno de los héroes: Cosijoeza y la imagen del indio. Las ilustraciones de los indios oaxaqueños y sus monumentos arqueológicos de Manuel Martínez Gracida. Academic essay for a Master's Degree in Art History, Mexico, D.F., Faculty of Philosophy and Literature - UNAM, 2011.

ZERDA, Liborio. El Dorado y la conquista de los muzos. Bogotá: Imprenta Silvestre, 1885.

English translation by Elena O´Neill

_________________________

[1] IDAES-UNSAM / GEAP Latin America - UBA.

[2] Postgraduate in Art History - UNAM, Mexico.

[3] Etnología. In: El Partido Liberal, Mexico, April 24th, 1887

[4] Liborio Zerda practiced medicine from 1853 to 1858 and then devoted himself to teaching in the areas of organic chemistry, medical physics and geology. He was the co-founder of the Caldas Society in 1855 and the Society of Nueva Granada Naturalists in 1859, as well as the Private Medical School in 1865. Between 1892 and 1895 he worked as Minister of Education. Honorary member and Fellow of the Language and History Academies of Colombia, he was also member of the History Academy of Madrid and the Ethnological Society of Berlin.

[5] Manuel Martínez Gracida was born in Ejutla de Crespo, in the state of Oaxaca, Mexico, in 1847. He was a prolific intellectual who dedicated countless texts on the history, archaeology, myths, legends, toponyms, etc., of Oaxaca. As a regular employee of Porfirio Diaz (1876-1910), he had the administrative, political and material resources to carry out many of his investigations. He died in 1923. Many of his writings remained unpublished. His files are held in the Hall of Oaxacan Affairs of the Central Public Library of Oaxaca.

[6] This album has been in the National Museum of Colombia since 1922. It remained in a box, unclassified, in the Documentation Centre of the institution until 2003, when it was found and classified by the co-author of this text and relocated and incorporated into the collection, documented as 4828. Cf. VANEGAS C., Carolina. La imagen arqueológica en la construcción de la imagen de la nación en Colombia. El álbum Antigüedades neogranadinas de Liborio Zerda. In: Revista Antípoda, n. 12, Bogota, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Archaeology, University of Los Andes, Jan- Jun, 2011, pp. 113-138. Available at: <http://antipoda.uniandes.edu.co/view.php/179/index.php?id=179>. Accessed on: January 10th, 2011.

[7] Cfr. VILLALOBOS A., Hiram. La Refundación de Oaxaca con el entorno de los héroes: Cosijoeza y la imagen del indio. Las ilustraciones de los indios oaxaqueños y sus monumentos arqueológicos de Manuel Martínez Gracida. Academic essay for a Master's Degree in Art History, Mexico, D.F., Faculty of Philosophy and Literature - UNAM, 2011.

[8] While traveling through different collections, the first volume, with more than 100 plates, was lost.

[9] SCHNEIDER, Arnd. Appropriations. In: SCHNEIDER, Arnd; WRIGHT, Christopher (eds.). Contemporary Art and Anthropology. Oxford: Berg, 2006, p. 36.

[10] BOTERO, Clara Isabel. El redescubrimiento del pasado prehispánico de Colombia: viajeros, arqueólogos y coleccionistas, 1820-1945. Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano de Antropología e Historia; Universidad de Los Andes, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Centro de Estudios Socioculturales e Internacionales, 2006.

[11] Dr. Zerda’s report on indigenous antiques, 1873. In: Anales de la Universidad Nacional. Tomo VIII, noviembre 1873, pp. 180 - 186. Available at: <http://www.banrep.gov.co/blaavirtual/letra-d/docpais/dorado.doc>. Accessed on September 10th, 2013.

[12] In order to see Bastian’s itinerary in America, see FISHER, Manuela. Adolf Bastian’s travels in the Americas (1875-1876). Available at: <http://www.academia.edu/1852361/Adolf_Bastian_s_Travels_in_the_Americas_1875-1876>. Access on September 28th 2013.

[13] Quoted by FISHER, Manuela. “La misión de Max Uhle para el Museo Real de Etnología en Berlín (1892-1895): Entre las ciencias humboldtianas y la arqueología americana”. Available at: <http://www.academia.edu/1565553/La_mision_de_Max_Uhle_para_el_museo_real_de_Etnologia_en_Berlin_1892-1895_entre_las_ciencias_Humboldtianas_y_la_arqueologia_americana>. Access on: September 19th 2013.

[14] Ibidem.

[15] BANKMAN, Ulf. Uhle, Seler, el Museo de Berlín y la arqueología de Perú, In: HANFFFSTENGEL, Renata von; TERCERO, V. Cecilia. Eduard y Caecilie Seler: Sistematización de los estudios americanistas y sus repercusiones. México: UNAM, INAH, 2003, p. 245.

[16] See BROCKMANN, Andreas; STÜTTGEN, Michaela. Tras las huellas: dos viajeros alemanes en tierras latinoamericanas. Bogotá: Banco de la República, 1996.

[17] See MAJLUF, Natalia. Pattern-Book of Nations: Images of Types and Costumes in Asia and Latin America, Ca. 1800-1860. In: MAJLUF, N. (curator). Reproducing Nations: Types and Costumes in Asia and Latin America, Ca. 1800-1860. Nueva York: Americas Society, 2006.   

[18] See MELTZER, David J. The archaeology of William Henry Holmes. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992.

[19] URICOECHEA, Ezequiel. Memoria sobre las Antigüedades Neogranadinas. Berlin: Librería de F. Schneider & Cia., 1854.

[20] RIVA PALACIO, Vicente (dir.) México a través de los siglos. México: Ballesca y Comp. Ed / Barcelona: Espasa y Comp. Ed., (5 tomos), 1882-1889.

[21] Vicente Restrepo was entrusted with the shipping of Colombian archaeological objects and photo albums to the Exhibition in Madrid in 1892. RESTREPO, Vicente. Catálogo de los objetos que presenta el Gobierno de Colombia a la Exposición Histórico - Americana de Madrid. Madrid: Est. Tipográfico “Sucesores de Rivadeneira”, 1892.

[22] MARTÍNEZ GRACIDA, Manuel. Tromba Marina. In: Periódico Oficial del Estado de Oaxaca, Oaxaca, 6 de octubre de 1890, p. 3.

[23] GONZÁLEZ SUÁREZ, Federico. Historia General de la República del Ecuador. Guayaquil: Publicaciones Educativas Ariel, 1975, p. 9.

[24] Ibidem, p. 10.

[25] Ibidem, p. 16.

[26] ZERDA, Liborio. El Dorado y la conquista de los muzos. Bogotá: Imprenta Silvestre, 1885.

[27] MARTÍNEZ GRACIDA, Manuel. El rey Cosijoeza y su familia. Oaxaca: Oficina tip. de la Secretaría de fomento, 1888.