ANDEAN PAST 13 (2022) - 464
When Verrill wrote to the Logan Museum
in 1929, however, it was as someone who col-
lected antiquities for museums, not from them.
In the three decades since the Peabody thefts,
he had established himself as a writer, collector
of ethnographic pieces, and excavator of pre-
Columbian artifacts. His turn to Peru was coeval
with the second presidency (1919–1930) of
Augusto B. Leguía, whose awards of artifacts
and export concessions via executive decree
during his first term (1908–1912) had helped
harden Peruvian legal norms against the excava-
tion and exportation of artifacts by foreigners
(Heaney 2012: 154–156, 185–222). During
Verrill’s initial visit to Peru, between 1924 and
1926, he met Leguía, and enjoyed a grave-
opening expedition outside Lima led by Mar-
shall Saville, of George Heye’s Museum of the
American Indian (Verrill n.d.). In 1929, he
returned with a commission to excavate and
collect for Heye. Leguía accepted Verrill’s
proposal “to collect Peruvian antiquities”, and
directed him to Julio César Tello, the Harvard-
trained director of the first national Museo de
Arqueología (MAP), who had previously collab-
orated with North American anthropologists
like Alfred Kroeber (Peters and Ayarza 2013),
and now met with Verrill as well.
This association later was used to force Tello
from the directorship of his beloved museum. In
1930, after his patron Leguía was overthrown, a
series of articles in the revolutionary newspaper
Libertad leveled several charges against Tello,
one of which was that he had colluded with
Verrill to smuggle seventeen crates of artifacts
out of the port of Callao. Richard Daggett has
characterized this smear campaign as less than
credible. The accuser signed his salacious arti-
cles with pseudonyms and “mixed truth with
half-truths and out-and-out lies, wrapped them
in patriotic rhetoric, and served them up with-
out a hint of supporting documentation”, Dag-
gett concludes. “It was mudslinging pure and
simple” (Daggett 2009:32).
The archives of the LMA, the Penn Mu-
seum, and the Museo Nacional de Arqueología,
Antropología y Historía del Perú (MNAAHP)
provide additional perspectives on the politics of
Verrill’s collecting and selling. During his first
meeting with Tello, on 20 March 1929, Verrill
revealed that one of Tello’s former lieutenants,
Antonio Hurtado, had tried to sell him an
impressive Paracas textile apparently stolen
from the MAP for £2,500, which Tello “imme-
diately proceeded to investigate” (Anonymous
1929–1930); see also Daggett 2009; Peters and
Ayarza 2013). Tello’s gratitude–and Leguía’s
prior recommendation– presumably then led the
Peruvian to permit the American to excavate
and export a collection of artifacts “duplicate”
to those in the MAP.
A week and a half after their first meeting,
Verrill again visited Tello to request permission,
in the name of Heye’s museum, to export “24
huacos and other objects well represented in the
collections of the [MAP].” On 25 April, Tello
requested Verrill’s credentials, and asked that
he submit “to the same rigorous conditions
stipulated to Dr. Kroeber in the identical case”
(ibid.). Verrill seems to have been certain of
approval because on 15 April he had written to
Penn to offer dozens of objects from mostly
coastal prehispanic cultures: Chimú, Nazca, and
Inca. He was in Peru, he explained, and “am in
an unusual position to secure almost anything
that you may require to fill gaps in your collec-
tions, and shall be very glad to try to get what-
ever you want”–apparently on top of what he
was collecting for Heye (15 April 1929).
The Penn Museum was slow to respond.
Verrill was a “very well known amateur anthro-
pologist”, Penn curator J. Alden Mason ob-
served, but “must be dealt with cautiously . . .
from a business point of view” (Mason n.d.) and,
in the interim, Verrill stayed busy. On 28 April,
he and Tello made an excursion to Pachacamac,
and in the weeks following he helped document