In the nineteenth century, Auckland was a fledgling colony of the British Empire, attracting a range of European settlers from across the social hierarchy. Among the settlers were the industrialists, merchants, and people with scholarly interests who established the Philosophical Society in 1867. Many of the founding members of this society were also a part of other societies, such as the Auckland Acclimatisation Society, and were involved in establishing the Auckland Museum. The establishment of these societies and institutions was, in essence, a reflection of imperial attitudes in Aotearoa by bringing the ‘culture’ of the West to the Pākehā settlers and, through this, demonstrating the ‘superiority’ of Western ideals (Trigger 1984). The environmental and cultural imposition of ‘Western’ culture in Aotearoa was established through these societies. Matthew Felton, the surveyor-general for Auckland in 1841, modelled early Auckland on the English city of Bath, a largely unrealised proposal, but in spirit, it also contributed to the broader trend to make Auckland more like Europe for the settlers. For some this included facilities such as a library, art gallery, and museum, and through these institutions, some local, but primarily Western culture was exemplified.

The intellectual trend of starting learned societies in Auckland was established in the mid-nineteenth century (e.g. Park 1998; Legel 2022) but was arguably accelerated by James Tannock Mackelvie (b. 1824 – d. 1885), who was a founding member of multiple societies (Vennell 1971). Through his contributions of both objects and money, the fledgling collections in the Auckland Library and Auckland Museum were expanded, and helped the Auckland Art Gallery become established. The objects sent to Auckland by Mackelvie included works of art, publications, objects of interest or ‘value’, and artefacts from archaeological collections.

By the nineteenth century, the antiquities trade was ubiquitous between settler-colonial states and Europe (Mackenzie 2009). This movement was initially one way, from colonies back to Europe, but once local museums began to be established, there was a flow of artefacts back from the old world to supplement the local materials they held and were acquiring (e.g. Crane 2022, see Carreau et al. 2018). Ethnographic material was obtained through various means, such as colonial looting, gifting, trades, and purchases of indigenous cultural objects specifically manufactured for that purpose. In Europe, such objects made up collections in museums, schools, and private collections. The material flowing back to the colonies usually consisted of objects purchased from the internal European market of antiquities from places such as Greece and Rome, as well as other material such as artworks and books from the European continent. New Zealand Museums would either exchange material with their European counterparts, or agents would act as middlemen and obtain material from wider areas on demand. The objects sent by Mackelvie to Auckland followed the broader trend of artefact collecting and distribution in Europe in the late nineteenth century (Arnold 2012).

This paper explores the collections of Mackelvie in the Auckland Museum, particularly the Roman vessels he obtained from Hyères and the Swiss Lakes., The collection histories of these vessels are examined, and their provenances are explored. Through understanding how Mackelvie obtained them, the antiquities trade operating amongst learned circles between Europe and the colonies is considered. In particular, a connection between acclimatisers and the antiquities trade is suggested and its relationship to the wider colonisation process in Aotearoa is examined.

From the middle of the nineteenth century, the trend of introducing native fauna and flora to places outside their natural range increased in the form of acclimatisation societies. These introductions were more than had been practised previously with the movement of people or through trade links but instead were a conscious, deliberate, and wide-scale practice of moving plants and animals to places where they did not currently exist. The reasons for this included, albeit in some cases misguided, environmental goals, economic benefits, aesthetic value, or curiosity (Beattie 2013). The first such society, “La Societé Zoologique d’Acclimatation”, was formed in Paris, France, in 1854, followed by Britain in 1859, and then in colonies such as Australia in 1861 and Aotearoa New Zealand in 1867. Societies would often have gardens for propagating new plant species and areas for breeding animals for subsequent release.

What acclimatisers were doing in the European colonies was a formalisation of a longer process that had been occurring deliberately and accidentally through European settlers. Acclimatisers held a colonial view wherein they sought to ‘enrich’ a colonised environment with species from Europe and interpreted the current landscape as somewhat impoverished, fuelled by a sense of nostalgia for the environments of their home countries (Ashby 1967). As Walrond (2008) states: “they hoped to improve upon nature”, and acclimatisation was an official policy of the Colonial Government of in the 1860s. While in Europe, the general goal was to acclimatise foreign species such as palms to the region, in Aotearoa New Zealand, the idea was to acclimatise European species. While acclimatisation societies focused on plants and animals, in at least one instance, this seems to have influenced the trade of antiquities as well.

The committee members of acclimatisation societies were of the middle and upper classes and usually represented a who’s-who of the colonial leadership of the local area (e.g. Ashby 1967). As such, these people had the necessary connections and wealth to ship plants, animals, and any other cargo they wished. In the case of the acclimatisation society of Auckland, the people involved in acclimatisation efforts were also involved in benefitting endeavours such as parks, libraries, art galleries, universities, and museums, including John Logan Campbell and Thomas Bannatyne Gillies. While both these men lived much of their lives in Auckland, it is another member of the acclimatisation society, James Tannock Mackelvie, who was responsible for procuring many objects now in the Auckland Art Gallery, the Auckland Library, and the Auckland War Memorial Museum.

James Tannock Mackelvie was born in Ardrossan, and after working in mercantile shipping moved to Auckland in 1865 (Vennell 1971; Legel 2022). During his time in Auckland, he was a businessman philanthropist who made his fortune in the Thames gold mines in the 1860s as part of the Brown, Campbell & Co. company. While in Auckland, Mackelvie devoted time to his house and garden, ‘The Retreat’, where he boasted about bulbs and plants imported from England and acclimatised to the New Zealand environment (Fig. 1). Mackelvie also helped to form the Auckland Acclimatisation Society and the New Zealand Philosophical Society in 1867, the latter of which changed its name to the Auckland Institute in 1868 and in 1869 became the Auckland Institute and Museum (Stacpoole 1985). He returned to England in 1871 and, from 1876, began sending antiquities, antiques, books, and art that he had collected from around Europe to Auckland to help populate the Auckland Institute and Museum, and continued to do so until his death in 1885 (Vennell 1971; McKay 2018).

The objects sent to Aotearoa by Mackelvie were initially books from societies such as the Royal Geographical Society, the Zoological Society, and the Royal Agricultural Society, and volumes on the history of New Zealand. After these initial consignments, Mackelvie sent collections of material culture, including numismatics, as well as oil paintings by British and European artists (Vennell 1971). Interestingly, Mackelvie also sent over Māori taonga which had previously been taken out of Aotearoa, the implications of which possibly suggests a well-intentioned desire by Mackelvie to enrich the cultural collections in Auckland. This was unusual and could be considered as ‘against the flow’, as at the time there was an emphasis on the trade of Māori material culture out of Aotearoa to form ethnographic collections in Europe (Tapsell 2014).

During his final years, after his return to London, Mackelvie spent several winters in Hyères, France, where his acclimatisation interest coincided with his collection of antiquities and influenced his consignments to Auckland. Of interest for this paper are the Roman vessels and a collection of material from the Swiss Lake Dwellings.

Hyères, Var, on the Mediterranean coast, was home to a concentration of acclimatisers and their associated gardens (Fig. 2). The importance of Hyères for acclimatisers was fostered in part by Alphonse Denis (b. 1774 – d. 1876), who was mayor from 1830–1848. Denis hired Charles Huber (b. 1819 – d. 1907), known for acclimatising exotic plants, to create a botanical park, and helped to establish the fame of Hyères as a place of acclimatisation activities (Naudin 1862). Denis excavated the Olbia de Provence site in Hyères, which has been conflated with the Pomponiana area (Denis 1882). The site had already been briefly excavated by a prince of Denmark in 1843 before Denis’s work in 1845 and 1846. The area has seen subsequent excavations during the twentieth century (Bats 2006; Ollivier 2006). Olbia de Provence was a Greek colony founded in the fourth century BCE, which was subsequently Romanised, and was occupied until the 7^th century CE (Laurent and Sabastia 2022). The area consists of the mainland and the Geins Peninsula and is connected by a tombolo, which was larger in antiquity than it is today. Olbia de Provence featured a port, and much of the settlement is now submerged (Giaime et al. 2020).

Another prominent gardener and acclimatiser who came to the area was Baron Gustave Charles Ferdinand de Bonstetten (b. 1816 – d. 1892), who was a friend to Mackelvie during his time there. Like Denis, the Baron de Bonstetten also had archaeological interests. The Baron de Bonstetten was an archaeologist who conducted research across Europe. In particular, he examined archaeological sites from Switzerland and excavated in the Swiss cantons of Bern, Friboug, Aaragu, and Vaud. In particular, Bonstetten examined material of Prehistoric origin (e.g. Bonstetten 1853). His archaeological work also included the creation of maps for the areas in which he worked. In Var near Hyères, he owned a holiday home known for its acclimatisation garden, and also owned land elsewhere in Var where he identified the Dolem de Gaoutabry in 1876.

The presence of these archaeologists-cum-acclimatisers in Hyères was undoubtedly a draw for Mackelvie, if initially only for the acclimatisation fame of the town, as he could have otherwise chosen one of several other locations on the French Riviera to holiday in. Archives of the Auckland Museum, particularly correspondences between former director Thomas Cheeseman and Mackelvie, reveal the extent of Mackelvie’s relationship with the Baron de Bonstetten. Mackelvie was on relatively good terms with the Baron, and he could ask him for advice on objects and their authenticity and importance. Through Mackelvie’s association with Hyère, Roman pottery was sent to the Auckland Museum, and through this and his association with the Baron de Bonstetten, Swiss Lakes material was obtained.

In total, Mackelvie sent eight examples of Roman pottery from Hyères to Auckland. As recorded in the “Catalogue of the Mackelvie Collection” (1885:56–57), three found “In clay from the sea opposite Pampirasia” and one from Vidauban were sent in May 1881, and four were found in the sea near Hyères and sent in May 1883.

The three vessels from the sea, sent in 1881, are misidentified in the catalogue, as there is no location called Pampirasia. This is despite Mackelvie clarifying the correct find spot in a letter to Cheeseman (18^th May 1881):

“The case also contains four specimens of old Roman pottery – three of these will easily be distinguished as having been found in the sea (indeed I now recollect I put a ticket on each) by fishermen off the remains of the Gallo-Roman town Pomponiana, 3 miles from Hyères in Provence – the remains of the town consisting of foundations, vaults, a castellum, baths & a harbour embedded in mud were discovered in 1843.”

Pomponiana, now known as the town of Olbia or Olbia de Provence, was, as mentioned before, a Greek colony founded in 325 BCE composed of a settlement and port, which is now partially submerged (Borel and Sabastia 2022) (Fig. 2). Denis labelled the town as Pomponiana, which is why Mackelvie also did, and today, the town is sometimes referred to by a dual name: Pomponiana-Olbia. This is not to be confused with the nearby Île de Porquerolles, identified by Pliny the Elder (NH 3.4.79) as Mese or Pomponiana.

Little can be said of the vessel from Vidauban sent in 1881, found in 1871 while digging house foundations in the area (Letter from Mackelvie to Cheeseman 18^th May 1881). How the vessel came into Mackelvie’s possession is unknown.

The final four vessels mentioned in the catalogue (e.g. Fig. 3) are mentioned in a letter to Cheeseman (14^th January 1883):

“…4 Roman Amphorae in excellent condition and each is provided with an iron tripod for them to stand upright - one has a hole in the side and inside it when found in the sea there was a small cup which the Baron de Bonstetten considers to be of about the fifth century & it is thought this particular Amphora had been used to contain wine or water which was got out by the hole in the side by the use of the small cup, which was left in when thrown or washed into the sea, possibly if the latter upon the deck of some vessel.”

Although not stated, these vessels were likely found by fishermen in the area, although being more specific than the area near Hyères is not possible.

Mackelvie obtained, on behalf of the Auckland Museum, 65 unique objects from Swiss Lakes excavations. The objects included stone, bone, and metal artefacts. From 4300 to 850 BCE, lake-dwellings or ‘palafittes’ occupied the shorelines of lakes on the Swiss Plateau. These settlements were created during a period of warmer and drier climate conditions, where the lake levels were lower than they are today. The remains of these settlements were subsequently submerged and thus created an ideal low-oxygen environment for the preservation of both stone, wood, and metal remains (Bugani et al. 2009; Deák et al. 2018; Williams et al. 2025).

The objects were transported in two distinct groups, the first 58 of these were sent in May 1881 and are listed in the catalogue of the Mackelvie Collection (1885:56–7) as “A collection of Lacustrine Antiquities, from Berne Museum”. They were also listed individually by Mackelvie as an addition on the back of the title page of “Carte Archaéologique du Canton de Berne” (Bonstetten et al. 1876) (Fig. 4). A group of six of these objects were presented to Mackelvie by a M. Blanchetière, who had previously received them from Bonstetten.

In the late nineteenth century, there was a “lake-dwelling fever” across Europe and the United States of America, and legitimate and illegitimate artefact collecting was occurring across Switzerland (Ruoff 2004; Arnold 2012). This popularity was spurred by evolutionary interpretations of prehistoric technologies and comparisons to pile dwellings identified in Near Oceania and the wider Pacific (Arnold 2012; Leckie 2012; e.g. Travers 1885). Given the general popularity of the trade of Swiss Lake material at the time, it is no wonder that Mackelvie was able to acquire some for the Auckland Museum. A second batch of primarily bronze artefacts from Swiss Lake Dwellings was sent in June 1882. Mackelvie had acquired both batches from the Antiquarium Museum (renamed Berne Museum in 1894), where Bonstetten deposited the material from his excavations at the Swiss Lakes. It is likely his connection to Bonstetten helped him obtain material from the Antiquarium Museum, either by introduction or suggestion. This also helped him to obtain genuine artefacts, as opposed to some fraudulent objects that were also circulating at the time (Anderson 1890; Leckie 2012). The actual purchase, however, occurred through an unnamed agent of the Antiquarium Museum.

The objects sent by Mackelvie were associated with the areas of Estravayer, Hauterive-Champréveyres, Auvernier, Colombier, and Cortaillod on Lake Neuchâtel, and Lüscherz, Mörigen, and Sutz-Lattrigen on Lake Biel (Fig. 5). Some material is also attributed to the nearby location of as Gerlafingen, which is not on a lake. While not much has survived in terms of recording of these excavations from the nineteenth century, subsequent excavations have detailed pile-dwellings and occupations from the Neolithic onwards, including the Bronze Age (e.g. Arnold 2009; Archäologischer Dienst des Kantons Bern 2013; Deák et al. 2018). Bonstetten et al. (1876) record ‘Stone’ (Neolithic) and Bronze Age deposits and post holes of piles from bridges and structures, which concur with later excavations. With current evidence, aside from general site locations, it is not possible to further ascribe provenance to the objects.

Acclimatisation was undertaken by the wealthy, those with the means to be mobile, and with the land to introduce and cultivate species. Similarly, archaeology during the nineteenth century was primarily a ‘gentleman’s’ pursuit, again undertaken by those with the means, and could not yet be described as vocational. Both pursuits involve people’s interest in the world around them, which extends to the natural or cultural world, and a desire to exert some control over it. This commonality is reminiscent of the practice of the wealthy creating ‘curiosity cabinets’, which could include cultural and natural objects, such as those created by Hans Sloane (Sloan and Nyhan 2021). People would house objects in cabinets to demonstrate a range of different phenomena and exhibit some control over the material through its possession. Antiquities trading was a widespread activity in the nineteenth century, one that appealed to those with the means to acquire objects. Private collections were common, but museums also had benefactors who would use their wealth and connections to enhance local collections, and through which they could influence what material was exhibited.

Mackelvie was a benefactor of the Auckland Museum, and while he did not exert his influence over what should be displayed, he did advocate for better premises for Auckland Museum and also for the construction of a gallery space suitable for his artistic donations (Vennell 1971:14–16). The Swiss Lakes material are only a fraction of the total collection he sent, and the only objects of what could be considered ‘archaeological’ provenance. This is interesting, as being from an archaeological provenance requires a different collection method than the purchase of antiquities from the general antiquities or art markets. Archaeological material does not exist in isolation and is related to the objects found in associated contexts. in the nineteenth century it was common practice to separate finds for distribution (e.g. Stevenson 2019), so in this case why was a wider collection purchased from a museum? The Swiss Lakes material played a role in convincing Western European scholars that the past could be studied from archaeological remains alone (Trigger 2006:135), and so perhaps this was part of Mackelvie’s motivation for obtaining a wider collection. There are other lines of speculation as to Mackelvie’s motivations which could be made from this, but his correspondence does not offer validation to any further motivation other that he acquired them for Auckland Museum.

Mackelvie wanted to send antiquities, books, and art, and bequeathed money to house them for the benefit of Auckland (Vennell 1971:22). Consciously or unconsciously and however philanthropic in intent, his motivations for sending these objects were to establish a foundation for Western European culture and their study in Auckland. This is an inherent part of the colonial process wherein Western culture is demonstrated through material culture and, in some cases, juxtaposed against that of indigenous peoples (Said 1994; Driver et al. 2021). This is highlighted by Mackenzie (2009:5), who states:

“Museums in imperial territories were inevitably differently focused from those in Europe. In all the territories of white settlement… they represented a western view of the world. … The museum was created by an essentially European vision and was intended to feed the white gaze. It offered a route into a global memory, the prerequisite of Western cultures. Memory is itself a source of power…”

If we take this view of museums from Mackenzie, the goals align closely with those of acclimatisation societies in settler-colonial contexts: constructing a landscape that matches a European view of one. This also served as a means of establishing and demonstrating Western superiority in imperial territories which would become “outposts of transplanted European society” (Sheets-Pyenson 1988:20). New Zealand was not unusual in this respect and similar processes took place in colonial contexts around the world (see Beaule 2017; Driver et al. 2021 for examples).

Mackelvie’s involvement in the Philosophical Society (later the Auckland Institute), the Auckland Acclimatisation Society, and donations to the Auckland Museum demonstrate his dual interests in both the natural and cultural world, focusing on moving ideas and objects between places. The result of Mackelvie’s actions, however well-meaning, were to send objects to Auckland that contributed to the colonial process. While only exemplified by two examples here in the form of Roman pots and material from the Swiss Lakes, Mackelvie’s movement of material culture was at least facilitated by his interest in the movement of plants and animals. As research considers the movement of material culture in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (e.g. Driver et al. 2021), studying such connections will become increasingly important as researchers strive to untangle the object histories.