Commentary – Baradère’s Antiquités mexicaines: the birth of Mexican archaeology and a quid pro quo for the export of ancient Mexican artefacts

The publication of Antiquités Mexicaines (1834–1836) marks the birth of French interest in Mexican archaeology. This luxurious in-folio publication was edited by Jean-Henri Baradère, a French missionary who first embarked for Mexico in 1827 as a representative for an investment company looking to establish a French colony in the Tehuantepec isthmus. He returned to France two years later with an important collection of Mexican antiquities as well as a series of documents and illustrations of ancient Aztec and Mayan antiques he had found in Mexico. Once back, he undertook the editing and publication of Antiquités mexicaines, a monumental compendium of travel accounts and essays on different aspects of ancient American cultures, from North-American Moundbuilders’ architecture to Aztec and Peruvian antiquities. The texts vary wildly in nature and in quality, but Antiquités mexicaines marks a before and an after in European scholarly interest in ancient American cultures and greatly contributed to the multiplication of publications concerning the Americas and the popularization of collecting Pre-Columbian art and antiques.

The most important part of Antiquités mexicaines consists of Guillermo Dupaix’s reports and drawings from the Real Expedicion Anticuaria. These documents are the ones referred to in the certificate of authenticity granted by the Mexican government to Baradère. The expedition was entrusted by king Charles IV of Spain to Guillermo Dupaix (ca. 1750–1817), a captain of the Dragoons of Mexico. The objective of the expedition, conducted between 1805 and 1809, was to document important antiquities in the New Spain territory for the Spanish Crown and to eventually collect them (López Luján et al. 2012, López Luján and Richard 2017). Dupaix was accompanied by a local artist, José Castañeda, who sketched and drew many of the monuments and antiques. Dupaix’s early death in 1817 and the Mexican Independence (1821) interrupted the project, although many of the pieces inventoried by Dupaix were brought to Mexico City in the following years under the new Mexican government (López Luján et al. 2012). The scientific value of the antiques, reports and drawings – which documented in detail several sites and monuments hitherto unknown – was clearly recognized, since they were deposited in the new National Museum, created in 1825. However, the political turmoil at the time makes it difficult to follow their trajectory afterwards. A part of the collection and some of the drawings were sold by Castañeda in public auction to a young French entrepreneur named Latour Allard, who then brought them to Europe and tried to sell them to the Louvre museum (Guimaraes 1996), sparking outrage amongst Mexican elites and resulting in an international investigation of the sale by Tomas Murphy, a representative of the Mexican Republic’s legation in Britain (López Luján et al. 2012).

Aware of the value of the documents and the collection, and of the opportunity they presented to establish himself as one of the first experts in Mexican archaeology, Baradère sought to bring them to France for study and publication. However, legislation from 1829 forbidding the sale and export of national antiquities (Keen 1971, 321) and the recent Latour Allard scandal made it complicated for antiques to leave Mexican territory. Hence Baradère’s careful wording in his introduction, as well as the inclusion of the certificate of authenticity in Antiquités mexicaines. Baradère explains the publication of his work as an important task entrusted to him by the Mexican Government, and presents France as pioneering the study of Mexican antiquity, thus graciously helping Mexico take its place amongst civilized, modern Nations, elevating Mayan and Aztec antiquity to the level of that of Egypt and Greece.

Similarly, Charles-François Farcy (1792–1867), a prominent member of the Société des antiquaires de France, explains how Baradère came across part of the collections and Dupaix’s reports in the Mexican National Museum, where he »exhumed« them from »oblivion« (»Discours préliminaire«, Antiquités mexicaines, p. VI ), further reinforcing the idea that it was thanks to French intervention that the study of Mexican antiquity was now made accessible to the world. In reality, in order to obtain Dupaix’s diaries, drawings and a collection of antiques, Baradère negotiated a mutually advantageous exchange with Isidro Icaza (1783–1834), the first director of the Museo Nacional de Mexico, allowing him to return to Europe with what was arguably the largest collection of Mexican artefacts in Europe at the time (Rapport de la commission […], 1829), as well as Dupaix’s reports and drawings, which would eventually have to be returned to Mexico. Through Icaza, Baradère obtained special permission to explore several Pre-Columbian sites (most notably the Mayan cities of Palenque and Mitla) and take with him half of his finds (Warden 1829, 48). In exchange, he gave the Mexican museum a large collection of stuffed African and Mexican birds and insects (Achim 2011). Icaza’s agreement with Baradère was not one of a kind. The director of the Mexican museum seemed to have been relatively free to personally negotiate exchanges with foreign collectors, as he struck similar deals with J. R. Poinsett, a United States representative in Mexico, and Heinrich Virmond, a German investor with large commercial interests in Acapulco and California (Achim 2011, 218).

Why was Isidro Icaza able to personally negotiate these deals and why was the exchange of source documents and artefacts against a collection of natural specimens considered »mutually advantageous« to both parties? The worth attributed to these artefacts – whether economical or symbolical – was not the same in Mexico and in Europe. If the symbolic importance of having a museum of Mexican antiquities was not questioned by the Mexican authorities, its upkeep was not a priority during the first half of the 19^th century (Achim 2011, 217). Furthermore, the construction of a Mexican identity drawing heavily on its Pre-Columbian past – and consequently, the valorisation of its Aztec and Mayan heritage – would only really develop during the second half of the century (Florescano 2005). The independence of Mexico in 1821 had opened the country’s considerable natural wealth to foreign investment. The political turmoil after the independence, the need to attract foreign capital and president Lopez de Santa Anna’s (1794–1876) desire to present Mexico as a modern and internationally relevant nation-state, help explain why these antiques were traded despite heritage protection laws. On the other hand, European collectors were eager to acquire artefacts from a »forgotten« ancient civilisation, the discovery of which – as indicated in Baradères dedication – showed great scientific promise, as Egypt had a few decades before. For Icaza, the birds and insects he received were a valuable addition to his museum, since the National Museum of Mexico was lacking in exotic natural history collections at a time where these were popular all over Europe (Achim 2011). If Aztec artefacts were relatively commonplace in Mexico, African birds were not.

In this context, the certificate of authenticity ratified by representatives of both governments was needed for two reasons. Firstly, to justify Baradère’s deal with Icaza, which, given the absence of any established institutional protocols for the exchange or sale of national antiquities, was personal in nature. Secondly, it added weight to Dupaix’s reports at a time where European scholars were debating the antiquity of the population of the American continent. Baradère’s intent with his publication was to establish himself as a specialist of Mexican archaeology amongst European antiquaries and scholars; providing proof of the authenticity of the contents of Dupaix’s reports was therefore vital.

Baradère’s carefully worded dedication, the official attestation, as well as a letter from the Mexican President included in the book all justify Baradère’s acquisition of the documents and their translocation to France, simultaneously establishing Baradère’s magnum opus as a scholarly landmark. Several renowned scholars submitted contributions to the work, including an essay by Alexandre Lenoir, curator of the Musée des monuments français, a letter from Romantic author François-René de Chateaubriand and reports from David Baillie Warden and Charles Farcy, both members of the Société royale des Antiquaires de France. While there is no doubt that Baradère’s deal with Icaza made previously unknown sources available to antiquarian research, there is an act of scientific appropriation as a consequence of the translocation of the source documents and drawings. In his introduction, as well as in communications to scholarly societies announcing his project (Baradère 1830, 40), Baradère emphasises France’s central role in the study of American antiquity. It was, after all, a Frenchman who had discovered the precious Dupaix reports, otherwise ignored (and lost) by local authorities. De Santa Anna’s letter seems to further support France’s efforts, recognizing its invaluable contribution to the discovery of Mexico’s past and the overall progress of Science and the Arts. Finally, it is not clear if the original documents were ever returned to Mexico.

Susana Stüssi Garcia is a PhD student at the Ecole Doctorale d’Histoire de l’Art (ED441) at Panthéon Sorbonne University in Paris, working with Dominique Poulot on the reception of pre-Columbian art and antiques in Europe in the 19^th and 20^th centuries.

top