Significant points about all the object statistics
1. English objects comprise 13 per cent of the overall PRM collections up to 2006. More than one in every ten objects therefore is English. [Comparison of English collections to European collections in the Pitt Rivers Museum ]
2. More than half of all European objects come from England. [Comparison of English collections to European collections in the Pitt Rivers Museum ]
3. More than three-quarters of all UK objects come from England. [Comparison of English collections to European collections in the Pitt Rivers Museum ]
4. One in every five archaeological object in the PRM comes from England. [Comparison of English collections to European collections in the Pitt Rivers Museum]
5. The dominance of English ethnographic objects over total UK ethnographic collections is noted. This is less marked for archaeology [Comparison of English collections to European collections in the Pitt Rivers Museum]
6. There is a small number of possible but unconfirmed English entries as opposed to definitely English objects [6 per cent of total] Largest number of uncertain objects are archaeological but you would expect that these are a larger set of objects anyway [Are all the identified English objects definitely from England?]
7. However, there is a much greater number of objects which are not well provenanced within England, ie which do not have very good location information [22 per cent] [Number of English objects without detailed provenance in the PRM]
8. There is a much larger number of archaeological objects than ethnographic ones [58 to 36 per cent] in the English collections. This is due to the dominance of stone tools and sherds in the collections [Overall shape of the English collections in the PRM ]. This is not dissimilar to the position for the UK and European collections but it is very different to the position for the Global collections where 37 per cent is archaeological and 55 per cent ethnographic. [ How does the English division between archaeological and ethnographic objects compare to those from the UK, Europe and the global collections?]
9. The PRM collections are dominated by tools as a type of artefact, specifically stone tools. This is as true of the English collections as it is of the global collections though the specific percentages vary slightly. [What are the most commonly occuring objects ...?]
10. English artefacts are a surprisingly high percentage of the global numbers of objects in the following categories:
Boxes
Children-related
Commemoration
Fire-related
Lighting-related
Locks and keys
Musical instruments
Reproductions and models
Scientific apparatus
Techniques
Textiles
Time
Tools (definite)
Toys and Games
Transport
Writing
[What percentage of UK, European and global collections came from England by type of artefact?]
11. English artefacts are a surprisingly high percentage of the total number of European objects in the following categories:
Body Art
Boxes
Children-related
Commemoration
Death
Dwelling-related
Geology
Reproductions
Scientific Apparatus
Sport
Technique
Textiles
Toys and games
Writing
[What percentage of UK, European and global collections came from England by type of artefact?]
12. English collections dominate all categories of the UK collections. [What percentage of UK, European and global collections came from England by type of artefact?]
13. Tools are the dominant type of object in the English collections, representing nearly 46 per cent of the overall English collections. [Top 10 English types of objects]
14. Objects from Oxfordshire are the largest group of objects from a single county in the overall English collections [Top 20 Counties from which the Pitt Rivers Museum's English collections came from ], and in the ethnographic collections ][ Top 20 counties from which the Pitt Rivers Museum's English ethnographic collections came ], but the largest single county for archaeological objects is Sussex [both West and East taken together]. Oxfordshire is second in this category [ Top 20 counties from which the Pitt Rivers Museum's English archaeological collections came]
15. Items from the south east of the country dominate the English collections [What is the Regional split of the English collections in the Pitt Rivers Museum?]
16. In general, though not always, the closer the county is to Oxford the more likely we are to have objects from that county BUT, for example, we have relatively few artefacts from Berkshire (this may be because large parts of Berkshire are now defined as Oxfordshire) and lots of objects from Sussex which is further away. It is certainly true that we have far fewer objects from those counties most distant from Oxford. [Proximity to Oxford related to numbers of objects]
17. One in every five English stone tool is from Oxfordshire [Stone tools in England]
18. One in every third English object is a stone tool [Stone tools in England ]. The acquisition of English stone tools matches the acquisition pattern over decades for the overall English collections [Stone tool acquisition pattern compared to that for all English objects]
19. There are several peaks in the patterns for the acquisition of English objects. For all objects acquisition peaked in the 1880s, 1920s and 1940s, for archaeological objects it peaked in the 1880s, 1920s with smaller peaks in the 1970s and 1990s, for ethnography it peaked in the 1940s and for Other artefacts it peaked in the 1940s also. [Patterns of acquisition of English objects]
20. The pattern for the overall English collections acquisition more or less matches the acquisition pattern for the global collections except that instead of peaking in the 1920s, the global collections peak in the 1930s. [Comparison of the English pattern of acquisition with the global position]
21. The English acquisition pattern matches almost exactly the patterns for Europe [Comparison of the English pattern of acquisition with the European position ] and the UK [Comparison of the English pattern of acquisition with the UK position]
22. The acquisition of archaeological collections globally peaked in the 1940s whilst this is not true for the English collections. [Patterns of acquisition of archaeological objects]
23. In general the pattern of acquisition of English archaeological objects matches the pattern for the UK, and European collections except that both European and UK have a peak in the 1990s that the English archaeological collections do not have [Patterns of acquisition of archaeological objects]
24. In general the pattern of acquisition of English archaeological objects matches the pattern for the UK, and European collections [Patterns of acquisition of ethnographic objects]
25. In general, a high percentage of all artefacts in the PRM were obtained before 1945 (at least 46 per cent in most cases, and many much higher). [What percentage of the 2006 global objects by type were obtained by 1945 ?] The same is true of the English collections [ What percentage of the 2006 English objects by type were obtained by 1945?]
26. 15.5 per cent of all English objects were donated by Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt Rivers. [What proportion of the Pitt Rivers Museum's English collections were part of the founding collection?]
27. Pottery sherds are the most common object in Pitt Rivers' founding English collection, tools are the second most common. This shows the dominance of the archaeological artefacts in the founding English collection [The Top 10 English objects in the founding collection of the Pitt Rivers Museum] This pattern is also true for the overall founding collection. [Top 10 English objects in the founding collection of the Pitt Rivers Museum]
28. Pitt Rivers collected most artefacts from Sussex, then London, and Kent (these are almost all archaeological and relate to a series of digs he carried out in these places before 1884). [Top 10 counties that Pitt Rivers donated objects from]
29. Most Bedfordshire artefacts were acquired in the 1910s. [Objects by decade and county]
30. Most Buckinghamshire objects were obtained in the 1940s as were those from Essex. Both of these county collections are dominated by textile / clothing related collections. [Objects by decade and county]
31. Most Kent artefacts were acquired in the 1880s as were artefacts from London and Sussex. [Objects by decade and county]
32. The peak for acquiring objects from Oxfordshire occurrred in the 1920s. [Objects by decade and county]
Significant points about all the individuals statistics
1. Something is known biographically about just over a third of all individuals associated with the English collections. Just under a tenth have entries in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and Who was Who. We have portraits for a tenth of all the individuals. [ How much information do we have about individuals who contributed to the Pitt Rivers Museum's English collections? ]
2. Nearly 15 per cent of all the individuals were archaeologists, and a tenth were academics or antiquarians. [Top 10 careers of individuals who contributed to PRM English collections]
3. Roughly one in every third individual associated with the English collections lived in Oxfordshire at some point, less than half are known to have lived outside Oxfordshire [Where did the individuals live?]
4. We do not know where most of the individuals were educated, but one in ten are known to have been educated at Oxford University [Where were the individuals educated?]
5. Nearly three-quarters of the individuals were male. [What sex are the individuals?]
6. Nearly half of all the individuals donated English objects to the Pitt Rivers Museum [Individuals' relationship with PRM]
7. A small number of collectors collected a very large number of archaeological objects whilst a larger number of collectors / donors are associated with a smaller number of ethnographic objects ie archaeological collectors tend to give bigger collections than ethnographic ones. [How many individuals are associated with particular kinds of collections?]
8. More individuals are associated with collections from Oxfordshire and London than most other counties [How many individuals gave from each county?]
9. Many individuals were members of the Royal Anthropological Institute [& earlier manifestations], British Association for the Advancement of Science, Society of Antiquaries, Oxford University Anthropological Society. Relatively few of the individuals, however, have known club or society affiliations. [ Top 10 Clubs and Societies which individuals who are associated with the PRM English collections]
10. Most individuals [90 per cent] gave less than 40 artefacts, in fact nearly half of them only gave one object each. [Size of collections distribution spread per individual]
11. Pitt Rivers gave by far the most English objects, followed by Alexander James Montgomerie Bell and Henry Balfour. [Top 10 individuals' collections by size]
12. There is a very high percentage of donors to the English collections who are not field collectors or other owners. [Comparison of English individual statistics and Relational Museum statistics]
13. Professional and amateur archaeology is the most common career path taken by individuals associated with the English collections. Many are or are also academics and antiquarians. Writing is a more common career path for English collection associated individuals than for the up to 1945 collections [Comparison of English individual statistics and Relational Museum statistics]