1903. ASHMEAD—HUACO3S POTTERIES OF OLD PERU. 389 
Mr. Bandelier, of the American Museum, in reply to my ques- 
tion whether the Peruvian images labeled Chancan and Chimbote, 
which he had sent up, were to be considered pre- or post-Columbian, 
said that some of them were and some were not. 
The question of the pre-Columbianism of these pots, which 
arose when I brought them to the attention of the Berlin Leper 
Conference, was afterwards thoroughly discussed in the Berliner 
Gesellschaft fiir Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte (see 
Zeitschrift, 1897, 1898 and 1899), by eminent Americanists, such 
as Polakowsky, of Berlin; A. Stiibel, of Dresden; Reiss, of Ber- 
lin; Dr. E. W. Middendorf, Dr. Edward Seler, of Berlin; Dr. 
Marcus Jiminez de la Espada, of Madrid; Dr. A. Bastian, the 
Director of the Royal Museums of Berlin; Prof. Virchow, Presi- 
dent of the Society; Dr. Carrasquilla, of Bogota; Dr. Lenz and 
Dr. Lehman-Nitsche, of La Plata Museum, and Von den Steinen, 
etc. I brought before these eminent and learned gentlemen all the 
evidence furnished me by Mr. Bandelier and the anthropologists of 
America. Mr. Bandelier had written me that all his ‘‘ finds ’’’ were 
op Wl 
ma 
u mn 
UN: 
Figure 7. 
pre-Columbian, and especially described a huacos pot represent- 
ing a human amputated foot, which I had described in my original 
paper. The fact that it was a diseased foot would indicate that it 
had not been amputated as a punishment ‘‘ for crime,” as Dr. 
