Print

In 1924, Council appointed an India Research Committee ‘of which the function will be to afford a meeting-place for discussion among those in this country who are interested in the study of Indian ethnology, archaeology, folk-lore, and religions, to co-operate with workers resident in India....’. Publication of the Indian Antiquary was taken over from the proprietor and editor, Sir Richard Temple, as a means of furthering its work and preserving a record of its proceedings. The editors were Sir Richard Temple, CB, CIE, FBA, FSA, S.M. Edwardes, CSI, CVO and Professor S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar (Indian editor). See also A114/5. H.J.E. Peake was appointed Chairman and F.J. Richards as Secretary of the Committee. See ‘Report of the Council for the year 1924’, JRAI, Vol. 55, 1925, pp. 4-5.

Man, Vol. 30, Oct. 1930 was a special India Number collected by members of the Committee.

The archive also contains papers (mostly 1931) relating to a proposed Indian or Oriental Museum, later envisaged as part of a larger Indian Institute; and papers relating to the Joint Committee on Cultural Relations with India, 1945-48.

 1/    India Research Committee; the Indian Antiquary

  1    India Research Committee, Minutes. 18 Mar. 1931 - 6 July 1932 (minute book)

  2    Agenda for meeting 22 June 1938 (tpc.)

  3    Sir Richard Temple, 1921 – ‘Fifty Years of “The Indian Antiquary”’. 8 pages (printed pamphlet)

  4    R.C. Temple, R.E. Enthoven, S.M. Edwardes, [1924] – ‘The Indian Antiquary’. 3 pages (printed leaflet)

  5    E.N. Fallaize, RAI Hon. Secretary 1920-31, to F.J. Richards, 19 July 1923 – has had his memo typed and returns it [not held]; on the Indian Antiquary and Man in India; on the ‘Bureau Scheme’; on establishing two committees, one for India and one for Africa (autogr.)

  6    R.C. Temple to E.N. Fallaize, 30 Nov. – formed the Indian Antiquary into a small private company; proposed to form an Indian Society of Antiquaries, with the Indian Antiquary as its journal; on ways of raising funds; he is going away so has passed Fallaize’s letter [not held] to his co-editor S.M. Edwardes who might go into ‘scheme’; encloses some literature [possibly A26/1/3, A26/1/4] (autogr.)

  7    ‘A Summary of the Discussions of the Anthropological Section, Indian Science Congress, Bangalore, January, 1924’. 4 pages (printed)

  8    F.J. Richards, Madras, to E.N. Fallaize, 28 Feb. 1924 – refers to meeting in Madras; on attempts to establish a branch of the RAI in India; the difficulties; on some of the people involved (autogr.)

  9    E.N. Fallaize to F.J. Richards, 21 May 1924 – on a meeting about the Indian Antiquary with Edwardes and Enthoven (tpc.)

.10    R.C. Temple to E.N. Fallaize, 15 June – shall be glad to do what he can for new Committee of Management; on RAI taking over the Indian Antiquary from Jan. 1925; solicitors will have to be involved; on his literary work; on his health (autogr.)

 11    S.M. Edwardes to ibid., 10 Jan. 1925 – is posting advertisements of RAI publications to Miller of British India Press, who prints and publishes the Indian Antiquary; on exchanges of publications with other institutions; is trying to get a list (autogr.)

 12    E.N. Fallaize, 12 Jan. – notice for Nature, describing how the Indian Antiquary has been transferred to RAI from 1 Jan.; Council of RAI has authorised formation of an Indian Section of the Institute; the Indian Antiquary will be the official publication of this section (tpc.)

 13    nd – document relating to Agreement that publication of the Indian Antiquary should be transferred to the RAI (tpc.)

 14    S.M. Edwardes to E.N. Fallaize, 14 Jan. – wrote to [Sir Richard] Temple about reviewing of books in the Indian Antiquary; quotes from his reply; RAI Library is welcome to the books sent to him; on arrangements for receiving books for review and then sending them to RAI; he suggests the Indian editor be allowed to keep books received by him; refers to Fallaize’s letter of 2 Jan. [not held]. 2 leaves (autogr.)

 15    Ibid., 1 Feb. – on publishing a bibliography of Indian periodicals; this could be done as long as it did not increase the size of the journal, to keep costs down; on his book ‘Crime in India’ (autogr.)

 16    Dr H.R Hall, British Museum (BM), to ibid., 14 Feb. – ‘will write it with pleasure’ (autogr. pc)

 17    Ibid. – encloses stamp for pc sent unstamped (autogr.)

 18    E.N. Fallaize to Dr H.R Hall, 16 Feb. – returns stamp, as BM stamped the pc; will send copy of Frankfort’s paper for review (tpc.)

 19    Ibid. to S.M. Edwardes, 27 Feb. 1925 – thanks him for letter of 25 Feb. [not held] with list of free and exchange copies of the Indian Antiquary; makes some changes to the list (tpc.)

 2/    Correspondence relating to plans for an Indian/Oriental Museum/Institute, 1927-31

  1    K.M. Martindell, Assistant Secretary, RAI, to Prof. J.L. Myres (JLM), 15 Nov. 1927 – refers to Indian Committee of RAI approaching Royal Commission on Museums regarding an Indian Archaeological Museum; encloses circular [A26/2/1.1]; asks him to send his views on this to Kenneth de Burgh Codrington (KdeBC) of the Victoria and Albert Museum (V and A) (tp.)

.1    nd, ‘Notes on the Present Collection of Indian Objects in the Public Museums’ [enclosed with A26/2/1]. 3 leaves (tp. draft)

  2    Charles Reed Peers, Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings, to JLM, 30 Nov. – has read ‘the enclosed’ [possibly A26/2/1.1] with interest; mentions Museum Commissioners; on the BM (autogr.)

  3    E.V. Fleming to The Observer, 10 Dec. 1930 – on the lack of teaching on Indian subjects in universities in this country, apart from some study of Indian languages at the School of Oriental Studies; the importance of knowledge of Indian history and Indian anthropology. 2 leaves (tp. draft with autogr. notes by KdeBC)

  4    C.G. Seligman, RAI President 1923-25, Chair, India Research Committee, RAI, to The Observer, 21 Dec. – on Indian studies in England; on the activities of the RAI in this sphere, notably its responsibility for the Indian Antiquary and the formation of the India Research Committee; on other research undertaken on India. 3 leaves (newspaper cutting attached to tp. draft). Other cuttings on the same subject [also attached to the draft] from E. Denison Ross, Director, School of Oriental Studies, pressing claims of his School as centre for Indian studies; F.J. Richards; and William Maxwell Batten

  5    KdeBC to The Observer, Jan. 1931 – on Indian studies in England; A.M. Hocart to ibid. (newspaper cuttings)

  6    Edward Thompson to The Observer, 4 Jan. – on ibid.; A. Lloyd James, M. Deva to ibid. (newspaper cuttings)

  7    S.F. Markham [Secretary of Museums Association and MP] and KdeBC to Lt.-Gen. Sir George Fletcher MacMunn, 9 Jan. – enclose letter which they propose to send to The Times; ask if he might sign; lists those who are also being approached, some of whom have promised signatures (tp. with autogr. notes)

  8    Ibid. to JLM (tp. with JLM autogr. notes, including ‘for RAI Council 13/1/31’); [attached:] KdeBC to [JLM?], nd – on the ‘little brawl’ in The Observer [see A26/2/4 & 5] (autogr.)

  9    nd – draft letter to The Times [enclosed with A26/2/7]; on the case for at least one Chair of Indian Cultural Studies in England; reasons; details of the teaching proposed; London would be the proper place for such teaching (tp. with autogr. notes)

 10    JLM to ‘Martin’, 10 Jan. – encloses papers about Indian project [probably A26/2/7 & A26/2/9]; the covering letter implies that some of the names are signatories (autogr. copy)

 11    Prof. F.W. Thomas to M.E. Sadler, Master, University College, Oxford, 10 Jan. [wrongly dated 1930] – subject of proposed professorship seems to him a ‘monstrosity’; any one subject would provide full employment for professor or professors; suggests ways of improving the project (autogr.)

 12    C.W.C. Oman to M.E. Sadler, 11 Jan. – his letter [not held] a ‘surprise’; he [Oman] had not backed proposal for a ‘cultural’ Indian professorship; names have been used without leave (autogr.)

 13    M.E. Sadler to JLM, 12 Jan. – returns his copy of letter from S.F. Markham and KdeBC [A26/2/9], and reply [A26/2/14]; refers to Prof. Thomas’ letter [A26/2/11]; encloses Oman’s letter [A26/2/12] (tp.)

 14    Ibid. to S.F. Markham, ibid. – has considered the plan proposed in his draft letter to The Times; while agreeing with the purpose of encouraging Indian cultural studies, hopes he will reconsider form and details; what he aims at will need more than one professor; work of a new Institute should be linked to study of Sanscrit and other languages; Institute should be federal in its connection with other universities; cannot sign the draft in its present form. 2 leaves (tpc.)

 15    S.F. Markham and KdeBC to RAI Council[?], nd – lists those who have signed letter to The Times (tp. with JLM autogr. notes, including ‘received at RAI Council … 13/1/31’)

 16    JLM to the Vice Chancellor [Frederick Homes Dudden], 14 Jan. 1931 – Sir Michael Sadler has asked him to explain the position as to the Chair of Indian Cultures; prime movers of the scheme are KdeBC and S.F. Markham; refers to E. Denison Ross’s letter to The Observer [A26/2/4]; KdeBC and Markham wish to send many-signatoried letter to The Times, of which he encloses a draft [A26/2/9]; his own and Sadler’s reservations about this; they believe reference to London ‘impolitic’; the alternative policy would be to work towards a national British Institute of Indian Studies, on a larger scale; JLM laid draft letter before RAI Council, which referred to project to the Joint Committee for Anthropological Research and Teaching (JCART – see also A58);on the composition of this Committee; is not intending to sign the letter unless the interests of Oxford and universities in general are safeguarded. 4 pages (autogr. copy)

 17    Sir Michael Sadler to KdeBC, 15 Jan. – conditions upon which his signature of letter to The Times depends (copy of telegram)

 18    George W. Beesley, Vice Chancellor’s Secretary, to JLM, ibid. – Vice Chancellor agrees on desirability of an Institute and omission of ‘London’ from the letter to The Times (tp.)

 19    Henry Balfour, Atul C. Chatterjee, W.G. Constable, George F. Hill, Eric Maclagan, George MacMunn, Ellis H. Minns, W. Ormsby-Gore, William Rothenstein, C.G. Seligman & Gilbert T. Walker, 17 Jan., to The Times – on ‘A Chair of Indian Culture’ [final version of A26/2/9] (newspaper cutting)

 20    JLM to the Editor, The Times, 23 Jan. – in regard to letter published ‘today’ [A26/2/19] he writes for information, not for publication; on his own and others’ reluctance to sign earlier draft; on the points at issue; the alternative would be a larger scheme; on RAI referring the project to JCART; further details on the history of the project; encloses draft letter on larger scheme, for publication if required. 4 pages (autogr. copy)

.1    Ibid., nd – draft letter for publication if required [enclosed with A26/2/20]; the need for a National Institute; on RAI referring the project to JCART (autogr. copy)

 21    Editor’s Secretary, The Times, to JLM, 26 Jan. – Editor has noted what JLM said in his private communication (tp.)

 22    The Times, 29 Jan. – article on ‘Central Museum of Asiatic Art’, advocated by meeting of the India Society (reprint)

 23    Times Educational Supplement, 31 Jan. – article on Chair of Indian Culture, in response to letter published on 23 Jan. (newspaper cutting)

 24    K.N. Haksar to The Times, 2 Feb. 1931; [the Marquess of] Zetland & Francis Younghusband, the India Society, to The Times, 3 Feb. – on the proposal for a Central Museum of Asiatic Art (reprints)

 25    KdeBC[?] to The Times, nd – response to letter from K.N. Haksar, and the Marquess of Zetland & Francis Younghusband [A26/2/24]; necessity to study the arts of Asia; capital outlay would be limited to providing a building; people are urged to consider the proposals. 3 leaves (tp.)

 26    F.J.P. Richter, Secretary, the India Society, to JLM, 5 Feb. – on his suggestion that the India Society be represented on JCART; thinks it an excellent idea (autogr.)

 27    KdeBC to JLM, 6 Feb. – encloses first draft of letter to The Times [possibly A26/2/25]; assumes that Sir Michael Sadler meant the Indian Institute at Oxford when he said that an Institute was necessary; on lack of material and Indian students’ quota at Oxford; on need to avoid being absorbed into general Oriental art museum or the V and A; ‘fears’ the School of Oriental Studies; UCL has the Edwards Library and the right tradition (autogr.)

 28     KdeBC to Prof. C.G. Seligman, 7 Feb. – on proposals by the India Society, A.V. Pope and Kuhnel to found an Oriental Art Museum in London; three points should be made: the problem of space; the V and A fine art objects and their technological collections; the Imperial issue must be stated boldly; the RAI should take an interest in combatting a proposal to ‘sell anthropology to the art quacks’; asks RAI to make a statement; on the position of the V and A. 2 leaves (tpc.)

 29    JLM to KdeBC, 9 Feb. – response to letter of 6 Feb. [A26/2/27]; on Indian Institute at Oxford; his view is that a single Chair will not suffice; on the characteristics of a proposed Institute; is waiting for a draft from KdeBC or the Indian Section to put before the JCART; this should start from Royal Commission report; Sadler fears that starting on narrow lines there would be a risk of ‘Balkanization’; asks for KdeBC’s opinions. 3 pages (autogr. copy)

 30    Ibid. to C.G. Seligman, Philip Hartog, 11 Feb. – on the project for an Indian Art Museum; such a museum would include technological objects; presumes that both V and A and BM would hand over items to the museum; what is required is an Institute rather than a collection; its constitution should be linked with other establishments; a single chair is insufficient but might be a valuable ‘prospecting and acquiring instrument’. 2 leaves (autogr.)

 31    F.J.P Richter to JLM, 17 Feb. 1931 – encloses offprints of letters to The Times [possibly A26/2/24]; a joint letter to The Times is proposed; asks whether JLM will sign on behalf of RAI; encloses draft of this letter [possibly A26/2/25] (autogr.)

 32    C.G. Seligman to ibid., 20 Feb. – refers to the proposed letter to The Times and the previous letters published in The Times [A26/2/24 & A26/2/25]; refers to sentences in the draft letter which he has marked; [Allen] Mawer, Provost of [London] University, not prepared to put up money for a lectureship on South Indian Studies at University College; Philip Hartog wrong in thinking that proposed Museum would be attached to Courtauld gift; suggests JLM draws up ‘some scheme’ (tp.)

 33    JLM to F.J.P Richter, 2 Mar. – apologises for delay in replying to his two letters [A26/2/26 & A26/2/31]; the ‘Indian matter’ has turned out to be complicated; RAI Council keenly interested in proper management and use of Oriental collections; RAI primarily concerned with the ethnographical and technological aspect; RAI would wish to be sure that the proposed Museum would do justice to Indian craftsmanship; RAI had referred question of provision for study of Indian culture to JCART, which will meet in Mar., perhaps too late to sign the draft letter; has prepared a memorandum for JCART; as regards the draft letter, is in close agreement in following lines of the Royal Commission Report but takes other points of view besides the aesthetic into account (autogr. copy)

 34    C.G. Seligman to JLM, 6 Mar. – gives his comments on the draft memorandum to JCART [referred to in A26/2/33]; queries JLM’s statement that Indian cultures are most amply represented in museums; on Hunt’s collections from Hyderabad; on the confusion between a Museum of Oriental Art and a Museum of Far Eastern Art. 2 leaves (tp.)

 35    JLM to C.G. Seligman, 7 Mar. – thanks him for the trouble he is taking; has spoken with Prof. F.W. Thomas about Indian Antiquary and other Indian matters; suggests they meet; on the relation between Indian and Far Eastern ‘things’ (autogr. copy)

 36    C.G. Seligman to JLM, 9 Mar. – would like to meet Prof. Thomas; on dates; on relations of Indian and Chinese art (tp.)

 37    ‘National provision for the study of Indian and other Oriental cultures’ by JLM. Man, Apr. 1931, - memorandum by JLM to the Joint Committee, 10 Mar. 1931 [final version of draft mentioned in A26/2/33] (offprint) [see also A58/2/14/2]

 38    Lord Willingdon and Lord D’Abernon to The Times, 11 Mar. 1931 – on a central Museum for Asiatic Art in London (newspaper cutting)

 39    The Times editorial, 11 Mar. – ibid.; refers to letter of Lord Willingdon and Lord D’Abernon (newspaper cutting)

 40    KdeBC to C.G. Seligman, 11 Mar. – encloses copy of letter in The Times [probably A26/2/38]; thinks the idea of an Oriental Museum should be defined; encloses draft letter to The Times [A26/2/41]; on other letters published recently in newspapers; thinks it is ‘an Ind. Res. Com. matter’ (autogr.)

 41    [KdeBC] to The Times, nd – refers to letter of Lord Willingdon and Lord D’Abernon; believes there is confusion between an Art Museum and a Museum of Oriental Antiquities; on the importance of ethnological and technological material; neither V and A nor BM cover these adequately; archaeology and anthropology cannot be neglected. 2 leaves (autogr. draft)

 42    JLM to Lord D’Abernon , 13 Mar. – refers to his letter to The Times [A26/2/38]; informs him of the interest which the RAI takes in the proposed Museum; encloses papers drawn up for JCART [memorandum later published as A26/2/37]; asks if he might attend the meeting of JCART (autogr. copy)

 43    Ibid. to Lord Willingdon, ibid., ibid. (autogr. copy)

.1    JLM, nd – list of those to whom papers were also sent  (autogr. note)

 44    Ibid. to KdeBC, 14 Mar. – on various letters to newspapers; encloses papers for JCART meeting [memorandum later published as A26/2/37]; invites him to attend; was ‘in the dark’ about what KdeBC wanted Committee to do about Indian Antiquary; has seen KdeBC’s draft letter to The Times [A26/2/41]; hopes he will wait until after the meeting before sending it (autogr. copy)

 45    Ibid. to the Editor, The Times, ibid. – refers to his letter of 23 Jan. [A26/2/20] and to letter from Lord Willingdon and Lord D’Abernon [A26/2/38]; encloses papers for meeting of JCART [memorandum later published as A26/2/37]; hopes that the meeting will authorize the publication of a formal statement; if so, he will inform him; thinks it might be useful to publish a retrospect of the history of the Indian Institute at Oxford (autogr. copy)

 46    Michael Sadler to JLM, ibid. – his memorandum [later published as A26/2/37] ‘first rate’; suggests some names for Indian Institute research (autogr.)

 47    F.G. Parsons to ibid., 14 Mar. 1931 – regrets that he cannot attend meeting; has no hesitation in supporting the resolutions (tp.)

 48    C.S Myers, Institute of Industrial Psychology, to ibid., ibid. – regrets that he cannot attend meeting; the idea of an Oriental Institute commends itself to him (autogr.)

 49    Lord D’Abernon to ibid., ibid. – regrets that he cannot attend meeting (tp.)

 50    Lord Willingdon’s private secretary to ibid., 16 Mar. – regrets he is unable to attend meeting (autogr.); [attached to this are:] Sir William Beveridge to ibid., 3 Mar. – ibid.; H.J. Fleure to ibid., 6 Mar. – ibid.; Prof. F.W. Thomas to ibid., 11 Mar. – has not found an account of the deputation to the Secretary of State concerning an Indian Museum; will make a further inquiry (autogr.)

 51    Prof. Edward Fawcett, University of Bristol, to ibid., ibid. – sorry that he is unable to attend meeting (tp.)

 52    Prof. J.C. Brash, University of Birmingham, to ibid., ibid. – ibid.; is in agreement with the resolutions (tp.)

 53    George F. Hill, Director & Principal Librarian, BM, to ibid., ibid. – thanks him for memorandum [later published as A26/2/37]; will authorize H.J. Braunholtz to attend; agrees with what JLM says; time is ripe for a re-arrangement of Oriental Collections of London (tp.)

 54    16 Mar. – comments on proposed Oriental Institute from R.R. Marett (autogr.); H.J. Fleure (autogr.) and C. Daryll Forde (tp.)

 55    JLM to the Editor, The Times, 17 Mar. – encloses a note on the meeting of JCART, to which his letter and enclosures of 14 Mar. [A26/2/45]; printed memorandum, to be published in Man in Apr. [A26/2/37], is at the Editor’s disposal; refers to published account of the Indian Institute at Oxford (autogr. copy)

.1    JLM, ibid. – ‘The Study of Indian and other Oriental Cultures’, for The Times [enclosed with A26/2/55] (autogr. copy)

.2    17 Mar. - ‘The Study of Indian and other Oriental Cultures’, [resolution] B (extract from Minutes of meeting of JCART: see A58/2/13/3 for full Minutes) [enclosed with A26/2/55. See A26/2/61 for the letter as it appeared in The Times, 19 Mar.] (tpc.)

 56    John de la Valette, the India Society, to JLM, 17 Mar. – with reference to the meeting, it will be three or four weeks before the matter can be placed before the Council of the India Society (tp.)

 57    KdeBC to ibid., 17 Mar. 1931 – on a misunderstanding relating to an Oriental Institute or an Indian Institute; had assumed that the matter would be referred to RAI’s India Research Committee; had been told that there was no mention of his draft letter to The Times [probably A26/2/9] in the RAI minutes; mentions similar cases where important points were sidelined; does not think JLM’s memorandum presses the urgency of the situation sufficiently; refers to Gregory’s support of the anthropological aspect in Nature between Nov. and Feb.; RAI must declare its policy; suggests a meeting (autogr.)

 58    Reginald Blomfield, Weston Jarvis, Lord Lamington, William Llewellyn, J.A. Milne, E. Denison Ross, William Rothenstein, John de la Valette, Arnold Wilson & Robert Witt to The Times, 18 Mar. – on Oriental Art; referring to previous letters to The Times [A26/2/24]; intensive study of the art of Asia as a whole is necessary; quotes from Laurence Binyon’s evidence before the Royal Commission (newspaper cutting)

 59    JLM to Robert Witt, 18 Mar. – in response to letter in The Times [A26/2/58]; encloses papers, including resolution B [A26/2/55.2]; a strong committee has been appointed; asks who else ‘in your group’ might join the committee (autogr. copy)

 60    Ibid. to KdeBC, ibid. – answers points in his letter of 17 Mar. [A26/2/57]; on letter to The Times [probably A26/2/9] which JLM did not sign; the ‘Indian problem’ was part of the general question of Oriental Studies; reads Nature most weeks but has missed the articles on Indian matters; RAI Council will have report of JCART on 24 Mar.; asks what KdeBC wants to discuss, and where (autogr. copy)

 61    19 Mar. – article in The Times ‘Oriental Art and Antiquities – Movement for a Central Institute [published version of A26/2/55.1 & A26/2/55.2] (newspaper cutting)

 62    JLM, 20 Mar. – circular letter inviting recipients to join a Committee to examine and report on projects for study of Oriental peoples and cultures; second paragraph inviting recipients to nominate people for this Committee (autogr. draft)

 63    Ibid. to Prof. F.W. Thomas, 20 Mar. – encloses formal invitation to join Committee whose object is to bring together various groups interested in study of Indian Cultures; meeting [of JCART] on 17 Mar. went well, with an ‘especially good letter’ from G.F. Hill [A26/2/53]; has had friendly letter from Sir Edward Maclagan about the Indian Antiquary; on relation between RAI and Royal Asiatic Society (RAS) regarding journals; on the printed account of the Indian Institute at Oxford (autogr. copy)

 64    Ibid. to F.J.P. Richter, 20 Mar. 1931 – encloses formal invitation to the India Society to nominate a member to the Committee constituted to bring together various groups interested in an Oriental Museum or Institute; the death of Sir Richard Templeman does not pose a risk to the Indian Antiquary; on co-operation with the RAS (autogr. copy)

 65    Robert Witt to JLM, ibid. – thanks him for letter and enclosures [A26/2/59]; suggests G.F. Hill and Arnold Wilson (tp.)

 66    G.F. Hill to ibid., 23 Mar. – will ask Trustees of BM to nominate a representative (autogr.)

 67    William Rothenstein, Principal, Royal College of Art 1920-35, to ibid., ibid. – if Committee only necessitates meeting once or twice a year he will accept invitation (tp.)

 68    Lord D’Abernon to ibid., ibid. – is in harmony with JLM’s views regarding study of Oriental peoples but cannot accept invitation (tp.)

 69    T.C. Hodson to ibid., ibid. – would like to know more about the projects of the Committee before deciding whether to accept the invitation(tp.)

 70    Lord Willingdon to ibid., ibid. – while anxious to forward matters connected with the culture of the Orient, declines the invitation as he will be in India for the next few years (tp.)

 71    N.P. Brooke, Establishment Secretary, University of London, South Kensington, to ibid., ibid. – acknowledges letter of 20 Mar. [draft at A26/2/62]; Committee concerned does not meet until May, so there will be a delay in his reply (tp. with autogr. note by JLM)

 72    E. Denison Ross to ibid., ibid. – as his institution covers the culture of the whole of Asia and Africa, it is very difficult to nominate one member in particular to JCART; there are three main branches, namely the Far East, India, and the Muslim World; asks which field would be most usefully represented (tp.)

 73    Eric Maclagan, V and A, to ibid., ibid. – is replying informally to his letter about JCART; he has talked it over with Campbell, the Keeper of the India Museum; both feel that Codrington should be appointed, although both he and Campbell would be willing; thanks him for reprint from Man [A26/2/37]; on the provenance of items in the Indian Section of the V and A; would like to talk to JLM as the project concerns the V and A (tp.)

 74    JLM to E Denison Ross, 25 Mar. 1931 – in response to his enquiry of 24 Mar. relating to representative on JCART [A26/2/72]; he does not think it matters very much, so long as the spokesman can give the general view of the School; the matters to be discussed are widely different; members could be nominated ad hoc; for the Committee relating to Oriental Art perhaps a representative of Indian archaeology would be most helpful (autogr. copy)

 75    Ibid. to T.C. Hodson, ibid. – thanks him for letter about JCART [A26/2/69]; his name was suggested as he teaches on Oriental subjects at Cambridge; the project for a national institution intended to have concurrence of all existing centres of Oriental studies; sends a copy of his memorandum [A26/2/37] (autogr. copy); [attached:] T.C. Hodson to JLM, ibid. – thanks him for letter and enclosure; on his teaching; has approval of Prof. Minns of Faculty of Archaeology to accept the invitation (tp.)

 76    JLM to Eric Maclagan, 27 Mar. – in response to his letter about the Indian sub-committee [A26/2/73]; Codrington has already been helpful and will do what is required; asks if he might invite Maclagan or Campbell ad hoc should questions of general policy arise; will soon send him an invitation to nominate a member of JCART itself; representative of the V and A would have been invited when the Committee was set up, but he cannot discover who was nominated; suggests someone able to speak for the Museum on general policy (autogr. copy)

 77    F.W. Thomas to JLM, 28 Mar. – is pleased to accept the invitation to join Committee on Oriental peoples and cultures; on the printed report on the foundation of the Indian Institute at Oxford; on the Indian Antiquary; welcomes the possibility of its being supported jointly by RAI and RAS (autogr.) [attached:] ibid., 16 Mar. – has ascertained that the project of an Indian Museum was discusses at a meeting of the Royal Society of Arts on 14 Jan. 1914; previous approaches made to the Education Dept.; has not been able to see reports of these; is sending a copy of the official Record of the Establishment of the Indian Museum; is sorry that he cannot attend JCART meeting on 17 Mar.; agrees with his views on the desirability of an Oriental Institute; overlapping with the School of Oriental Studies in London must be avoided; on necessity of a Museum as an integral part of such an Institute (autogr.)

 78    E. Denison Ross to ibid., 30 Mar. – in view of JLM’s letter of 25 Mar. [A26/2/74] he is inclined to nominate himself, as he knows the policy of the School (tp.)

 79    Eric Maclagan to ibid., 31 Mar. – agrees with JLM’s suggestion in letter of 27 Mar. [A26/2/76]; has no record of the Museum having been invited to send a representative before (tp.)

 80    JLM to Sir Arnold Wilson, 31 Mar. 1931 – sends at the suggestion of Robert Witt the resolution adopted on 17 Mar. by JCART with regard to national provision for study of Oriental art and antiquity; the Committee designed to bring together interested parties will meet after Easter; names some of the institutions already represented, and some of its members; asks if he might propose him as a co-opted member; refers to an occasion when they met in New College (autogr. copy)

 81    Ibid. to the Hon. Secretary, The High Commissioner for India, 2 Apr. – encloses published record of the resolution adopted by JCART with regard to national provision for study of Oriental art and antiquity; on the Committee appointed to discuss and report on the various projects; hopes that at a later stage he might consider the suggestions of the Committee (autogr. copy)

 82    JLM to the Marquess of Zetland, 2 Apr. – letter of Mar. 20 [draft at A26/2/62] having gone astray, repeats invitation to discuss projects to establish an Oriental Institute; on the Committee; encloses reprint of the resolution adopted by JCART; with several projects in view, it seemed to JCART desirable to bring them into conference; sees from The Times that the India Society is taking similar action (autogr. copy)

 83    The Marquess of Zetland to JLM, ibid. – accepts invitation of Mar. 20, on the understanding that there will not be many formal meetings (tp.)

 84    JLM to Sir Francis Younghusband, ibid. – refers to report in The Times on the meeting of the India Society in support of the project of an Indian Museum; disappointed that neither Richter nor de la Valette had informed him about what was going on, as he [JLM] had kept India Society informed; RAI trying to bring together representatives of the various proposals; the India Society had been invited to send representative to JCART; sends published account of the resolution of JCART, also reported in The Times of 19 Mar. [see A26/2/61]; obvious course would be co-operation between RAI and India Society (autogr. copy)

 85    Sir Arnold Wilson to JLM, 7 Apr. – accepts invitation [see A26/2/80] with pleasure; remembers meeting in New College (tp.)

 86    George F. Hill to ibid., 14 Apr. – invitation to nominate representative to Committee to examine projects for study of Oriental peoples was laid before Trustees; with proviso regarding the School of Oriental Studies, they nominated Mr R.L. Hobson, Keeper of Ceramics and Ethnography (tp.)

 87    Secretary to the High Commissioner for India to JLM, 28 Apr. – acknowledges letter of 2 Apr. [A26/2/81] (tp.)

 88    Sir Francis Younghusband to ibid., 30 Apr. 1931 – regrets that his reply [to A26/2/84] was mislaid; the India Society is concerned only with art; there will be a meeting on 6 May to which JLM is invited; India Society has no desire to act at variance with RAI. 3 pages (autogr.)

 89    JLM to Sir Francis Younghusband, 1 May – thanks him for letter [A26/2/88]; on the RAI’s Committee; hopes to be able to attend meeting on 6 May (autogr. copy)

 90    KdeBC to [JLM?], 5 May – has talked with Maclagan about the archaeological scope of the proposed Museum; on the ethnological side; nowhere in England is Oriental ethnography adequately represented; suggestions (autogr.)

 91    JLM to George F. Hill, ibid. – refers to his letter [A26/2/86]; ‘no intention of creating a new institution’; what is needed is the informal collation of various projects; the Indian and Oriental Museum Committee will meet quite soon; India Society only concerned with art (autogr. copy)

 92    Invitation to ‘A Meeting to discuss the Project of a Museum of Asiatic Art in London’ at India House, 6 May (printed card)

 93    ‘Discussion on the Formation of an Oriental Museum in London’, report of meeting held on 6 May, Indian Art and Letters, N.S. ii (1931), pp. 40-59; ‘Royal Commission on National Museums and Galleries’, extracts (1929), ibid., pp. 60-64 (printed)

 94    The Times, 7 May – report on the meeting at India House, 6 May (newspaper cutting)

 95    F.J.P. Richter to JLM, 11 May – encloses short-hand report of JLM’s speech at the meeting, for correction; debate to be published in the journal [see A26/2/93] (autogr.)

 96    JLM to KdeBC, ibid. – there will be a meeting on the Oriental Museum on 19 May; asks for rough project of a museum such as he contemplates; refers to KdeBC’s memo of 5 May [A26/2/90]; asks about number of rooms required etc.; on the India Society meeting; will be seeing Sir Denison Ross (autogr. copy)

 97    KdeBC to JLM, 14 May – encloses draft; BM inclined to leave anthropology out of the proposed Museum; on Indian subjects in universities; believes that RAI should declare formally its policy with regard to Oriental Museum; on India Society (autogr.)

 98    KdeBC, nd – ‘Notes on the Reorganization of the Indian Collections in London’. 7 leaves (tp.) [the ‘draft’ referred to in A26/2/97]

 99    William Rothenstein to JLM, 14 May 1931 – will do his best [presumably in response to announcement of meeting on 19 May] (tp.)

100    Eric Maclagan to ibid., ibid. – will attend meeting on 19 May (tp.)

101    KdeBC to ibid., ‘Wed.’ [15 May?] – omissions and corrections to draft [A26/2/98] (autogr.)

102    JLM to KdeBC, 15 May – his draft has been sent to be multiplied; amendments must be added at the meeting; on the question of a Chairman for the Committee; mentions some names; wonders whether the India Office and the High Commission should be represented; on meeting on 19 May (autogr. copy)

103    Lord Zetland to JLM, ibid. – regrets that he cannot attend meeting on 19 May (tp.)

104    F.W. Thomas to ibid., 18 May – ibid.; has perused JLM’s Memorandum; on various categories of Indian art; suggests substituting the word ‘Asiatic’ for ‘Indian’ (autogr.)

105    William Rothenstein to ibid., ibid. - regrets that he cannot attend meeting on 19 May (autogr.)

106    Extracts from RAI Council meetings of 22 Nov. 1927, 20 Dec. 1927 and 19 May 1931, on Indian Institute/Museum (tp.)

107    F.J.P. Richter to JLM, 20 May – sorry that he could not attend meeting on 19 May (autogr. pc)

108    JLM to Sir Philip Hartog, 22 May – reports on what took place at the meeting; on the India Society’s objectives; on co-operation with the India Society; on KdeBC’s specification for an Oriental Museum [A26/2/98] (autogr. copy)

109    Ibid. to G.F. Hill, ibid. – on the meeting; on establishing relations with the India Society; some people are members both of the RAI Oriental Museum Committee and the Committee formed by the India Society; on Lord Zetland being asked to be Chairman of RAI Committee; suggests meeting (autogr. copy)

110    Ibid. to Lord Zetland, ibid. – on the meeting on 19 May; on co-operation with India Society; on conferring with G.F. Hill (autogr. copy)

111    George F. Hill to JLM, 25 May – agrees that joint action of the two Committees is desirable; cannot meet on the dates suggested by JLM; will put JLM’s letter before his Committee in June (autogr.)

112    Lord Onslow to ibid., 10 June – happy to join the Committee; on the two Committees (tp.)

113    JLM to G.F. Hill, 11 June 1931 – lists the members of the RAI Committee; suggests early meeting of the two Committees, to nominate a smaller body; suggestions for Chairman and Secretary (autogr. copy)

114    JLM to Lord Onslow, 12 June – has been in touch with G.F. Hill who represents the India Society Committee; Hill has agreed to combine the two Committees; there will be a meeting soon; lists members of the two Committees; encloses a draft memorandum on the anthropological training of Colonial Civil Servants [not held] (autogr. copy)

115    George F. Hill to JLM, 13 June – on combining the two Committees; on possible Secretaries (tp.)

116    Lord Onslow to ibid., 16 June – pleased to serve on the Committee; glad that the two Committees will amalgamate (tp.)

117    George F. Hill to JLM, 18 June – his Committee met and agreed to amalgamate with the RAI Committee; lists names agreed on; on Chairman and Secretary (tp.)

118    JLM to C.G. Seligman, 19 June – encloses letters between himself and G.F. Hill; thinks RAI Committee should meet and co-opt members of India Society Committee; on talk with Eugen Fischer, who will collect opinions in Germany and Scandinavia; the same should be done in America and Slav Europe; on a proposed conference (autogr.)

119    C.G. Seligman to JLM, 22 June – returns the correspondence with G.F. Hill; advocates letting Hill ‘have his way’; on including Eugenics in the Anthropological Congress; he would prefer to call it Genetics; has had a letter from ‘Hurst the geneticist’; on meeting (tp.)

120    JLM, 26 June – circular letter of invitation to a meeting of Committee on Projects for an Oriental Museum on 7 July; proposals to unite Committee with India Society Committee, and to appoint a small Executive Committee (tpc.)

121    Lord Zetland’s secretary to JLM, 30 June – Lord Zetland unable to attend meeting; he supports both the proposals (tp.)

122    William Rothenstein to ibid., ibid. – will try to attend meeting on 7 July (tp.)

123    T.C. Hodson to ibid., 30 June 1931 – cannot attend meeting on 7 July; refers to scheme of university planning for London; an Oriental Museum should form an integral element in organisation of Oriental studies as a whole; on the connection between linguistic studies and social institutions; both linked with ‘the material life’; there is a need for an Institute; would deplore formation of several ‘weak’ Institutes (tp.)

124    Eric Maclagan to ibid., 1 July – will try to attend meeting on 7 July; is in favour of both proposals (tp.)

125    JLM to William Rothenstein, 3 July – if he cannot attend meeting, asks if he could send his opinions on the two proposals (autogr. copy)

126    Henry Balfour to JLM, 30 June – cannot attend meeting of India Research Committee ‘tomorrow’; on the Field Register; on JLM mentioning him ‘going off’ a Committee; is not sure which Committee is meant (autogr.); [attached:] Sir Philip Hartog to JLM, 5 July – may be impossible for him to attend meeting on & July; agrees with both proposals; on connection of new Museum with the BM; on the object of the new Museum (autogr.)

127    JLM to G.F. Hill, 7 July – on meeting of committee on Projects for an Oriental Museum; lists those co-opted onto the joint Committee; on Chairman and Secretary; on the larger Committee and the Executive Committee; asks him to summon the Executive Committee soon (autogr. copy)

128    JLM, nd – list of names [of members of Oriental Museum Committee?] (autogr.)

129    RAI to [?], 1 Sept. – on the two Committees; on decision to amalgamate; invitations to serve on Executive Committee should have been communicated formally; regrets that this was not done (tp.)

130    nd – ‘Group or Subject Classification for the Indian Ethnological Section of an Oriental Museum’. 3 leaves (tp.)

131    KdeBC to JLM, nd – on the India Museum; on a short history of the V and A which he wrote; on the BM; ‘a clamour has been started for an Oriental Art Museum’; on the distinction between fine art and technological material; on the India Research Committee; says that action is wanted (autogr.)

 3/    Joint Committee on Cultural Relations with India, 1945-48

  1    Dr B.S. Guha, Zoological Survey of India, to Prof. A.V. Hill, Royal Society, London, 8 Feb. 1945 – on the position of anthropology in India; on Sir Herbert Risley’s ethnographical survey; the lack of a proper institution; on previous attempts to establish a department of anthropology; on foreign research expeditions to India; difficulties of anthropological research in India well known to Dr R.B. Seymour Sewell, Prof. H.J Fleure and Dr J.H. Hutton; asks him to lend his support to the furthering of anthropological research in India. 3 pages (tp. copy)

  2    J.P. Mills, President, the Indian Anthropological Institute, to Dr J.H. Hutton, RAI President 1944-45, 13 Feb. – encloses two copies of a letter written to the Government of India; asks him to send the letter and back the plea for greater recognition of anthropology; asks him to send the other copy to the RAI (tp.)

  3    Ibid. to the Secretary to the Government of India, New Delhi, ibid. – is instructed by the Indian Anthropological Institute to urge the Government to make adequate provision for anthropology in plans for post-war reconstruction; on Sir Herbert Risley’s survey; on the practical value of anthropology, as demonstrated in other countries (tp.) [page(s) missing; enclosed with A26/3/2]

  4    A.V. Hill to J.H. Hutton, 26 Feb. – sends a copy of Dr Guha’s letter [A26/3/1]; he cannot help; Dr Hutton and the others mentioned may be able to (tp.)

  5    R.B. Seymour Sewell to ibid., 28 Feb. – has received a copy of Dr Guha’s letter [A26/3/1]; on the contents of the letter; asks if he has any suggestions about how they might help; the Government of India does not welcome proposals from ‘outsiders’ (tp.)

  6    J.H. Hutton to W.B. Fagg, Secretary, RAI, 5 Mar. – encloses ‘a number of letters’; both Mills and Guha are anxious that the RAI should address the Government of India; how this should be done (tp.)

  7    Sir Theodore Tasker to Felicia Stallman, Assistant Secretary, RAI, 9 May – on Leonard Munn’s specimens from Lingsugur; suggests that they be returned to the Hyderabad Archaeological Dept. (tp. with note ‘I agree’ by W.B. Fagg)

  8    H.J. Fleure, RAI President 1945-47, to J.H. Hutton, 13 May – refers to letters from A.V. Hill, R.B. Seymour Sewell and Dr Guha on the creation of a department of anthropology in India; is in America and cannot do much; suggests meeting in the autumn to discuss the matter; various options; studies of peoples in India could be a subject of Anglo-American co-operation (autogr.)

  9    Felicia Stallman to the Agent General for Hyderabad, 28 May 1945 – on Leonard Munn’s specimens at the RAI; offers them to the Hyderabad Government (tpc.)

 10    The Nawab Mir Nawaz Jung to Felicia Stallman, 29 May – shall be very glad to have the specimens; asks for copy of the Journal of the Hyderabad Geological Survey in which the specimens are described (tp.)

 11    Felicia Stallman to the Nawab Mir Nawaz Jung, 14 June – informs him that the specimens have been dispatched (tpc.)

.1    nd - note on the Journal of the Hyderabad Geological Survey (autogr.)

 12    24 July – notes of an informal Conference ‘to discuss the need for wider cultural collaboration and exchange between the United Kingdom and India’. 5 leaves (tp.)

 13    John Griffith Davies, Assistant Secretary, The Royal Society, to H.J. Fleure, 17 Aug. – encloses notice relating to the Joint Committee on Cultural Relations with India (tp.)

 14    A.V. Hill, Secretary of the Royal Society, and F.G. Kenyon, Secretary of the British Academy, to RAI, 17 Aug. – refers to conference held on 24 July; asks for nomination of a representative to serve on the Joint Committee on Cultural Relations with India; hope to hold meeting in Sept. (tp.) [enclosed with A26/3/13]

 15    Felicia Stallman to J. Griffith Davies, 20 Sept. – on nomination to the Committee; matter will be placed before Council; fears the reply will not be this month (tpc.)

 16    Ibid. to Sir Theodore Tasker, 1 Nov. – Council has nominated him as a Fellow-elect; asks if he agrees to act as RAI representative on the Joint Committee on Cultural Relations with India (tpc.)

 17    John Griffith Davies to Felicia Stallman, 3 Nov. – would be glad to have the name of the representative as soon as possible (tp.)

 18    Sir Theodore Tasker to Felicia Stallman, 3 Nov. – is glad to accept invitation to represent the RAI on the Joint Committee on Cultural Relations with India (tp.)

 19    Felicia Stallman to Sir Theodore Tasker, 7 Nov. – glad that he will represent the RAI on the Joint Committee on Cultural Relations with India (tpc.)

 20    Ibid. to J. Griffith Davies, ibid. – informs him that Sir Theodore Tasker will be the RAI’s representative on the Joint Committee on Cultural Relations with India (tpc.)

 21    Sir Theodore Tasker to Felicia Stallman, 7 Feb. 1946 – reports on the first general meeting of the Joint Committee on Cultural Relations with India; discussion of visits of savants (tp.)

 22    Ibid., 13 Feb. – lists the members of the Joint Committee on Cultural Relations with India; mentions Guha and Mahalanobis as those who might be considered in the matter of interchange of visits (tp.)

 23    Ibid., 16 Mar. – on a meeting on 13 Mar.; on consideration of Dr Guha as one who might visit this country; a query was raised that his research had been criticised; asks whether there is ground for modifying the submission of his name (tp.)

 24    Felicia Stallman to Sir Theodore Tasker, 19 Mar. – will refer his inquiry to Prof. Hutton (tpc.)

 25    Ibid. to J.H. Hutton, ibid. – encloses letter from Sir Theodore Tasker [A26/3/23]; asks if he has he any information (tpc.)

 26    Ibid. to Sir Theodore Tasker, 31 Oct. – thanks him for sending Mr Tunnard-Moore’s letter [not held]; Prof. Fleure will attend the meeting of the Joint Committee on Cultural Relations with India on 5 Nov. in his place; has written to Mr Tunnard-Moore to tell him about the relations between the RAI and the RAS (tpc.)

 27    [H.J. Fleure] to ibid., 5 Nov. – has just attended the meeting of the Joint Committee on Cultural Relations with India; reports on what transpired; had a talk recently with Mr Stevenson from Burma, on possibilities of Mr Leach visiting Burma (tpc.)

 28    T.P. Tunnard-Moore, Secretary, Joint Committee on Cultural Relations with India, to H.J. Fleure, 18 Dec. – has written to Sir John Sargent in Delhi, giving his [Fleure’s] views (tp.)

 29    B.S. Guha to H.J. Fleure, 13 Jan. 1947 – has been organising the Anthropological Survey, now independent from the Zoological Survey; is obliged to be asked to be included in the Joint Committee on Cultural Relations with India (tp.)

 30    Sir John Sargent to T.P. Tunnard-Moore, 18 Jan. – has consulted Dr Guha, Director of the Anthropological Survey of India, who will be glad to serve on the Joint Committee on Cultural Relations with India (tpc.)

 31    T.P. Tunnard-Moore to H.J. Fleure, 19 Feb. – encloses letter from Sir John Sargent; Sir David Ross has seen it (tp.)

 32    B.S. Guha to Sir Theodore Tasker, 29 Apr. 1947 – thanks him for letter of 15 Mar. [not held]; on the International Congress of Anthropology; has written to the RAI asking for back copies of the Journal; has proposed to Government of India that fellowships be instituted for research in India (tp. with autogr. notes)

 33    Sir Theodore Tasker to Felicia Stallman, 8 May – encloses letter from Dr Guha [A26/3/32]; the Committee is temporarily in abeyance (tpc.)

 34    Ibid., 13 Dec. – thanks her for letter of 6 Dec. [not held]; will be glad to continue on the Joint Committee on Cultural Relations with India (autogr.)

 35    Ibid., 9 May 1948 – with reference to previous letters, as Mills has now retired and will be in London, he would be a better representative on the Committee (tp. with autogr. PS)

 36    T.P. Tunnard-Moore to Sir Theodore Tasker, 11 June – next meeting of the Committee for Cultural Relations with India will be on 15 July; encloses Agenda (tp.)

.1    Agenda (tp.) [enclosed with A26/3/36]

 37    Sir Theodore Tasker to Felicia Stallman, 15 June – encloses letter from T.P. Tunnard-Moore [A26/3/36] to whom he has explained; trusts that a Fellow from India can take his place (autogr.)

 38    Felicia Stallman to T.P. Tunnard-Moore, 28 July – refers to Sir Theodore Tasker’s wish to withdraw from Committee; regrets that it was not possible to send an alternative representative to the meeting on 15 July; the Council will appoint a new representative in Oct.; if there is a meeting before then, she will try to find someone to attend (tpc.)

 39    T.P. Tunnard-Moore to Felicia Stallman, 3 Aug. – it is unlikely that there will be a meeting before Oct. (tp.)

 40    Felicia Stallman to T.P. Tunnard-Moore, 18 Oct. – Council appointed Mr J.P. Mills as its representative on the Committee for Cultural Relations with India (tpc.)

 41    T.P. Tunnard-Moore to W.B. Fagg, 21 Oct. – notice of the next meeting will be sent to Mr Mills; the Minutes of the last meeting are being sent to him (autogr.)