FOUR SPIRITUAL MIDDENS IN MID SUFFOLK, ENGLAND,ca. 1650 to 1850

10

Historical Archaeology, 2013, 47(1):10–34.Permission to reprint required.

Timothy Easton

Four Spiritual Middens in Mid Suffolk, England, ca. 1650 to 1850

ABSTRACT

Deposits of personal objects, chosen for their ritual associations and hidden in buildings, have been reported in England since the early 20th century. This article examines the evidence for particular ritual concealments in houses in central Suffolk, England, those consisting of numerous objects deliberately deposited in the chimney areas of buildings. Chronological evidence in the layers of these “spiritual middens” demonstrates continual additions over many years. Interpretation of these artifacts suggests that they were concealed to seek protection for the home and its inhabitants. Because so many different types of materials are found in each location, it is possible to argue for a wide range of reasons, to target many different fears, for the selection of specific artifacts by the occupiers. The conclusions drawn from this study may help explain the choice of objects found in other parts of Britain and former British colonial territories in North America and Australia.

Introduction

Among many deposits hidden in British houses are some closely datable items, such as shoes, that indicate the temporal range during which this activity took place in each location (Swann 1969, 1981, 1996, 2005, 2010). This article will not address secreted objects for which it was clear that each deposit was a one-time practice, such as an item found beneath a nailed-down floor; see the Costello and Manning articles in this issue. The objects under scru-tiny, described here as “spiritual middens,” had an access area left open, nearly always in the upper part of the building (Easton 1997b). This means that, as each of the items was chosen by members of the families as it wore out, some effort was involved in making the climb up into a dark space to add to the feature continually over time. In some cases, because of the pro-gressive date range of certain layered objects, it is clear that the location and purpose of these deposits were known to successive generations

of occupants. The earliest are toward the base, and later ones lie above them.

To present this argument clearly, four spiri-tual middens are discussed in detail. They were chosen because in each case some control was exercised when recording the stratified layers as they were excavated. Usually, found deposits, or single secreted items, are reported to British museums after some demolition or major resto-ration has been undertaken. Often the descrip-tion given by the finder is vague, so the exact location is imprecise. Also, it is not certain whether the finders have salvaged every item; they may have picked out from the rubble only those objects that were instantly recognizable.

Deposition Locations within each Building

Smaller groups of hidden objects are found in a number of places within houses, such as the internal and external thresholds, near windows, in attics, around the gables, in thatch roofs, under stairs, as well as in the chimney area (Easton 1997b). Spiritual middens, however, are always located next to the chimney stack. There are three main reasons for this. Apotropaic (evil-averting) finds around the chimney area have always been more numerous than elsewhere in a building. This is because there are nearly always enclosed spaces associated with the finishing brick or timber-and-plaster surfaces around the hearths for the adjoin-ing upper rooms. Behind these walls are voids that are usually left open at the top within the roof space, and these offer opportunities for deposition.

The second reason was associated with the hearth as a possible focal point for disasters. This area always carried the greatest risk of fire accidentally spreading to both people and the building. Numerous records from coroners’ courts in the 17th and 18th centuries contain details of accidental deaths after householders had fallen into the kitchen fire (Sara Pennell 2013, pers. comm.).

The metalwork used to hang the pots, either suspended from a horizontal bar or on large hooks against the back wall above the hearth, gathers carbonized accretions. Fire can accidentally ignite these crusty deposits and set light to the internal

11TIMOTHY EASTON—Four Spiritual Middens in Mid Suffolk, England, ca. 1650 to 1850

walls of the throat of the chimney. Once the flames reach the exit above the roof, the thatch becomes vulnerable. Similarly, another detail remembered by a Suffolk man, William Coe, in March 1705, about his house nearly catching fire, must be typical of many near disasters: “[M]y house escaped burning by a boyler of fatt hanging over the fire and was forgot, but my wife happily saw it just before it boyled over” (Storey 1994).

Although the perfectly logical explanation for such an accidental fire taking hold can be under-stood today, people in the past could quickly look at such misfortunes with suspicion. Even as late as 1910, a 14-year-old boy in Cornwall recalled:

It is the old custom to keep a small fragment of last year’s (Yule) log to light that of next year. If this was not done, the old folk thought that their old house would catch fire. Of course, I do not believe in this ... but one year ... the fragment was accidently burnt. Rather strangely, our chimney caught fire the same year. (Opie and Tatem 1989)

The third reason for this location of spiritual middens is that the chimney flue cannot be closed off like a door or window. Because there was a belief that malevolent forces could gain entry to a house and cause harm to the occupants (James I 1603), it is these spaces near the throat that were particularly targeted by householders for secreting their personal items. Some additional reasons are suggested below.

There is an often-quoted explanation for this concern, dating from around A.D. 1600, expressed by King James VI of Scotland (later King James I of England), who was influential in raising aware-ness of vulnerable entry points. It was included in his published arguments for beliefs concerning witchcraft, entitled Daemonologie (James I 1597). This passage was first quoted for the context of entry points to be protected from witches and their familiars (Easton 1998). The relevant passage is given here again because it best expresses the fear about the apertures in houses that might be breached: “[F]or some of them sayeth that being transformed into the likeness of a little beast or fowl, they will come and pierce through whatso-ever house or church, though all ordinary passages be closed, by whatsoever open[ing] the air may enter in at” (James I 1597, 1603).

The principal areas of concern referred to here are doors and windows, and the hearth was not

singled out. This may be because King James was linking house with church, the latter of which typically lacked chimneys. It has been shown elsewhere that the hearth beam is treated in the same way as the other two types of apertures by the use of scribed apotropaic marks (Easton 1997a, 1998). Similar symbols are used to mark doors, scribed around windows and, in particular, on mantel beams.

Beginning in the first half of the 16th century, some single-chimney hearths were constructed in larger buildings to better contain fires. By the later 16th century iron firebacks were provided to radiate heat and prevent damage to the back wall (Hodgkinson 2010). These were initially given very simple apotropaic decoration, and the most common forms are saltire crosses, the letter M , or a W (Easton and Hodgkinson 2013). These latter two represent the former symbol for and protec-tion of the Virgin Mary, either as the first letter of her name or as Virgin of Virgins. These “Marian” symbols are also some of the most common scribed letters to be found on hearth beams, doors, and around windows (Easton 1999a, 1999b).

Much of central Suffolk, like neighboring Essex, was a rich farming area, and this relative wealth allowed brick chimneys to be built in smaller houses from the mid-16th century. These were continually modified or rebuilt at frequent inter-vals through the 16th and 17th centuries, as the demand for higher living standards dictated the addition of extra hearths, particularly for sleeping accommodation on the upper floors.

With the accessibility of cheaper glass for windows in the late 16th century and the con-cern for greater comfort, it is not surprising that upper hearths were continually upgraded from the early 17th century onwards. Many chimneys were rebuilt again in the last quarter of the 17th century and further modified in the 18th (McCann 2010). This could explain why much of the dated mate-rial from spiritual middens comes from the late 17th to mid-18th centuries. With a newly adapted or rebuilt chimney would come new outer walls, and whatever may have been previously deposited near the earlier hearth was likely to have been swept away for a new group of personal posses-sions. Because of the large quantities of personal belongings in spiritual middens, it is unlikely the builders would be involved in most, if not all, of these depositions at the earlier dates.

12 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 48(3)

Deliberate Deposition for Spiritual Middens: Four Case Studies in Suffolk

Three of the examples discussed here have some datable material, mostly shoes, from the mid-17th century to the end of the 18th (Swann 2010). The fourth example is from the mid-19th century, offering an opportunity for comparative analysis and understanding some subtle differences of intentions from the other three. The earlier examples described here also conveniently highlight the positions for three specific types of voids that could be breached for depositions. These variations are found elsewhere, and all were open at the top to drop down chosen material. These methods of deliberate concealment are replicated in houses in other counties.

Barley House Farm, Winston

The records for the occupants of this house have so far not yielded an occupant that match the dates for these deposits. This house was on a farm of 96 acres in 1800. It was partly freehold and partly copyhold and was bought by John Major (1698–1781) in the mid-18th century when he was building up an estate. He was High Sheriff of the county. It would have been sub let to a yeoman farmer during the 18th century. The name “Barley House” goes back to at least 1814 but before that would probably have carried the name of an earlier occupant. (Martin 2012)

The first house to be recorded in 1983 was Barley House Farm, Winston, a substantial farm-house, although no records of the family that lived there at the time the deposits were made have been located. There were no upper hearths provided when the mid-16th-century chimney was built (Easton 1983). The lath-and-plaster wall, constructed in front of the sloping breast in the hall chamber where a hearth would usu-ally be expected, offered a wedge-shaped cavity behind that would normally be open at the top in the roof space. It was from this high point that selected items were dropped down behind the wall (Figure 1). In this instance, the objects were deposited by removing one of the bricks from inside the throat, at a higher level than the junction of the ground-floor ceiling. (The “ground” floor is the English term for what American researchers typically call the first floor, and the English “first” floor is known as the second floor in the United States). The

partition wall in the chamber above starts at first-floor level and rests on the lateral ceiling beam. It has three vertical studs that give sup-port to the short wall in front of the sloping brickwork. This means there are two “pockets” that can receive objects above and between the studs. After the first location was filled up, a tile sealed this aperture (Easton 1983). This was where the larger number of objects was located (Figure 1). Another brick was then removed to one side and additional objects were pushed in. This location appears to have been abandoned, because there was space for more objects and this access hole was not sealed over.

This solution for the access to the chimney void appears unusual, and may have been forced on the family because the upper-level opening was inaccessible due to the close proximity of the brickwork to the older upper tie beam (Figure 1). However, there is another house, Hill Farm at Spexhall, that exhibited a similar approach to the deposition of artifacts. It is apparent that this similar location inside the chimney was explored at an early date by the inhabitants, presumably for the creation of a spiritual midden. An attempt was made to knock a brick out from inside the hearth, but they unfortunately chose an area that was blocked by timberwork behind and consequently abandoned their efforts. There was, however, a perfectly easy and accessible opening in the attic. In 1988, the original entry point for this deposit was found to have been covered over by a 19th-century plaster wall. However, once the skirting board was removed at attic-floor level, an animal bone was seen lodged on some protruding laths about 3 ft. down. This provided evidence that this space at the top had been the route downward for the secreted finds that included six cats, along with a variety of other household and agricultural artifacts.

The fact that the occupants of two farm-houses, 30 mi. apart, had chosen to gain access to such voids in this unusual way implies that the appropriateness of this area for the deposit of ritual objects was of general knowledge in communities in central Suffolk. There is no known written record of such a practice. The reason is logical at Winston, but the early attempt, from inside the flue, at Spexhall, needs some explanation, when there is an apparently easier route for the descent of objects from the


FIGURE 1. Barley House Farm. Two drawings illustrate the position of the secreted objects and the two potential methods for depositing objects into the space between the lath-and-plaster wall and the sloping brickwork of the chimney. Entry from the normal higher position in the roof void was denied because of the close proximity of the upper chimney to the tie beam. The lower access was made in two places by the removal of the two bricks from inside the hearth. (Drawings by author, 1983.)


attic. Attics in many 17th-century farmhouses were used for storage, and there is archaeological evi-dence to suggest that occupants felt uneasy about entering these spaces, which were often poorly lit, particularly in the darker months of the year (Easton 1999a, 1999b). For this reason the family at Spexhall may have tried to circumvent the most obvious route for deposition via the attic.

Cutchey’s Farm, Badwell Ash

“John Cutchey, after which the farm takes its name, was a wealthy yeoman farmer who lived at this house from the start of the 2nd quarter of the 18th century to the last quarter of the same century; about 60 years” (Martin 2012).

The second spiritual midden, at Cutchey’s Farm (now Moat Farm) at Badwell Ash, was discovered in 1989. This deposit is associated with a chimney rebuilt in the later 17th century with four hearths: two on the ground floor and two smaller ones above (Figure 2). Examining the house’s floor plan, it became apparent there was no common open void behind a screening wall as at Barley House in Winston. Because in this house there are two upper hearths, there are two indents in the brickwork on either side of the upper flanking wall that forms part of a two-way closet. By plac-ing a corner stud connected with lath and plaster in the same place on each side of the closet, two enclosed shafts were created that are open from the attic above.

Hestley Hall, Thorndon

The attachment of “Hall” to old houses, usually donates Manorial status. The house was sold around 1729 by the Grey Family to the executors of Chief Justice Sir John Holt (d. 1709). Sir John’s heir was his younger brother, Rowland Holt. The house is passed onto successive members of the Holt family although it was sublet to others during the 18th century. The occupants would have been be well off lower gentry and employed servants. (Martin 2012)

The third spiritual midden was uncovered in 2010 at Hestley Hall, Hestley Green, near Thorn-don. This manor-house dwelling contains a large, mid-16th-century upper hearth made for a grand chamber on the first floor (Figure 3). In the 1630s this chamber became the upper dining room, and the hearth was made smaller by two new internal brick piers with angled flanking walls connecting

to the back wall. This adaption created a typical wedge-shaped hearth. During the 18th century, the upper brick caps for each side, which slope backwards and seal off the top of the two trian-gular voids formed between the original back and side walls and the two inner angled walls, were broken off; a highly unusual find. This then gave the opportunity, over time, to drop in objects as they wore out or broke, and to make deliber-ate offerings of animal and bird bodies. Similar materials were chosen in the other spiritual mid-dens, but here, instead of the usual fragments, the complete but broken pots used about the house were dropped in.

The Malthouse, Earl Soham

From the standing buildings around it, the house would appear to have been the premises of a brewer, possibly since the 16th century. This spiritual midden was almost certainly entirely created by the Rice family who moved into the house with its brewing business in the middle of the 19th century. (Martin 2012)

The fourth variation for the location of spiritual middens, this one found in 1985, is fairly typical for a construction of the 1850s and is located within, and above, a second-floor hearth in the Old Malthouse, Earl Soham (Figure 4). With the introduction of smaller grates for coal fires, the larger 16th- and 17th-century hearths, where logs had been burnt, were no longer needed. The solu-tion was to construct a smaller fireplace toward one end within the 16th-century hearth, and the space left over had a cupboard built into it. As with other 19th-century examples, the objects were deposited above the cupboard. With those found next to first-floor hearths, and with relatively few objects involved, it is apparent these were placed there during construction and closed off, as further access was not possible. This cannot be the case at Earl Soham, as there are too many objects; thus the deposit was made from the attic, and access was gained by squeezing between some rafters at a 90° junction of two roofs.

Analysis of the Artifacts

With the spatial contexts of each site in mind, the details of the artifacts uncovered are now considered for each location. The most common objects to note are sections of fabrics and cloth-ing; leather material, notably belts, gloves, shoes,


FIGURE 2. Cutchey’s Farm. View of the area of enclosure to the side of the parlor chamber fireplace where the main larger group of objects were deposited. The imposed, vertical, black lines show the approximate limitations of the void with the access point arrowed from the attic. The enclosing front wattle-and-daub wall had been broken open for the electrical wiring. John Frost, the owner and finder of the cache, is shown at the entrance of the closet. An identical, second, tall void was made on the other side of the closet, next to the hall chamber. (Photo by author, 1989.)


FIGURE 3. Hestley Hall. The large 16th-century hearth in the grand chamber later became a dining room. A succession of smaller hearths are built within it. Objects were deposited into the two triangular cavities between the canted internal walls of the 17th-century hearth and into the two angled corners on each side of the 16th-century hearth. In both sides this was just above the hearth beam. The white lines delineate the void, broken on the left side where a portion of the cavity has been exposed. (Photo by Nick Spaull, 2010.)

and horse harness; faunal material in the form of cats, birds, and sections of butchered bones; metal and wooden objects reflecting aspects of trade; and sections of domestic pots and glass vessels. Most surprising of all are quantities of wooden offcuts and small logs, many of which have been partly burnt and extinguished. These inclusions appear to be deliberate.

Barley House Farm

The two spaces between the vertical wall studs at Barley House Farm only allowed for a restricted number of items relative to the other three spiritual middens discussed in this article (Figure 1). Therefore, these artifacts at the Barley House Farm will be described here in full. Dating the deposits was aided by the discovery of 20 shoes, made from the 1650s to 1730. Like other examples of footwear concealed in build-ings, when all these shoes were finally discarded they were at the end of their usefulness, and many had been patched and heavily repaired (Swann 2010). They may have been shared

within the household. They could have been best pairs of shoes, perhaps originally belonging to an individual in a higher social group, that were passed over to a servant or tenant farmer, and then worn for a different purpose until of no further use.

An example included here is a smart, chisel-toed shoe for a boy, manufactured ca. 1660 and possibly handed down from a grander family. A common feature with most of these shoes is that when found they have mud caked under their soles. In some cases they also have additional items placed inside. This aspect will be discussed later. In 1983 the shoes from the Barley House Farm were sent to a county museum that gen-erously agreed to clean and revive the leather. Although they look very much more presentable for display, this treatment is no longer recom-mended (June Swann 1987, pers. comm.).

Animal bones and other faunal material are nearly always present in larger deposits. Faunal materials recovered from Barley House Farm include six animal bones, mostly pigs’ trotters, a vertebra, a goose’s wing, and two kittens with


a rat. The remains of the cats and rodent were placed together as a group. The significance of the goose’s wing will be examined further on. The deposit also includes two notched, long thin flat pieces of worked wood, and one shorter piece, that resemble tally sticks. With the exception of the shortest one, where the notches exactly match from side to side, the other two could not have been used as tally sticks. Such sticks were typically split and divided by each party so as to agree to a debt to be paid at a later time, when they are joined back together (Baxter 1989). The sticks from Barley House Farm may be crude, flatter versions of clog almanacs, similar to examples in the Bodleian Museum in Oxford and the British Museum in London. Along the sides are irregularly spaced larger notches that may represent the old saints’ days. The farming calendar was governed in the year by some of these markers.

Cutchey’s Farm

At Cutchey’s Farm, the shaft nearer to the closet entrance of the parlor chamber was the first to be uncovered by the owners (Figure 2). No depositional sequence could be determined, because the front wall of the shaft had been removed and all the artifacts piled up on the floor by the owners. There were 10 shoes that represented a manufacturing date range from the 1660s to the 1730s (Swann 2010). Associ-ated with the footwear were five ring-pattens—circular metal attachments strapped on to the underside of shoes to raise them up from muddy surfaces (Figure 5). Several pieces of male and female clothing were included, such as girdles, a purse, two unmatched gloves, and a section of a tooled leather jerkin. Associated material from the house included a shelf bracket, moldings,

FIGURE 4. The Malthouse, Earl Soham. The illustration on the left shows the 19th-century brick hearth in the upper first floor chamber, set inside the 16th-century, larger opening. Into the left-over space a cupboard has been inserted, and it is in the cavity above this, left open from the roof, that the many objects belonging to the Rice family were dropped down. The white lines delineate the void. At the right June Swann (far right) is making her initial diagnosis, with the owner Mavis Kerridge, about condition and dates of the mid-19th-century shoes. In the right foreground is a bonnet, and at the far end of the table lies a pile of instruction and religious books from the deposits. (Photos by author, 1991.)


FIGURE 5. Part of the contents of the spiritual midden uncovered at Cutchey’s Farm, Suffolk, UK. The majority of the wooden objects are not present in this image. The firkin lid (the head), held up by the author in this photograph, has the branded mark of John Cutchey to identify his property (East Anglian Daily Times 1989).

and an early rare piece of hand-blocked wall-paper, dating from ca. 1730. Material culture associated with livestock, such as horses, here included two stirrups, several lengths of bridle with buckles, a section of chain, and a horse-shoe. Other artifacts made of iron were also included. Building tools included a chisel and hammer or metal wedge.

The variety of personal and domestic artifacts from this group was particularly noteworthy. Certain wooden objects, like a late-17th- or early-18th-century hand brush for the hearth, are prone to disintegrating in the archaeological record (Figure 5). As is typical with spiritual middens, as well as one-time deposits, there were many pieces of broken ceramics, glass, a broken knife blade and spoon, sections of bowls, wooden moldings and other wooden arti-facts, household fittings, pieces of metal, bucket handles, and a padlock. Signs of stitching and mending, even on wood, showed that maximum use was obtained from everything before deposi-tion. It was noticeable that no complete animal or bird skeleton was present within this very

large deposit, although there were several pieces of animal bone, some butchered. These repre-sented six bones belonging to four cows and two unidentified mammals. There were also two sections from chickens and a small unidentified bird without its head. There were numerous unidentified small wood fragments, just the sort suitable for lighting a fire, and a fair amount of carbonized wood and charcoal. Most of these are not included in the photograph provided for Figure 5. One of the shoes had a piece of charcoal placed inside, and in another there was a rodent that appears to have been placed inside a hole in the top surface with a small peg driven through its body (Figure 6). There were many staves from small casks, called firkins, probably for holding butter, including the head (lid) with: J. CUTCHEY branded or stamped into the top (Figure 5). John Cutchey came to this farm after his first marriage in 1723 and died there in 1783 (Martin 2012). Judging from most of the earlier shoes, it seems likely that the midden was started shortly after John Cutchey moved into the house and perhaps was


continually added to at different times over 60 years. This does not exclude additional items being thrown in after his death, but there is no way of being certain.

After uncovering the first deposit, a more con-trolled excavation was undertaken on a similarly located shaft next to the opposite door leading into the closet from the hall chamber. Archae-ologist Edward Martin was asked to excavate the finds using archaeological methods. At the base of the wall an oblong aperture was made, large enough to determine that there were only a limited number of artifacts deposited down this shaft. The reason for this relative paucity became clear after inspecting the ceiling over the closet. Whereas the floor above the parlor chamber was strong enough in joists and boards for storage, the ceiling over the closet was made to support the lath and plaster only, and could not be walked upon. Therefore the first shaft was easily reached, while items had to be thrown from a distance into the more distant shaft; it was notable that several of these were long objects. As the nearest shaft could have

continued receiving chosen items for centu-ries, it is worth speculating why the occupants considered the second shaft worth the extra effort it took to make another deposit. Despite the smaller quantity of artifacts in the second deposit, the selection is interesting. There was a near-complete head of a wooden rake. Another section of rake was included in the larger hoard, and rake parts occur in other spiritual middens. A short turned leg of a stool was only one of many sections amongst the Cutchey’s finds. A furniture historian, the late Victor Chinnery, inspected these artifacts and observed that sev-eral pieces had been made, but not assembled. The implication was that the production of small turned furniture was probably one of the winter occupations for this farming family.

The discovery of a near-complete desiccated chicken in the second deposit helped explain the absence of faunal material in the first. Whole chicken skeletons turn up in other locations. For instance, there is an unusual one that will be described in the Hestley Hall finds, and another found with a small cat and associated objects

FIGURE 6. Cutchey’s Farm. A man’s shoe from the 1720s with a rodent’s skull appearing from a hole in the top. The peg above it appears to have secured the rodent’s body, indicating that this was a deliberate placement. Other objects like charcoal and an ear of corn were discovered inside two other shoes from this cache (Swann 2010). (Photo by author, 1989.)


in Bedfield Hall (also in Suffolk). A notable example with several chickens, and now on display at the Museum of London, was included in a deposit from Lauderdale House, Highgate Hill, London (Merrifield 1987:129–130).

Next to the ground-floor hearth in Cutchey’s Farmhouse was found a rare survival: a two- or possibly three-decked built-in chicken coop. Chickens were likely held within this container while being fattened up for the pot. An alter-native use could be for holding an ailing bird. Because familiars were believed to come in the form of “a little beast or fowl,” witchcraft might be suspected when birds and animals fell sick and died (James I 1603). If this happened to a chicken in the home, the removal of the carcass to a spiritual midden or spirit trap may have worked as sympathetic magic, similar to the recorded use of witch bottles (Merrifield 1954, 1987). A similar conclusion was reached for an unusual burial of a cow, later proved to have been diseased (Mullin et al. 2009).

Among all the pieces of wood were two long sticks, and a third which had been broken off (Figure 7). Each of these three artifacts has been carefully shaped to fit the hand at the widest top end, and the one, most complete stick shows signs of wear at the opposite end from contact with the ground. The longest, but incomplete and made from an ash branch (Fraxinus excelsior), is 46 in. long, and the other shorter stick made from a hedge maple (Acer campestre) has a broken shaft. The third complete stick, made from hazel (Corylus avel-lana), is 36 in. long, and notable in that its extreme curve indicates that it was not used as a walking stick. For half its length it is straight, and then it forms a curve that finishes at 40°. None of the sticks is sturdy enough to take any weight and to be used as a walking stick. Apart from the shaping and wear at the ends on each, these sticks would appear at first to be useless; they likely had a purpose, however.

From practical experience, when driving geese in flocks of up to 20, the birds respond quickly to a drover behind them with his arms outstretched and moving each hand slowly up and down. The advantage of a long stick, in one or both hands, is that a single drover has control of a greater number of geese, say between 50 and 75. East Anglia had a reputation for driving flocks to markets as far

away as London. A selected curved hazel stick may have been used to “wrap” around the sides of the outer geese. For driving larger animals a much stouter stick was used.

A number of 19th- and early-20th-century illustrations, often entitled The Goose Girl or The Goose Herd, show variations of single- and two-handed driving without a stick for smaller numbers, and also show driving with a stick (Bridgeman Art Library 2012). An illustration from an Egyptian papyrus, ca. 1100 B.C., show-ing a cat driving a small flock of geese with a crooked stick in its left hand, demonstrates this is not simply a depiction of romantically inclined illustrators (Bridgeman Art Library 2012). There are two other instances where secreted geese remains have been recorded. A goose furcula was placed alongside a notched hazel stick under an oak-boarded floor, next to the chimney at 24 Gracechurch Street, Deben-ham. These are now on display in the Moyses Hall Museum, Bury St. Edmunds. Another goose wing was pushed into a cavity behind the chimney lintel of a first-floor hearth in Norfolk (John Dean 2012, elec. comm.). With the goose fragments present here, a goose wing in Barley House Farm, and many goose wings found at Hestley Hall, these specific birds appear to have been selected for a particular role in these deposits. Discussion about these will follow.

Hestley Hall

During the removal of the left-hand pier and internal canted wall dating from the 1630s, the first group of artifacts was exposed near the floor (Figure 3). This deposit included two broken glazed red-earthenware chamber pots, four fragments of a near-complete tin-glazed earthenware drug or ointment jar, sections of a glass apothecary vessel, and the base of another red-earthenware vessel. These artifacts date from the mid-17th through to the early 18th centuries. In view of some dated shoes found later on the other side of the hearth, a deposition date in the latter part of this range is most likely. There was also a treen bowl, two small cask bases similar to the base/head found at Cutchey’s farmhouse, several long sec-tions of 17th- and 18th-century clay pipes, and a powder horn made from cow horn. Among the faunal materials found there were 16 goose


wings from at least 8 birds, and 1 goose furcula (wishbone); 2 partial, articulated chickens and 2 feet from chickens; 2 unidentified bone frag-ments; and 1 small unidentified bird. As with all spiritual middens, there were many loose nuts, fruit stones, and examples of domesticated crops, such as wheat and peas. Large amounts of smaller sections of wood of all kinds were present, with notable examples of charcoal and small charred logs that had been burnt at one end and extinguished.

The right side was excavated in arbitrary 6 in. levels and photographed with a painted marker standing upright beside the jamb as it was being demolished. This was marked with the letters A (at the top) through I (at the bottom). As each

section of wall was excavated, the items in each stratigraphic level were recorded, photographed, and put into sequential piles to track the order in which items were deposited and, where pos-sible, to give an approximate date for deposi-tions in the different levels.

Any artifacts that could not be readily iden-tified were taken to experts in ceramics and animal-bone identification at the Suffolk County Archaeological Service at Bury St. Edmunds (Goffin and Feider 2011). The seven female shoes were sent to June Swann, who made detailed reports (Swann 2010). From the latter it was determined that those shoes near the base of the deposit were from the early 1700s, and the ones from the top dated from the 1750s.

FIGURE 7. Cutchey’s Farm. Found with some of the many wooden objects were three long sticks (bottom). The most curved of these can be seen among the group of wooden objects (top left). The detail at top right shows the bottom end of the only complete, curved stick, which was likely worn from touching the ground. In the other detail (middle right) all three “top” ends have been faceted and worn smooth by handling. (Photo by author, 1989.)


There were weaving spindles within the fill, one complete and fragments of others. This area of Suffolk was known for growing hemp and flax, and making linen (N. Evans 1985; Dymond and Northeast 1986). Very large quantities of wood were present, from fine furniture moldings and interior paneling to every size of smaller wood, most suitable for burning on a fire. Again, a notable number of these items were charred at one end. The most unusual artifact found, located at the bottom of the feature, was a complete desiccated chicken securely mounted on a charred log with a layer of dung between the two as the binder (Figure 8). Some further discussion about this is presented at the end of this article.

The Malthouse (Earl Soham)

This spiritual midden contained a remarkable number of items. The quantity is notable due to the limited area of its location, a restricted space of the entry point between the attic rafters and the compact void down to the top of the inserted cupboard (Figure 4a). As with some other 19th-century examples, the number of shoes in a single deposit can be surprisingly large, sometimes upward of 70 shoes. In this case, there were 31 shoes with a manufacturing date range of 1840 to 1850 (Figures 4b and 9).

Among the artifacts were items of family daily use in the form of a pair of gloves, a bonnet, a head-/hairpiece, pieces of black lace

FIGURE 8. Hestley Hall. The curved log, charred at one end, has a chicken or cockerel mounted on top. A layer of dung was put between them to secure the body in place. This composition was placed on or near the floor of the triangular void on the right side of the hearth. The reassembled three pieces of wood, using an elastic band, and shown in the four images to the right, comprised half a small log. This had been split twice, had the same three ends burnt, extinguished and then put into the triangular void on the right side of the hearth. (Photo by author, 2010.)


edging, a stout pair of braces, and a bunch of lavender that still retained its perfume after 150 years (Figure 9). Lavender was known as a moth repellent, and this could have been the reason for its inclusion. Furniture and furnish-ings were represented by a large piece of oil-cloth used to cover a table, and a small, oval, mahogany toilet mirror, nearly complete but with the reflective glass gone. This was the upper-most object in the deposit and sealed off the top. The mirror frame was in good condition, other than the missing glass, which could have been replaced. No pieces of mirror glass were found among the artifacts. Perhaps the reason for placing this object in the spiritual midden was because the family believed that bad luck, or even death, might follow them after breaking the mirror. This was a well-known superstition in England, and historical precedents have been recorded since at least 1777 (Opie and Tatem 1989). By consigning the broken mirror to the spiritual midden, they may have felt any ensuing bad luck would be averted.

The deposit also included two bottles (Figure 9). One bottle still contained liquid, which was sent off for analysis (Massey 2008). The label stated that it was supplied locally by Robert Doughton of Hintlesham, who was described as a “Vermin catcher and East India Oil Manufacturer.” The tests established that the contents were made from the preen gland of the male great Indian hornbill, which was considered to have curative properties; parts of the bird were used as charms by people in India (Massey 2008). Was this partly con-sidered to be a magical cure for a bewitched horse belonging to the owner, Robert Rice? Was this also the reason for putting it in the spiritual midden? Robert Rice is described as a maltster and farmer in local directories and the census records (National Archives 1851, 1861; White 1855:355; Kelly 1865:786). Vari-ous beliefs arose about curing and controlling horses, because they played such an important part in farming and local businesses. This site was located in the area of Suffolk where George

FIGURE 9. The Malthouse. To the right of the 31 shoes is the frame of a dressing-table mirror with its glass gone. In front of the mirror frame are two bottles of liquid (likely for treating horses), part of a Staffordshire figurine, a cup bowl, and a small pile of lavender. (Photo by author, 1991.)


Ewart Evans recorded an oral tradition among the old horsemen regarding magical practices relating, in particular, to the farm horses, which he wrote about in one of his many books (G. Evans 1996).

What this deposit has in common with other 19th-century hoards is the presence of written and printed material. Two psalm- and hymn-books were recovered from the cavity. These included a little book (which was burnt on one corner) of poems about the seasons and baptism, and a copy of Benjamin Franklin’s Advise to Young Persons Intending to Trade of 1758 (Figure 4b).

Other examples of written and printed material in this particular deposit include five account books. The owner, Robert Rice, came to Earl Soham in the latter part of 1850 from Thorndon, about 10 mi. away. He took over the brewery adjacent to the house and brought with him five account books for the business he had run at Thorndon. These were put into the void near the top. The entries started in 1844 and finished in 1850. Near the top of the deposits lay the final completed account book, with each entry crossed through when it was settled. The last entry was for May 1850. On the last page, the eldest daughter, 16-year-old Louisa, listed the full names of her parents, herself, and her sib-lings. In the census return of 1851, an additional child was listed, Walter, aged nine months, born at Thorndon in June 1850. Included with the account books is a copy of the News of the World for 18 August 1850. Was this saved and put there to commemorate the day of the move to the new house? In addition, the deposit con-tained a desk spike with a large stack of bills for goods supplied to Robert Rice’s premises in Thorndon. It would seem, from the dates of these bills, together with the five account books and the fact that the name of the last child (Walter) was not included on the final page, that all these artifacts may represent the family’s past life at Thorndon up to midsummer 1850, and that a part of this hoard commemorated the move and a new beginning at Earl Soham. The horse-related artifacts may be associated with events in the first month or so at Earl Soham. Was the mirror glass broken during the move from one house to another? No broken pieces of mirror were found in the enclosure. Maybe all the old shoes belonging to the family were gathered up, and

those that were no longer needed were dropped into the void.

The evidence from a number of 19th-century deposits indicates that it was becoming more common to use selected objects gathered together, with dated letters and printed mate-rial, to form a time capsule commemorating a significant year or the start of a new building. Usually, these include a coin with the chosen date, or a piece of dated newspaper, with the other objects. At Earl Soham, there do seem to be elements of a memento mori composition. If the objects do not exactly denote that one should “remember your mortality,” then perhaps they were intended to communicate that one should “remember these names and our presence through these objects representing our family,” as the full names of the family were shown on dated material. However, the nature and large size of the Malthouse midden indicates such objects were not simply used to record a single year. It is highly probable that this hoard was also assembled in the mid-19th century for superstitious reasons, in the tradition of a spiritual midden, and included per-sonal associations of past trade, with all the family represented by clothing and personal objects.

Differences between Some 19th-Century Hoards and Deposits from Previous Centuries

Because the concealed deposits found in the United States and Australia tend to date from the 19th century, I propose to list the main features of such 19th-century deposits in England that make them different from those noted above, formed and added to during the 17th and 18th centuries.

1. Nineteenth-century deposits frequently contain a greater number of shoes than earlier spiritual middens. Furthermore, with some of the bigger hoards of shoes there are comparatively small numbers of other artifacts. This suggests that, over time, the shoe became a more significant component of ritual concealments, while other artifacts may have decreased in importance.

2. The date range of shoes was usually not so wide in the 19th-century collections. The deposits appear to have been formed in a shorter time span, whereas the earlier spiritual middens contained shoes deposited over a much greater number (50 to 120) of


years. The items selected for 19th-century deposits can be more closely dated because some artifacts can be identified in pattern books and trade catalogs.

3. There are often documents or letters in the 19th-century deposits that give family details. Newspaper fragments may also be datable. This could be the result of the increased availability (and lower cost) of printed materials, such as books and news-papers, as well as greater literacy.

A forthcoming paper on the comparisons of several East Anglian spiritual middens will give more details to support these conclusions (Easton [2016]).

An Experiment with Memory

In 1985, an experiment was started with the construction of a new spiritual midden in Bed-field Hall. During successive intervals over six years, groups of personal family materials that were no longer needed went into an appropriate void. This was then sealed over to see how long the memory recalled what had been selected. Over time, the knowledge of the midden’s loca-tion and the actions involved were remembered, but other details were lost. With the exception of a distinctive leather handbag (by designer Anthony Mowles) and the remembrance of many pairs of shoes going in, nothing else was recalled with any clarity. A written record of what went into the void was deliberately not kept, because it seemed highly unlikely that the formation of earlier spiritual middens in a less literary world would have been recorded item by item.

Despite the very large number of artifacts at Earl Soham, deposited over a similarly short span of time as with the Bedfield new experimental model, it was unlikely that any of the family would have remembered the range of artifacts with any clarity 20 years after the deposition. There would certainly have been a clear memory of the intention to bring to a conclusion the closing of home and business matters at Thorndon and the new start at Earl Soham. One suspects that the breaking of the glass mirror, a prized item, would be memorable enough to be recalled by the depositor. It is not possible to prove how many of the family participated in this formation and deposition, but there does seem to be a more conscious

celebration and renewal in both this one and several other 19th-century spiritual middens. So, these middens can be a form of time capsule, as well as having the continuation of the protective elements in the creation of such deposits.

Both of these spiritual middens were created for a particular moment in a more conscious way than the three earlier examples. In the case of Earl Soham, once inserted, these were objects certainly beyond recovery without demolition of the top of the cupboard that acted as the floor of the large load placed on top of it. With the ear-lier three, as with other known spiritual middens, the most likely recall within the households will have been the frequent repetition of depositions, the constant journeys into attics, and the believed outcome of this intent, depending on the wellbe-ing or the opposite associated with those actions.

The Concerns for which People Sought Protection

During the religious reforms of the 16th century, particular attention was given to texts that could divert people’s minds from forbidden images, and these continued to be the principal focus of religious observance during the centuries that followed (Duffy 1992; MacCulloch 2009; Whiting 2010). Two well-known religious lead-ers from very different locations and centuries provide similar guidance to their congregations that they not stray from trusting in God’s help to solve their personal problems. They define different theological outlooks developed for their times. The first is a warning in the early 16th century from Martin Luther’s instructions associ-ated with the observance of the Ten Command-ments in his catechisms, and, in particular, the detailed analysis he gave to the First Command-ment (Clark 1999). According to Martin Luther, the First Commandment could be broken by “using prayers and adjurations to the evil spirits to protect oneself, one’s cattle, house, children, and all else, from wolves, war, fire, flood, and other kinds of harm” (Clark 1999:490). How would these very typical concerns be applicable to East Anglia in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centu-ries? Each of these listed are taken, in turn or in groups, to set against the archaeological record.

Although this particular form of catechism was specific to Luther’s time and geographical location, it very likely had wider appeal. As


with other forms of folk magic, church teaching may have regarded the practice by community members of selecting and hiding personal mate-rials within their homes, for gain or protection, as representing a departure from regular prayer and clerical advice. The church certainly dis-couraged the taking of advice from “cunning folk,” and the warnings for such visitations are also listed in the same catechisms about breaking the First Commandment. For example, congregation members were warned to avoid measures of “taking to witchcraft, magic, or the black arts, when in difficulty [or of] making use of mystic letters, signs, herbs, magic words, charms, and the like” (Clark 1999:490).

The prolific Cambridge theological writer and Puritan minister William Perkins (1556–1602) offered his advice regarding appropriate ways to counteract spiritual troubles within the home:

For Sathan contenteth not himselfe, to have manifested his malice in afflicting mens persons, but he also enlargeth the same to the molestation of the places where they dwell, by infecting the ayre, and such like. The onely effectuall means to remedie this evill, is the Sanctification of the places of our habitation. Looke as we are wont to sanctifie our meate and drinke, by Gods word, and by praier, and thereby procure his blessing upon his own ordinance for our refreshing: so in like manner may we sanctife the places of our abode, and thereby both procure the blessing which we want, and avoid many curses and dangers, which otherwise would fall upon us. (Perkins 1608:225; Hamling 2010:270)

There is a difference between the understand-ing of Luther and that of a Reformed Protestant like William Perkins, who divided the Catholic/Lutheran First Commandment into two command-ments (Diarmaid MacCulloch 2013, pers. comm.). Nevertheless, in the same way that Luther was aware of households employing incorrect ways of counteracting misfortune by using apotropaic methods, so Perkins was guiding his puritanical audience toward prayer, rather than resorting to homemade remedies or specialist advice given by others not connected to the church.

Interpreting Spiritual Middens

In England, there are no known contemporary accounts for the selection of secreted materials deposited in buildings, except for the preparation and placement of stoneware and glass bottles,

known as “witch bottles.” Such witch bottles were associated with curing illness caused by a malefactor, and the earliest reference to such items of material culture was probably from Suffolk in the 1640s (Merrifield 1987; Manning, this issue). The artifacts in these spiritual middens should be analyzed contextually to determine their purpose, function, and assemblage. Some common elements can be observed in these different deposits and offer the best opportunities for speculative analysis of intentions. Do these choices of objects, many of which appear in multiple deposits, indicate some specific, yet shared, concerns within these different households?

Shoes and Clothing

Shoes and clothing, in particular, enable the most immediate identification of the gender and age of the individuals involved. June Swann (1981) was the first to recognize that the hard-ened, hidden shoes, of all items of deposited clothing, keep a part of the identity and shape of the wearer better than any other item of apparel. They are also the most numerous of the clothing items found. However, since these shoes are often not found in isolation, what is the reason for the disposal of other associated pieces of clothing? Perhaps it would be safer to consider that, whatever personal items they selected, these representations of family mem-bers were deliberately assigned as a lure into a dead-end void to help create a spirit trap. These articles were mostly dropped in when they were dirty and worn out, and they must have initially carried with them the distinctive odor of the wearer. Besides, at the point of delivery, the owners may not have made so much distinction between the fabrics and the stiffened leather as is seen today. Often, the recovered soft cloth-ing has been ravaged by insects and has lost much of its shape. Because the access points for these drops were generally near the top of the building and adjacent to the ever-open chimney, perhaps the idea was to lure the feared perpe-trators of harm away from the interior space of the home. After all, with the expectation of the witch or the familiar revisiting a sick occupant, the most common positions for the placing of the “witch bottle” at the expected entry was either at the threshold or the base of the hearth (Merrifield 1987).


It has been suggested that the unofficial, and fairly obscure saint, John Shorne, vicar of North Marston in Buckinghamshire, England, may be responsible for the popularization of the shoe as a spirit trap that led to so many being used in vulnerable parts of buildings (Merrifield 1987). He was depicted in just four 15th-century East Anglian church screen panels, and on some pil-grim badges, after having trapped the Devil in a boot. This interpretation seems questionable, for how does one explain the distribution of secreted shoes around Europe and other countries, where there was no popular knowledge of stories con-cerning Shorne?

Tools, Farm Equipment, and Household Objects

The tools, farm equipment, and household objects found in spiritual middens may have been intended to represent aspects of the occupations and daily activities of the households. Among these were items that were products of secondary tasks, such as furniture making and weaving, that raised additional revenue in the lean months of the year (June Swann and Victor Chinnery 1993, pers. comm.). The repetition of certain trade objects in deposits can show the regional variations of specific trades. Lace bobbins have been reported in several different spiritual middens from houses in the vicinity of the small market town of Eye, in middle Suffolk. Lace making was a specialty cottage industry in the region from the later 17th century until the early 20th (Howener-Townsend 2009). Interestingly, bobbins were not represented so far in spiritual middens examined located out-side the region, suggesting that the placement of bobbins in the Eye area was related to a specific aspect of the residents’ daily lives and livelihoods.

The Health of Family and Livestock

Illness in the family, attributed to maleficium (harmful magic), was a constant concern, as was the bewitchment of livestock and horses (Aubrey 1696). A question and answer by the witches in Shakespeare’s Macbeth were intended to resonate with the Globe Theatre’s city-dwelling audience: “‘Where hast thou been sister?’—‘Killing swine!’” (Shakespeare 2008:1.3.35–37). The concept of maleficium against livestock would have been even more familiar, and of greater concern, among

members of farming communities. The presence of ointment and medicine bottles may also have related to remedies, successful or otherwise, for both animals and humans. These could be home-made or purchased under instruction from a cun-ning person.

Predatory Animals, War, Fire, and Flood

There were no wolves in England after the mid-15th century, but the equivalents, which could cause considerable damage to livestock, were foxes and polecats. The possibility of war and civil unrest was never far from people’s minds. The people of England had lived through a traumatic civil war in the mid-17th century, and there was often concern about invasion and civil unrest. Fire was perhaps the most universal risk, as most towns can recall one particular fire that razed a part of each. Floods, in the valley towns and low-lying areas of Suffolk, where farmsteads were situated, were naturally a threat to people’s livelihoods and domestic living.

Returning to the second half of Martin Luther’s list, the fear of the devastation caused to livestock by predatory animals, such as the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) or, in some parts of Britain, the European polecat (Mustela putorius), will first be considered. A most notable feature in all three of the earlier spiritual middens, as other locations, is the presence of either the furculae or wings of geese. This was com-mented on in particular by the archaeological team that undertook the analysis of a portion of the Hestley Hall materials. They found pairs of wings from at least eight individual birds, with sections of other wings and a furcula (Goffin and Fieder 2011). Geese have been valued for their alarm calls since the Roman period (Foster 1984). Perhaps, by including elements repre-sentative of these birds, it was hoped that their nominal presence would give the householders forewarning of dangers. “A goose I have, which with a jealous ear, lets loose her tongue to tell that dangers near” (Herrick 1907–1921). They might thus guard against danger to livestock, and also against burglary, for geese were good at creating a noise at the approach of humans. Chicken or cockerel carcasses may also be con-signed for the same reason. There is also evi-dence that the wishbone was used in the same way as the horseshoe hung upside down over


the bed to prevent nightmares (Powell 2011). As the horseshoe in the Cutchey’s Farm deposit was the only one found so far in such contexts, it cannot be definitely linked to this form of protection with any certainty, although this is one of several artifacts of iron in this deposit. Iron itself was understood to have significant properties for protection (Merrifield 1987). There were also other methods employed in buildings for certain cases of nightmares and sleepwalking (Easton 2007, 2011).

The fear of war is more likely to be coun-teracted by the use of amulets worn on the person than by secreting items around the hearth (Scarisbrick 2007), although the point at which rampaging humans might enter the house could account for the placing of protective objects on doors or under thresholds. The placement of scribed or painted apotropaic symbols and burn marks on doors might also be connected with this fear (Easton 1988, 1997a; Binding at al. 2004). A door adapted from a former element of a sanctified building and then reused in a domestic context might also reinforce an extra sense of security (Easton 1995). The same sort of evidence found at the entrance may also be intended to act as a deterrent against flood damage.

Toward the end of Martin Luther’s list was fire, and this must have been a very real concern. Without a fire service or insurance, a very serious house or barn fire could be an enormous setback, if not ruinous. Apart from blaming such misfortune on witchcraft, sudden lightning strikes leading to fire may have seemed like the wrath of God. This could explain a range of recovered evidence in houses, churches, barns, and stables (Easton 2013a, 2013b). Occasionally, among the symbols found scribed on house beams are zigzag marks remarkably like the common depiction of lightning (Easton 1988, 1998, 1999a, 1999b). Most houses also have numerous burn marks on wall studs, and particularly on chimney lintels, made by lit candles or rushlights (Easton 2011, 2012). Although some of these could have been made deliberately by holding a flame to the wood, it is remarkably difficult to explain them by the accidental placement of a light positioned too close to walls. Several notable examples, where the angle of the flame mark is at 45° or 90° to the floor, establish that they must have

been made before the house was constructed, for it is not possible to create such a mark unless the timber was itself angled accordingly to receive such a mark. By “inoculating” the areas of concern in a building with a dose of fire, it would appear builders and occupiers hoped to circumvent such catastrophes. The secreting of shoes, fossils, Neolithic axes, and, in particular, the placing of belemnites, known as “thunder arrows,” strategically in roof spaces or thatch, was intended to prevent roof fires and lightning strikes (Swann 1969; Bassett 1982; Merrifield 1987).

More specific to the analysis of spiritual mid-dens is the presence of significant quantities of burnt wood and charcoal in the three earlier deposits. The very large quantity of logs, large and small sticks, wood shavings, and other wood scraps is not so easy to explain. Were these perhaps intended to represent parts of the timber-framed buildings, possibly undergoing rebuilding together with the fixtures and fittings of the household in need of protection against fire? This explanation might also account for the inclusion of molded cornices, pieces of furniture, wallpaper, lining paper, and moldings in some of the spiritual middens. Fragments of extinguished burnt wood might therefore have been used in a similar way to the burn marks found on construction timbers: material evidence of a very particular ritual, made both visual and invisible, against such a worry.

There was a well-attested tradition around Christmas time of retaining a partly burnt brand. This was also called the “ashen faggott” or “Yule Log,” and was located within the home to ward off evil spirits and as a protection against fire. Robert Herrick, an early 17th-century poet, referred to this in 1647 as the “Christmas brand.” In his poem, “Ceremonies for Candle-masse Day,” he observed that a remnant of the extinguished log was to be kept until Christmas the following year, when the next Christmas brand was to be lit using the old one. “And where ‘tis safely kept, the Fiend, can do no mischiefe” (Herrick 1907–1921). Later writings observed that such a burnt log “secures the house from fire” and acts as a “charm against fire” (Opie and Tatem 1989). In the western counties of Cornwall and Devon, pieces of the Yule log were placed around the animal stalls where the cows were kept to protect them “from harm or disaster” (Opie and Tatem 1989).


So it would seem that over large parts of England, at least, partly burnt wood was collected around Christmas, or by Candlemas (February 2), and retained as an apotropaic measure for general protection against personal disasters to family and livestock, and more specifically against f ire. Herrick’s 1647 “Ceremony upon Candlemas Eve” directs the traditional day when all internal decorations had to be taken down (Herrick 1907–1921). The pre-Reformation origins of Candlemas are associated with the blessing of candles for use in church, some of which could come back to the house to protect against witchcraft. “In the case of a blessed candle, although it is more appropriate to light it, the wax of it may with advantage be sprinkled about dwelling houses” (Sprenger and Kramer 1968).

One of the strangest manifestations of such a ritual was the assemblage found at Hestley Hall, recovered from the deposit on the right side of the chimney. A chicken’s body was fixed onto a burnt log with a thick wedge of manure and was lowered to the bottom of the cavity. When this was found 290 years later, the chicken was still secured in this position, although subsequently the two became detached (Figure 8). The impression of the bird’s breastbone is clear to see in the dried manure, where it must have been pressed hard into the soft fecal material. Apart from interpreting this as an offering of some sort, or because the bird died through illness and was thought to have been bewitched, it is possible that the spiritual presence of the bird was intended to raise an early warning to the household if fire began to take hold.

Evidence for Seasonal Deposition

It is notable that most of the shoes in these three earlier spiritual middens, and others inspected from the 17th and 18th centuries, have thick mud trapped in the waist, at the back of the soles where they abut the heels. This possibly rules out the drier spring, summer, and early autumn months for disposing of each shoe, although a mud-caked shoe could be put in a corner to be deposited at any time. However, most farming folk would not have the range of shoes readily available today, nor the cupboard space to dump them in. Although there will

have been wet days over these months, the consistent repetition of this evidence across multiple sites may point toward winter activity. Arguably, too, an owner might be more inclined to part with an old damp garment than a dry one.

The abundant skeletal evidence of goose fragments could suggest deposition during a month when goose was commonly eaten. Traditionally this was either Martinmas (11 November) or, in more recent times, Michaelmas (Hutton 1994, 1996), a holiday on 29 September. This day, named after St. Michael, was one of the quarter-days in the farming calendar, when rent was paid to landlords. Many reasons have been given for the association of eating geese on this day (Armstrong 1958). Although by the early 19th century this bird was more often associated with Christmas feasting, there was a general killing of animals and fowl between either Martinmas or Michaelmas and Christmas. These 44 days were called the “tyme of slaughter” (Armstrong 1958). In several European countries a goose furcula was retained and used to predict the weather (Armstrong 1958). This tradition was known as the goose-bone oracle and an object of superstition since the 15th century. If there was a preferred time of the year to add significant objects to a spiritual midden, items like goose wings or furculae could be held back in readiness for an annual drop. The presence of butchered bones may also incline toward the preparation of meat during later months at the year’s end. Traditionally, meat would be eaten before the fasting of Lent began (Easton 2007).

There is as yet no conclusive evidence to determine whether items found in these spiritual middens were deposited continually as they wore out, or if they were collected together for a propitious ritual held at a specific time of year. There is some indication, however, that Twelfth Night was a particular marker for the transition from one year to the next (Easton 2007, 2011). Twelfth Night was celebrated exactly 12 nights after Christmas and was closely associated with the three Magi and the biblical story of the birth of the Christ child. During the celebrations, feasting occurred, and rituals involving salt and bread, marking of the ceiling, and going around the house with a lighted candle were common (Easton 2007,


2012). In fact, there were rhymes from the 16th and 17th centuries that describe the ritual festivities associated with Twelfth Night:

And round the house they go, with torch or taper clear,That neither bread nor meat do want, nor witch with dreadful charm,Have power to hurt their children, or to do their cattle harm,There are three nights only do perform this foolish gear. (Kirchmayer 1880)

Such rituals were common in households during the 17th and 18th centuries, and similar to the good-luck rituals still practiced today in Europe during Christmas, Twelfth Night, and New Year celebrations. Perhaps there was a particular effort made annually to assemble old materials and drop them into the spiritual midden to protect the household during the coming year. This would not preclude other items being added to the deposit during other times to deal with any other concern that may arise. Furthermore, the accumulation of objects may not have been the most important element of the ritual.

It is notable that the clothing and shoes in the spiritual midden from the Malthouse, as with other 19th-century deposits, were in better condition. As indicated, there seems to be more awareness for posterity during this period, so perhaps the times of year when these later ones were created may not be so critical as for those in formation before 1800. In fact, the implica-tion from the earlier deposits is that the ritual act of deposition itself was likely to be more important than the memory of the specific con-tents of the spiritual midden. With such large numbers of items accumulated over the years, there was probably only a vague remembrance of what had been dropped in before. Two examples of modern ritual activity demonstrate the way in which an act can be ritualized with-out ritualizing the material objects involved. Lighting candles in churches and cathedrals as a prayer for deceased relatives is done for the moment only, and the wax residues or candle stubs may be subsequently collected and reused. One rarely notices the candle lighter going away from the lit candle and coming back to check that it is still alight, 15 min. later.

Similarly, wax votive offerings in the form of body parts to be healed, or as thanksgiving for

those that have been healed, were hung around the statue or shrine of a venerated person (Mer-rifield 1987). In certain cases these were only hung before a pilgrims’ shrine for the time it took to pray and were later removed and recy-cled. This observation was made at the tomb of St. Hermano Pedro de Betancourt in the San Francisco Church in Antigua, Guatemala, during Easter in 2005 (Easton 2007, 2012). By the time the observer left the shrine, the wax images were being melted so the liquid wax could be reformed to make new votive parts and sold in the stalls in the entrance courtyard to this church.

Documentation and the Long-Term Care of Deposits

The purpose of reviewing these four very large and, as far as can be known, complete spiritual middens in Suffolk, England, is to demonstrate how important it is to recover and examine the entire assemblage. All too often homeowners and builders who encounter deposits put all or some of the artifacts from a house in one box, even though they may have come from dif-ferent locations within the building. It is only with detailed analysis of the whole assemblage from each site that it may be possible to make some informed judgment about the choice of certain items and their possible relevance to past householders’ concerns. In these instances, items like laths, bricks, and fragments of roof tile that cannot with certainty be described as deliberate or accidental inclusions, because they could have dropped in from the surrounding walls or roof, are put into a separate category or discarded.

It is equally important to encourage finders to carry out, or preferably to have carried out professionally, only the essential conservation. This conservation will be for artifacts that are overly fragile or unstable, such as textiles, paper, and worm-infested timber, and not on items like shoes, which may retain evidence of the climatic circumstances at the moment of deposition. Occa-sionally items, that may have been deliberately placed there, are found inside shoes, such as some charcoal and the rodent with a peg placed inside two of the shoes from Cutchey’s Farm.

It is essential to record and measure all finds fully, no matter how small, and to store them in suitable boxes clearly marked with their


contents and location. In a digital age it is fairly straightforward to photograph each individual item and group of artifacts. In the case of shoes and clothing, it is advisable to take at least half a dozen shots of each item from different angles. It is also essential to photograph items in situ during stages of discovery and with a scaled measure in view.

Three copies of written and photographic inventories of the assemblages should be made. One should be included in the boxes; another bound copy should be lodged in the house if the boxes are taken away from the building; and a third copy should be lodged with the nearest museum, archive, or other curatorial facility. By taking these steps a later researcher wanting to reexamine the evidence should be able to access one of these, even if some or all the cache has been dispersed, lost, or hidden.

Modern Superstitions

Spiritual middens are imbued with associa-tions connected to the supernatural. As a result, house owners may feel uncomfortable about the artifacts being left in the house, or believe that they should be returned immediately to the place where they were found and then covered over. The latter is the most common decision, and, if possible, advice should be given to do this in such a way that they can be accessed again for future examination. Occupants may also feel that bad luck will befall the house if these are removed from the property. Myths can build up very quickly after current misfortunes. Examples of possible losses to two of the spiritual mid-dens discussed in this paper are now recounted to show their vulnerability.

A set of misfortunes to the owners of the Cutchey house, some months after the midden objects were given to me in their entirety, nearly caused them to be lost, possibly forever. The owners went through severe financial pressures and had to sell both their home (Cutchey’s Farm) and three shops to avoid bankruptcy. Before this happened, the husband and friend begged for return of the midden objects to “bring luck back to the house.” I eventually convinced him that whatever perceived magical or protective powers these 18th-century items possessed, they were not representative of him and his situation. I suggested he would be better off selecting some

personal possessions of his own. He accepted this reason, but still begged for a presence of the original finds. Reluctantly, I agreed to give him one of the female shoes to go with his offering, and I hid a little rhyming couplet about this situation within this shoe. The present owners of the house, who came to a lecture in 2013, did not know where the hidden drop was within their house, and without them taking the walling apart, this present cache is unlikely to see the light of day for a good while, if ever.

Just this year, one the owners of the Earl Soham cache wanted to make a new time cap-sule in the same place as the original drop. He also wanted to take a selection of the Rice family’s possessions from the 1850’s cache to put with his new group as a time capsule and celebration of the years they had lived there. After asking my opinion, I explained how unique it was to have such a complete and very large group of objects from this date, and that the value was in the assemblage’s entirety. More needs to be done in the analysis of this cache, and he understood my point. These are just two examples of how fragile the ownership of these items is, which is why I am emphasizing the necessity for as much documentation and written information as possible to be given to the owners and lodged elsewhere. Information shared with June Swann has established how even those loans and gifts in the care of museums with which we have been involved are not entirely safe.

Although many people still regard deliberately concealed deposits, such as spiritual middens, as valueless rubbish, they have begun to gain acceptance from some archaeologists and build-ing historians, and are now the subject of studies by university students. I have received numerous requests for advice and related research assis-tance from interested parties from 1990 onward. More of these large finds will undoubtedly be uncovered, but it will take time for the general population to comprehend the full value that these artifacts had to past occupiers from the early modern period.

At the present we researchers cannot always understand or be sure of the motivations of past depositors, and perhaps some of this reasoning here will lead to speculation and debate in the future. By presenting the circumstances and details of four spiritual middens in Suffolk, England, I hope that this analysis will become


a springboard for reviewing the contents of smaller collections in different parts of the world formerly influenced by British colonization.

Acknowledgments

I would like to first thank the owners of these four houses that have yielded such a rich col-lection of objects, and who have allowed them to be kept together in their complete groups. In the order they were found these are Mike and Pauline Willenbrook, Ces and Mavis Kerridge, John and Myra Frost, and Mr. and Mrs. Nick Spaull.

In respect to this article, my greatest thanks are reserved for June Swann, MBE, who has spent many hours examining and producing detailed reports on each shoe. The presence and subsequent dating of shoes always gives the most reliable indication for an approximate span of time during which such large accumulations are formed. I should also like to remember with gratitude the shared thoughts that came out of discussions with the late Dr. Ralph Merrifield on the many occasions when he, June Swann, and myself arranged day schools and weekend courses at universities around southern Britain between 1987 and 1993.

Dr. Joanna Martin has been very patient with reviewing each draft and correcting mistakes. I am also most grateful to the editors for this thematic collection of articles, Chris Manning and Chris Fennell, for their considerable guid-ance and patience, and the helpful suggestions of the two outside referees.

Many other people have helped with refer-ences, comments, and contributions to this article: Philip Aitkens, Edward Martin, David Dymond, John McCann, Diarmaid MacCulloch, Alan Massey, Chris Mycock, and the archaeo-logical service field team of Suffolk County Council, Antony Wells-Cole, Sara Pennell, and lastly the continued support of and shared ideas with my wife, Christine.

References

armstrong, edward 1958 The Folklore of Birds: An Enquiry into the Origin and

Distribution of Some Magico-Religious Traditions. Collins, London, UK.

auBrey, JoHn1696 Miscellanies upon the Following Subjects Collected

by J. Aubrey, Esq. Edward Castle, London, UK.

Bassett, miCHael g.1982 “Formed Stones,” Folklore and Fossils. National

Museum of Wales, Cardiff, UK.

Baxter, t. w.1989 Early Accounting, the Tally, and the Checkerboard.

Accounting Historians Journal 16:43–83.

Binding, CHristopHer J., linda J. wilson, and timotHy easton

2004 Ritual Protection Marks in Goatchurch Cavern, Burrington Combe, North Somerset. Appendix: The Use of Conjoined Vs to Protect a Dwelling. Proceedings of the University of Bristol Speleological Society 23(2):119–133.

Bridgeman art liBrary2012 Goose Herd, Goose Girl, Geese Herding. Bridgeman Art

Library <http://www.bridgemanart.com>. Accessed 4 October 2013.

Clark, stuart1999 Thinking with Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in Early

Modern Europe. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

duffy, eamon1992 The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in

England c. 1400–1580. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

dymond, david, and peter nortHeast1986 A History of Suffolk. Phillimore & Co., Chichester,

UK. East Anglian Daily Times1989 No title. East Anglian Daily Times 2 September. Ipswich,

UK.

easton, timotHy1983 Shoes and Other Objects of Superstition Found in the

Debenham Area. Suffolk Review 1:29–30.1988 Apotropaic Marks, Scribed and Scratched in Barns

and Houses. Newsletter of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and History 27:7–8.

1995 Two Pre-Reformation Organ Soundboards. Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and History 38(3):268–295.

1997a Scribed and Painted Symbols. In Encyclopedia of Vernacular Architecture of the World, Vol. 1, Paul Oliver, editor, pp. 533–534. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

1997b Spiritual Middens. In Encyclopedia of Vernacular Architecture of the World, Vol. 1, Paul Oliver, editor, p. 568. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

1998 Ritual Marks on Historic Timber. Mortice and Tenon 7:6–9.

1999a Ritual Marks on Historic Timber. Weald and Downland Open Air Museum Magazine 1:22–28.

1999b Ritual Marks on Historic Timber. Third Stone: Archaeology, Folklore and Myth 38:11–17.


2007 Twelfth Night and the Lord of Misrule. Weald and Downland Open Air Museum Magazine 2:26–27.

2011 Candle Powers. Cornerstone 32(4):56–60.2012 Burning Issues. Society for the Protection of Ancient

Buildings Magazine 33(4):42–47. [2013a] Protective Circular Symbols in Agricultural

Buildings and Stables: A Suffolk Study with National Implications. Historic Farm Buildings Group 2013.

2013b Plumbing a Spiritual World: A Study of Church Roofs in Suffolk. Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings Magazine 34(4):40–47

[2016] Characteristics of 19th Century Spiritual Middens in East Anglia. Post-Medieval Archaeology 52.

easton, timotHy, and Jeremy Hodgkinson2013 Apotropaic Symbols on Cast-Iron Firebacks. Journal

of the Antique Metalware Society 21:14–32

evans, george e.1996 Pattern under the Plough. Faber and Faber, London,

UK.

evans, nesta1985 The East Anglian Linen Industry: Rural Industry and

Local Economy, 1500–1850. Gower Publishing Co., Aldershot, UK.

foster, BenJamin (editor)1984 Livy, the History of Rome, by Titus Livius Patavinus,

Book 5. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

goffin, riCHenda, and mike feider2011 The Finds and Animal Bone Evidence from Hestley

Hall Chimney. Manuscript, Timothy Easton, Bedfield Hall, Woodbridge, UK.

Hamling, tara 2010 Decorating the Godly Household: Religious Art in

Post Reformation Britain. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

HerriCk, roBert1907–1921 Hesperides. In The Cambridge History

of English and American Literature, Vol. 7, F. W. Moorman, editor. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Hodgkinson, Jeremy2010 British Cast-Iron Firebacks of the 16th to Mid 18th

Centuries. Hodgersbooks, Crawley, UK.

Howener-townsend, n.2009 Suffolk Lace and the Lacemakers of Eye. Leiston Press,

Kessingland, UK.

Hutton, Ronald1994 The Rise and Fall of Merry England: The Ritual Year

1400–1700. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.1996 The Stations of the Sun; A History of the Ritual Year

in Britain. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

James i1597 Daemonologie (Demonology). Robert Waldgrave,

Edinburgh, UK. Reprinted 1924 by E. P. Dutton & Co., New York, NY.

1603 Daemonologie (Demonology). Arnold Hatfield, London, UK.

kelly, edward r. (editor)1865 Post Office Directory of Norfolk and Suffolk. Kelly &

Co., London, UK.

kirCHmayer, tHomas (editor)1880 The Popish Kingdom, or Reign of Antichrist, Written

in Latine Verse by Thomas Naoreorgus, and Englished by Barnabe Googe. Reprint of 1553 edition. Chiswick Press, London, UK.

maCCulloCH, diarmaid2009 A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand

Years. Allen Lane, London, UK.

martin, Joanna2012 Commissioned Reports on Documentary Evidence

for Cutchey’s Farm, Hestley Hall, and Boundary Farm. Manuscript, Timothy Easton, Bedfield Hall, Woodbridge, UK.

massey alan2008 Two Bottles from the Malthouse, Earl Soham.

Manuscript, Timothy Easton, Bedfield Hall, Woodbridge, UK.

mCCann, JoHn2010 The First Glazed Windows in Vernacular Houses. The

Evesdropper, the Newsletter of the Suffolk Historic Buildings Group 42(2):17–19.

merrifield, ralpH1954 The Use of Bellarmines in Witch Bottles. Guildhall

Miscellany 3:3–15.1987 The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic. Batsford,

London, UK.

mullin, david, lena strid, and edward BiddulpH2009 Cattle Burial from Sussex. Post-Medieval Archaeology

45(2):367.

national arCHives1851 Census, Earl Soham. HO107/1802/40v/18, National

Archives, London. UK.1861 Census, Earl Soham. RG9/1172/13r/123, National

Archives, London. UK.

opie, iona, and moira tatem1989 A Dictionary of Superstitions. Oxford University Press,

New York, NY.

perkins, william1608 A Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft so Farre

Forth as It Is Revealed in the Scriptures, and Manifest by True Experience. Printed by Cantrel Legge, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.


powell, feliCity2011 Charmed Life: The Solace of Objects. Wellcome

Collection, Wellcome Trust, London, UK.

sCarisBriCk, diana 2007 Rings: Jewelry of Power, Love and Loyalty. Thames

& Hudson, London, UK.

sHakespeare, william 1604 Macbeth, Nicholas Brooke, editor. Oxford World’s

Classics, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

sprenger, JaCoBus, and HeinriCH institoris kramer1968 Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of witches), Montague

Summers, translator. Folio Society, London, UK.

storey, mattHew (editor)1994 Two East Anglian Diaries, 1641–1729: Isaac Archer

and William Coe. Boydell Press, Woodbridge, UK.

swann, June1969 Shoes Concealed in Buildings. Manuscript,

Northampton Museum, Northampton, UK.

1981 Shoes Concealed in Buildings: Supplement. Manuscript, Northampton Museum, Northampton, UK.

1996 Shoes Concealed in Buildings. Costume 30:56–69.2005 Interpreting Concealed Shoes and Associated Finds.

In Depotfunde aus Gebäuden in Zentraleuropa, Ingolf Ericsson and Rainer Atzbach, editors, pp. 115–119. Scrîpvaz-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.

2010 Reports, New and Updated from 1983, 1991, 1989, on All Shoes and Leatherwork. Manuscript, Timothy Easton, Bedfield Hall, Woodbridge, UK.

wHite, william 1855 History, Gazetteer and Directory of Suffolk. Robert

Leader, Sheffield, UK.

wHiting, roBert 2010 The Reformation of the English Parish Church.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

timotHy eastonBedfield HallCHurCH roadwoodBridge ip13 7JJunited kingdom

FOUR SPIRITUAL MIDDENS IN MID SUFFOLK, ENGLAND,ca. 1650 to 1850

Documents

Transcript of FOUR SPIRITUAL MIDDENS IN MID SUFFOLK, ENGLAND,ca. 1650 to 1850