Medieval finds from the River Thames: accidental loss, rubbish or ritual?

1 CMRC, Southampton, 11 November 2013

thames s'hampton illustrated rev.doc: 17/01/2015 12:04:00 1

Between 1968 and his death 10 years ago my late Museum of London colleague Brian Spencer published some 37 books and articles on pilgrim badges and related items: ‘pilgrim souvenirs and secular badges’ as in the titles of his Salisbury Museum catalogue and his publication in the Medieval Finds from Excavations in London series.

Several times he commented on prevalence of badges as river finds -

Ivor Noel Hume had suggested ‘Each pilgrim may have bought a number of badges and have thrown one into the river on his return either for good luck or as a half-understood thank offering for a safe journey.’ Spencer responded ‘Most of their conjectures, however, conflict with historical evidence and perhaps the only tenable explanation is that these fragile objects have simply survived more successfully in muddy, waterlogged conditions.’ (1968)

But 10 years later: ‘It seems unrealistic to interpret such a preponderance of river-finds either as casual losses or as accidental survivals. They are best explained as ‘offerings’, thrown into rivers by returning pilgrims, a practice that has many earlier parallels and was perhaps rooted deep in folk-belief.’ (1978)

- possibly a reaction to the increasing number of badges being found by metal-detectorists on Thames foreshore – plus the influence of another colleague, Ralph Merrifield, already researching the subject of his later book The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic

And in 1998: ‘Age-old superstitions, going back possibly to the Late Bronze Age, may also account for the deposition, perhaps as a propitiatory gesture, of so many pilgrim souvenirs at river crossings, especially at London…’ (1998)

This has become a commonplace – to quote from the recent Encyclopedia of Medieval Pilgrimage



‘many pilgrim souvenirs were tossed into rivers, perhaps in a propitiatory action…

‘No records survive describing the custom of discarding pilgrim souvenirs, but the sheer numbers dredged from rivers indicate that this was not an accidental occurrence.’

But Spencer by 2000 was prepared to admit it was ‘enigmatic’

‘…the widely-recognised, if enigmatic relationship between pilgrim signs and river-crossings and other water-side places…’ (2000)

His last comment was made in connection with find of over 200 badges, both pilgrim and secular, found by metaldetectorists in bed of the R Stour in Canterbury, close to the medieval pilgrim hostel at Eastbridge, in 1987. More than half the pilgrim badges were badges from the shrine of St Thomas in Canterbury cathedral. Had pilgrims bought souvenirs at the cathedral gate and walked 200 yards just to throw them into the river?

The late Geoff Egan concluded these were ‘a cumulative mass votive thanks’ for successful journey to the pilgrim destination.

‘…presumably reflects some kind of cumulative mass votive thanks for successful journeys to this important pilgrim destination.’

‘It is likely that at least a proportion of this concentration of souvenirs was left behind by pilgrims who had received comfort, if not a cure for sickness, at Becket’s shrine and the adjacent hospital.’

Thanks for successful journey TO, safe return FROM, safe river crossing?

…

Let’s put Thames finds in context.

The Thames flows 40 miles (65km) through Greater London.

there are finds of all dates, of high quality or rarity, from most of that length – many now in the Museum of London

In the 19th century most came from dredging, including dredging for gravel to ballast ships sailing empty from the port of London

A slow and laborious task – there was time to look for interesting saleable objects in bucket

These passed through the hands of collectors like Thomas Layton of Brentford or dealers like G F Lawrence and then into museums

More recently, metaldetectorists have searched the foreshore, and took on the name of the Victorian mudlarks.

There are biases – especially in the selection process > the finds are literally choice specimens.

Yet overall there is no doubt that rivers like the Thames are a major resting place for a vast range of artefacts

Archaeologists – particularly prehistorians and more recently those studying the early medieval period – have long been keen on the concept of ‘special deposits’ in ‘watery places’.

They have used terms such as ‘ritual’ / votive / sacrifices

Ritual deposits in watery places happen today –



this is a ‘holy well’ – St Non’s Well, Pembrokeshire, which attracts its share of modern offerings

in the form of coins

and we’re all familiar with the fake wishing well.

A few years ago MoL staff were surprised when mudlarks started finding in Thames - not just Diwali lamps but figures of Hindu deities, presumably thrown in by modern London’s Indian community – they are often broken, which may be significant.



while anyone who has crossed the Millennium Bridge recently has probably noticed…

the padlocks attached to the railings. Marked with the names or initials of a couple they symbolise undying love. But the custom also entails throwing the padlock key into the river. Presumably by now there are several hundred padlock keys scattered on the river bed. What would future archaeologists make of that? The padlocks are ephemeral – City of London maintenance men regularly remove them – the keys in the river are only a by-product of the ritual.

Before we can discuss these ‘ritual deposits in watery places’ – the reality and purpose of such a custom, we need to be sure of where, what and when… and that was the purpose of some research I’ve been involved in since I retired from the Museum of London in 2009.

In the museum’s core collections 2669 medieval objects (out of 15,488 medieval objects in total, that is 17%) are registered as being from ‘River Thames’

of which 2289 (85%) have more closely recorded (if sometimes vague) findspots;

Already referred to biases: the manner and location of recovery, but especially the preferences of discoverer (dredger crew, chance finder, mudlark), dealer, collector, and curator > selection

so finds that have found their way into museums are not a reliable statistical sample.

However…

for the purposes of getting to grips with the distribution of a collection of 2000+ objects, I first divided the Thames into zones – Hampton Court to Erith



The table shows totals of MoL medieval objects by period from each zone – there are clearly ‘productive’ zones - 7 is the late medieval City, where metal-detectorists have been particularly active – but note zones 3 – Syon Reach/Brentford/Kew and 4 Putney/Fulham/Hammersmith

(warning of bias – this zone 3 is the area where the collector Thomas Layton lived!)



and if we plot medieval objects by ‘class’ or ‘function’ against date – two clusters stand out – late medieval ‘personal items’ (largely dress accessories) and ‘religion’ – also chiefly metal-detector finds from City/Southwark area

and ‘weaponry’ – of all periods

…

but first to look at ‘religion’ -

‘religion’ ranges from eg a hammer of Thor pendant to a gold crucifix containing a sliver of the True Cross [these and following illustrated in PowerPoint]

or a gold ring with saints, a brooch with a religious or magical inscription

but mostly the pilgrim and other religious badges of cheap lead alloy mentioned at the start

but alongside them secular badges – some with royal or noble family emblems, badges of loyalty, others with more everyday imagery

Now let us assume that there is a rationale for throwing a sacred thing (like those Hindu figurines) into a river – presumably it would not apply to an otherwise very similar but secular, NOT sacred object. In other words, can we show that there was a preference for throwing pilgrim and other religious badges into water, in comparison to badges with secular motifs? – which might instead find their way into rubbish tips

Comparable figures do exist.

For example,

the badges that Brian Spencer published in 1998 came mostly not from the Thames foreshore but from the huge dumps of refuse and stable-sweepings making up the fill behind the timber revetments at sites like Billingsgate lorry park excavated 1982

We can also identify other ‘land’ sites – finds by metal-detectorists mostly from ploughed fields reported to the Portable Antiquities Scheme; items in MoL collections NOT from the Thames foreshore

In comparison, from rivers: Thames foreshore finds in the MoL collections, and reported to PAS, and recorded in an earlier card-index held in the MoL, together with finds from the beds of rivers in Salisbury and Canterbury.

Now, the relative numbers of religious and secular badges vary considerably – and that enigmatic group of mostly local badges form the bed of the Stour in C’by looks even more striking when we notice just how few NON-religious badges there were –

but there’s no obvious pattern of difference between the columns on the left and those on the right -

>> in other words



The relative percentages of religious and secular badges do not show a difference consistent with their source from water or land sites

The evidence does not support a contention that religious badges were preferentially disposed of in water.

However, if we define ritual as including special treatment of an object before final disposal - then the treatment of some pilgrim badges is notable – (practice as far as I know not found among secular badges) – bent or folded – eg this fine one, probably Our Lady Undercroft, Canterbury cathedral – founded neatly folded up into rectangular block.

while several this type – reliquary head of St Thomas Becket – have been found folded – broken when finder tried to open it up!

They come both from foreshore and from waterfront reclamation dumps – folded before disposal, not necessarily before throwing into river.

Bent pennies – well-known medieval practice that IS evidenced in documentary and literary sources

brought to wider attention by Ralph Merrifield book The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic (1987)

A vow to go on pilgrimage and offer the coin at a shrine.

River deposit? – no – not found in ‘foreshore mud’

Sarah Blick: ‘...When an inanimate object such as a coin was damaged or “killed” in this way, it was symbolic of the coin’s transfer from a physical to a spiritual plane. By destroying its normal use, the bender rendered the coin functional only for supernatural purposes.’

And see the study by Richard Kelleher: 200+ PAS finds of folded coins, late 11C to early 16C – (0.8% of total medieval coin finds) were found by metal-detectors on agricultural land.

Lead tokens – flimsy lead-tin alloy, like badges – in the 1970s Michael Mitchiner built up large collection by buying from Thames metaldetectorists – two important articles in Brit Numis J

They are more common than official coinage and brass casting-counters or jettons on waterfront sites – and on the foreshore.



Not surprising that some were folded – Merrifield attributed this group [illustrated in PowerPoint] group to ‘Thames foreshore at Swan Lane’ – Geoff Egan pointed out they come NOT from the foreshore but from rubbish dumped behind a revetment.

But from a more recent adjacent site, Watermark Place, five bent tokens come from the dumps of refuse on the foreshore to the south of Waterfront 4, c 1400, and so may have been thrown into the river as a deliberate act, or may have simply arrived on the foreshore amidst other refuse. … Some items for which ‘safe and secret disposal’ seems the best answer – eg a so-called ‘hoard’ of several dozen late medieval silver pennies, from Queenhithe – Edward IV, but counterfeit - was this simply the disposal of illegal goods, dangerous to be found with?

…

Now – weaponry.

Richard Bradley wrote in 1990 of ‘a clear identification between finds of weaponry and watery locations.’

He was referring to the Late Bronze Age – but what of the medieval period?

Finds of weapons tabulated by period and area -

City: late medieval – Kew-Fulham: Anglo-Saxon/Viking

Particularly noticeable – early Anglo-Saxon spears:



Hot-spot = Brentford

Brentford history –

A river crossing – the loss of weaponry by accident or in battle?

An official meeting place – a venue for formal or ritual activities?

Battle of 1016– Edmund Ironside v Cnut and a Danish army

‘and a great number of the English people who went ahead of the main force, wishing to get booty, were drowned there through their own carelessness.’



These could be accidental losses by those ‘drowned’ in the 1016 crossing – there are some but not very many

The triangle between Brent and Thames was known locally in the 19th C as Old England,

an area including marshland and old courses of Brent –

A dock and railway yards were built in the mid 19th C, the rest of the area, though drained, was still rough pasture on this OS map 1915:

Of the 1859-60 discoveries – many went to Thomas Layton and so to MoL – (some are marked as from the Thames ‘off Old England’ –the circumstances are not clear)

Note the long date range – this is not the result of ONE cataclysmic event like a single battle

and the types (seax, spear, sword) of the Saxon finds.

…

To concentrate on Early Saxon finds from Old England and from the nearby Thames –



1 seax, 1 shield boss, 2 swords, 64 spearheads – surely a ‘special’ deposit. The proportions don’t match weapon-burials or a ‘natural’ weapon-set of Saxon fighting man – why spears? why just one shield?

However, I’ve dated the spearheads ‘early Saxon’ using Michael Swanton’s 1973 typology – John Hines pointed out (1997) that the types of spearhead Swanton catalogued from the Thames (including Brentford finds) don’t tally with those found in graves in neighbouring areas – could the difference be one of date?

So, is this deliberate selection? Is it ‘ritual’? It’s tempting to compare Danish/Jutland marsh finds of the Late Iron Age: the ongoing dumping of weapons into lakes or marshes – perhaps war booty?

But the Danish finds are not selectively one type of weapon – nor do they show continuity into the historical, documented, Christian period!

…

As we go through the Saxon period, weapons from the Thames are more diverse –spread more evenly – cf>>



>>Late Saxon/Viking weaponry - still a Brentford concentration, but a more even spread downstream – note Putney/ Wandsworth and the City concentrations

There is a wider range of types of weapon, including battleaxes and 18 seaxes illustrated in the London Museum 1935 catalogue – all but three are from the Thames (and one of the three is from the River Lea)

The Thames was of course a major battleground during the Viking and Danish wars, and accidental loss is a real possibility – Vikings made their winter quarters at Fulham in 879.

Back in the 1960s David Wilson published a study of Viking-age swords from rivers

‘It is surely odd to interpret all these weapons as casual losses. They are present in such large numbers that it is difficult to see them in any other light than as offerings.’

John Blair – commenting in 1994 on finds from the upper Thames –

‘…it is hard to believe that the huge quantity of ninth- and tenth-century weapons can all be casual losses; several of the swords… have been ritually ‘killed’ by bending, which recalls the ancient Scandinavian tradition of making ritual deposits in rivers and bogs.’

But Guy Halsall (2000) suggests the ‘ritual’ theory may still ‘raise eyebrows’

I think we need something more substantial than a simple count of numbers of isolated finds from river – some circumstantial evidence.

In 1970 Walter Torbrugge published a study of finds from European rivers, including ‘Viking’ weapons from Thames – and a ‘shiffsfunde with weapons before 1927’ – no…

it’s a group of high quality weapons in MoL – spears and battleaxes - early 11th C – some with decoration in Ringerike style



They were illustrated by Mortimer Wheeler in his London Museum catalogue London and the Vikings 1927

The published catalogue and even MoL archives are very cagey about how LM acquired them and where from – but it was certainly reported they were found together as group on (what was described as) the old bed of Thames, on a building site at London Bridge in late 1920

This was probably Adelaide House, at the north end of the modern bridge – standing astride the north end of the medieval bridge

Probably not an accidental loss on the site of one of the battles around bridge – they were found together in group on old river bed

Were they deposited there deliberately?

Julie Lund in a recent work on weapons from bridge and river crossing sites in Scandinavia – possibly foundation deposits - brought the London Bridge finds into her discussion.

But what about single finds of high status later medieval weapons?

According to David Stocker & Paul Everson’s study (2003) of finds from the River Witham – the finds from prehistoric to late medieval cluster at crossing points.

They include10 late Saxon and medieval swords, up to 14th C, including eg these in the BM – most were found during dredging and embankment works in the 1780s.

Stocker and Everson interpret the Witham valley as a sacred landscape since the Bronze Age –

Their map shows causeways and river crossings – and the close presence of several monastic sites.

This inspired me to look at Thames finds from the same point of view – two medieval bridges, 16 ferries certainly in use by 1500s – and the presence of riverside churches – which came first, the church or the crossing?

If we superimpose findspots of 10th/11th century weapons that we’ve already seen – are there possible clusters?



Was there deliberate deposition at a crossing point – or accidental loss – or were these simply places where access was easy?

Like others, Stocker and Everson refer to the most famous weapon to be thrown into water: King Arthur’s sword (Excalibur) – why? Originally in La Mort le Roi Artu (written in 1230s: British Library Add. Ms. 10294, f.94) – Arthur himself explains it is to keep a powerful weapon out of hands of unworthy successors:

: ‘…I do not wish it to remain in this kingdom, in case our wicked successors gain possession of it.’

Was this the poet’s rationalisation of a traditional practice?

Part of a funeral ceremony?

Stocker and Everson suggest ‘It may be that casting the lord’s sword, his symbol of lordship, into the river represented a symbolic termination of that lordship…’

Mike Parker Pearson discussing Fiskerton, an Iron Age ritual site on the Witham, also discussed these later medieval weapons: ‘Perhaps such offerings were deposited at the demise of their owner...’

Is this the safe disposal of a ‘powerful’ object on the death of its owner?

Heinrich Härke: ‘a mechanism by which weapons could be, and were, taken out of circulation’

And certainly once King Arthur had authorised the custom, might it be taken up in later medieval chivalry as proper way of disposing of dead man’s weapon?

…

14th C swords in MoL

The finest example – found during the building of Westminster Br in 1742

A high status weapon, the sword – not surprisingly in the later medieval period this shows a ‘capital’ distribution around Westminster and the City



By contrast with such high status, a more ‘popular’ weapon, the dagger – worn by every man – often as a fashion accessory rather than for use – is distributed almost entirely in the area of the medieval city:

These from the collection of John Walker Baily, now in MoL [illustrated in PowerPoint]

– and foreshore finds 1970s/80s

If we look at City localities more closely eg Paul’s Stairs, Brook’s Wharf, Vintry – there are few finds east of London Bridge



and compare the 16th C copperplate map – as one might expect, they come from locations with easy river access – stairs or a lane to the river::

Are they simply accidental losses when stepping on or off a boat? Or a deliberate deposit at a point of access to the river (if so why)?



In 1969 Peter Marsden and Guildhall Museum staff (including me) investigated a cofferdam at Blackfriars, during the building of a new river wall.

There were medieval and later wrecks, but also a ‘concentration’ opposite Paul’s Stairs comprising a sword (c 1500), 26 daggers, and 74 knives mostly 1500-1550.

Some were apparently deliberately bent or damaged – the edge bashed against something hard and sharp – ‘decommissioned’ is the modern term - if prehistoric, we’d say ‘ritually killed’.

Could this be the Cutlers’ Company right of search and seizure of substandard or foreign wares? – but there is no documentary evidence of this manner of disposal of confiscated goods.

if it is – then it’s once more a case of the ‘safe disposal of dangerous objects’, taking them out of circulation.

If we continue into 16th/17th C – there are a large number of knives from the river Fleet – found in the 1840s – on numbers alone a ‘special’ deposit – again, some have been ‘killed’ before disposal.

…

In 1967 one of my first tasks when I joined the staff of the Guildhall Museum was to go out with Peter Marsden to the dredger working at London Bridge, carrying out preparatory works for the construction present bridge.

At first, the dredging revealed remains of the medieval bridge

but as the dredger moved closer to John Rennie’s 19th C bridge, finds became later – presumably items thrown off the bridge

They included two pistols thrown in together, with a leather holster – at the time we thought they were WW2 German – souvenirs brought back by a British soldier –



but they’re certainly not German military guns

?possibly one is a Baby Browning, the other a ?Colt hammerless automatic, the favoured weapon of American gangsters.

Do they represent simply criminal activity – the need to dispose of the incriminating evidence?

…

I finish with two quotes

John Hines (1998) ‘Non-funerary deliberate deposition of material is probably sacrificial or ritual when the context makes retrieval difficult, e.g. water or wetlands.’

Admittedly Hines made this statement in the context of Migration-period Scandinavia. It is not true I think of the pair of automatic pistols – we must allow the possibility of a perfectly practical reason for the safe disposal of powerful or dangerous objects

and from Richard Bradley’s 1990 book The Passage of Arms

‘...the deposition of votive offerings in watery locations is evidenced over a long period of time, but may have been utilised in very different ways from one period to the next’

we might simply query the use of the two words ‘votive’ and ‘offerings’ which seem to prejudge the issue! Perhaps we can only refer to ‘the deposition of objects in watery locations…’, unless there is other evidence of the context.

I must conclude with the same question as I started – accidental loss, rubbish or ritual? – no doubt all three.

Medieval finds from the River Thames: accidental loss, rubbish or ritual?

Documents

Transcript of Medieval finds from the River Thames: accidental loss, rubbish or ritual?