COINING THE COIN-TREE:
CONTEXTUALISING A CONTEMPORARY BRITISH CUSTOM
A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities
2014
CERI HOULBROOK
SCHOOL OF ARTS, LANGUAGES AND CULTURES
2
CONTENTS
Abstract 10
Declaration 11
Copyright Statement 11
Acknowledgements 12
The Author 13
Chapter 1: Introduction 14
1 – ‘Festering Superstitions’? 14
2 – Introducing the Coin-Tree 16
3 – Personal Motivation 16
4 – Aims and Objectives 17
5 – Material Culture 19
6 – Contemporary Archaeology 20
7 – Thesis Structure 23
Chapter 2: Literature Review 26
1 – Introduction 26
2 – Cross-Cultural Studies 26
3 – Historical Ritual Uses of Trees in the British Isles 28
4 – Contemporary Ritual Uses of Trees 31
5 – Historical Coin-Trees 35
6 – Contemporary Coin-Trees 37
7 – Theoretical Framework: ‘Folklore Archaeologist’ 39
8 – The History of British Folklore Studies 43
9 – Archaeology and Folklore: A Brief History 45
10 – The Folklore of Archaeology 47
3
11 – The Archaeology of Folklore 51
12 – Conclusion 55
Chapter 3: Methodology 58
1 – Terminology 58
2 – Identification and Cataloguing 58
3 – The Empirical Data: Locating the Coin-Trees 61
4 – The Empirical Data: Producing a Plan 62
5 – The Empirical Data: Conditions of the Coin-Trees 63
6 – The Empirical Data: Cataloguing Coins 64
7 – The Excavation Data: Ardmaddy 67
8 – The Ethnographic Data: Observation 70
9 – The Ethnographic Data: Interviewing 72
10 – The Ethnographic Data: The Internet 73
Chapter 4: ‘Reading Superstition Backwards’ 75
Part 1: The Historical Coin-Tree 76
1 – Introduction 76
2 – Case-Study: Isle Maree, Scotland 78
3 – Case-Study: Clonenagh, the Republic of Ireland 82
4 – Case-Study: Ardboe, Northern Ireland 84
5 – Reading ‘Superstition’ Backwards 86
6 – The Rag-Tree 87
7 – Outliving Holy Wells 88
8 – Substituting the Sacred: Gougane Barra 89
9 – Contagious Transfer 92
10 – The Implantation of Disease 93
11 – Coins as Deposits 95
12 – The Bowed Coin 97
4
13 – Touch-Pieces 98
14 – The Coin’s ‘Amuletic Quality’ 100
15 – The Royal Effigy 102
16 – Coins and Value 103
17 – Reversing Value 104
18 – Debunking the ‘Disenchantment’ 108
Part 2: The Contemporary Renaissance 110
1 – The Contemporary Coin-Tree 110
2 – The Cult of the Child 112
3 – The Dawn of the Day-Tripper 114
4 – Availability: A Change in Forestry Policy 117
5 – ‘Folklore 2.0’ 118
6 – Conclusion 122
Chapter 5: Contemporary Engagement 125
1 – Introduction 127
2 – Engaging with the Coin-Tree: Prior Knowledge 128
3 – The First Encounter 130
4 – ‘Queue Mentality’ 132
5 – A Matter of Imitation 134
6 – Art and Aesthetics 136
7 – Captivation 138
8 – Aesthetic Appreciation 139
9 – Interactivity 141
10 – ‘Tagging’ Trees 145
11 – Individuation 148
12 – Money and Metonymy 153
13 – The Coin as Memento; the Coin as Sacred? 155
14 – The Tree as Incidental 157
5
15 – Conclusion 160
Chapter 6: The Mutability of Meaning 161
1 – Introduction 163
2 – Applying Purpose 164
3 – The Wishing-Tree 166
4 – ‘A Child’s Kind of Fairy-Tale’ 167
5 – The Mutability of Meaning 170
6 – Modernising Meaning 172
7 – Coining the Coin-Tree: What’s in a Name? 175
8 – Fixing Meaning 178
9 – Case-Study: St. Nectan’s Glen, England 180
10 – Folklorismus: Manipulating Meaning 185
11 – A (Fostered) Misconception of Age 188
12 – A (Natural) Misconception of Age 191
13 – Location and Organic Manipulation 192
14 – The Coin-Tree and the Rag-Tree 194
15 – Healing in Ireland 195
16 – Memory: A New ‘Meaning’ 197
17 – Conclusion 201
Chapter 7: The Future of the Coin-Tree 202
Part 1: Conserving the Coin-Tree 203
1 – Introduction 203
2 – The Mortality of the Coin-Tree 204
3 – ‘Green Monuments’ 206
4 – The Coin-Tree’s Ambiguity 208
5 – Age, Authenticity, and the Heritage Debate 210
6 – Removing the Coin-Tree 211
6
7 – Preservation in Situ 215
8 – Fencing/Fossilizing: The Stonehenge Case-Study 216
9 – ‘Freeing’ not ‘Freezing’: Intangible Cultural Heritage 218
10 – Sustainability 219
11 – Combating the Custom: The Glastonbury Thorn 220
12 – Strategic Recommendations 221
13 – De-Coining the Coin-Tree 223
14 – Cataloguing Coin-Trees 225
15 – The Ardmaddy Wishing-Tree Project, Scotland 227
Part 2: Reconstructing the Coin-Tree 228
1 – Introduction 228
2 – The Future Archaeological Site: The Tree 229
3 – The Future Archaeological Site: The Coin 232
4 – Dating the Site 234
5 – Issues with Dating 237
6 – Interpreting the Coin-Tree Site as a ‘Hoard’ 239
7 – Identifying the Receptacle 242
8 – Ritual Interpretations 244
9 – The Depositors 248
10 – Conclusion 250
Chapter 8: Conclusion 252
1 – The Coin-Tree Contextualised? 252
2 – Archaeology and Folklore 255
3 – Limitations and Future Research 257
4 – ‘Festering Superstitions’? 261
Bibliography 262
7
Appendix 1: Illustrations 302
1.1 – Figures 302
1.2 – Maps 373
Appendix 2: Coin-Tree Data 377
2.1 – Coin-Tree Sites Abbreviations and Quantities 377
2.2 – Conditions of Coin-Trees 378
2.3 – Decay Classes 378
2.4 – Creation Dates of English and Welsh Coin-Trees 378
2.5 – Identifiable Coin-Tree Species 379
2.6 – The Life-Expectancy of Trees According to Species 379
2.7 – Aira Force Case-Study 380
2.8 – Ardboe Case-Study 391
2.9 – Ardmaddy Case-Study 397
2.10 – Arnside Knott Case-Study 405
2.11 – Becky Falls Case-Study 409
2.12 – Bolton Abbey Case-Study 426
2.13 – Brock Bottom Case-Study 441
2.14 – Claife Station Case-Study 444
2.15 – Clonenagh Case-Study 447
2.16 – Corfe Castle Case-Study 453
2.17 – Cragside Case-Study 457
2.18 – Dovedale Case-Study 460
2.19 – Fairy Glen Case-Study 477
2.20 – Fore Case-Study 485
2.21 – Gougane Barra Case-Study 495
2.22 – Grizedale Case-Study 505
2.23 – Hardcastle Crags Case-Study 513
2.24 – High Force Case-Study 524
8
2.25 – Ingleton Case-Study 536
2.26 – Isle Maree Case-Study 569
2.27 – Leigh Woods Case-Study 587
2.28 – Loxley Case-Study 589
2.29 – Lydford Gorge Case-Study 591
2.30 – Malham Case-Study 607
2.31 – Marbury Case-Study 631
2.32 – Padley Gorge Case-Study 636
2.33 – Portmeirion Case-Study 642
2.34 – Rydal Case-Study 658
2.35 – Snowdon Case-Study 664
2.36 – St Nectan’s Glen Case-Study 669
2.37 – Stock Ghyll Case-Study 679
2.38 – Tarn Hows Case-Study 689
2.39 – Tarr Steps Case-Study 712
Appendix 3: Coin Data 728
3.1 – Denominations of Coins 728
3.2 – Dates of Coins 732
3.3 – Catalogue of Foreign Coins 734
3.4 – Terms for Coin Conditions 737
3.5 – All Deposits: Casual, Ambiguous, Planned 737
3.6 – Annual Quantities of Coins Issued 738
Appendix 4: Ethnographic Data 739
4.1 – Interview Strategy 739
4.2 – One-hour Observations 740
4.3 – Number of Interviews Conducted 742
4.4 – Age Ranges of Interview Participants 742
9
4.5 – Ethnicities of Interview Participants 743
4.6 – Places of Residence of Interview Participants 744
4.7 – Names of Coin-Trees 745
Appendix 5: The Ardmaddy Excavation 746
5.1 – Site Location 746
5.2 – Excavation Site Plan 747
5.3 – Test Pit Dimensions 747
5.4 – Context Register 748
5.5 – Excavation Results 748
5.6 – Distribution of Coins 761
5.7 – Dates of Coins 764
5.8 – Denominations of Coins 765
5.9 – Depths of Coins 766
5.10 – Levels of Corrosion 768
5.11 – Signs of Percussion 772
5.12 – Non-Coin Deposits 774
5.13 – Small Finds Register 778
5.14 – Small Finds in Turf 792
5.15 – Unstratified Finds 798
Appendix 6: ‘Sanctifying Our Sites’ Blog Entry 799
Total word count: 91,980
10
ABSTRACT
This thesis offers an archaeological and ethnographic examination of the coin-tree
custom, which is essentially what its name suggests: the practice of inserting coins
into trees. These trees are often in the form of logs or stumps, and they are
commonly located beside well-traversed footpaths in rural/semi-rural areas.
The custom can be traced back to the 1860s in Scotland, but has experienced a late
20th
/early 21st-century renaissance, with clusters of coin-trees emerging across
England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland. No
previous academic attempt has been made to either catalogue these structures or
contextualise the practice; it is the aim of this thesis, therefore, to do both.
Proffering a catalogue of 197 individual coin-trees distributed across 34 sites
(detailed in the appendices), this thesis draws on a wide range of resources in order
to elucidate the custom: literary works, both historical and contemporary; the
empirical data of the coin-trees themselves; and the ethnographic material of over
200 participant interviews.
The history of the custom is traced, including a consideration of why it has
experienced a recent resurgence – particularly at a time popularly conceived of as a
‘secular age’. The questions of how and why people participate are examined in
detail, revealing a mutability to the ‘meaning’ of the custom, and a consideration of
the future and heritage of the coin-tree structures themselves is also offered. The
thesis closes with a suppositional vignette: what would an archaeologist find if she
uncovered a coin-tree site in the future? How would she interpret the remains? And
what does this reveal about archaeological methodologies, ritual interpretations, and
the relationship between folklore and material culture?
11
DECLARATION
No portion of the work referred to in this thesis has been submitted in support of an
application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other
institute of learning.
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
i. The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis)
owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and she has given The
University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for
administrative purposes.
ii. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic
copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in
accordance with licensing agreements which the University has from time to time.
This page must form part of any such copies made.
iii. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trade marks and other
intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of copyright
works in the thesis, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be
described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third
parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made
available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant
Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions.
iv. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and
commercialisation of this thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property and/or
Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the University IP Policy
(see http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=487), in any relevant
Thesis restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The University
Library’s regulations (see http://www.manchester.ac.uk/library/aboutus/regulations)
and in The University’s policy on Presentation of Theses
12
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
No thesis has ever left its writer with as many debts as this one has. Indeed, so many
people have contributed to it that to give each of them the written heartfelt thanks
they deserve would result in a piece of work lengthier than this thesis. Alas, I shall
have to keep it brief (note my loose conception of the word ‘brief’) – but in no way
should my concision be interpreted as a lack of gratitude.
First and foremost, thanks have to go to my wonderful supervisory team: Tim Insoll,
for his staunch support right from the beginning, laudable efficiency regardless of
where he is in the world, his deep ocean of knowledge, and for inspiring me to
research the archaeology of ritual in the first place. Petra Tjitske Kalshoven, for
warmly welcoming me into the fascinating realm of Anthropology, for her patience
in the face of my fledgling ignorance, her attention to detail, and for her distrust of
the term ‘folklore’, which made me consider it in a whole new light. And to Mel
Giles, for her kindness, infectious enthusiasm, and eagerness to share her wealth of
ideas, theories, and knowledge. You have all gone above and beyond what a
supervisory team is expected to do.
Many other members of Manchester University and Manchester Museum staff have
aided, informed, and inspired me in a vast variety of ways: Emma Loosley, Hannah
Cobb, Sian Jones, Karl Hennermann, Richard Atherton, Mandy Tootil, Soumhya
Venkatesan, Joanne Marsh, Amanda Mathews, Stephen Walsh, Irit Narkiss, Sam
Sportun, and Henry McGhie. Whilst researchers from across the world have shared
their invaluable and extensive knowledge, ideas, and information with me: Owen
Davies, Marion Bowman, Barbara Voss, Peter Harbison, Tõnno Jonuks, Vicky
Basford, John Winterburn, Timo Muhonen, John Billingsley, Jeremy Harte, Mark
Hall, Coralie Mills, Sally Daffarn, Janet Hooper, Kieran McCarthy, and Chris
Bonsall.
This thesis would not have been possible without the many funders who have
contributed generously to my research: the Folklore Society, the Catherine
Mackichan Trust, the Society for Post-Medieval Archaeologists, the Sidney Perry
Foundation, the Heritage Lottery Fund, the AHRC, and the University of Manchester
Archaeology Department. This thesis would also not have been possible without the
permission, cooperation, and enthusiasm of heritage professionals and coin-tree
custodians: Sue Turnbull, Kenny Nelson, Simon Nicholas, Sharon Webb, Julia
Hamilton, Charles Struthers, Stephen Dowson, Sam Stalker, Adrian Shaw, Wendy
Wells, Moira Smith, Vicky Lowles, Graeme McVittie, Phil Stuckey, Bridget
McCormarch, Finbarr Lucey, Steve Gillard, Jim Jeeves, Chris Moseley, Kate
Horsfall, Meurig Jones, Greg Robinson, Rachael Morgan, Stephen Bradley, Andrew
Marsh, Tony Bullough, Jamie Lund, Angharad Harris, Jerry Gunton, Jeremy Platts,
Phillip Hibbs, Chris Milner, Tom Lewis, Duncan Mackenzie, Peter Duncan, Mairi
Davies, Mrs Warbrick, Rachel Milner, Chris Raper, Jenny Sutton, Stephen Bradley,
Martin Davies, and Bill Morris. I’ve also had the good fortune of encountering
wonderfully enthusiastic local residents willing to share their knowledge of the
custom: John MacFarlane, Huw Rowlands, Mike Shaw, Robert Rae, Julie Ferris,
John Coles, Jane O’Reilly, and particularly Pat Grimes.
13
A heartfelt thanks to all of those members of the public – the seasoned hikers, the
leisurely walkers, the sulky teenagers, the excitable children – who have answered
my questions, asked questions of your own, and are keeping the coin-tree custom
alive – without which, my research would have proved rather fruitless.
And of course, I am eternally grateful to my fellow postgraduate researchers who, in
their quest for knowledge, have inspired my own. Thank you to Natalie Armitage,
Jane Neild, Steve Gordon, Chiara Zuanni, John Piprani, Steve Leech, Ellen McInnes,
Bryn James, Steph Duensing, and Lara Bishop. Thank you for the proof-reading. For
the hearty debates. The constructive criticism. The selfless sharing of information,
ideas, resources (and, in the case of the Ardmaddy Excavation, rain-drenched
labour). And for the invaluable friendships I have gained over the last 3 years
(fuelled by Krispy Kreme donuts, Danish pastries, and spiced apple tea).
Last but by no means least, I have to thank the colourful array of family and friends
who’ve supported my research and worked as ad-hoc field assistants at coin-tree
sites across the country: Sarah (I told you we wouldn’t get murdered in the woods),
Bella (I foresee a career in archaeology in your future), Nana Margaret, Jane, Tony,
Paul, Mel, Qudsia (thank you for braving the dogs), Juliet, Cait, and Ami. A huge
thank you to my dad for his wealth of ideas, flurries of newspaper cuttings, and
endless enthusiasm for my work, and another huge thank you to my mum and Simon
for the hundreds of miles chauffeured, the thousands of coins counted, the mountains
climbed, the wet days braved, and the wonderfully funny memories accumulated
whilst out in the field.
Another huge thanks to my soon-to-be husband Mark, who never stopped supporting
me. You’ve braved the rain, the wind, the snow, the mud, my bad moods, and the
seemingly endless hours of tedious coin cataloguing with me, never once wavering
in your enthusiasm (we won’t mention Ardmaddy). If we can survive coin-tree
fieldwork, we can certainly survive marriage!
And finally to Nana Pat, for your encouragement, the fascinating conversations and
books we’ve shared, and for providing me with a strong, feisty role model. I’m sorry
that you didn’t get to read the final product of my research, but I dedicate this thesis
in your memory.
THE AUTHOR
Ceri Houlbrook is a postgraduate researcher in the Department of Archaeology at the
University of Manchester. She completed her BA(Hons) in Classical Studies at
Edinburgh University in 2008, and her MA in ‘Constructions of the Sacred, the Holy
and the Supernatural’ at the University of Manchester in 2011, her dissertation
entitled ‘The Suburban Boggart: Folklore’s survival, revival and recontextualisation
in an urban, post-industrial environment’. She considers herself a folklore
archaeologist, and has published her research on the material culture of folkloric
practices in the Cambridge Archaeological Journal (2013) and Folklore (2014).
14
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1 – ‘FESTERING SUPERSTITIONS’?
“It is the finest wych-elm in Hertfordshire. Did your sister tell you about
the teeth?”
“No.”
“Oh, it might interest you. There are pig’s teeth stuck into the trunk, about
four feet from the ground. The country people put them in long ago, and
they think that if they chew a piece of the bark it will cure the toothache.
The teeth are almost grown over now, and no one comes to the tree.”
“I should. I love folklore and all festering superstitions.” (Forster 1910
[2000]: 8.61)
The above exchange occurs in E. M. Forster’s novel Howards End (1910), between
Mrs Wilcox and chief protagonist Margaret Schlegel. Whilst describing the estate of
Howards End to Margaret, Mrs Wilcox mentions a local custom which avers that a
sufferer of toothache will be cured if they insert a pig’s tooth into the bark of a
certain Wych elm. This form of ‘folklore’, as Margaret identifies it, is known as
implantation, whereby something is achieved – in this case, the cure of toothache –
by plugging, nailing, or wedging an object into another object (Hand 1966). In this
example, toothache is transferred from the depositor into the tree via the
implantation of a tooth, which represents the disease; the disease is subsequently
implanted into the tree.
Mrs Wilcox’s Wych elm is not unique; across the British Isles, a veritable plethora
of trees have been employed for similar purposes. Trees from Cornwall to the
Highlands of Scotland have been subject to the embedding of a variety of objects,
such as human hair (Hand 1966: 64); nail-clippings (Roud 2003: 481); metal nails
(Walhouse 1880: 99n; Porteous 1928: 188); pins (Wilks 1972: 121); and human
blood (Hand 1966: 69), the depositors hoping for cures for ailments ranging from
toothache and warts to ague and whooping-cough.
However, as widespread as the custom of embedding objects into trees was, the
general consensus appears to be that the tradition has ebbed. Implanted trees are
15
viewed in the past tense. Mrs Wilcox notes, with a sense of melancholy, that the
teeth in her Wych elm are ‘almost grown over now, and no one comes to the tree’,
whilst Margaret describes the custom as a ‘festering superstition’ (Forster 1910
[2000]: VIII, 61); from this perspective, the Wych elm is a decaying manifestation of
a faded, forgotten custom. Indeed, 20th
-century scholars adopt similar stances. In
1932, folklorist Benedict stated matter-of-factly that ‘folklore has not survived as a
living trait in modern civilization’ (1932: 292); it was her opinion that folkloric
customs, such as the implantation of disease into trees, are not features of modernity,
and that any survivals are just that: survivals. Festering superstitions.
This opinion appears to have preceded Benedict, with even 19th
-century folklorists
having to fight for the right to concern themselves with contemporary customs.
Writing in 1885, folklorist Hartland stated: ‘I decline to be limited to survivals, or to
archaic beliefs and customs’ (1885: 117, emphases in original), contending instead
that: ‘Tradition is always being created anew, and that traditions of modern origin
wherever found are as much within our province as ancient ones’ (1885: 120).
Writing of ‘Tree Traditions and Folklore from Northeast Ireland’ (2000), Simon
takes a similar stand. Using the books of Wilks (1972) and Morton (1998) as
examples, he notes that works which ‘discuss the folk beliefs, uses and symbolism
ascribed to plants and trees…tend to view folklore as something practised in the past
or unconnected with present society’ (2000: 33). Simon contests this approach,
drawing on examples from Ireland to substantiate his claim that ‘tree traditions’ are
not merely remnants of the past, but are active features of the present.
Similarly, writing of ‘Plants as Symbols in Scotland Today’ (2010), Van den Eynden
remarks on the contemporaneity of customs and beliefs which are commonly viewed
as historical. He avers that there ‘is a need to update the status of plant symbolism in
present times and to assess how relevant it may be nowadays. It is worth
knowing…which traditional and contemporary uses are practised at present’ (2010:
239). It is the aim of this thesis to address his comment; to align myself with Simon
and Van den Eynden in their assertions that tree traditions are alive, active, and
relevant in present-day society. In order to achieve this aim, this thesis will focus on
a single, grossly understudied example of a British tree tradition: the coin-tree.
16
2 – INTRODUCING THE COIN-TREE
Coin-trees are exactly what their name suggests: trees which have been embedded
with coins (Appendix 1, Figs. 1-6). They are often logs, stumps, or living trees, but
outdoor wooden posts and sculptures are also included, and they are alternatively
referred to elsewhere as ‘money-trees’ and ‘wishing-trees’. This thesis focuses
specifically on the coin-trees of the British Isles, and offers the first known academic
attempt to catalogue and contextualise them.
Thus far, 34 coin-tree sites (containing between them 197 individual coin-trees) have
been catalogued (Appendix 1.2, Maps 1-4). They are distributed across Scotland,
England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland, with distinct clusters
in South-West and North-West England. They range in date from the 19th
to the 21st
centuries, the vast majority having emerged during a late 1990s/early 2000s
widespread resurgence of the custom. The actual purpose of implanting coins into
these trees, and the reason behind the recent resurgence, is not information that can
easily be summarised in this Introduction, but is instead the main aim of this thesis to
examine.
3 – PERSONAL MOTIVATION
My personal motivation for examining this custom stems from a childhood
experience. In the late 1990s, at the age of 12 or 13 (when a PhD was still a distant,
foreign concept), I went on a daytrip to the popular tourist attraction of Bolton
Abbey, Yorkshire, with my family. Surrounding the ruins of the Augustinian Bolton
Priory are 12,000 hectares of woodland and riverside paths, and it was along one of
these paths that I came across my first coin-tree (Fig. 1, Appendix 2.12). It was
impossible to miss. A vast log, 6.8m in length, stretched out alongside a curve in the
path, and its bark was encrusted with so many coins that it appeared more metal than
wood. Other visitors were contributing their own coins to this tree, either pushing
them into fissures in the bark or utilising nearby rocks to hammer them in. My sister
and I asked if we could do the same; our parents obliged, handing us each a copper
coin which we proceeded to add to this accumulation.
17
It would be romantic to claim that this experience set me on course to undertake a
PhD in archaeology and folklore; that this one coin-tree made such an impression on
my young mind that I decided, there and then, to one day research this custom. In
truth, however, at the time this experience had little impact on me. I cannot recall
what purpose I believed the coin-tree had or whether I asked my parents for an
explanation; perhaps my mind was on other things as I knocked my coin into the
tree. However, the memory obviously remained with me, for over a decade later,
when I first began to consider contemporary British folk customs, an image of the
Bolton Abbey coin-tree re-emerged. Certain that there must have been other studies
concerned with this custom, I began researching. What I found was a paucity of
information.
4 – AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
Other than the rare and brief reference to individual examples sparsely scattered,
scholarship had not concerned itself with the coin-tree. Possibly due to the
contemporaneity of this custom, and the general belief that – as Simon worded it –
‘folklore [is] something practised in the past or unconnected with present society’
(2000: 33), very little attention had been given to the practice of coin-implantation in
the present day. No attempts had been made to examine, analyse, or interpret the
custom as a whole, and so, agreeing with Van den Eynden’s statement that there is a
need to update the contemporary status of plant-centred traditions (2010: 239), I
aimed to address this evident void in the scholarship.
The first objective of this thesis was to compile a catalogue of coin-trees within the
British Isles; the second, to contextualise the custom. Questions which this thesis
aims to address include: How widespread is the coin-tree custom within the British
Isles? How ‘old’ or ‘new’ are the custom and the structures of the coin-trees
themselves? Who participates in the custom and what purpose has been assigned to
the implantation of coins? What accounts for the custom’s late 20th
/early 21st-century
resurgence?
The ambiguity of the coin-tree as a subject-matter has led to further questions
concerning methodology. Firstly, how applicable is the term ‘folklore’? I use it
18
frequently throughout this thesis, defined simply as the traditional customs, beliefs,
and legends, exclusive of orthodox religion and ritual, of a group of people.
However, as is detailed in Chapter 2, there is much controversy surrounding this
term, and five pages are devoted to a justification of its use within this thesis.
Secondly, what methodologies should be adopted in order to provide the fullest
contextualisation of this contemporary custom? Folklorist Vickery bemoans the
tendency of scholars to rely on late 19th
-century works as their sources for
contemporary plant-lore (1995: vii), and opines the following:
This reliance on previously published work has led to an almost total neglect
of contemporary material. All too often writers on folklore have quarried for
fossilized information in printed books and have made no attempt to collect
fresh, living, and lively material from the true authorities – the ‘folk’
themselves. Most recent publications on the folklore of plants tell us more
about late nineteenth-century plant-lore than about present-day beliefs and
practices. Indeed, there is even a widespread but mistaken belief that little
remains to be collected today (1995: vii)
It is a further aim of this thesis, therefore, to address Vickery’s remonstrations, and
to consider what sources can and should be drawn upon in the contextualisation of
the contemporary coin-tree.
Although Vickery bewails scholars’ tendencies to quarry for ‘fossilised’ information
on folkloric practices in books, this is a method that cannot be avoided, and the
printed word – ranging from 19th
-century antiquarian works to online blogs – has
been utilised wherever possible throughout my research. However, not at the
expense of the testimony of what Vickery terms ‘the true authorities – the ‘folk’
themselves’ (1995: vii). As detailed in Chapter 3, ethnographic data has been
gathered concerning the coin-tree through interviews with custom participants and
coin-tree custodians, and much evidence cited throughout this thesis was sourced
through such engagements with the ‘folk’.
However, another aspect of this folkloric custom is also considered: the material
culture of the coin-trees themselves. What can these physical structures elucidate
about the custom? What are they composed of and how are they created? What
testimony do the trees, the coins, and their environments give? In order to answer
these questions, archaeological methodologies were employed. Fieldwork was
conducted at each coin-tree site, a photographic record was compiled, and the
19
empirical data of the coin-trees recorded, such as coin quantities (Appendices 2-3),
whilst at one coin-tree site (Ardmaddy, Argyll), an archaeological excavation was
undertaken on the area surrounding the tree (Appendix 5).
5 – MATERIAL CULTURE
Material culture plays a prominent role in this thesis’ contextualisation of the coin-
tree, as defined by Deetz as ‘that sector of our physical environment that we modify
through culturally determined behavior. This definition includes all artifacts, from
the simplest, such as a common pin, to the most complex, such as an interplanetary
space vehicle’ (1996: 35, emphases in original). It is a field of study which,
according to Tilley, centres on the notion that ‘persons cannot be understood apart
from things’ (2006: 2); we shape our physical world and, in turn, are shaped by our
physical world. Culture and society are inseparable from the material objects we use,
produce, create, consume, modify, and destroy. It is this concept which stands at the
centre of material culture studies.
However, despite being defined rather straightforwardly by Deetz above, ‘material
culture’ has been subject to numerous debates and accusations of ambiguity, most
thoroughly examined by Hicks (2010) and Lucas (2012). One issue questions the
focus of material culture; in 2007, Ingold criticised the abstractness of the term
‘materiality’ and the scholarly trend to fixate on the social contexts of materials in
lieu of their physical properties. He advocates the redirection of attention ‘from the
materiality of objects to the properties of the materials’ (2007: 12).
In response to Ingold’s advocation, Tilley (2007) points out that a focus on the brute
properties of materials can provoke the neglect of a consideration of their human
significance, whilst Miller (2007) argues that, rather than attributing properties to
objects, ‘material culture studies’ should consider what properties other peoples may
attribute to them. Knappett, on the other hand, argues that limiting focus to a
material’s physical properties excludes notions of indirect perception: ‘Are there not,
after all, associations that go beyond the immediate world of materials; what of
remembrance of past situations, or imagination of future ones?’ (2007: 22).
20
Another point expressed against ‘material culture’ is semantic in nature, critiquing
the implication inherent in the term that there is a distinction between ‘material’ and
‘culture’ (Hicks 2010: 80; Lucas 2012: 125). As Thomas argues, the ‘material’
preceding ‘culture’ appears as a qualifying prefix, implying that the norm is non-
material culture (2006: 15). However, he asserts that ‘there are no forms of culture
that lack a materiality…Nothing ever floats in pure ether’ (2006: 15). Thomas’
opposition to ‘material culture’ is therefore based on the impression of culture
implied by the term; an impression he perceives as erroneous.
While this thesis acknowledges these debates surrounding the term ‘material
culture’, it will not shy away from using it. Here, ‘material’ is not perceived as a
qualifying prefix indicating that immaterial culture is the norm, and no stringent
distinction between brute physicality and social significance will be made. Instead,
‘material culture’ is defined as a notion employed in archaeology to address the
significance of an object’s physical properties in a consideration of its social role.
Throughout this thesis, the coin-tree is viewed, presented, and analysed as such an
example of material culture, an approach which allows a close examination of how
the physical properties of a coin-tree contribute to what it means and does to people.
6 – CONTEMPORARY ARCHAEOLOGY
According to some definitions of ‘archaeology’, the contemporaneity of most coin-
trees would preclude them from an archaeological line of enquiry. In Klein’s 1966
Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary, archaeology is described as ‘the study of
ancient things’ (1966: 100, emphasis added), and it appears that this perceived focus
on the past has altered little in the intervening decades, with the online Oxford
English Dictionary’s definition still specifying that ‘archaeology’ is the ‘systematic
description or study of antiquities’ and the ‘scientific study of the remains and
monuments of the prehistoric period’ (OED Online 2014, emphases added).
However, the contemporaneity of my research is hardly radical; there have been
scholars researching the archaeology of contemporary material culture for over three
decades now, fore-fronted by the rise of ethnoarchaeology. ‘Ethnoarchaeology’,
which stems from the 1960s/1970s development of archaeology and anthropology as
21
complementary disciplines, is defined by Hicks as ‘the comparative study of
contemporary human societies to inform the archaeological explanation of the past’
(2010: 51, emphasis added).
Its emergence as a discipline subsequently led to what Hicks (2010) terms the
‘Material-Cultural Turn’ in 1970s/1980s Britain, championed by the Department of
Archaeology at Cambridge University and the Department of Anthropology at
University College London, where archaeologists and anthropologists alike began
exploring the relationships between artefacts and contemporary social structures
(Hicks 2010: 49). By 1979, Rathje’s seminal article, ‘Modern material culture
studies’, was defining archaeology as ‘a focus on the interaction between material
culture and human behavior and ideas, regardless of time or space’ (1979: 2).
Rathje observes that ‘[m]ost of us have played the game, what will an archaeologist
learn about us in 1000 years? A few archaeologists have decided not to wait a
millennium for the answer and are taking the question seriously
now…Archaeologists are now doing the archaeology of us’ (1979: 2). Since 1979,
however, these ‘few archaeologists’ have multiplied, and a concern with modern
material culture has been salvaged from the fringes of academia, where it now stands
at the centre of many scholarly archaeological studies (Rathje 1979, 2011; Shanks
and Tilley 1987; Gould and Schiffer 1981; Hodder 1987; Graves-Brown 2000;
Buchli and Lucas 2001; González-Ruibal 2006, 2008; Tilley et al. 2006; Harrison
and Schofield 2010; Harrison 2011; Holtorf and Piccini 2011).
Indeed, the list of archaeologists who have focused on modern material culture is
vast, clearly illustrating that a justification of the archaeology of modern material
culture is – or should be – entirely redundant by now, three or four decades after the
interest manifested itself in scholarship. As Buchli and Lucas asserted over a decade
ago, ‘we no longer regard archaeology as a discipline defined by time period’ (2001:
3). Evidently, my study of the contemporary coin-tree is neither particularly
subversive nor avant-garde in its placement within the discipline of archaeology. It is
not, however, only relevant to the discipline; it is also intended to be beneficial.
Rathje advocates the employment of modern material culture studies in the testing,
developing, and validating of archaeological principles and practices (1979; 1981;
2011). The aim of this methodology is to ascertain how accurately we can analyse
22
the artefacts and structures of past societies – and their relations with human
behaviour – utilising only the material evidence, by comparing it to the uses of
contemporary artefacts and structures. Modern settings are thus employed to
evaluate the theories and methods used for reconstructing the past.
In the mid-1960s, for example, Deetz and Dethlefsen (1965; 1966; Dethlefsen 1981)
had already begun evaluating the archaeological principles behind seriation through
an exploration of the changes and diffusion of designs on historic gravestones in
Massachusetts, considering how accurately they correlated with social changes of the
period. Rathje (1979), in his work on ‘garbology’, considers the disposal of waste
products in understanding the behavioural and natural factors involved in depositing
and modifying material culture. In 1981, Price-Beggerly (1981) was considering the
relationships between material culture and cultural values and beliefs in her study of
the use of fences in Mormon communities, while Portnoy (1981) was focusing her
attention on the relationships between behaviour patterns and physical settings in
contemporary Texan homes.
Rothschild’s (1981) object-focused analysis of pennies from the Denver Mint reveals
that American behaviour in relation to coins extends far beyond their use as
currency, drawing attention to aspects of American society which, as Gould and
Schiffer suggest, ‘might otherwise go unnoticed’ (1981: 62). Shanks and Tilley
(1987: 172-240) consider the contrasting designs of Swedish and British beer cans,
utilising them to offer insight into social values, social control, consumerism, and
attitudes towards leisure. While Hodder (1987) explores the involvement of material
culture – from bow ties to white lab coats; from decorative flowers to lease cars – in
negotiating social, economic, and industrial changes in a pet food factory, illustrating
the necessity of including long-term historical context in interpretations of the role of
material culture.
A study of the contemporary coin-tree, therefore, could be employed to test, develop,
or validate archaeological principles and practices. By considering how accurately
the coin-tree structures correlate with their actual uses, it can be ascertained how
illustrative the material evidence is of human behaviour, values, and beliefs.
However, despite the obvious benefits of applying modern material culture studies to
the testing of archaeological practices, the coin-tree is worthy of study in and of
23
itself, not least to preserve the information of a contemporary custom for future
generations. This practice is advocated by Rathje (1979; 1981; 2011), González-
Ruibal (2008), and Harrison (2011), who proposes the development of ‘an
archaeology of the present, for the future’ (2011: 159, emphases in original).
The question of what role archaeology and material culture can play in facilitating
the study of folklore has been asked by numerous other scholars (see Chapter 2), but
the utilisation of these lines of enquiry, in addition to the testimony of the ‘folk’, in
order to contextualise a contemporary British custom is relatively new. Indeed, the
excavation of Ardmaddy, Argyll (Appendix 5), is the first excavation to have been
undertaken at a coin-tree site within the British Isles. By offering such a multi-
disciplinary study, it is hoped that this project will rectify an obvious academic
oversight, in drawing attention both to the benefits of collaboration between
archaeology and folklore, and to the paucity of studies that focus on contemporary
folk customs and tree traditions in the British Isles.
7 – THESIS STRUCTURE
Chapter 2 places this thesis within a wider corpus of material and research. It begins
with a literature review of works detailing tree-centred customs in the British Isles,
both historical and contemporary. Following this is a consideration of the few pieces
which refer to coin-trees, in which the Internet is presented as an invaluable
resource. This thesis is then considered in light of the history of collaboration (or
lack of) between the disciplines of archaeology and folklore in Britain. Following
this, Chapter 3 outlines the methodology employed for this research, detailing the
sources drawn upon for the compilation of the catalogue of coin-trees and the
methods followed during fieldwork: the collection of the empirical and ethnographic
data.
The remainder of this thesis adopts a chronological structure in its attempt to
contextualise the coin-tree, and each chapter is introduced by a vignette and
photographic image, as poetic and literary devices used to encapsulate the central
themes of the subsequent chapter. Chapter 4, ‘Reading Superstition Backwards: The
ancestry of the coin-tree’, is divided into two sections; the first looks to the past,
24
tracing the history of the coin-tree custom in order to identify the traditions,
practices, and beliefs it derived from. The historical folkloric uses of trees and coins,
for example, are broadly considered, but for a closer examination, three case-studies
(Isle Maree, Wester Ross; Clonenagh, Co. Laios; and Ardboe, Co. Tyrone) of older
(19th
and early 20th
-century) coin-tree sites are described and, drawing on literary
sources, their histories detailed, demonstrating a close association between coin-
trees, holy wells, rag-trees, and nail-trees. In the second section, consideration then
turns to the contemporary coin-trees, questioning what factors contributed to the late
20th
-century resurgence of this custom.
Chapters 5 and 6 focus on the present day. Chapter 5, ‘Contemporary Engagement’,
questions how contemporary participants experience the coin-trees, drawing on both
ethnographic evidence and material data collected during fieldwork, with a
consideration of the roles played by physical interaction, imitation, art and aesthetics,
graffiti, and individuation. Whilst Chapter 5 analyses how people participate in this
custom, Chapter 6, ‘The Mutability of Meaning’, examines why they participate,
questioning what the purpose of implanting a coin into a tree is believed to be by a
contemporary participant. This chapter considers the mutability and malleability of
‘meaning’, with an ethnographic focus on how the coin-tree is variously interpreted
depending upon where/when it is, whether it is ‘marketed’, and who the individual
participants are.
Chapter 7, ‘The Future of the Coin-Tree’, considers the likely futures of the coin-tree
custom and the physical structures themselves. It covers an examination of the
heritage of this custom, questioning what – if anything – should be done in order to
protect, preserve, and manage the coin-trees and the intangible cultural heritage of
the practice. Employing ecological and archaeological theory, this chapter also
questions what will remain of the coin-trees in the future if no preservation attempts
are made, drawing extensively on data compiled during the excavation of the
Ardmaddy coin-tree site. This data is then used to consider how a future
archaeologist might interpret the remains of a coin-tree site, demonstrating the
archaeological implications of this contemporary folkloric practice and the
significance of ethnographic data.
25
The research for this thesis produced a vast amount of primary data, much of which
is reproduced in the appendices. Due to the number of figures referred to several
times throughout the thesis, all photographs and maps are located in Appendix 1 for
ease of reference. Appendix 2 offers an alphabetised catalogue of each site visited,
detailing coin-tree quantities, coin densities, tree species, custodianship, etc.
Appendix 3 gathers together the data of all deposits catalogued, and Appendix 4
presents the ethnographic data: the demographics of all interview participants and
the statistics from my one hour of observation at each site. Appendix 5 records the
data compiled from the archaeological excavation at the site of the Ardmaddy coin-
tree.
Finally, Appendix 6 presents a short entry I had published on Berkeley University’s
online group blog, Then Dig, entitled ‘Sanctifying Our Sites: Self-reflection on an
archaeological dig’, together with its peer-reviews. This considers the
recontextualising agency of archaeology at the site of the Ardmaddy coin-tree, and is
presented in order to demonstrate both the relationship between archaeology and
folklore, and – by including the peer-reviews – the types of considerations and
conversations these structures spark in an academic environment.
26
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
1 – INTRODUCTION
This chapter is divided into two sections. The first will provide a review of literature
concerned with tree-centred rituals in the British Isles. These will prove to be
primarily historical in nature, and from this review a concise chronology of tree
rituals and beliefs within the British Isles will be constructed, from prehistory to the
post-Reformation period. Succeeding this section, the focus will tighten and begin to
review literature that details the contemporary perceptions, beliefs, and ritual uses of
trees in the British Isles, before analysing the few sources which detail the coin-tree
itself.
The second section will provide a review of my theoretical framework, examining
the disciplinary pairing of archaeology and folklore within academia. The history of
this pairing will be outlined and its current status considered, together with an
analysis of its merits and drawbacks.
2 – CROSS-CULTURAL STUDIES
In 1928, Porteous averred that ‘[i]n this prosaic age too little is thought about trees’
(1928: 150). It was his opinion that an inadequate amount of attention had been
given to trees in academic literature, as societal symbols, themes in mythology, and
central aspects of folkloric ritual. Over sixty years later, Milner, author of The Tree
Book, was making a similar claim, with his assertion that the ‘folklore of trees in
Britain is still little documented, except as incidental items about country customs or
passing references in accounts of cultural history’ (1992: 136).
A further 19 years later and the subject of lore and ritual uses of trees in the British
Isles still suffers from the same lack of scholarly interest, with no definitive,
academic piece of work having been published on the matter. However, enough can
be gleaned on the subject from what Milner refers to as the ‘incidental items’ (1992:
136); while there is undoubtedly an absence of contemporary and analytical
publications on the subject, there is certainly no lack of writings focused on tree
27
rituals in general (Turnbull 1965; Turner 1967; Bird-David 1990; Morphy 1995;
Sheridan and Nyamweru 2008). However, a detailed review of studies concerned
with perceptions of trees and woodland worldwide would prove unfeasible; even a
cursory description of the literature would result in a piece of work longer than the
thesis itself.
Cross-cultural studies are equally prolific. Frazer’s The Golden Bough (1900) is
undoubtedly worthy of mention. While Frazer’s work has undergone much scrutiny
and denigration in recent decades (Ackerman 1987: 1), the primary criticisms against
it being Frazer’s ‘armchair’ approach to research and the cultural imperialistic slant
to his writings, The Golden Bough still proves a highly useful resource. His first
chapter catalogues 114 examples of ritual uses of trees worldwide (Rival 1998: 5),
and while there is little focus on British tree rituals, he does describe the prominence
of tree-worship in Europe, particularly amongst the Celts (1900: 168), opining that
this manifested itself in England in the form of the may-pole (1900: 196ff).
Porteous’ work, Forest Folklore, Mythology and Romance (1928), takes a similar
stance to Frazer’s. He offers a broad, cross-cultural catalogue of tree rituals in an
attempt to analyse why trees feature so prominently in world mythology. His
conclusion, that ‘[t]o the imagination of early man a tree, being the largest of plants,
must have presented a marvellous and bewildering aspect’ (1928: 149) and so,
naturally, ‘primitive imagination would people it with all sorts of beings, such as
Gods, Nymphs, and Demons’ (1928: 150), may seem reductionist and rather
Jungian. However, his catalogue of tree rituals does include some useful examples of
British customs, such as the planting of a young tree for luck when a child is born
(1928: 182) and the knocking of nails into a tree as a remedy for toothache (1928:
188).
Writing earlier than both Frazer and Porteous was Thiselton-Dyer, who was neither
an anthropologist nor a folklorist, but a botanist. His work, The Folk-Lore of Plants,
presents the view that tree-worship is the ‘primitive faith of mankind’ (1889: 28),
and that to give a detailed account of the beliefs and rituals, which have survived
worldwide, would ‘occupy a volume of no mean size, so thickly scattered are they
among the traditions and legendary lore of almost every country’ (1889: 262). This
does not, however, prevent him from trying, and the result is a rather exhaustive –
28
albeit not particularly in-depth or analytical – catalogue of plant and tree-centred
rituals and beliefs, with many examples from Britain.
3 – HISTORICAL RITUAL USES OF TREES IN THE BRITISH ISLES
There is no definitive, diachronic study of tree lore in the British Isles, tracing and
analysing such customs from prehistory to the modern-day. However, it is certainly
possible to sketch a picture of the tree’s ritual timeline in Britain using a wide range
of sources.
There are, for example, numerous studies concerning Mesolithic perceptions of
woodland, although there is little consensus amongst scholars. While Warren (2003)
believes that the early hunter-gatherers of Ireland saw themselves ‘to be in personal
relationships with the woodland’ (2003: 22), Davies et al. (2005) advocate the
opposite argument: that the hunter-gatherers of the Mesolithic dichotomised between
‘nature’ and ‘culture’, regarding woodlands as hostile. Perhaps the irreconcilable
differences between these scholars’ opinions reveal the uncertainty with which
prehistoric perceptions of woodland should be viewed.
There is, however, some material evidence concerning the ritual uses of trees in
prehistoric Britain, the most significant find being the Norfolk timber circle,
popularly known as ‘Seahenge’, dated to the 21st century BC. In 1998, a subcircular
ring of 55 oak timbers, surrounding the roots and base of an oak, buried upside-
down, was discovered at Holme-next-the-Sea (Bayliss et al. 1999; Brennand and
Taylor 2003). Champion (2000), Pryor (2002), and Brennand and Taylor (2003)
propose several theories on the structure’s ritual uses, with particular focus on the
significance of the inverted oak. For example, it is suggested by Champion (2000:
82) and Brennand and Taylor (2003: 71-72) that the structure may have been used as
an altar for funereal rites, the inversion of the oak symbolising the inversion of life
(i.e. death). While Pryor accepts that there are numerous possible purposes for the
central oak: by inverting it, the original creators of the structure could have intended
for the tree’s ‘life force’ to return to the earth (2002: 276); equally plausible is the
theory that the whole site was created as a shrine to the trees themselves (2002: 278).
29
Also illustrated in Champion and Pryor’s studies is the effect such sites have in the
present day. As Pryor himself admits, they were unprepared for the controversy they
would encounter when excavating ‘Seahenge’. In his own words, when the media
picked up on the excavation, ‘all hell broke loose’ (2002: 250), and they were faced
with groups of Druids, Pagans, and New Agers occupying the site to prevent the
removal of the timber posts and the central oak (2002: 254). The vast amount of
attention this site received from both the media and the public reveals that
archaeology should be far from exclusively concerned with the past, and the
contemporary responses to – and utilisations of – such sites should be considered
(explored in more detail below), a point which is highly relevant to the analysis of
coin-trees.
Transitioning into a period of history we know far more about, the numbers of
studies concerned with tree-centred rituals multiply. Trees as central features of
Romano-Celtic rituals are referred to by Woodward (1992), Dowden (2000: 58-77),
and Lewis (1966), who notes that the Celtic word nemeton, which came to mean
‘roofed shrine’, was originally translated as ‘grove’ (1966: 4-5), and many temples in
Roman Britain appear to have been erected around or beside sacred trees (1966:
135). Also prominent in such studies is the association of trees with sacred wells;
trees within close proximity to sacred wells were festooned with rags and known as
rag-trees (explored in Chapter 3).
The ritual uses of trees prove to be highly adaptable and subject to
recontextualisation, and nowhere is this more clearly evident than in the literature
which focuses on the introduction and rise of Christianity in the British Isles.
Bintley, for example, traces the Christian adoption of the symbol of the tree in his
doctoral thesis (2009), in which he investigates Anglo-Saxon perceptions of trees
and woodland. From the many trees marked with crosses, to the ceremonies of Royal
Oak Day and the figure of the ‘Green Man’ so frequently portrayed in church
architecture (Raglan 1939), Bintley demonstrates the mutability of tree symbolism.
Another invaluable source for the tree’s symbolic recontextualisation is Walsham’s
seminal work on The Reformation of the Landscape (2011). In her study of the
changing perceptions of the religious landscape throughout the early modern period,
she traces how trees were utilised politically in the post-Reformation period.
30
Walsham additionally describes the ‘metamorphosis of religious ritual into pastime’
(2011: 540), exploring how customs and sites of religious significance gradually
became the basis of folkloric practices, giving numerous examples of tree-centred
rituals and beliefs.
Less analytical than Walsham but of equal use are the numerous catalogues of
British folkloric customs, which date from the late 19th
century to the modern day.
Hardwick’s chapter, ‘The Divining of “Wish”-Rod, And Superstitions Respecting
Trees and Plants’ (1872: 252-266), for example, and Hull’s chapter on ‘The Worship
of Trees’ (1928: 118-135), which contains a diverse description of tree rituals and
beliefs across the British Isles. While Hole’s work on English Traditional Customs
focuses on slightly later ritual uses of trees, such as the Christmas tree (1975: 3), the
‘kissing bough’ (1975: 3), and the Yule Log (1975: 7), exploring their origins in
relation to earlier – often Germanic – rituals.
There are numerous pieces of literature that focus entirely on the historic beliefs and
rituals of trees in the British Isles, most notably Wilks’ Trees in the British Isles in
History and Legend (1972). While Wilks does not cite any references, unfortunately
providing no primary sources to draw upon, he does present a vast catalogue of
examples, detailing the tree’s usage in religious ritual, such as Gospel Oaks under
which the parish would congregate whilst passages from the gospel were recited
(1972: 22), as well as listing numerous examples of beliefs and customs associated
with different tree species.
Grigson also provides information on the folkloric qualities attributed to different
species. In his work, The Englishman’s Flora (1955), which is essentially a botanical
encyclopaedia, he details the physical appearance of certain trees, their cultural
histories, and how they have been variously utilised in the British Isles. The oak
(Quercus robur), for example, is given three pages of description, which contain
details of its use in popular medicine and its perceived sacredness.
The oak tree, in fact, features rather prominently in much of the literature, and there
are two studies focused entirely on this species: Hadfield’s ‘The Oak and its
Legends’ (1974) and Harris et al.’s Oak: A British History (2003). The former details
what Hadfield terms the role oak has played in the ‘sociological aspects of British
life’ (1974: 123), describing numerous examples of trees considered sacred,
31
protective, and curative. Harris et al. dedicate a similar chapter to exploring the
myths and symbolism of the oak (2003: 131-151), listing the numerous rituals to
which the species was central, such as the Druidic ceremony of gathering mistletoe
growing on oaks (2003: 133).
Harris et al.’s work was published by Windgather Press, a publisher specialising in
landscape history and archaeology, and other publications of theirs have also proven
useful, providing a broader overview of historic woodland environments in the
British Isles. Allen and Scaife’s chapter in Prehistoric and Roman Landscapes
(2007), for example, and Higham’s chapter ‘Woodland, Forest and Pasture’ (2004:
99-125) in A Frontier Landscape: The North West in the Middle Ages (2004).
Also useful for tracing the historical associations and ritual uses of the tree in the
British Isles is Thomas’ Man and the Natural World (1983), a diachronic exploration
of the shifting perspectives of British society towards trees. In his chapter on ‘The
Worship of Trees’ (1983: 212-223), he describes how, in the early modern period,
trees and woodland were increasingly imbued with symbolic value. From the 18th
century onwards, they became emblematic of a community’s continuity, of the
nation’s strength, and of a family’s ancestry.
4 – CONTEMPORARY RITUAL USES OF TREES
As demonstrated, there is no shortage of literature documenting and exploring the
historical ritual uses of trees in the British Isles. There are fewer works which
consider these ritual uses in a contemporary setting, but certainly enough to illustrate
the important role still played in modern-day society. Rackham’s comprehensive
study, Trees and Woodland in the British Landscape (1976), for example, traces the
various roles forests have played from prehistoric times to the 20th
century. Although
he cites no ritual uses of trees, his work is particularly useful for understanding the
mutable nature of woodland and for gathering insight into how archaeologists
should, in his opinion, approach the study of trees: by making ‘simultaneous use of
as many lines of inquiry as possible’ (1976: 108).
32
Davies’ work on ‘The Evocative Symbolism of Trees’ (1988), a chapter of Cosgrove
and Daniels’ The Iconography of Landscape, is another invaluable source, reflecting
on how trees have served as symbols. Questioning what makes them so emblematic,
Davies contemplates trees’ physical, botanical attributes, as well as their established
cultural associations, playing with Lévi-Strauss’ expression by noting that ‘trees are
not simply good to climb, they are good to think’ (1988: 34).
Harrison makes a similar observation in his study, Forests: The Shadow of
Civilization (1992), in which he traces the forest’s history as a prominent theme in
Western imagination, most notably as a metaphor for ‘primeval antiquity’ (1992: 1);
as the antecedent to, and frontier of, civilization. He also explores the ways in which
forests have the power to evoke memories, to act as an anchor with the past, and this
may indeed explain why trees are used in a contemporary setting to host rituals that
are, to modern eyes, invocations of antiquity; trees can, in a sense, carry us back
through time.
The subject of trees as historical anchors is most comprehensively – and rather
poetically – explored in Schama’s work on Landscape and Memory (1996). Schama
details how Western society imprints natural landscapes with cultural associations,
tracing the long history of ‘landscape metaphors’ (1996: 15), which we have shaped
and employed throughout history to the present day. He disputes the widely believed
claim that Western culture has lost its nature myths and traditions, averring that they
are in fact ‘alive and well’ (1996: 14), embodied in our national identities – for
example, the oak as a symbol of England – and our literary and artistic uses of
landscapes to represent time, place, and emotion.
Jones and Cloke’s study of Tree Cultures: The place of trees and trees in their place
(2002) presents similar theories, investigating how trees can define notions of place
and community. Throughout their work, they refer to ‘nature-society relations’,
tracing the ways in which people and communities can feel personal attachment
towards trees – as evidenced by the numerous protests in Britain over the felling of
trees (2002: 3). Jones and Cloke, however, do not only consider human perceptions
and utilisations of the tree, but the tree’s agency itself, as a living entity that can, and
does, have ‘relational agency’ with humans, and thus influences our notions of
culture and the environment.
33
The concept of agency is frequently employed in studies of trees and landscapes, and
is a term which will be prevalent throughout this thesis. Definitions I adhere to are
the simplest: Tilley’s interpretation of ‘agency’ as that which provides ‘affordances
and constraints for thought and action’ (2007: 19) and Zedeño’s as that which can
‘shape human behaviour and influence change’ (2013: 121). A consideration of the
debates concerning whether or not an object can possess the same agency as a human
are beyond the scope of this thesis (cf. Hodder 2012; Watts 2013). However, I
should note that I do not find Gell’s (1998) distinction between ‘primary’ agents
(people) and ‘secondary’ agents (objects) particularly appropriate as, despite Gell’s
protestations to the contrary (1998: 20), such terminology seems to attribute agency
to objects only ‘in a manner of speaking’. Instead, I adhere to Robb’s (2004)
distinction between ‘conscious agency’ and ‘effective agency’; objects such as trees
and coins do not have conscious intentionality, but they possess effective agency
because they have the capacity to influence and shape human behaviour.
Garner’s article, ‘Living History: Trees and Metaphors of Identity in an English
Forest’ (2004), examines the agency of trees in detail, drawing on material gathered
at Hatfield Forest in Essex. Garner examines how trees affect notions of time, place,
and identity, investigating how individuals view and utilise trees differently. An
article in the National Trust magazine, written by Watkins and entitled ‘Treasured
Treescapes’ (2011), similarly traces the value of trees in managed landscapes,
exploring the strong place forests hold in the ‘British psyche’ (2011: 32). To the
National Trust, which manages nearly 25,000 hectares of woodland (2011: 34), trees
are just as worthy of preservation as historic buildings, and the many notable trees
owned by them – described by Watkins (but notably not including any coin-trees, a
factor explored in Chapter 7) – play a prominent role in defining the identity and
work of the National Trust.
Rival’s collection of essays in The Social Life of Trees: Anthropological
Perspectives on Tree Symbolism (1998), explores similar themes, detailing the
symbolic significance of trees and woodlands, particularly as emblematic of
‘collective identity’ (1998: 1), in a variety of contemporary cultures. Rival observes
that while ‘much anthropological writing deals with animals, landscapes and
domesticated crop, very little concerns trees per se’ (1998: 1). She hopes to rectify
34
this. For example, exploring the wide curative properties attributed to trees (detailed
in Chapter 4), she notes that in the West this association has manifested itself in the
method of utilising trees to signify environmental health.
Environmental activist Zelter, a contributor to Rival’s collection (1998), suggests
that trees can be used to heal a society’s supposed spiritual ailments, employed as
symbols of harmony. She describes how trees are ritually planted in modern-day
Britain to express intense feelings, be they trauma, sadness, or joy, attesting that
trees are particularly suitable for such a ritual due to the continuity and stability they
represent (1998: 223). Several essays in Arnold and Grodzins Gold’s collection,
Sacred Landscapes and Cultural Politics: Planting a tree (2001), detail a similar tree
planting ceremony held at Syracuse University, New York State. Performed in
commemoration of the 35 students of Syracuse University who had lost their lives in
the terrorist attack at Lockerbie, Scotland, this ritual illustrated the memorialising
uses of the tree in Western society, an aspect considered in Chapter 6.
Some literature details the continuity of older traditions into modern-day society.
Hutton’s catalogue of the historical annual rituals of Britain in his publication,
Stations of the Sun (1996), offers several examples of tree-centred customs that can
be traced through history to the present day; Royal Oak Day, for example, which was
established in 1660, has retained some significance in local communities throughout
the country (1996: 291). Likewise in Castleton, in the Peak District, a pageantry
centred on a garland, a large wooden frame adorned with leaves and flowers, still
exists today; Hutton traces how its traditions have been misrepresented by folklorists
and the media alike over the years, and have been adapted to attract tourists (1996:
293), a factor explored in Chapter 6.
Box’s paper, ‘Dressing the Arbor Tree’ (2003), is even more valuable for an
exploration into how specific tree-rituals have been recontextualised over the years.
His study centres on the rituals surrounding the Arbor Tree, a black poplar growing
in Aston-on-Clun, Shropshire, which is decorated with flags every year on Royal
Oak Day. The bulk of Box’s article attempts to unravel the enigmatic origins of this
custom; he considers the relevance of the species of the tree; explores the
significance of its name; references personal correspondences with local residents;
and examines the (scarce and often biased) literary evidence. He then goes on to
35
trace how the ritual has been altered over the years, dependent upon the local
church’s shifting view of the custom, media coverage, and tourism.
5 – HISTORICAL COIN-TREES
As remarked upon in the Introduction, there has been no previous academic work
focused on the coin-trees of the British Isles. Indeed, there have been very few works
which reference the custom at all. Despite the numerous studies referenced above
offering a plethora of examples of both historical and contemporary ritual uses of
trees in the British Isles, only three (Hull 1928; Wilks 1972; Milner 1992, detailed
below) refer to the coin-tree custom. From the cross-cultural studies of Frazer
(1900), Porteous (1928), and Thiselton-Dyer (1889), to the catalogues of British
folkloric practices of Hardwick (1872) and Hole (1975), coin-trees have remained
notably absent. And where references to coin-trees do appear, they are often brief
and cursory; useful for initial research but certainly not offering in-depth analysis of
the custom.
Lucas’ 1963 paper ‘Sacred Trees of Ireland’ briefly mentions a tree-stump in Co.
Kerry embedded with coins (1963: 41), but further investigation revealed that this
stump is no longer there. As for those coin-trees still in existence, the general trend
dictates that the older the coin-tree, the more it is referenced in literature. The Isle
Maree coin-tree, Scotland (Fig. 6, Appendix 2.26), which was ritually employed in
the 19th
(and possibly 18th
) century, for example, is referenced in varying detail in a
range of early antiquarian works (Pennant 1775; Campbell 1860; Mitchell 1863;
Walker 1883; Dixon 1886; Godden 1893; Hartland 1893; Muddock 1898; Hull 1928;
McPherson 1929; Barnett 1930). Additionally, the coin-tree boasts a comment in
Queen Victoria’s diary, in an entry dated 17th
September 1877, detailing her visit to
Isle Maree and her insertion of a coin into the tree (Duff 1968: 332).
Later references to the Isle Maree coin-tree include: a description in Macrow’s travel
book Torridon Highlands (1953); an article and accompanying photograph in
National Geographic (MacLeish 1968); brief references in Bord and Bord’s Sacred
Waters (1985: 34-35; 99-100); a description and photograph in Coxe’s Haunted
Britain (1973: 167-168); a detailed empirical description in a North of Scotland
36
Archaeological Society survey (2002); and a comment in Van den Eynden’s ‘Plants
as Symbols in Scotland Today’ (2010).
All of these pieces, described in greater detail in Chapter 4, mention the coin-tree –
alternately described as a rag-tree or nail-tree – in their descriptions of the island’s
folkloric and ritual associations. Only Dixon (1886: 150-152) describes the tree in
any detail, while references in the other studies are largely incidental. However, even
the briefest of references are elucidating; Pennant’s cursory ‘[a] stump of a tree is
shewn as an altar’ (1775: 330), for example, may not provide a detailed description
but it does reveal that a tree was ritually employed on Isle Maree by 1775. Other
references, when traced chronologically, illustrate how this tree has been adapted
and recontextualised over the years, while various accompanying photographs, from
Godden’s 1893 article (Fig. 7) to Coxe’s 1973 Haunted Britain (Fig. 8), demonstrate
how the physical state of the tree has altered over time.
Other early coin-trees which are relatively well referenced (again, described in more
detail in Chapter 4) include the sites of: Clonenagh, the Republic of Ireland
(Appendix 2.15; Roe 1939; Wilks 1972; Harbison 1991; Milner 1992; Morton 1998;
Simon 2000); Fore, the Republic of Ireland (Appendix 2.20; Harbison 1991; Healy
2001; Rees 2003); and Ardboe, Northern Ireland (Appendix 2.8; Devlin 1948; Deane
1959; Grimes 1999; Grimes 2000; Simon 2000). As with the Isle Maree references,
the information provided by these sources tends to be limited – often a sentence or
two at most – but they provide adequate details for general chronologies of the coin-
trees to be compiled.
Notably, only one coin-tree is catalogued in Stokes and Rodger’s The Heritage Trees
of Britain and Northern Ireland (2004): the Ardmaddy coin-tree (Fig. 9, Appendix
2.9). In an entry repeated from Rodger et al.’s Heritage Trees of Scotland (2003), the
‘Wishing Tree’ of Ardmaddy enjoys a two-page spread, and is described as follows:
This lone, wind-blasted hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) growing in the
wilds of Argyll is one of the few known ‘wishing trees’ in Scotland. It is
encrusted with coins that have been pressed into the thin bark by
generations of superstitious travellers over the centuries, each coin
representing a wish. Every available space on the main trunk bristles with
money, even the smaller branches and exposed roots. This magical tree
provides a living connection with the ancient folklore and customs of
Scotland… (2003: 25)
37
Despite its status as a ‘heritage tree’ of Britain and the claim that this custom has
been practiced at the Ardmaddy coin-tree ‘by generations…over the centuries’, only
one other source has been identified which references it. MacDonald’s 1983 hiker’s
guide, Walking in South Lorn, briefly describes the tree as a feature on the ‘Degnish
Peninsula’ route: ‘an incredibly gnarled and twisted hawthorn of considerable age,
the growth of which is said to have been irrevocably stunted by the traditional
custom of embedding votive coins in its venerable bark’ (1983: 9). Although this
description reveals that the custom of coin insertion was well-established by the
1980s, no other literary sources seem to reference it. Having been failed by the
literature, therefore, it was hoped that an excavation of the site would yield more
information (see Chapters 3 and 7, Appendix 5).
6 – CONTEMPORARY COIN-TREES
Although the above pieces of literature do refer to coin-trees, they refer to only one
each, and make no effort to catalogue other examples of coin-trees, draw
comparisons, or view the custom as a whole. The references are incidental; a brief
mention or cursory illustrative example, with no in-depth analysis. Additionally, they
are primarily concerned with historical coin-trees – those which boast a history of
more than 20 years – whilst the contemporary coin-trees, which (as outlined in the
Introduction) account for the majority (82%) of coin-trees catalogued, remain largely
ignored.
However, there are three bodies of literature which reference contemporary coin-
trees. The first will be classified as promotional literature: leaflets distributed at coin-
tree sites (e.g. Bolton Abbey), visitor websites (e.g. Bolton Abbey, Malham, Tarn
Hows, St. Nectan’s Glen, Portmeirion), and interpretation panels erected beside coin-
trees (e.g. Becky Falls, Ingleton), produced to inform visitors about the custom.
Again, however, the information provided in these pieces tends to be brief, offering
no greater detail than the coin-tree’s name (e.g. ‘Wishing Tree’) and the custodians’
vague interpretations of what the custom ‘means’. Additionally, their very nature as
38
promotional literature calls into question their accuracy – an interesting factor in
itself, explored in Chapter 6.
The second body of literature concerned with the contemporary coin-tree
congregates on the worldwide web. As explored in Chapter 3, the custom is well
represented on the Internet, in such forms as public forums, personal blogs, and
online articles. Some claim more authority than others; articles on Daily Mail Online
(Reynolds 2011) and the BBC News website (Anonymous 2011), for example,
attempt to trace the custom historically. However, rather than employing academic-
style research, their only sources tend to be the coin-tree custodians, who – due to
the promotional aspect of these articles – may not be wholly reliable.
Other Internet forums do not claim any authority on the subject. Personal blogs and
forum threads (series of posting on a single topic) centred on coin-trees, for example,
tend to be initiated by an individual who has come across a coin-tree and wishes to
either share photographs of it or request information about it. These entries are
followed by posts from readers who have come across coin-trees elsewhere. One
such entry, on the Sheffield Wildlife website, dated 2007, details the coin-trees found
at Padley, Malham, Dovedale, and Hardcastle Crags, while a subsequent post adds
the Aira Force coin-trees to the list.
A personal entry on the Wild About Britain website features an anonymous blog
member declaring that they had come across coin-trees in Dovedale and posing the
questions:
Were they:
a. some sort of National Trust woodland management practice?!
b. some sort of lottery funded art work?!
c. some sort of strange tradition whereby people take odd coins and a
hammer on their country walk?!
d. some sort of project to tease all the children who try (unsuccessfully) to
lever them out?!
Subsequent posts do not answer this question, but they do detail further coin-trees
that the posters have come across: near Rosemarkie on the Black Isle and at Bolton
Abbey. There is a similar entry on the same website concerning coin-trees along the
Ingleton Waterfalls Trail, while an entry on Treeblog (Anonymous 2008) details the
coin-tree found at Aira Force, and entries on Yorkshire Walks (Firth 2010) and Wigan
39
World (Anonymous 2011) feature photographs of the coin-tree at Tarn Hows. The
latter also offers a link to a video on YouTube showing a person hammering a coin
into the tree, complete with atmospheric music (Byrne 2011).
This is only a small sample of the forums, blogs, and online articles detailing coin-
trees, illustrating that the largest written resource for this custom is on the Internet.
While these pieces of literature may not claim to provide accurate information about
the coin-tree, nor in-depth analysis of the custom, they represent the only attempts
made to compile (albeit unofficial) catalogues of these structures. They have
consequently proved invaluable sources for the identification of coin-tree sites (see
Chapter 3). Additionally, these personal blogs and forum threads are not written
from the neutral perspective of an observing scholar, but from the viewpoint of
curious participants. The authors tend to be individuals who have inserted coins into
these structures themselves. These pieces of literature therefore represent a body of
ethnographic material to be drawn upon (Chapter 3), revealing how members of the
public variously interpret coin-trees.
The third body of literature consists of scholarly forums, such as newsletters. For
example, the contemporary resurgence in the custom of coin-trees was first brought
to the Folklore Society’s (FLS) attention in 2004, when Mavis Curtis (2004) reported
coin-trees at Bolton Abbey and Hardcastle Crags in the FLS newsletter. Following
this, it has been the subject of further queries and speculations in later editions of
FLS News (Pattern and Patten 2009; Billingsley 2010; Gould 2010; Shuel 2010).
Again, however, as with online sources, the information provided in these short
letters has tended to be casually inquisitive rather than academically investigative.
7 – THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: ‘FOLKLORE ARCHAEOLOGIST’
The contrast between the various sources outlined thus far illuminates the inter-
disciplinary approach this project requires. Botanists have proven just as integral to
this research as folklorists, anthropologists, and archaeologists. 19th
-century
documents provided as much – if not more – useful information than the
contemporary literature. Casual ‘posters’ on local Internet blogs have exhibited more
knowledge about the custom of coin-trees than the seasoned academic. It will
40
undoubtedly prove necessary to, as Rackham advises, advocate the ‘simultaneous
use of as many lines of inquiry as possible’ (1976: 108). My methodological
approach and theoretical framework follow this advice.
In the label-loving realm of academia, how we choose to hallmark ourselves and our
areas of interest greatly colours how we are perceived by our peers. As fashionable
as the term ‘interdisciplinarity’ has become in scholarship, it is not enough to
classify ourselves as ‘disciplinarily neutral’ or as ‘academic nomads’. We are
expected to declare our loyalties and set up camp in one discipline or another.
However, I would not classify my research as simply ‘archaeology’ or as purely
‘folklore’, but as both. And if I had to label myself – which academic trend suggests
that I do – I would employ the term ‘folklore archaeologist’.
This is an innocuous enough pairing with a simple enough meaning: basically, I
study folkloric beliefs and customs through their material manifestations. Yet this
term has been met with more than a few blank looks and raised eyebrows, with
acquaintances both in and outside of academia querying bemusedly what such a
pairing actually means. What is a ‘folklore archaeologist’? Never having
encountered the two words in conjunction, people appear instantly distrustful of the
term, and yet such a pairing is far from unreasonable. While ‘folklore archaeology’
may not be an officially recognised title in academia, the two subjects have a long –
albeit far from steadfast – history of affiliation. It is the purpose of the remainder of
this chapter, therefore, to consider the term ‘folklore archaeology’ and to trace the
history of its pairing in the British Isles.
Over the last few years I have been advised by more than one colleague to avoid
using the word ‘folklore’. It appears to have become something of an academic
taboo, with certainly no reputable place in conference papers or funding applications.
Alternative terms are recommended instead, such as ‘ritual’, ‘popular beliefs’, or
‘oral tradition’. However, as ‘safer’ as these substitute phrases apparently are, none
of them successfully encapsulate the range of beliefs, customs, practices, and
material manifestations which are included in the broad term ‘folklore’; a term which
appears harmless enough. It is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as the
‘traditional beliefs, legends, and customs, current among the common people; the
study of these’ (OED Online 2014); a definition which hardly justifies an academic
41
embargo of the word – unless the term ‘common people’ is viewed derogatively
rather than as simply referring to a relatively typical member of a given society.
Perhaps because of the anxiety surrounding the concept of ‘common people’, there is
an evident scholarly trend to give the term ‘folklore’ a wide berth, to the extent that
even contributors to the journal Folklore have avoided the word. Fenton (1993), for
example, preferred to use the term ‘ethnology’ in his 1993 article, while Nicolaisen
shied away from the word ‘folklore’ entirely, substituting instead ‘stories from the
folk-cultural register’ (1991). Organisations have likewise discarded the term; the
‘Survey of Language and Folklore’ founded at Sheffield in 1964, for example,
became the ‘Centre for English Cultural Tradition and Language’ in 1974 (Bennett
1996: 216).
In fact, an entire volume of The Journal of American Folklore, entitled ‘Folklore:
What’s in a Name?’ (1998), was dedicated to the debate over the continued use of
the word in American universities. While Oring argued against the elimination of the
term ‘folklore’ (1998), Bendix (1998) and Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (1998) averred that
it is inadequate nomenclature for such a diverse field, and proposed that an
alternative term be sought instead.
This aversion no doubt partially stems from the word’s ‘connotation of “Other”-
ness’, to use Bennett’s phrase (1996: 216). Bendix points out that ‘folklore’ was
once used to represent the vernacular, the oppressed, and the marginalised, thus
offending ‘the dignity of those with whom we consult’ (1998: 328). Indeed, the
‘folk’ have previously been perceived as the lower classes of society, defined by
Abrahams as a ‘homogenous group, usually pursuing an agrarian way of life’ (1978:
119); by Lang, as ‘the classes which have least been altered by education, which
have shared least in progress’ (1898: 11); by Benedict, as the ‘rural populations of
the civilized world’ (1932: 288); and by García Canclini, as ‘isolated and self-
sufficient indigenous or peasant groups whose simple techniques and little social
differentiation preserve them from modern threats’ (1995: 149-150).
Frazer’s use of the word ‘folklore’ is particularly demonstrative of its pejorative
connotations. For example, the primary aim of his work Folk-Lore in the Old
Testament (1923) is to trace the survivals of folklore – which he defines as ‘traces of
savagery and superstition’ (1923: xi) – evident in the Old Testament in order to
42
illustrate that the Hebrews had, like every other society, ‘evolved…by a slow process
of natural selection from an embryonic condition of ignorance and savagery’ (1923:
viii). In revealing that such traces of ‘savagery’ and ‘superstition’ existed in ancient
Israel, however, Frazer does not aim to debase the society, but to ‘enhance by
contrast the glory of a people which, from such dark depths of ignorance and cruelty,
could rise to such bright heights of wisdom and virtue’ (1923: xi). In Frazer’s
opinion, therefore, evidence of surviving folkloric beliefs and customs is tantamount
to proof that ancient Israel had evolved from the same ‘dark depths of ignorance and
cruelty’ as every other civilisation.
However, by examining the earliest definition of the term ‘folklore’, it appears that
no such pejorative connotations were originally intended. It was in 1846 when
William Thoms first coined the word ‘folklore’, suggesting it in a letter to The
Athenaeum as an alternative to ‘what we in England designate as Popular
Antiquities, or Popular Literature’; he recommended, instead, ‘a good Saxon
compound, Folklore, - the Lore of the People’ (1846: 862). ‘Folklore’ is, therefore,
simply the ‘Lore of the People’, and while some scholars had – and have – a narrow
view of who constitutes ‘the People’, it is certainly not the general consensus that the
possessors and purveyors of folklore belong only to the agrarian, ‘lower stratums’ of
society.
Dorson, for example, asserts that rurality is not a prerequisite of the ‘folk’ (1976:
46), and Dundes, reacting against the narrow definitions of previous folklorists,
proposes his own: ‘The term “folk” can refer to any group of people whatsoever who
share at least one common factor’ (1965: 2, emphases in original). According to
Dundes’ definition, it is only the sharing of one common factor, such as language,
occupation, and religion, that constitutes a group as ‘folk’, and any traditions they
transmit orally amongst themselves are subsequently considered ‘lore’ (Ben-Amos
1972: 8). The word ‘folklore’, therefore, does not deserve its negative reputation;
while there may have been examples of its use as a pejorative phrase in the past, it is
a simple composite term which can easily be returned to its original, inoffensive
definition: ‘the Lore of the People’.
The academic aversion to ‘folklore’, however, may have less to do with the term
itself and more to do with the subject matter (Wallis and Lymer 2001), which,
43
according to Harlow, still has a ‘connotation of triviality or quaintness’ (1998: 323).
Only a handful of universities in Britain provide courses in folklore, and the majority
of these are in Scotland and Ireland. The University of Aberdeen offers an MLitt in
‘Ethnology and Folklore’; the University of Glasgow, an MLitt in ‘Scottish Folklore
and Popular Culture’; University College Dublin, a BA in Irish Folklore; while
University College Cork houses a Department of Folklore.
To my knowledge, the only English university which offers a focus on folklore is the
University of Chichester, which accommodates the ‘Sussex Centre for Folklore,
Fairy Tales and Fantasy’. Indeed, a search for the word ‘folk’ on the Universities and
Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) website proffers only four results, three of
which are courses on folk music. The fourth refers to an English Literature BA at the
University of Gloucestershire, for which the only connection to folklore is a module
in the first year entitled ‘Myth, Epic and Folktale’.
As Opie lamented in 1957, ‘England has the distinction of being so uninterested in
itself that it has not yet even one full-time professional folklorist’ (1957: 467); and
still today England boasts no professional body of folklorists, bar The Folklore
Society – which is run by volunteers. This is particularly remarkable considering that
England had been at the forefront of folklore collection in the 19th
century (Henkes
and Johnson 2002: 129; Dorson 1951, 1968, 1976).
8 – THE HISTORY OF BRITISH FOLKLORE STUDIES
A detailed history of the study of folklore is beyond the scope of this thesis (see
Dorson 1968 and Walsham 2008), but a brief overview reveals a period of vigorous
folklore collecting between 1870 and 1910. Preceding this trend were the works of
British antiquarians, ranging from William Camden’s Britannia, a historical survey
of Britain’s antiquities published in 1586, to Thomas Crofton Croker’s Fairy
Legends and Traditions of the South of Ireland (1825). It was in the latter half of the
19th
century, however – following Thom’s coinage of the term – when folklore
reached the peak of its popularity, with the founding of the Folk-Lore Society in
1878. It was throughout the Victorian period when Dorson’s ‘Great Team of
Folklorists’ – Andrew Lang, George Laurence Gomme, Alfred Nutt, Edwin Sidney
44
Hartland, Edward Clodd, and William Alexander Clouston – were at their most
active (Dorson 1951; 1968: 202ff), collecting folklore and publishing numerous
books and papers (Dorson 1951: 1).
However, even during the Victorian period, folklore was not considered an academic
discipline. Dorson’s ‘Great Team of Folklorists’ were, without exception, private
scholars: lawyers, publishers, civil servants, and businessmen, with no university
affiliations (Dorson 1951; 1976). And during the early 20th
century, as scholarship
became more an academic profession than the pastime of Victorian amateurs, the
‘golden age’ of folklore reached its end. Unlike anthropology and archaeology,
folklore had not gained academic acceptance as a discipline with the rise of
universities, and it was either subsumed by other disciplines – history, literature,
anthropology – or discarded entirely (Dorson 1968). Today in England particularly
folklore is still considered, as Henkes and Johnson write, ‘extra-academic and
somewhat cut off from critical academic discussions’ (2002: 138).
Even scholars who would identify themselves as ‘folklorists’ do so rather gingerly,
demonstrating that the unease which surrounds the term comes from within the
discipline as well as without (Bennett 1996: 215-216). As Dorson observes, ‘the
folklorist as academic man speaks with a small voice’ (1976: 3); Oring takes this a
step further, opining that folklorists, whom he describes as ‘timid’ and ‘coward’,
seem to ‘operate with a deep sense of shame’ (1998: 336).
It is in response to this criticism, and to avoid circumlocution, that I choose to
unabashedly apply the word ‘folklore’ to my research. I am defining the term simply
as the traditional customs, beliefs, and legends, exclusive of orthodox religion and
ritual, transmitted orally by a people united by a common aspect – usually
geographic location, but language, occupation, and even shared hobbies can
constitute a group as ‘folk’. Inclusive of my definition are also the material
manifestations of folklore: the artefacts and monuments which testify to the
traditional beliefs and practices that motivated their creation and/or employment.
In my opinion, no other term successfully encapsulates this broad subject area, nor
attests to its rich heritage in Britain; and as Gell has asserted, it is sometimes
preferable to explain a contested term rather than to rechristen it (1998: 96).
Additionally, I believe many of the claims against ‘folklore’ to be unfounded. For
45
instance, the assertion that the word ‘folklore’, coined in 1846, is too archaic for use
is groundless when it is considered that ‘archaeology’ was in modern usage in the
1600s (Daniel 1981: 13-14; OED Online 2014). The word ‘archaeology’, despite
boasting four centuries of scholarly employment, is not considered too archaic for
use; neither, therefore, should ‘folklore’.
While it may be viewed as derogatory by some (see Frazer above), a word can be
made to shed its pejorative connotations if enough scholars are willing to use it,
reverting it to its simpler, more neutral origins. Additionally, relinquishing the name,
as proposed by Fenton (1993), Bendix (1998), and Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (1998),
would, in my opinion, not benefit the discipline, but cause a loss of identity and
ultimately ensure its demise, following full absorption into other disciplines. I am in
full agreement with folklorist Oring when he declares: ‘I am content to live a
marginal scholarly existence. But I will not be happy to exchange marginality for
termination’ (1998: 335).
9 – ARCHAEOLOGY AND FOLKLORE: A BRIEF HISTORY
The history of the relationship between archaeology and folklore, which has been
extensively considered by Gazin-Schwartz (see below), is probably little different to
the story of many marriages. They began as an inseparable pair. The pre-Victorian
antiquarians rarely distinguished between the collecting of material relics and the
recording of ancient practices and beliefs. However, by the mid-19th
century, they
both made their move away from antiquarianism – and from each other, with
archaeology and folklore beginning to view themselves as separate and distinct
professional fields (Gazin-Schwartz 1999: 21). This academic divorce, however,
does not appear to have been entirely mutual, for it was the archaeologists who first
distanced themselves from folklore. Something better had come along: science.
Scientific techniques and empirical practices were embraced by the discipline.
England’s first serious excavations began in the late 18th
and early 19th
centuries, led
by men such as Bryan Faussett, James Douglas, William Cunnington, and Richard
Colt Hoare (Daniel 1981: 55), and complemented by a growing awareness of
geological context and strata (Daniel 1981: 50). The 19th
century, therefore, saw the
46
emergence of the newly-styled archaeologists, who sought to dissociate themselves
from folkloric studies most likely because – unlike archaeology, and as outlined
above – it had not received academic acceptance (Michell 1982: 24; Gazin-Schwartz
and Holtorf 1999: 9). Additionally, as is argued by Gazin-Schwartz, archaeologists
rejected folklore, viewing its value with scepticism because of its questionable
authenticity and accuracy; often finding that folk tradition and material remains did
not correlate, they opted to dismiss the former as inauthentic (Gazin-Schwartz 1999:
34-36; Gazin-Schwartz and Holtorf 1999: 5).
Folklore was slightly less dismissive of archaeology, but from the outset of its
development as a separate field in the 19th
century, it was clear that material culture
was not considered central to the study of folklore. Tellingly, in its first publication
in 1878, the Folk-Lore Society defined its objectives as ‘the preservation and
publication of Popular Traditions, Legendary Ballads, Local Proverbial Sayings,
Superstitions, and Old Customs’ (Folklore Society 1878, cited in Gazin-Schwartz
1999: 22), with no reference at all to material culture. And by the mid-20th
century,
folklorists had become more concerned with the collection and preservation of oral
traditions (Opie 1957; O’Sullivan 1957; Sanderson 1957; Ó Giolláin 2000) than with
the study of artefacts.
Following this divergence was over a century of largely indifferent co-existence, the
two disciplines occasionally acknowledging each other but rarely touching. By the
end of the 20th
century, folklore’s relegation to the fringe of academia was
compelling many archaeologists, anxious about their professional legitimacy, to give
the subject area a wide berth. As archaeologist Gazin-Schwartz asks in her doctoral
thesis on Constructing Ancestors: Archaeology and Folklore in Scotland: ‘If we dare
to talk about folklore, to tell stories about our sites, will anyone take us seriously? Or
will we be relegated to the wacky fringe of druid-seekers?’ (1999: 36). Today, this
marginalisation of folklore within academia has resulted in a general ignorance about
the subject. Archaeologists who may otherwise have been willing – even eager – to
study folklore are probably unaware of its potential simply because it rarely features
in their educations.
However, there have been a number of individuals who have attempted to reunite
archaeology and folklore in their research on the British Isles, some more
47
successfully than others. The next part of this chapter is a consideration of these
scholars and their various methodologies, separated into two main sections: the
folklore of archaeology and the archaeology of folklore.
10 – THE FOLKLORE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
For much of the 20th
century, studies of the relationship between archaeology and
folklore in Britain have taken one main form: the collection of folklore concerning
archaeological sites, usually compiled by folklorists with an interest in archaeology
(Gazin-Schwartz 1999: 27). The general consensus amongst these scholars was that
folklore constituted the remnants – the ‘survivals’ – of prehistoric beliefs and rituals;
thus folklore was utilised as a resource to contextualise the material evidence, most
often prehistoric monuments.
Walter Johnson was one of Britain’s first folklorists to apply this theory to the
archaeological record in 1908. In his book, Folk-Memory; or the Continuity of
British Archaeology (1908), he traces folkloric associations and uses of megaliths
back chronologically in order to contextualise them: ‘Let us go back and pick up the
threads of superstition’ (1908: 174), he proposes, looking, for example, at the
healing powers attributed to prehistoric holed stones. He is not, however, under any
illusion of direct continuity; while he writes of the endurance of veneration at certain
megaliths, from prehistory to the 19th
century, he warns the reader that most
traditions will have been ‘grossly perverted’ (1908: 132), stating that any ‘folk-
memory’ must be ‘scrupulously tested’ (1908: 319).
Similar methodologies are employed by later scholars, who draw on folklore as a
contextualising resource for the understanding of prehistoric monuments, from
Stonehenge (Fleure 1948) to the many megalithic stones believed to be ‘countless’
(Menefee 1975) or to have been formed through the petrification of sinners (Menefee
1974). Likewise, Bord and Bord, writing in the 1970s, refer to ‘race-memory’ as the
‘only real illumination’ onto the significance of the prehistoric sites of the British
Isles: standing stones, henges, hill-forts, and burial mounds (1976).
In most cases, a degree of scepticism is maintained concerning the continuity of
these folk traditions; they are not presented as unaltered survivals from prehistory
48
but as distorted remnants which, if very carefully interpreted, may yield some truth
over the monuments’ original purposes. As Bord and Bord maintain, the details of a
tradition will undoubtedly have changed over the centuries, but traditions reflect
attitudes, and attitudes are more likely to have been consistently inherited: a site is
considered sacred today because it was considered sacred 3000 years ago (1976: 1-
2). Not all scholars, however, accepted these theories of long-term unbroken
continuity; Grinsell (1976a; 1976b), for example, was a little more sceptical.
Grinsell is probably the most widely known scholar of the folklore of British
prehistoric sites; in reference to Stonehenge and the barrows of Wiltshire, he is cited
by Chippindale (1983 [1994]: 45n) and Bender (1998: 137), described by Darvill as
the producer of what is still considered ‘the definitive listing’ (2006: 15), and
portrayed by Burl as the ‘doyen of barrow-seekers’ (1987: 118). Unlike the majority
of scholars considered in this section, however, Grinsell classifies himself as an
archaeologist rather than as a folklorist, and it is probably the perceived negative
connotations of folklore, as explored above, which leads Grinsell to state in the
preface to Folklore of Prehistoric Sites in Britain that he is ‘primarily an
archaeologist, for whom folklore has never been more than a sideline’ (1976a: 9).
However, it is probably also his archaeological background that made him more
wary of drawing on the oral traditions associated with prehistoric sites in order to
contextualise them. Although he offers little in the way of interpretation – the
majority of Folklore of Prehistoric Sites in Britain (1976a), for example, is a simple
county-by-county catalogue of prehistoric sites with folkloric associations – he does
acknowledge that many associated traditions are far more recent in origin than they
seem, and he is discerning in his distinction between the older remnants (folklore)
and the more recent traditions (‘fakelore’).
The trend more recently has been to draw on the folklore of prehistoric sites not to
attempt to shed light on their origins, but to ascertain how a monument has been
perceived and utilised throughout history, including its current employment by local
communities. Voss (1987), for example, acknowledging that contemporary uses and
interpretations of monuments differ greatly from their original purposes, focuses on
how prehistoric structures serve as focal points within communities, making obvious
reference to Stonehenge. In Voss’s opinion, archaeology and folklore are two
49
distinct, opposing forces; folklore surrounds a prehistoric site despite – and often in
contradiction to – the archaeological evidence, and while archaeology can provide
factual history, folklore offers what Voss terms ‘metaphorical history’ (1987: 81).
Murphy (1999), in her research on the Neolithic dolmen of Pentre Ifan, Wales,
considers how the folkloric traditions associated with the site have coloured
contemporary perceptions of it, influencing how people – including scholars – view
it. Likewise, Champion and Cooney (1999), researching Irish prehistoric and early
historic monuments, such as the complex of cairns at Loughcrew, Co. Meath, and the
portal tomb at Cleenrah, Co. Longford, ask how the ‘meaning’ of monuments shift
over time. They also consider how the presentations of such monuments to the
public are inherently tied in with the folkloric traditions associated with them. Wallis
and Blain (2003), citing examples such as Stonehenge and Avebury, the stone circles
at Froggatt Edge, and the Nine Ladies on Stanton Moor, are equally concerned with
how the contemporary public draw on the traditional folklore of a prehistoric site in
their perceptions and uses of it – and, in some cases, employ the folklore to influence
heritage site management.
Gazin-Schwartz is probably the most significant archaeologist to consider folklore’s
potential in contributing to an understanding of landscapes, monuments, and
artefacts. In her doctoral thesis (1999), in which she focuses her attention on the
folkloric associations of monuments and the ritual purposes of everyday items on the
island of Raasay, Scotland, she notes the prominent role played by folklore in the
social construction of landscapes, concluding that folkloric customs and beliefs must
be considered by any scholar wishing to adequately contextualise the history of a
landscape.
Gazin-Schwartz, however, does not aim to correlate folklore with the archaeological
record. She does not argue for long-term continuity of folk practices and beliefs, as,
for example, Bord and Bord do (1978), but instead examines the ways in which
traditional histories are formed and adapted through local folklore. While she
stresses that folklore does not provide factual information, she does aver – rightfully,
in my opinion – that it offers different ways of thinking, asserting that it prompts
new and important questions; ‘gives access to many layers of meaning’ (1999: 51);
and provides the opportunity to ‘gain personal connections to the past’ (1999: 182).
50
In an edited volume published in the same year, Gazin-Schwartz and Holtorf present
a variety of papers which demonstrate the benefits of fostering an interdisciplinary
dialogue between archaeology and folklore, which they perceive as ‘two of the many
lenses through which the past is given meaning’ (1999: 3). As Layton, a contributor
to the volume, stresses, such a dialogue is between two different systems of
meaning; archaeology and folklore are not partial fragments of the same whole,
correlated and combined to reveal a full picture. They are two different modes of
representing the past, often providing contradictory accounts of events, landscapes,
and artefacts (1999: 31).
I specified in my definition of ‘folklore’ (see above) that customs, beliefs, and
legends are considered ‘folklore’ when they are transmitted orally, and it is the
nature of oral traditions to be subjective and contradictory, as Vansina explores in
detail (1985).1 While Vansina notes the limitations of oral traditions as reliable
evidence, he asserts that careful analysis of such testimonies can provide accurate
information about the past. His advocation of the uses of oral traditions does not
coincide with Layton’s – or my own – theories regarding how oral folk traditions
should be interpreted and employed. Vansina believes that by adopting a systematic
and critical approach to oral traditions, a historian could deduce which points are
factual and which others are less so. This theory, however, may apply more readily
to the Central African empirical base of Vansina’s research, which likely has more
historical validity than the folklore of Britain’s prehistoric monuments.
Unlike the folklorists of these prehistoric monuments, however, Vansina does not
believe that the intangible evidence of the oral traditions should complement the
tangible evidence (in his case, written historical sources), but that they are
testimonies in and of themselves, not to be utilised simply as sources for the past, but
as accounts of how people have variously interpreted the past (1985: 195). Likewise,
an archaeologist’s employment of folklore should not be to seek factual answers
which supplement the material evidence, but to aid in an understanding of the
malleability of monuments and landscapes, and the multiplicity of meanings
1 Granted, oral traditions do not necessarily constitute folklore, but Vansina’s definition of them –
‘verbal messages which are reported statements from the past beyond the present generation’ (1985:
27) – could certainly encompass folklore; he does, for example, include epics, tales, and proverbs
amongst his examples. His consideration of the reliability and subjectivity of oral traditions, therefore,
easily applies also to folklore.
51
attributed to them. Folklore is not meant to be taken literally; it is primarily
symbolic, and therefore should not be resorted to in the search for facts, but in the
search for meaning.
11 – THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF FOLKLORE
Another main form taken by studies utilising both folklore and archaeology is the
analysis of the material manifestations of folk customs. In 1951, Clark contended
that archaeologists would profit by including folklore in their lines of enquiry,
asserting that the ‘most obvious way in which a study of Folk-Culture can help
prehistorians is by interpreting objects otherwise enigmatic’ (1951: 58); obscure
material evidence can be elucidated through reference to folk customs and beliefs.
This approach can be found in numerous journal and magazine articles from the mid-
20th
century to the present day, focusing on the material manifestations of folkloric
customs, which I have previously included in my definition of ‘folklore’. Examples
include foundation sacrifices (Ó Súilleabháin 1945); ritual markings on domestic
timber (Easton 1999); witch-bottles (Merrifield 1954); ‘thunderstones’ and ‘thunder-
axes’ (Penney 1976); and concealed garments (Swann 1996; Eastop 2006; Evans
2010), to name only some.
It was Merrifield, however, whose book The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic
(1987) was the first full-length volume devoted to the materiality of British folkloric
customs. Attesting that, as ritual and magic were often aspects of everyday life, they
should leave as many traces in the archaeological record as any basic human activity,
Merrifield seeks to identify and catalogue them (1987: 1). Covering a wide
chronological period from the pre-Roman Iron Age to the 20th
century, with a
geographic focus on Europe – most prominently south-eastern England – he
reconstructs ritual activity, such as the deposition of witch-bottles and mummified
cats, from the archaeological evidence, supplementing it wherever possible with
written sources.
However, Merrifield’s work has been subject to scholarly criticism, with Lloyd et al.
(2001: 58), for example, arguing that while Merrifield offers a valuable catalogue,
his purported lack of interpretation debilitates the readers’ understanding of the
52
significance of the material record. I do not fully concur with this criticism. While
Merrifield’s work is primarily a catalogue, he both contextualises the archaeological
evidence, considering the physical attributes and symbolic associations of folkloric
artefacts, and interprets the material record convincingly to reconstruct the ritual
activities which (probably) led to the artefacts’ depositions.
Merrifield’s interpretation of the concealed shoe, for example, takes into
consideration their liminal locations, physical conditions, wide geographic
distribution, folkloric connotations, and intimate associations with their previous
wearers in his attempt to contextualise the artefacts and reconstruct the activities and
beliefs which led to their deposition (1987: 133-135), an approach I adopted in my
work on concealed shoes (Houlbrook 2013a).
In other scholarship on the subject, folklore is not employed to elucidate the
archaeological evidence, but vice versa. For the majority of British folkloric
customs, there are few – if any – relevant contemporaneous literary sources; the
material evidence is thus the only surviving contextualising resource for the custom.
Howard (1951), for example, focuses her attention on the deposition of mummified
cats within the walls of domestic buildings, pre-empting Merrifield by utilising the
archaeological evidence – the liminality of their locations; their arrangements; and
the level of effort involved in deposition – to determine the possible reasons behind
deposition. In her careful analysis, she resists over-interpreting the material
evidence, concluding that the majority of the cats were probably employed as
vermin-scares or were accidentally enclosed. She does, however, make a convincing
argument for some of her case-studies having been deposited as foundation
sacrifices.
Two contributors to Wallis and Lymer’s A Permeability of Boundaries? New
Approaches to the Archaeology of Art, Religion and Folklore (2001) – a collection
of papers written in response to the ‘barrier of snobbery’ encountered by
archaeologists studying the ‘fringe’ subjects of art, religion, and folklore (Wallis and
Lymer 2001: xv) – employ a similar methodology as Howard. Eastop (2001), one of
these contributors, utilises the material evidence in her attempt to interpret the wide
range of garments discovered within the walls and roof-spaces of domestic buildings,
53
interpreting the garments themselves – their type, conditions, locations, etc. – in
order to shed light on the custom of concealment.
Similarly, Lloyd et al. (2001), also contributors to Wallis and Lymer’s volume, have
only a few vague literary references to the apotropaic powers of candles to
contextualise the flame-shaped burn marks found on late-medieval/early-modern
domestic timber. They thus employ the material evidence of the burn marks
themselves in order to ‘decode’ the custom. Employing experimental archaeology in
order to determine how the burn marks were produced, they ascertain what materials
and conditions would have been required to produce such marks and convincingly
conclude that they were apotropaic in function. Their study demonstrates the
successful application of archaeology to the interpretation of enigmatic – and often
ignored – material evidence.
Hoggard (2004) likewise utilises the material evidence of his broad survey of
apotropaic devices – witch-bottles, horse skulls, dried cats, shoes, and so on, which
are all material manifestations of folkloric practices and beliefs – in order to argue
that the employment of counter-witchcraft practices far antedated the witch-trials,
and that the decline in the fear of magic during the early modern period was slow
and prolonged. This is a theory which the biased written sources, penned as they
primarily were by the literate minority, does not attest to, demonstrating how
invaluable the archaeological evidence is in contextualising such customs.
However, as invaluable as the material evidence undoubtedly is in elucidating
folkloric customs, especially where literary sources are absent, there is a risk of over-
interpretation. In less scholarly pieces, archaeological finds have been appropriated
to substantiate sensationalist claims. In 2008, for example, the remains of birds and
eggs discovered in a pit in Cornwall were presented as evidence of 17th
-century
witchcraft (Ravilious 2008), while in 2011, the discovery of a mummified cat in the
ruins of a 17th
-century cottage in Pendle, Lancashire, was the only evidence cited in
the proposal that the cottage had housed one of the Pendle witches (Anonymous
2011).
Although non-academics, as above, are often more likely to over-interpret the
evidence, academic scholars can be equally guilty of this. Insoll notes that ‘the
interpretation of archaeological material is taken to sometimes far-fetched extremes’
54
(2004: 53), and Brück (2007) warns that ritual interpretations run the risk of
constituting misinterpretations. Concealed garments, for example, are often
presented as material evidence of folkloric practices, but in some cases it is clear that
accidental loss is as likely an explanation as ritual deposition. Items such as caps,
shirts, doublets, and trousers discovered within the roof-spaces, walls, and beneath
the floors of buildings may indeed be evidence of foundation sacrifices or
apotropaism, but more secular explanations should also be considered.
For example, in her analysis of a cache of concealed garments – consisting of a
child’s doublet and cap, an 18th
-century pocket, five coins, a trade token, and some
document fragments – in Abingdon, Oxfordshire, Eastop (discussed above) focuses
on the child’s doublet and cap in order to speculate that the cache was concealed to
protect the household against infant deaths or to promote fertility (2001: 80). She
pays little attention to the less symbolically-charged items – the trade token and the
document fragments – the presence of which suggests that this cache may have been
concealed for more secular purposes; possibly as memorials or to ensure the
artefacts’ longevity.
Likewise, Evans, in his doctoral thesis on concealed garments in Australia, lists a
straw hat, convict shirts, and a sailor’s cap – all discovered in a variety of domestic
and public buildings – as garments which were deliberately concealed for probable
folkloric purposes (2010: 172). As with Eastop’s cache, however, numerous other
reasons could have motivated the concealment of these garments: memory, safe-
keeping, or accidental losses. The discovery of two convict shirts in a prison, for
example, is not necessarily evidence of folkloric practice.
Gazin-Schwartz warns of such over-interpretation by way of a personal anecdote in
her doctoral thesis (1999). She recounts how, upon discovering a horseshoe inserted
into the wall of a ruined 19th
-century croft house in Skye, she immediately assumed
folkloric motivations for its deposition, noting both its liminal location and the
horseshoe’s history as a protective amulet. However, it was later explained to her
that horseshoes were commonly placed within the walls for the utilitarian purpose of
supporting the timber posts (1999: 58). In her opinion, however, the risk of over-
interpretation does not outweigh the benefits of fostering a dialogue between
archaeology and folklore – so long as folklore is not perceived as factual truth, but as
55
a source which must be carefully interpreted and considered in context. As she wryly
notes: ‘Archaeologists, of course, should not have to be told to consider context!’
(1999: 36).
In a later article, Gazin-Schwartz (2001) also warns against dichotomising ritual and
utilitarian material culture, advocating that archaeologists should consider folklore as
a phenomenon which pervaded everyday life. She proposes instead a continuum-
based model which challenges the assumption that the anomalous and mysterious
archaeological find should be attributed to ritual. Her proposed model allows the
archaeologist to view folklore and ‘household ritual’ (2001: 268) as part of everyday
life, performed by people who did not adhere to the same ritual/utilitarian distinction
as modern-day archaeologists. As she concludes: ‘Folklore offers archaeologists a
means to recognize the ways in which practical and spiritual aspects of daily life are
integrated through material culture’ (2001: 278).
12 – CONCLUSION
While it has been over a century since folklore and archaeology were conceived as
going hand-in-hand, it is clear that their mid-19th
-century divorce was far from final.
Although only some folklorists choose to draw on the archaeological record in their
research, and only a handful of archaeologists utilise folklore as a resource, there
have been enough on either side to maintain a link between the two disciplines over
the years. That link has evidently been growing stronger since the turn of the
millennium, with the seminal work of Gazin-Schwartz (1999; 2001; 2011) drawing
scholars’ attention to the advantageous pairing.
In 2011, this pairing was re-ignited with the introduction of UCL’s Institute of
Archaeology’s ‘Popular Antiquities: Folklore and Archaeology’ conference,
subsequent sessions (2012 and 2013) co-organised by The Folklore Society. The two
original organisers were postgraduate students Tina Paphitis and Martin Locker of
UCL, and as Paphitis explains, they decided to set up the conference simply because
of their ‘interest in folklore and archaeology; there was no other forum for us to
explore the subject with others, so we decided to make one ourselves’ (pers. comm.
11/03/2013).
56
In 2011, 2012, and 2013 scholars from across Europe have delivered papers at this
conference, clearly demonstrating the widely-felt benefits of utilising both resources
in scholarly research and in fostering a dialogue between the two disciplines – a
dialogue which has been re-ignited simply through the academic interests of a
handful of individuals. I aim to be one such individual.
Clearly the two disciplines have not always been paired successfully. The naïve
assumption that folklore represents survivals of unbroken traditions since prehistory
characterises much of the earlier scholarship concerned with the folklore of
archaeology – and has obviously done little to repair folklore’s tarnished reputation
as a valuable resource. The scholarly trend, however, has moved away from
employing folklore to elucidate much earlier practices and beliefs. It has also
recently progressed from the simple objective of composing catalogues of sites and
artefacts with folkloric associations, with various theoretical papers included in the
volumes of Gazin-Schwartz and Holtorf (1999) and Wallis and Lymer (2001), which
foster collaboration between archaeology and folklore in order to develop new
interpretive perspectives.
My own research into the custom of the contemporary coin-tree will hopefully
contribute to the fostering of a dialogue between the two disciplines. However, the
contemporaneity of my case-studies necessitates a different set of questions than
those faced by previous archaeologists of folklore. In the past, for example, efforts to
correlate the folkloric evidence with the archaeological record have been misguided
due to the often significant lengths of time separating the two: early modern folkloric
beliefs and customs are not unaltered reproductions of prehistoric beliefs and
customs.
For the contemporary coin-tree, however, the folklore and the archaeology can be
considered in unison, for the material evidence of the folkloric custom – i.e. the coin-
tree – and the testimony of the participating ‘folk’ are both current, and an
examination of both has emphasised the value of employing archaeological methods
and folkloric sources simultaneously. The material evidence of the coin-trees
themselves illustrates how the custom has adapted over time, whilst the testimony of
the participating ‘folk’ elucidates what the custom ‘means’ today. The two methods
of enquiry evidently complement each other and are, together, well-equipped to
57
tackle a subject which has previously been neglected, for despite the proliferation of
sources cited in this review, the contemporary coin-tree represents a rather large gap
in scholarship.
While numerous works – both archaeological and folkloric – detail the ritual uses of
trees in the British Isles, very few have concerned themselves with contemporary
examples, and still fewer have focused specifically on coin-trees. As of yet, there has
been no comprehensive catalogue compiled of coin-trees, let alone any systematic
academic work offering examination or analysis of this modern-day custom. And
while there are, admittedly, enough snippets of information circulating both the
Internet and relatively recent publications to be assured that the custom of the coin-
tree is on people’s radar, it has not yet been subject to archaeological analysis or
ethnographic investigation, and it has certainly not found itself the central focus of a
multi-disciplinary study.
By offering such a study, it is hoped that this thesis will rectify an obvious academic
oversight, in drawing attention both to the benefits of collaboration between
archaeology and folklore, and to the paucity of studies that focus on contemporary
rituals and folk-customs in the British Isles.
58
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
1 – TERMINOLOGY
The definition of what constitutes a ‘coin-tree’ is simple: any wooden structure – a
living tree, log, stump, or wooden post – located outside, into the surface of which
coins have been inserted. In some cases (for example, the replacement votive trees at
Fore, the Clonfert tree, and the Glastonbury Thorn), deposits attached to their barks
and branches are widely varied, from rags and jewellery to dolls and toothbrushes,
and coins are in the minority. These trees are not classified as coin-trees, but are still
considered in this thesis for comparative purposes. For a votive tree to constitute a
coin-tree, therefore, its offerings must be primarily (although not exclusively) coins.
A term frequently used throughout this thesis is ‘coining’. This is a double entendre,
referring both to the noun ‘coin’, defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as a
‘piece of money’, and to the verb ‘coin’, defined as ‘[t]o make, devise, produce’
(OED Online, 2014). The ‘coining’ of a coin-tree, therefore, refers to the initial act
of inserting the first coin into a tree, thus creating a coin-tree. The coining date of a
coin-tree is subsequently the date a tree first began to be employed as a coin-tree.
Throughout this thesis, coin-trees are referred to as ‘active’ or ‘dormant’; these terms
refer to the level of activity surrounding them. An active site is one which contains
coin-trees still currently being embedded with coins. A dormant site is one which
initially contained a coin-tree which has since been destroyed or removed, and no
other tree has yet been adopted as a replacement. I also use the term ‘coin fossil’,
which designates the impression left by a coin in the wood of a tree.
2 – IDENTIFICATION AND CATALOGUING
As no previous catalogues of coin-trees have been compiled, my initial task was the
identification of coin-tree sites. The starting point for this was personal experience;
having visited Bolton Abbey, Yorkshire, and Dovedale, Derbyshire, on family
excursions, I was already aware of the coin-trees at these sites (Appendices 2.12 &
2.18) – and under the erroneous impression that this custom was confined to the
59
northern counties of England. However, initial research revealed that there was a far
greater quantity of coin-tree sites than I originally thought, and that they are widely
dispersed throughout the British Isles.
At this stage, online resources were invaluable. Inputting the terms ‘coin tree’,
‘money tree’, and ‘penny tree’ into search engines proffered a myriad of online
articles, personal blogs, discussion forums, and image-hosting websites, all referring
to – and many curiously querying – the custom of inserting coins into trees. Utilising
data collected from these online resources, the locations of numerous coin-trees were
established.
Other sites were identified through correspondence with acquaintances: relatives,
friends, and colleagues who had encountered coin-trees. The Lydford Gorge coin-
trees (Appendix 2.29), for example, were brought to my attention by my academic
supervisor, Prof. Tim Insoll, having come across them whilst on holiday, and I was
informed of the Portmeirion coin-tree cluster (Appendix 2.33) by a fellow guest at a
wedding.
A larger number of sites, however, were brought to my attention by members of the
public at other coin-tree sites; one question posed to my interview participants was,
‘Are you aware of any other coin-trees?’ Whilst interviewing a woman at Bolton
Abbey, for example, her young daughter recalled seeing a coin-tree at Brock Bottom,
Lancashire; whilst at Dovedale, a man informed me of a similar custom manifesting
itself near the summit of Snowdon.
More data was collected through direct correspondence with park rangers and
wardens, heritage officers, and archaeologists. In March 2012, a query was placed on
the National Trust email forum, Countryside Chat (courtesy of Simon Nicholas,
National Trust Warden, Dovedale), requesting that any rangers with information
concerning coin-trees contact me; I received 17 replies. In May 2012, another
request was placed in the Institute for Archaeologists bulletin, and more responses
were received, informing me of further coin-tree sites. As I began to disseminate my
research, by giving papers at conferences for example, my network of informants
grew and I received numerous emails from scholars and independent researchers
countrywide, notifying me of other coin-trees.
60
The coin-tree catalogue currently stands at 34 sites across the British Isles (Appendix
1.2, Map 1). Of these sites, 31 are active; their coin-trees are still currently being
coined. Two sites, Ardboe, Co. Tyrone (Appendix 2.8), and Freeholders Wood,
Yorkshire, are considered dormant for the coin-trees once inhabiting the sites have
been removed and no structures have, as of yet, been adopted as replacements.
Additionally, Fore, Co. Westmeath (Appendix 2.20) is not considered an active coin-
tree site because the original coin-tree has been removed and its replacements are
rag-trees rather than coin-trees, due to coins constituting only a minority of the
deposits.
The catalogue does not claim to be complete. Its compilation has been an ongoing
project and it is likely that there are other sites which remain unrecorded or were
identified too late. Time and funding restraints necessitated a cut-off point; I was
unable to conduct fieldwork at any coin-tree sites which were brought to my
attention after January 2013, and thus they are not included in this catalogue. I shall,
however, continue to update a separate catalogue, appending new records and
maintaining what will undoubtedly prove to be a growing compendium. As long as
new coin-trees continue to be coined, the catalogue can never claim to be complete.
In order to contextualise the catalogued 34 coin-tree sites, various sources were
utilised. A small number of publications provided information of varying detail and
accuracy regarding individual coin-trees, occasionally proffering an invaluable
photograph or a specific date (see Chapter 2). Direct correspondence with the
custodians of the coin-trees, however, proved far more fruitful. Every ranger,
warden, tourist manager, heritage officer, and private land-owner I came into contact
with (38 in total) was sent a basic questionnaire, requesting information concerning
the coin-trees in their care: exact locations, histories, and current conditions. I
received 20 responses and, through their answers, I was often able to establish
relatively accurate coining dates for the trees, as well as to attain an insight into how
these structures are perceived, presented, and managed by their custodians.
The primary method of data collection, however, was the undertaking of fieldwork at
each of the 33 coin-tree sites (no fieldwork was conducted at Freeholders Wood,
Yorkshire, as no remains of the coin-tree have been preserved at the site and no
61
replacement tree has been adopted). This fieldwork had two main objectives: the
gathering of empirical data and the collection of ethnographic evidence.
3 – THE EMPIRICAL DATA: LOCATING THE COIN-TREES
The empirical data is proffered by the physical structures of the coin-trees
themselves. Having acquired permission from the coin-tree custodians, fieldwork
was undertaken at each site to gather this data. This fieldwork was non-intrusive.
The structures could not be compromised, which meant that neither wood nor coins
could be removed; I could not, for example, return to university with a sample for
later analysis. Additionally, in many cases, time and funding restraints prevented
multiple trips to a site; all of the empirical data required, therefore, needed to be
collected on-site and often in the space of one or two days.
With a few exceptions – such as at Brock Bottom, Lancashire; Marbury, Cheshire;
and Isle Maree, Wester Ross, where I was accompanied to the coin-trees by rangers
– my initial task at each site was to locate the structures. The primary coin-trees were
often easily found. In most cases, I was armed with a map or description of their
locations from their custodians; in other cases, they were positioned along an area’s
main footpath and difficult to overlook.
Once at the primary coin-tree, the next task was to establish their distribution. In all
but nine active coin-tree sites (the exceptions being Leigh Woods, Bristol; Corfe
Castle, Dorset; Loxley, Yorkshire; Claife Station, Cumbria; Brock Bottom,
Lancashire; Arnside Knott, Lancashire; Cragside, Northumberland; Ardmaddy,
Argyll; and Clonenagh, Co. Laois), the primary coin-trees were accompanied by
others, their numbers ranging from one more (at Marbury, Cheshire; and Snowdon,
Gwynedd) to 28 more (Ingleton, Yorkshire) (Appendix 2.1). Throughout this thesis,
the 34 coin-tree sites are referred to by their locations. For example, the coin-trees at
Aira Force, Cumbria, are identified as the Aira Force coin-trees. In the catalogue,
their labels are often abbreviated (Aira Force = AF) (Appendix 2.1), and a number is
assigned to each individual coin-tree.
It cannot be claimed that the quantities of coin-trees at each site are unequivocally
accurate. In less wooded environments, such as at Arnside Knott, Ardmaddy, and
62
Clonenagh, establishing the number of coin-trees was a simple task. However, the
majority of sites are densely forested, and close scrutiny of every tree within a wide
area surrounding the coin-trees would have proven an impractical endeavour.
Instead, each tree within close proximity to a primary coin-tree was examined for
coins, as was every tree situated immediately beside main footpaths. Due to the
nature of this custom – with the majority of participants having come across a coin-
tree by chance – it is unlikely that any heavily-coined trees are located far from a
well-trodden footpath.
Additionally, the active nature of these sites and the process of dissemination render
it impossible to make any absolute assertions about quantities; there may have been
22 coin-trees at Tarn Hows (Appendix 2.38) on the day I conducted fieldwork at the
site in June 2012, but it is likely that this number will have grown since then. This is
evidenced at Hardcastle Crags, Yorkshire (Appendix 2.23), fieldwork for which was
conducted on two separate days.
Having visited the site on 31/03/2012, I catalogued five coin-trees. One coin-tree
(HC4) was a log, situated beside a large beech (Fagus), the trunk of which I
carefully examined for coins – and found none. Returning to the site on 09/04/2012
in order to gather ethnographic data, I gave this beech tree a cursory glance and
discovered two coins (a 50p and a £1) easily noticeable within the bark. Within the
space of a mere nine days, therefore, the quantity of coin-trees at Hardcastle Crags
had risen from five to six. Likewise at Malham (Appendix 2.30), in the time between
my first visit (03/03/2012) and my second (23/09/2012), six wooden posts had
become embedded with coins, increasing the quantity of coin-trees from 17 to 23.
The figures cited for quantities in this thesis, therefore, can only claim to be as
accurate as possible on the date of fieldwork.
4 – THE EMPIRICAL DATA: PRODUCING A PLAN
Once the number of coin-trees had been established at a site, the next task was to
gather the empirical data required for the production of an accurate plan. This data is
presented in Appendices 2-3. At each coin-tree cluster, the grid reference, latitude
and longitude, and elevation were recorded, and where relevant, the orientations of
63
coin-tree logs were noted. The height/length and diameter of the coin-trees were
measured in centimetres, as were their distances and directions from nearby
footpaths, significant landscape features, and each other. This data was later
translated into plans of the sites, produced using Digimap and Adobe Illustrator.
Four plans were produced for each site: one to demonstrate their locations in relation
to each other and to landscape features; another to demonstrate their locations in
relation to sites and monuments within 500 square metres; and two, accompanied by
colour-coordinated legends, to illustrate coin volume in each coin-tree and type of
coin-tree, i.e. log, stump, living tree. These plans are complemented by a
photographic record of the coin-trees.
5 – THE EMPIRICAL DATA: CONDITIONS OF THE COIN-TREES
During fieldwork the condition of each individual coin-tree was noted. The
terminology for these conditions – together with quantities of coin-trees in such
conditions – is outlined in Appendix 2.2. For each of the coin-tree case-studies, I
have assigned a level of decay. As Woodall and Nagel write, decay class ‘is a
subjective determination of the amount of decay present in an individual log. Decay
class one is the least decayed (freshly fallen log), while decay class five is an
extremely decayed log typically consisting of a pile of brown, cubicle rot’ (2006:
117). Using the table in Appendix 2.3, based on guidelines given by the British
Columbian Ministry of Natural Resource Operations (Anonymous nd.), I have
assigned a decay class to each individual coin-tree through visual assessment.
For each coin-tree an attempt has been made to identify the tree species, using the
guides of Mitchell (1974) and Oldham (2003). This was easier for living trees, but
still possible for logs and stumps if their bark was intact. For those coin-trees of a
higher decay class, however, the identification of their species proved far more
difficult. For these trees, a hierarchy of species identification was followed, as
recommended by Woodall and Nagel (2006: 117): species; species group; hardwood
or softwood; and, finally, unknown.
64
6 – THE EMPIRICAL DATA: CATALOGUING COINS
Once the locations and conditions of the trees had been recorded, attention was
transferred to the coins themselves. The first task was to ascertain quantity. For the
more sparsely coined coin-trees, this was a simple matter of counting on site.
However, this method would have proven impractical for the denser coin-trees (e.g.
AF1, with over 26,000 coins, and IG3, with at least 48,000). In these cases, for
greater accuracy, a stringed-grid was spread across the surface of the coin-trees and
digital photographs were taken of each 10x10cm grid-section (Fig. 10). Once these
photographs had been uploaded onto a computer, the quantities of coins in each grid-
square could be counted.
As with the quantities of coin-trees at each site, these figures cannot claim complete
accuracy. It is possible that some coins were overlooked and it is even more likely
that the quantities have risen since the dates of fieldwork. Again the Hardcastle
Crags case-study (Appendix 2.23) testifies to this; in the nine-day interval between
my first visit to the site and my second, at least eight coins had been added to the
coin-trees. Five of these had been inserted into the stump of HC6, adding to the 19
coins and 35 nails which had previously been inserted (Figs. 11-12). The quantities
of coins cited in this thesis, therefore, are intended to demonstrate the minimum
amount of coins embedded on the date of fieldwork.
Once the quantity of coins had been noted, the next task was to identify their
denominations, in order to ascertain if there were any notable patterns in the
depositors’ selections (Appendix 3.1). This was accomplished through a visual
assessment of their various colours, sizes, rims, and edges. Again, for the densely-
coined trees, the grid-squared photographs were resorted to for this task. Foreign
currency (Appendix 3.3) was either identified on site or photographed and identified
at a later date. Coins which were too deeply inserted or badly damaged/corroded to
identify were recorded as ‘unknown’.
Where possible, years of mint were recorded (Appendix 3.2). Issue years could only
be ascertained for a minority of coins, dependent upon how deeply and at what angle
they were embedded, and how heavily clustered they were. In the right conditions,
the year of mint would be visible; in other cases, the terminus post quem or terminus
ante quem could be ascertained through their designs. For example, one design-
65
aspect utilised for this purpose was the word ‘NEW’, which was incorporated into
the reverse designs on one penny and two pence pieces from 1971 until 1982 (Fig.
13). Another design-aspect which indicates time period is Queen Elizabeth II’s
portrait, which has been altered four times since its first introduction on coinage in
1953; simply put, the younger Queen Elizabeth II looks, the older the coin is (Fig.
14).
An extensive redesign of British coins in 2008 offers another useful dating aid. This
redesign saw the removal of the crowned portcullis from one penny pieces, the
coronet and plumes of ostrich feathers from two pence pieces, the crowned thistle
from five pence pieces, the crowned lion from 10 pence pieces, and the crowned
Tudor rose from 20 pence pieces. The presence of these designs, therefore, indicates
that the coins bearing them were issued before 2008 (Fig. 15). The design introduced
to replace these was the Royal Arms, divided into sections with each denomination
depicting one fragment (Fig. 16); a coin bearing a section of the Royal Arms would
therefore have been issued in 2008 or after (Royal Mint, nd.).
Coins of higher denominations (50p, £1, £2) also proved useful for dating, as they
are often issued as commemorative coins and their reverse designs are altered
frequently. For example, a 50 pence piece inserted into BA5 depicted a pattern of
radiating lines accompanied by the words ‘FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY’ and the
initials ‘NHS’ on the outer border (Fig. 17). Utilising this information, I was able to
identify the coin as a 50 pence piece issued in 1998 to commemorate the 50th
anniversary of the National Health Service (Royal Mint, nd.).
See figure 18 for illustrative purposes. It depicts nine coins inserted into the Brock
Bottom coin-tree, labelled 1-9. Only coins 1 and 7 proffer no information for dating.
The remaining coins are all clearly post-decimalisation, issued (and therefore
inserted) after 1971. The issue-dates of coins 4, 5, and 8 are legible: 1998, 2007, and
1976. The crowned portcullis is depicted on coin 9, indicating that it was issued prior
to 2008, while coins 3 and 6, patterned with the coronet and plumes of ostrich
feathers, reveal the same. Coin 2, on the other hand, bears a section of the Royal
Arms, signifying that it was issued in 2008 or after. Data such as this was recorded
for coins in each coin-tree in order to estimate an approximate deposition time-
frame.
66
However, even the dates that are visible do not necessarily provide accurate starting
points for each tree’s ritual life-span. A coin may have been minted in 1971, but that
certainly does not indicate that it was inserted in 1971; there are coins in my purse at
present, for instance, which were minted in 1979 and 1984. It is difficult, therefore,
to use only the empirical data as testimony to the ritual’s terminus post quem.
However, the testimony of the coins can certainly reveal whether the coin-tree was in
ritual use prior to 1971, through the presence (or absence) of pre-decimalisation
coins. The coins are also able to reveal how recently the coin-tree has been in ritual
use; a coin minted in 2011 cannot have been inserted prior to 2011.
It must be considered, however, that, as Collis points out in his work on the
archaeological analysis of deposited coins, some issues are more common than
others. Although earlier coins will still be in circulation, they will be rarer due to loss
or withdrawal of certain issues, while the coins most recently minted will also be
rare, due to having been in circulation for less time (1974: 194). Additionally, the
quantities of coins issued annually vary greatly, as is evidenced by Appendix 3.6,
which illustrates the total number of Great British coins issued each year, from 1968
to 2011.
I have not, therefore, made any broad assumptions based on the patterning of years
of mint. The year 2000, for example, is the most common (or mean average) year of
issue for coins at 11 coin-tree sites (AK, BA, CR, DD, FG, IG, LX, LG, MH, PG,
PM), but this does not necessarily indicate that the custom of deposition was
particularly popular during the year 2000. Instead, it may simply signify that there is
a particularly high quantity of coins which were issued in 2000 in circulation, as
Appendix 3.6 demonstrates. Careful consideration was therefore employed in the
utilisation of coins as aids for dating.
The arrangements of the coins within the trees were also recorded; whether they
were in a random configuration or whether their distribution was more patterned:
radial, annular, longitudinal, diagonal, or wave-like (Figs. 19-25). It was also noted
whether this distribution patterning was incidental – for example, the coins were
arranged longitudinally because they had been inserted into a pre-existing fissure –
or if the pattern was a result of imitative aesthetics. The conditions of the coins were
also noted, the terminology employed outlined in Appendix 3.4.
67
Non-coin deposits were also recorded and photographed: rags, metal plates, tokens,
nails, drawing pins, jewellery, etc. Graffiti, either on the coin-tree or on surrounding
trees, was noted and photographed. Possible tools of percussion were also sought at
each site. Any rocks of significant size – but light enough to be lifted – within close
proximity to a coin-tree were examined for any signs of abrasion; if signs were
discovered, the rock would be designated a possible tool of percussion. It would be
measured, photographed, the level of abrasion noted, and the type of rock identified.
It would then be returned to its original location.
7 – THE EXCAVATION DATA: ARDMADDY
As demonstrated by the literature review, although there are few literary sources
referring to coin-tree sites, it is usually possible to determine an approximate time-
frame of deposition. For older coin-trees in particular, there are brief references in
the works of antiquarians or in local newspaper articles which can contribute to an
establishment of the chronology of the sites. Regardless of how vague these
references are they can indicate an approximate age of the coin-tree. If there is no
literature proffering such details, ethnographic data (see below) usually proves a
reliable dating source, and often this data and the information gleaned from the
literature are in relative agreement with what the empirical evidence suggests.
However, there is one coin-tree site which defies this trend: Ardmaddy, Argyll
(Appendices 2.9 & 5).
The primary Ardmaddy coin-tree (Fig. 9), a dead hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna),
is located half a mile south of Ardmaddy Castle, in a pass known as Bealach na
Gaoithe: the ‘pass of the winds’. It is uprooted and lies prone within a wooden
enclosure, 1.2m east of a rough track. The enclosure was erected during the 1990s,
following the tree’s fall, and is designed to deter livestock rather than people; on the
enclosure’s eastern side there is a stile providing access.
As explored in the literature review, Rodger et al.’s Heritage Trees of Scotland
claims that this tree ‘is encrusted with coins that have been pressed into the thin bark
by generations of superstitious travellers over the centuries’ (2003: 25, emphases
added). However, Rodger et al. reference no sources, providing no insight into how
68
they came to the conclusion that this coin-tree is ‘centuries’ old. MacDonald’s 1983
hiker’s guide, Walking in South Lorn, makes a similarly vague reference to the coin-
tree’s antiquity, stating that it is ‘of considerable age’ (1983: 9). Likewise,
MacDonald offers no further information on how she has determined its maturity,
and, despite both claims that the Ardmaddy coin-tree is of significant age,
MacDonald is the earliest identified source which refers to the site.
MacDonald’s description of the coin-tree and the ‘traditional’ practice of coin-
insertion suggest that this custom was well-established at the time she was writing in
the 1980s. Another source proves that the custom was earlier: an Ordnance Survey
map from the 1970s pinpoints the coin-tree’s location and labels it ‘Wishing Tree’,
while the coin-tree’s custodian, Charles Struthers of Ardmaddy Estate, believes that
the custom may date to the 1920/30s: ‘When I was a boy here in the 50s the tree was
prolific and could well have been 20-30 years old then’ (pers. comm. 21/12/2011).
However, although these sources testify to the coin-tree’s relatively early
establishment, they do not prove that it is ‘centuries’ old. In fact, the empirical data
gathered at the site in September 2012 (Appendix 2.9) does not indicate that the
custom pre-dates the 1950s. The earliest datable coin inserted into the Ardmaddy
coin-tree was a 1958 shilling. Seven coins were dated to the 1960s; nine to the
1970s; and the figures increased exponentially from the 1980s, peaking in the 2000s.
This was not concurrent with what little ethnographic data I was able to obtain.
Ethnographic data was sought from local residents. However, following three visits
to historical societies and centres in Argyll, it quickly became apparent that the
majority of these groups have not resided in the area for long, most having relocated
there since retirement, and so they could offer little testimony to the age of this coin-
tree. Only two local residents had been in the area for a substantial amount of time,
and they claimed that the custom has been practised at that site since at least the
1920s. This coincides with Charles Struther’s testimony: that the custom had been
‘prolific’ in the 1950s. However, only one coin had been identified from that decade
and none earlier. The empirical data implied, conversely, that the custom had not
gained popularity until the late 20th
century.
69
This disparity between the empirical data and the meagre literary and ethnographic
sources I was able to obtain led to the decision to employ a different method of
investigation at this particular site. The fragile, fragmented condition of the tree,
together with the high winds it is often subjected to, could have resulted in a high
volume of coins becoming dislodged and falling to the ground, where natural
processes would have buried them over time. It was therefore decided that a small-
scale excavation of the site may uncover coins and subsequently yield more accurate
information on the length of time the coin-tree custom has been observed at this
particular site.
Funding was obtained from the Heritage Lottery Fund, the Society of Post-Medieval
Archaeology, and the Catherine Mackichan Trust, and from 30/08/2013 to
05/09/2013 a small team of archaeologists from the University of Manchester
investigated six test pits in close proximity to the tree, ranging in size from 1.5x0.5m
to 0.8x0.8m. A total of 703 small finds were recovered and recorded. The
methodology employed on site is outlined below.
A site survey was made employing a Leica TC407, surveying the location of the
Ardmaddy coin-tree, any significant loose branches, the wooden enclosure, and the
track. Photographs were taken of the coin-tree and the wider landscape. The area
within the enclosure and an area of 1m wide outside the enclosure were metal
detected employing a C-Scope 990XD. Areas which produced high detection levels
were marked and surveyed.
The locations of test pits were decided based on three criteria: high concentration of
metal detected ‘hot spots’, close proximity to the coin-tree, whilst simultaneously
considering their safety and practicality in relation to the tree and the enclosure.
Areas were also chosen so as to ensure minimal disturbance to the coin-tree and any
significantly-sized loose branches; consequently, the sizes and shapes of the test pits
were irregular. Six test pits were chosen: five within the fence and, for comparative
purposes, one outside. The corners of each test pit were surveyed.
The top of each test pit was metal detected and any identified ‘hot spots’ were
fingertip searched. Any finds on the surface were 3D recorded and labelled, listing
the site code (AWT13), the test pit number, and an assigned small finds number (x1,
70
x2, x3…). The test pits were then de-turfed; the reverse of the turf was metal
detected and fingertip searched, and any finds were labelled with a test pit and
context number but not 3D recorded. Context numbers were assigned in the order
spits were uncovered amongst all test pits.
The first 10cm spit of each pit was excavated by hand, employing the use of trowels.
All finds were 3D recorded at the bottom of each spit. The spits were recorded,
photographed, and drawn, and excavation and recording were repeated for the next
10cm spits. The excavation of each test pit continued until a spit was reached which
produced no finds; the pit would then be backfilled and re-turfed by hand.
Each find encountered was assigned a small-finds number in the field using a paper
record which was later transferred to a digital EXCEL spreadsheet (Appendix 5.13).
All artefacts were stored appropriately according to their type and condition, as
recommended in Watkinson (1987) and by conservators at Manchester Museum, and
then returned to the University of Manchester, where they were cleaned, weighed,
measured, and photographed to provide a visual record. The details of the artefacts
were later added to the spreadsheet: their denominations, years of issue, and their
conditions, which included noting whether they showed signs of damage through
percussion and assigning them a corrosion level of 1-4.
The results of the Ardmaddy excavation are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7.
8 – THE ETHNOGRAPHIC DATA: OBSERVATION
In order to gain an understanding of how members of the public engage with and
perceive coin-trees, my approach was primarily ethnographic. In this case, Vickery’s
advice was followed: to ‘collect fresh, living, and lively material from the true
authorities – the ‘folk’ themselves’ (1995, vii).
Two methods were employed: observation and interviewing. I conducted my
fieldwork at optimal times for visitors’ numbers: I visited the coin-trees of Cumbria
during the Spring Bank Holiday and the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee (2012); Padley
Gorge on Boxing Day (2012); South-West England during Easter (2013), and the
other sites either on weekends or during school holidays. While weather in the
71
British Isles is notoriously unpredictable, where possible I aimed to conduct
fieldwork on dry days in order to further maximise visitors’ numbers.
For each site, I stood or sat to one side of the primary coin-tree and dedicated one
hour to observing the quantities of people: A) passing the coin-tree without
acknowledging it; B) stopping to look at/photograph the coin-tree; C) stopping to
insert a coin. The overall quantities of visitors are not intended to be representative
of the average traffic each site receives on a daily basis; factors such as weather,
season, and day of the week cause great variance in such figures. However, the
percentages of visitors stopping to examine the coin-trees or to insert coins
themselves are intended to provide a relatively typical model. The results of my
observations are presented in Appendix 4.2.
The number of people who took notice of the coin-trees (by commenting, examining,
or inserting a coin) varied considerably at different sites, from 94% at Ingleton and
79% at Portmeirion, to 0% at Rydal and Claife Station. A number of factors may
have contributed to these variations. The quantity of coins already inserted may have
been one such factor. The primary coin-trees of Ingleton, Bolton Abbey, Tarn Hows,
and Aira Force were by far the most densely coined, and they were also the trees
which received the most attention. The coin-tree of Claife Station (Appendix 2.14),
however, contained only two coins and received no attention.
The size and visibility of the coin-trees may have been another contributing factor,
which would explain why the primary coin-tree at Ingleton (Fig. 26) received such a
high proportion of attention, with 94% of passers-by stopping to
examine/photograph it or to insert coins themselves. This coin-tree is both the largest
recorded physically and in coin density, and it stretches obtrusively out across the
main path of the Ingleton Waterfalls Trail in a large arch, making it quite impossible
to miss.
The height of the coin-trees is certainly a contributing factor, as is evidenced when
contrasting the two case-studies of Grizedale (Appendix 2.22) and Portmeirion
(Appendix 2.33). Despite the relatively large number of coin-trees at Grizedale (5)
and the relatively high quantity of coins (GZ3 contained 1590), only 22% of the
people passing appeared to notice them, which could have been the result of the
coin-trees’ low heights (Fig. 27). In contrast, the primary coin-tree of Portmeirion
72
(PM4) contained a similar quantity of coins (2044), and yet 79% of passers-by took
notice of the primary cluster (Figs. 28-29). This may be due to the high level of
visibility of these trees, one of which is a stump raised up on the bank directly beside
the path, causing it to sit at eye level, and the other is a large stump stretching out
across the path itself.
Weather may have been an additional factor. It was relatively cold and overcast on
the day I conducted fieldwork at Grizedale, which may have reduced the walkers’
inclination to stop and examine the trees. In contrast, it was warm, dry, and bright at
Portmeirion, and visitors seemed much more inclined to stop and examine any
interesting sites they came across.
9 – THE ETHNOGRAPHIC DATA: INTERVIEWING
Following my hour of observation, I began to approach members of the public to
request interviews. I approached only those who had stopped to examine the coin-
tree, to photograph it, or to insert a coin. Having explained my research aims,
informed consent was sought from each participant and, although I used a set of
questions as a guide (see Appendix 4.1), interviews were often unstructured,
consisting of informal conversation. Recording participants’ responses in a notebook
was considered less obtrusive than using audio equipment, and so during and
immediately after each interview I noted down people’s responses, quoting certain
interesting phrases verbatim. These interactions were later typed up as accurately as
possible.
For each interview participant I noted their gender, the size of their group, and
estimated their age. I enquired about their ethnicity, which all participants appeared
happy to answer, and where they were from, in order to establish how far people had
travelled to the site. I also asked if they had ever seen/heard of other coin-trees. If the
participant had inserted a coin into the tree I asked them why. I queried if they knew
what species of tree the coin-tree was, to ascertain if species was relevant to the
participants, and I also asked what coin they had inserted, why they had chosen that
particular coin, and how they had inserted it. If the participant had not inserted a
coin, I asked why they believed others had done so.
73
Of the people I approached for interviews nobody declined to answer my questions.
Some people, in fact, approached me in order to enquire about the custom – I was
apparently deemed an authority on the subject with my clipboard, measuring tape,
and ranging rod. Throughout the interviews, people exhibited much curiosity about
my project, enquiring about my university, subject area, methodology, and the topic
of my thesis. Often the participants asked as many questions as they answered and
many seemed rather disappointed when I could not give them a definitive answer as
to the purpose of the coin-trees.
I initially aimed to interview 10 individuals/groups at each coin-tree site. However,
the variations in the amount of attention different coin-trees received naturally
affected the number of people I could approach for interviews. Subsequently the
quantities of interviews conducted varied greatly from site to site (Appendix 4.3); for
example, 20 interviews or more were conducted at the more popular sites of
Ingleton, Tarn Hows, Aira Force, and Portmeirion, while no interviews (bar those
with the sites’ custodians) were conducted at sites which received no public
attention, such as at Cragside, Rydal, Loxley, Claife Station, Arnside Knott,
Marbury, Fore, and Clonenagh. In total, I conducted 219 interviews.
10 – THE ETHNOGRAPHIC DATA: THE INTERNET
As detailed in Chapter 2 and above, online blogs and forum threads provided
information about the locations of coin-trees; they also communicated a sense of
how these online communities were perceiving and presenting the coin-trees, data
which I refer to throughout this thesis. The analysis of personal opinions expressed
by members of the public raises the issue of ethics; when those members of the
public are expressing their opinions on publically-accessible websites, however,
ethics become more ambiguous. Miller (2012) notes that the Internet offers a
veritable ‘treasure trove’ of ethnographic data. However, she also remarks on the
‘muddy ethical field’ of Internet research (2012: 228), considering what protections
are necessary, whether consent should be obtained and how, and noting the
ambiguity between private and public space online. These factors lead her to
question whether the Internet is a suitable forum for academic research into human
subjects.
74
However, as the Association of Internet Researchers stress, ‘rather than one-size-fits-
all pronouncements, ethical decision-making [in Internet research] is best
approached through the application of practical judgment attentive to the specific
context’ (Markham and Buchanan 2012: 4). The contexts of the forums and blogs
referred to in this thesis do not, in my opinion, necessitate a great deal of ethical
delicacy. They are all publically accessible, with none requiring online membership,
and the contributors do not appear to view the subject-matter as sensitive. However,
due to the nature of discussion forums – with many contributors using aliases, and
with many discussion threads having ‘timed out’ due to inactivity – I shall refer to
these online contributors anonymously.
75
CHAPTER 4: ‘READING SUPERSTITION BACKWARDS’
It is a warm and sunny Saturday during the Easter holidays and Portmeirion Village
is brimming with visitors. The majority are clustered within the village itself,
admiring the architecture and perusing the gift shops, but many are exploring the
surrounding woodland trails. The main footpath leads north from the Hotel
Portmeirion, and it is less than five minutes’ walk from here that visitors come
across the primary cluster of coin-trees. This cluster consists of a sparsely-coined
living tree and three densely-coined stumps.
I have been conducting fieldwork at this cluster for one hour and have witnessed
many visitors examining the coin-trees or inserting their own coins. The stumps are
particularly conspicuous, located directly beside the path and, because of the
sunshine, many of the coins are lustrous and eye-catching. However, it is my
presence that attracts the notice of one particular group. This group comprises of a
couple in their 60s, from Cambridge, and their son in his 40s, who introduces
Coin-trees on Isle Maree, Wester Ross (Photograph by author)
76
himself as Peter. They notice that I have draped the primary coin-tree with the
stringed net used as an aid for counting the coins, and approach to enquire about
the coin-tree.
Peter confidently assumes that the coin-tree was created by Sir Clough Williams-
Ellis, the architect who designed Portmeirion. He does not believe that the coin-tree
is a contemporary structure – ‘it must be decades old’, he opines – nor does he
believe that the coins have been inserted by different depositors; ‘Have you ever
actually seen anyone inserting a coin?’ he asks me doubtfully. When I assure him
that less than five minutes before his arrival I had witnessed a family contribute their
own coins, he appears taken aback. His parents move further along the path to
examine the other coin-trees, but Peter, clearly intrigued, remains with me to
continue our discussion.
He seems particularly interested in the history of coin-trees and what he terms the
‘continuation of folklore’. ‘Sites in London are used like that all the time,’ he
informs me, ‘sacred places carry on being used but they’re used for different
reasons’. He compares this process to the revival of the coin-tree custom, which he
describes as the ‘continuation of an old custom’. When I ask him why he believes
people participate in this custom, he is now confident in his answer: ‘It’s in our DNA
to do things like this, to carry them on. Like throwing coins into a fountain;
something we may not really believe in anymore but we do it just because we’ve
always done it.’
PART 1: THE HISTORICAL COIN-TREE
1 – INTRODUCTION
‘There is no legend or story associated with our coin trees’, asserts Moira Smith,
Visitor Manager of the Bolton Abbey Estate. ‘The first tree was started about 15 to
20 years ago. The tree had fallen across the path and as is our policy the foresters
moved it to the side of the path, made it safe, and left it there to naturally break
down. While doing this the forester found a coin on the floor. He simply picked this
up and pushed the coin into the trunk. The rest is history as they say’ (pers. comm.
10/02/2012). And thus the primary Bolton Abbey coin-tree was coined.
77
25 miles away, another coin-tree was created when, according to an article on the
Northern Earth website, a woman at Hardcastle Crags ‘confessed that she’d pushed
two coins into a…sawn-up trunk by the riverside there, while wishing for a job as a
dental nurse – and got the job. She now calls it the Wishing Tree’ (Billingsley 2005).
While nearly 400 miles north of both of these examples, a local business owner in
Rosemarkie, the Black Isle, attests that the coin-trees of Fairy Glen (Appendix 2.19)
were originally coined in the early 2000s when ‘a couple of local boys – sons of
friends – just decided to knock a few coins into a tree’ (per. comm. 04/09/2012).
While these three sources do not explicitly state that their respective coin-trees were
the first trees to have been created, all three imply a sense of isolation in the
emergence of this custom. They suggest that the forester at Bolton Abbey, the dental
nurse at Hardcastle Crags, and the local boys at Fairy Glen acted spontaneously, and
in each case the coin-tree’s creation is almost presented as an unprecedented
incident; they each emerged out of the blue.
However, as all scholars of culture will know, nothing emerges ‘out of the blue’;
customs do not simply spring forth from a vacuum. But, if not from a vacuum, then
where did the rather bewildering custom of inserting coins into the bark of felled
trees spring from? The aim of this chapter is to address this question, and it will be
divided into two sections focusing respectively on the historical emergence of this
custom and its contemporary renaissance.
This is certainly not the first attempt made to unravel an obscure practice or, to use
Jones and Pennick’s term, an ‘undeciphered tradition’ (1995: 110). Schama writes of
how the ‘curious excavator of traditions stumbles over something protruding above
the surface of the commonplaces of contemporary life. He scratches away,
discovering bits and pieces of a cultural design that seems to elude coherent
reconstruction’ (1996: 16, emphases added). Hartland likewise notes that some
customs:
seem such odd, senseless practices that, until one has learned that most
human practices, however odd and senseless they appear, have their
reasons and are not mere caprices, it is not easy to suppose they ever
had a reasonable basis. And even when one is assured that there is an
underlying reason, the question, What is that reason? has been found a
very perplexing one (1893: 451)
78
Regardless of how ‘perplexing’ the coin-tree custom may appear, therefore, it is not
a ‘senseless’ or isolated practice, nor is it a ‘mere caprice’. However, when faced
with such seemingly undecipherable customs, it is difficult to know where to begin
in order to unravel their origins. Archbishop Whately, writing in the 19th
century,
offers his solution to the problem: ‘almost every system of superstition, in order to
be rightly understood, should be (if I may so speak) read backwards’ (1860: 196). He
advises the investigator to cast their gaze rearward, to trace a custom back
chronologically; to read the ‘superstition’ backwards.
As explained in Chapter 3, the first coin-tree sites I became aware of were Bolton
Abbey and Dovedale, and for the first few weeks of research I was under the
erroneous impression that, whilst these were not the only sites in the British Isles,
they were probably the earliest. I did not believe, therefore, that reading the
‘superstition’ backwards would require casting my gaze back too far. As the
following case-studies will demonstrate, I was mistaken.
2 – CASE-STUDY: ISLE MAREE, SCOTLAND
Stretching for 12 miles in a north-westerly direction, Loch Maree is the fourth largest
fresh-water loch in Scotland and accommodates more than sixty islands. One of
these islands shares its name with the loch. Situated 250m from the northern shore,
Isle Maree is of triangular shape, measuring roughly 200m by 170m, and although it
is one of the loch’s smaller islands, it is considered the ‘most interesting’ (Dixon
1886: 150) and the ‘most historic’ (Macrow 1953: 85).
The local traditions surrounding Isle Maree are many and varied (Mitchell 1863:
253) – far too many to detail here. Indeed, in the work of Ratcliffe Barnett, penned in
1930, there is a rather poetic and whimsical description of the island, more akin to
the works of Tolkien or C. S. Lewis than to that of an antiquarian: ‘There, in a little
clearing of the wood, we found what we had come to see – the stones of the Dead
Lovers, the site of the Hermit’s Cell, the Well of Magic Waters, and the Dead Tree’
(1930: 112). While it is the ‘Dead Tree’ (Figs. 6-8) that specifically concerns me,
attention must first be given to the ‘Well of Magic Waters’.
79
This well was under the sacred custodianship of Saint Maelrubha, also known as
Maree (673-722), the patron saint of the district (Mitchell 1863: 254-255). Pennant
writes that Isle Maree was his ‘favoured isle’ (1775: 330), and he is said to have
consecrated a well there, which stood in Isle Maree’s south-western corner and was
widely believed to cure lunacy. Rituals surrounding this holy well are well
documented (Pennant 1775: 330; Reeves 1857-60: 288-289; Mitchell 1863: 251-262;
Dixon 1886: 151; Godden 1893: 500-501; Muddock 1898: 437-438; Barnett 1930:
113; Duff 1968: 332; Hamilton 1981: 101; Donoho 2014), and are described
(although probably exaggerated) in local Presbytery records and the New Statistical
Account of Scotland (14.2.92, cited by Mitchell 1863; Dixon 1886). The earliest of
such records is from 1656 (Mitchell 1863: 251; Godden 1893: 500), and it appears
that it was last resorted to for the cure of insanity in the 1850s (Dixon 1886: 151;
Godden 1893: 500), following an act of desecration – a farmer lowering his dog into
the well, hoping to cure the animal of madness – which was, according to Dixon,
believed to have ‘driven virtue…from the well’ (1886: 157). Subsequently, by the
time Mitchell visited Isle Maree in 1863 the well was dry (1863: 262).
By the 1950s, when the island was visited by travel writer Macrow, she remarked on
how difficult it was to determine the site of this well (1953: 88), and today no trace
of it remains. However, it is possible to determine where it once stood judging by the
location of Ratcliffe Barnett’s ‘Dead Tree’, as Godden did in the 1890s: ‘In the damp
ground at the tree’s foot is a small dark hole…it is filled up with dead leaves. This is
the healing-well’ (1893: 499).
The earliest known reference to a significant tree on Isle Maree was given by
Pennant in 1775; in his description of the island, he writes of how a ‘stump of a tree
is shewn as an altar…[The patient/pilgrim] is made to kneel before the altar, where
his attendants leave an offering of money’ (1775: 330). This tree cannot be the later
coin-tree of Isle Maree, due to its description as a ‘stump’, but it clearly evinces an
early role played by trees at this site as receptacles for coins.
It appears that this votive tree stump was held in veneration through its connection
with the holy well. In fact, it originally appears to have simply been utilised as a
convenient altar on which pilgrims attached their offerings to St. Maelrubha after
their visits to the saint’s holy well. However, while the tree may have initially been
80
utilised for ritual purposes because of its association with the holy well, it went on to
outlive that well; indeed, to supplant it. While the healing well of St. Maelrubha fell
out of use, leaving no visible trace of it behind, the ritual life of the tree continued.
While in 1775 Pennant describes how coins were deposited on a tree-stump ‘altar’,
later sources refer to a rag-tree at the site. This may be the later coin-tree in its
earliest incarnation. Hartland describes how pilgrims, seeking a cure from the holy
well of St. Maelrubha, attached pieces of clothing to the nearby tree (1893: 453), and
Barnett reports that they would tie rags or ribbons to its branches (1930: 114). On
Mitchell’s visit to Isle Maree in 1863, the tree – now specified as oak (Quercus) –
was apparently studded with nails: ‘To each of these was originally attached a piece
of the clothing of some patient who had visited the spot’ (1863: 253). Another
(particularly notable) participant of this ritual, Queen Victoria, who visited Isle
Maree on her tour of Scotland in 1877, similarly observed ‘rags and ribbons’ tied to
the branches of the tree (Duff 1968: 333).
At some point during its ritual career, however, the tree of Isle Maree shed its rags
and became predominantly a nail-tree. Mitchell describes how the tree was ‘studded
with nails’ (1863: 253), whilst Hartland observes how ‘the nails are believed to be
covered with the bark, which appears to be growing over them’ (1893: 453-454).
However, the tree on Isle Maree did not remain exclusively a nail-tree for long – if at
all. Numerous other metal objects were reported to have been affixed to its bark.
Mitchell mentions two buckles (1863: 253), and Godden lists ‘nails, screws, and
rusty iron fragments’ amongst the offerings (1893: 499). In fact, Dixon reports the
belief that ‘any metal article’ should be attached to the tree (1886: 150), whilst
Godden remarks that by the time she visited the island in the 1890s, ‘the driving in
of a bit of metal is the only necessary act’ (1893: 499).
However, by the late 1800s this broad category of ritual deposits had narrowed once
more, and one particular metal votive object came to the fore: the coin. The sources
indicate that, for as long as the tree and the holy well on Isle Maree have been
ritually employed, coins have been amongst the offerings deposited there. When the
tree was still predominantly a rag-tree, it appears that these pilgrims would also leave
coins as an offering on the well (Barnett 1930: 114). The coins eventually began to
be inserted into clefts and cracks in the bark of the rag-tree itself, rather than left
81
beside the well. Mitchell, writing in 1863, describes how ‘[c]ountless pennies and
halfpennies are driven edge-ways into the wood’ (1863: 253).
By the time of Queen Victoria’s visit to the island in 1877, it had become the custom
‘for everyone who goes there to insert with a hammer a copper coin, as a sort of
offering to the saint’ (Duff 1963: 332); the coin had thus become the prominent
offering. Indeed, by the 1890s it was being referred to as ‘the money tree’ (Muddock
1898: 437), and by Colonel Edington’s visit in 1927, no pins or nails were visible in
the bark of the tree, only coins (McPherson 1929: 75) – so many coins, in fact, that
Edington describes the tree as ‘covered with metallic scales’ (cited in McPherson
1929: 75).
The hundreds of coins inserted into clefts and cracks have no doubt taken their toll
on this tree, which is now dead. It was still alive in the 1860s, when Mitchell
described how the bark continued to grow over the coins (1863: 253), but Queen
Victoria described it as an ‘old tree’ in 1877 (Duff 1968: 332), and Dixon observed
in 1886 that it was ‘nearly dead’ (1886: 150); this is clearly evident in the
photograph taken of the tree in the 1890s and reproduced in Godden’s article (1893)
(Fig. 7). By 1927, when Colonel Edington visited, it was ‘evidently dead’ (cited by
McPherson 1929: 75), and McPherson believed that this ‘holy tree shared the fate of
the holy well – the devotion of pilgrims has proven its undoing. The coins,
hammered in and destroying the bark, have killed the object of their veneration’
(1929: 75). Indeed, copper poisoning is assumed to have caused the death of this tree
(MacLeish 1968: 420).
The death of the tree, however, has not led to the death of the custom. Indeed, it
appears to have proliferated; by the 1950s, as the original tree had become too
densely coined, the custom had spread to surrounding trees (Appendix 2.26)
(Macrow 1953: 88-89). In 2002, when the North of Scotland Archaeological Society
conducted a survey of the site, they catalogued nine coin-trees on Isle Maree.
However, in the intervening decade between their 2002 survey and my own
fieldwork, on 14/04/2012, this number had increased to 15, evidence that the custom
has far from fallen out of popularity.
82
3 – CASE-STUDY: CLONENAGH, THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
The coin-tree of Clonenagh, Co. Laois, is a living sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus),
a species not native to Ireland but well naturalised in current times (Williams
1996/1997: 405). It is located three miles north-west of the town of Mountrath,
standing on a grassy bank 4.6m north-north-west of the R445, a busy road running
between Dublin and Limerick.
2.9m to the west of the coin-tree is an interpretation panel set up by Laois County
Council, who manage the land. It offers the following information about the coin-
tree, which it dubs ‘St Fintan’s Tree’:
This tree was planted 200 to 250 years ago, within the area of the ancient
Monastery of Clonenagh.
A well which also venerated the Saint was nearby. When the well was
closed, a spring appeared in the fork of the tree and became the focal point
for “patterns” (celebrations on the Saint’s feast day) for many years.
A custom developed of inserting coins into the bark of the tree, and it
became known as the “Money Tree”. Because of metallic poisoning and
damage to the bark due to this custom, the tree has now gone into decay. But
a number of shoots have been salvaged and it is hoped that these might
prolong the life of the tree.
Please refrain from inserting any metal into the tree or damaging it in any way.
Saint Fintan pray for us.
This information plaque clearly demonstrates a deep-seated connection between the
coin-tree and St. Fintan, a 6th
- and 7th
-century Irish saint who is believed to have
founded the monastic community of Clonenagh (Sperber 2004: 29-30).
According to local historian Roe there was once a ‘fine spring well’ nearby, which
was ‘always the subject of great veneration among the country people’ (1939: 27).
This veneration continued until the mid-19th
century, until it was filled in by the
land-owner, a Protestant farmer who was ‘annoyed by the number of people who
visited this well’ (Roe 1939: 27). According to local legend, St. Fintan subsequently
diverted this spring from the farmer’s land to a hollow in the nearby sycamore tree:
St. Fintan’s Tree, which became known as the ‘Well in the tree’ (Morton 1998: 195)
(Figs 30-31). A photograph taken by Father Francis Browne in 1933 shows a priest
sitting in the branches surrounding this hollow, possibly having just deposited an
offering of his own (Harbison 1991: Fig 102) (Fig. 32).
83
The veneration awarded to the Clonenagh tree subsequently led to its employment as
a rag-tree. According to Roe, writing in the 1930s, ‘people climb up to the tree and
make a wish with the water, and subsequently tie a little bit of rag or ribbon into the
branches of the tree’ (1939: 27), and this is clearly evident in Father Browne’s
photographs. It is unclear when the tradition of affixing rags was replaced by the
custom of inserting coins, but it must have occurred between the 1930s – no coins
are visible in Father Browne’s photograph of the tree – and the 1990s, for at the time
Harbison was writing his work on Pilgrimage in Ireland in 1991, there were
apparently ‘thousands of coins hammered into the tree by passers-by’ (1991: 231).
When the tree died and fell in 1994, the practice of coin insertion had become so
prolific that the tree is described by Simon as having been ‘densely packed [with
coins] to a height of two metres’ (2000: 28).
Morton writes that the insertion of coins into the tree’s trunk was ‘for wishes and for
luck’, and also records the practice of taking pieces of the tree as souvenirs, to which
he opines ‘no wonder it eventually fell’ (1998: 195). The high quantity of coins also
no doubt led to the tree’s fall in 1994, after which, according to Morton ‘hundreds of
coins still adorned the remaining, fallen sections’ (1998: 195). Figure 33 shows the
dead Clonenagh coin-tree in 1998, its fallen trunk heavily embedded with coins.
Morton, considering the state of the tree, proposed that a replacement tree might be
planted (1998: 195).
Subsequently, as observed on fieldwork in September 2012 (Appendix 2.15), a
young sycamore has replaced the original tree, which has since disappeared. There
was a large tree fragment on the ground 4m west of the coin-tree, measuring 87x42
x36cm (Fig. 34). It contained no coins, but was possibly all that remains of the
original Clonenagh coin-tree. There were also much smaller wooden fragments
distributed on the ground between the coin-tree and the car-park. These contained no
coins, but one of the coins discovered on the ground was located 5.9m from the new
coin-tree.
The likeliest explanation is that the original coin-tree became so badly decayed that
large sections of it were easily removed – possibly as ‘souvenirs’ (Morton 1998:
195) – leaving only one coin-less fragment on the ground. The custom subsequently
transferred to a younger replacement. Despite the unfortunate fate of the original
84
Clonenagh tree, and the fact that the information plaque requests visitors to ‘refrain
from inserting any metal into the tree’, 92 coins have already been embedded into
the young sycamore (Figs. 35-36).
4 – CASE STUDY: ARDBOE, NORTHERN IRELAND
There have been two coin-trees at Ardboe, Co. Tyrone, one replacing the other. The
original, known locally as the ‘wishing-tree’ or the ‘pin-tree’, was one of several
beech (Fagus) trees standing within the Old Cross graveyard, in close vicinity to
Ardboe High Cross; the tallest cross in Northern Ireland, this is managed by the
Northern Ireland Environment Agency. The original tree had probably been planted
in the mid-19th
century by Christopher Treanor whose residence stood adjacent to the
graveyard. It is both possible, although difficult to prove, that this tree was planted to
replace an earlier healing or wishing tree, and that it was planted on the site of a
former holy well, both theories proposed by local author Pat Grimes (2000).
This coin-tree was initially a rag-tree. Mr C. D. Deane, the former Deputy Director
of Belfast Museum and Art Gallery, was quoted in the Mid-Ulster Mail in 1959 as
describing the coin-tree as having been originally adorned with rags, which ‘were
not merely offerings, they were riddances, the putting away of the evils impending or
incurred by sin or sickness’ (1959). Deane also describes how rainwater would
collect in a hole in the tree, in which the sick would bathe their faces hoping for
cures (1959).
By the 1940s, local tradition held that warts and lumps could be cured by pricking
them with a pin and then inserting that pin into the tree (Devlin 1948; Simon 2000:
28), but many other objects were also inserted. Francis Quinn, the caretaker of the
Old Cross of Ardboe – and also the tree – describes the tree in Devlin’s Collected
History of Ardboe:
[The] tree, filled with pins, pennies, nails, buttons, and such things, is called the
wishing tree or pin tree. It was there in my father’s and grandfather’s time.
Everybody that comes here puts in a pin or a nail or any such thing and makes a
wish. (Devlin 1948)
85
Eight years later, in an article in the Mid-Ulster Observer, Francis Quinn was
interviewed again concerning this tree: ‘When asked if the wishes came true, Francis
only smiled and declared that he did not know. He did add that young girls often
wished for a husband but he had never heard tell of the tree proving obliging in this
respect’ (Anonymous 1956: 3).
Three years later, when Deane’s talk on the Old Cross of Ardboe was broadcast
(1959), he describes how ‘the bark is stained with the rust of a thousand pieces of
metal: hairpins, safety-pins, pennies, nails, bolts, and even a military badge, the
personal offerings of a wishful public’ (Figs. 37-38). The great quantity of offerings,
however, had begun to have a negative effect by the 1950s; as Deane observed, the
‘tree is barely a hundred years old, though the wounds in its bark are slowly killing
it’ (1959). It survived another 14 years, and then in the winter of 1973-74, it fell
(Grimes 1999).
The tradition, however, did not die with the tree. As Grimes writes, ‘[a]lmost
immediately visitors and pilgrims to Ardboe began to use an adjacent mature beech
tree as a repository for their coins, pins, and wishes’ (1999) (Fig. 39). However, this
substitute did not survive long. Within a few years, it had wilted and died, and then
in 1997, on Christmas Eve, a gale brought it down. It lay in a field until April 1998,
when members of the Muintirevlin Historical Society sawed the trunk into several
sections (Figs. 40-41). One section was presented to the Ulster Folk and Transport
Museum and the remaining sections, to local groups and individuals (Appendix 2.8).
In March 1998, a 10-year-old beech tree was planted in the Old Cross graveyard as a
replacement (Fig. 42). However, as of 07/04/2012 (the date of fieldwork), no coins
or pins had been inserted into this tree. Various reasons for this lack of continuity
have been proposed by local residents. Pat Grimes believes that the replacement tree
is still too young and there are no suitably large substitutes in the vicinity to serve as
replacements (pers. comm. 07/04/2012). Rose Ryan, on the other hand, of the
Muintirevlin Historical Society, believes that the tradition has simply ‘died out’; that
the local population have become ‘too cynical’ in recent years to keep the tradition
‘alive’ (pers. comm. 07/04/2012).
86
5 – READING ‘SUPERSTITION’ BACKWARDS
As the above case-studies have illustrated, the custom of the coin-tree is far older
than the ‘15 to 20 years’ (Moira Smith, pers. comm. 10/02/2012) of the Bolton
Abbey coin-tree, clearly indicating that when the forester inserted a coin he was not
instigating an unprecedented custom – and neither was the dental nurse at Hardcastle
Crags nor the local boys at Fairy Glen. Indeed, the custom of inserting coins into
trees is at least 150 years old, the earliest known reference to it being Campbell’s
description of ‘copper caps…placed in chinks in rocks and trees at the edge of the
“Witches’ Well”’ in Islay in 1860 (1860: 134). While the earliest known reference to
a specific coin-tree is Mitchell’s account of ‘[c]ountless pennies and
halfpennies...driven edge-ways into the wood’ of the Isle Maree tree in 1863 (1863:
253).
However, even in the 1860s a custom would not simply emerge ‘out of the blue’.
Just as the forester, the dental nurse, and the Rosemarkie local boys were not
creating an entirely new and contemporary custom, neither was the first person to
insert a coin into the Isle Maree tree. Their decision to participate in this act will
likewise have been influenced by their (conscious or subconscious) awareness of
pre-existing customs and beliefs. In order to understand their motivations, therefore,
Whately’s advice is again consulted: to take the 1860s references to coin insertion as
a starting point and, from there, to read backwards, in order to understand the beliefs
and notions which culminated in the custom of the coin-tree.
For this endeavour, the physical structures of the coin-trees themselves will offer the
most useful evidence. As Friedel observes, ‘it is ironic that studies of material
culture should so neglect the actual materials that go into creating culture’ (1993:
42), a criticism repeated by Hodder, who notes ‘there is very little detailed
description of artifacts in much of the literature dealing with materiality’ (2012: 39).
The same error will not be made here. Therefore, in order to contextualise the coin-
tree, these structures will be excavated. They will be treated as sites to be unearthed,
as artefacts to be analysed and dissected; and a mental dismantling of the coin-tree
leaves two distinct, tangible components: the tree and the coin. Both of these possess
a wealth of ritual and folkloric associations, and the next section of this chapter will
trace the history of these associations in an attempt to contextualise the coin-tree,
87
whilst the following section will consider the possible stimuli behind its
contemporary resurgence.
6 – THE RAG-TREE
‘Men and plants are old acquaintances’, writes Grigson (1955: 13), and a cursory
review of the literature, explored in Chapter 2, reveals there to be no scarcity of
ritual and folkloric uses of trees. As the literature review demonstrated, trees have a
long history of being employed as apotropaic devices and of being resorted to for
luck and wish fulfilment. However, the most notable use of trees in British folkloric
practices is remedial, and the most widespread practice involving the employment of
trees for healing is that of the rag-tree.
The ‘rag-tree’ is a tree or bush, the branches of which are affixed with strips of cloth
and other objects. They are usually associated with holy wells, of which there are
numerous examples across the British Isles; Jones lists 1179 holy wells in Wales
(1954; Dowden 2000: 42), whilst Lucas estimates more than 3000 in Ireland (1963:
40). These wells were often employed for their curative properties, originally as part
of pagan hydrolatry but later adopted by Christianity, the wells transferring to the
custodianship of Christian saints (Daly 1961; Rattue 1995).
One theory linking holy wells with rag-trees posits that, once a pilgrim had resorted
to a holy well for a remedy, they were then expected to deposit a token of thanks to
the well’s presiding saint. Trees located within close proximity to the well provided
convenient ‘altars’ upon which the pilgrim could deposit their offering (Dowden
2000: 74), and were just one example of the many receptacles employed for this
purpose, which ranged from beneath stones and within the wells themselves, to
purpose-built repositories (Jones 1954: 93; Hardy 1840: 97-98). According to this
theory, therefore, trees were incidental to the custom.
However, it is more popularly believed that the trees were actually integral to this
custom. To some, rag-trees are evidence of residual tree-worship; Bord and Bord
believe that the hanging of rags on such trees is ‘only a secondary function. Their
principal significance seems to be as a relic of ancient tree worship’ (1985: 98).
88
Walhouse (1880: 97) and Hope (1893: xxii), writing in the late 19th
century, share
the opinion that the rag-trees themselves were viewed as sacred, and numerous holy
wells appear to have been named after trees, such as ‘Ash well’, ‘Holly well’, and
‘Oak well’ (Rattue 1995: 42).
In some cases, the rag-trees do seem to have been integral to the efficacy of the
wells. At Easter Rarichie, Ross and Cromarty, for example, there was a well believed
to cure tuberculosis so long as a certain tree stood beside it. When this tree was
felled, the well purportedly lost its power (Bord and Bord 1985: 59), and the same
occurred when two trees fell beside a well near Perth in 1770 (Bord and Bord 1985:
101). However, trees are more commonly believed integral to this custom due to the
protection they offer. Trees were often utilised as apotropaic devices, and several
different species, most notably ash (Hope 1893: xxii; Hull 1928: 113; Shephard
1994: 2; Rackard et al. 2001: 8), were believed to function as protective agents in the
early modern period, planted beside wells as guardians to ward off fairies and
witches (Shephard 1994: 63).
The rag-tree, therefore, was most probably not utilised merely as a convenient
recipient of offerings, an incidental companion to the holy well; it was, in most
cases, vital to the custom through properties it possessed itself. In some cases,
however, the tree was given these properties by a holy well.
7 – OUTLIVING HOLY WELLS
Lucas writes that the ‘typical holy well has a bush or tree growing alongside it which
partakes of the sanctity of the well’ (1963: 40, emphases added); the tree may not be
sacred in its own right, but it becomes sacred because of its association with the holy
well. This partaking of the well’s sanctity may be literal as well as symbolic; in some
cases, the water is believed to have transferred from the well to the tree. At Easter
Rarichie, Ross and Cromarty, for example, the healing spring known as Sul na Ba
flowed through a tree trunk, endowing that tree with curative properties (Bord and
Bord 1985: 59), whilst the Clonenagh coin-tree (above) likewise demonstrates this
process. As Shephard writes, trees ‘growing by water soak up a tremendous amount
89
of that water so it can be said that if the water is holy then the tree can impart the
divine qualities of the water to the people beneath’ (1994: 2).
This transference of sanctity not only imbues the tree with power, but allows it to
establish itself as a ritual structure independent from the holy well, so that it may
subsequently outlive it. For example, Hull describes a site on the River Sullane, the
Republic of Ireland, whereby despite the holy well having run dry, the surrounding
briar bushes are still heavily affixed with rags (1928: 108). The Isle Maree and
Clonenagh (and possibly Ardboe) case-studies offer examples of rag/nail-trees
surviving the loss of holy wells, and thus outliving them. It is also not uncommon for
a tree to replace desecrated or polluted holy wells as the objects of people’s
veneration, thus becoming ‘holy wells’ themselves. Lucas lists the example of
Clonenagh amongst many others in Ireland: Lady’s Well, Skirk, Co. Laois; The Tree
of Castlebellew, Cloonoran, Co. Galway; the Pin Well, Tartaraghan, Co. Armagh;
Mary’s Well, Rockspring, Co. Cork; and St. Margaret’s Well, Cooraclare, Co. Clare
(1963: 41), all of which illustrate a tree’s ability to replace a holy well as the central
focus of a folkloric healing ritual.
8 – SUBSTITUTING THE SACRED: GOUGANE BARRA
As the case-studies of Isle Maree, Clonenagh, and Ardboe demonstrate, however,
trees not only replace holy wells; they also replace each other – sometimes in
defiance of the custodian’s wishes. For example, when the Clonenagh coin-tree fell
and fragmented, the tree which grew from the original’s salvaged roots began to be
utilised instead, despite the interpretation panel requesting that people ‘refrain from
inserting any metal into the tree’. This process of substitution, in violation of a
custodian’s request, is clearly evident at another coin-tree site: Gougane Barra, Co.
Cork (Appendix 2.21).
The island of Gougane Barra is a popular pilgrimage site, and has been for at least
the past 200 years. In the 18th
and 19th
centuries its remote location, in Gougane
Lake in Co. Cork, made it a prominent site for rituals which combined Christianity
with pagan practices (McCarthy 2006: 21). On 23rd
June, several hundred pilgrims
flocked annually to the island for the Eve of St. John’s feast, a pilgrimage described
90
by Croker, who partook in the celebrations there in 1813 (1824: 277ff). He does not
make reference to any custom involving a tree but does refer to a wooden pole
standing in the centre of the Pilgrim’s Terrace, which was apparently all that
remained of a large cross. Croker describes the popular custom of attaching votive
rags and bandages to this wooden pole, ‘intended as acknowledgments of their cure’,
and these rags and bandages were affixed to the pole by nails, causing it to be
‘braced with many pieces of iron’ (1824: 276-277). This practice appears to be
depicted in an anonymous painting of Gougane Barra, 1809, which shows a crowd
gathering around a wooden pole, crowned with a cross; one person, at least, is
attaching something to the pole (Figs. 43-44).
These ‘pagan rituals’ were banned in 1818 by the Catholic Bishop of Cork, John
Murphy (McCarthy 2006: 21). However, this does not appear to have deterred
pilgrims from attaching their offerings to the wooden post in the Pilgrim’s Terrace,
and then to the replacement wooden cross which was commissioned by Fr. Patrick
Hurley, the Parish Priest, in the early 1900s (McCarthy 2011). By this time, the rags
and ‘many pieces of iron’ seem to have been replaced by coins (Kieran McCarthy,
pers. comm. 22/12/2011), and Figure 45, a photograph taken by a visitor to the
island in the 2000s, clearly shows a wooden cross heavily embedded with coins.
According to local historian Kieran McCarthy, from the early 20th
century this
custom began to spread to the trees (pers. comm. 22/12/2011). Local resident and
custodian of Gougane Barra, Finbarr Lucey, describes a ‘magnificent ash tree’ in the
main cells enclosure, which was embedded with so many coins that it eventually
died. It stood beside the cross already described as being similarly encrusted with
coins, but it fell in a storm in 1973 (pers. comm. 20/12/2011). Both the remains of
the coin-tree and the cross have since been removed.
The custom of coin insertion has been discouraged by the custodians of the island
who, considering the fate of the original coin-tree, have been attempting to protect
other trees from similar copper poisoning (Finbarr Lucey, pers. comm. 24/02/2012).
McCarthy informs me that this decision to discourage the custom was made by the
local church committee, who ‘wished to clean up the site’s appearance’ (pers. comm.
22/12/2011); they subsequently attached a sign to the current primary coin-tree,
stating: ‘I AM A TREE; PLEASE DO NOT PUT COINS INTO ME’. This sign,
however, was no longer attached to the tree on my visit in September 2012; only the
91
nails used to attach it remain and visitors have evidently not been discouraged. On
the day of my fieldwork, there were seven trees and a wooden post embedded with
coins.
In Ardboe, however, in contrast to the above examples, this process of substitution
was actively fostered by custodians. When the original tree fell in the 1970s,
participants transferred their attention to an adjacent mature beech, and when this
was brought down by a storm in 1997, a replacement beech was planted by the local
council in the hope (as of yet fruitless) that the custom would continue. This process
of fostered substitution is clearly evident at another coin-tree site: Fore, Co.
Westmeath (described in more detail in Chapter 6) (Appendix 2.20). When the
original coin-tree fell during the 1990s, it was removed by the local council and
replaced by a young ash tree, which was quickly harnessed as a rag-tree.
This method of substitution is certainly not atypical; Lucas gives examples of other
sacred trees in Ireland decaying and falling, leading to the ‘adoption’ of nearby trees
as their replacements (1963: 36). Wilks opines that ‘the lore of a tree would be so
compulsive that it was replaced in perpetuity when death or accident removed it’
(1972: 18), while Hartland, appearing rather disapproving of this process, notes that
‘the reason for the sacredness of many trees or wells has passed from memory; and it
has consequently been natural to substitute any tree or any well for a particular one’
(1893: 469-470).
In some cases, however, replacement trees are not always available; Hand, for
example, notes that in the absence of trees, practitioners of tree-centred customs
would employ wooden posts, door jambs, and pieces of wood instead (1966: 67).
This is evident on Snowdon (Appendix 2.35), where the contemporary coin-‘trees’
are actually wooden posts inserted into the ground as helpful supports for climbers;
in the absence of trees, participants have employed these posts instead (Fig. 4).
This form of ritual replacement is evident at Doon Well, Co. Donegal, which was
resorted to for cures during the 19th
century. There was a nearby hazel (Corylus)
utilised as a rag-tree, but the well was situated in a largely treeless landscape, so
when the hazel became so heavily adorned with rags, there was no convenient
replacement tree. Subsequently, people began embedding crutches into the ground
beside the well, and the crutches, which Foley notes are ‘a global metaphor for the
92
successful cure’ (2011: 476), transitioned from being ritual offerings to assuming ‘a
new status as an artificial branch around which subsequent visitors wrapped rags and
other offerings’ (Foley 2011: 476) (Fig. 46).
9 – CONTAGIOUS TRANSFER
Trees and their substitutes may have been central to folkloric rituals, but so too were
the rags affixed to their branches. They are not always simple offerings of thanks,
deposited by the pilgrims in exchange for the cure they hope to receive, but are
sometimes perceived as integral to the cure. To some it appears that pieces of
clothing were fastened to trees in the belief that as the cloth rotted, the pilgrim’s
ailment would also fade (Bord and Bord 1985: 59). Another theory holds that the
rag, the remnant of an item of clothing still metonymically linked to its wearer
(Canaan 1927: 104), absorbs the curative spirit of the tree and transfers this back to
the pilgrim through ‘contact magic’.
In the British Isles, however, it is more common, as Hartland informs us, that the
rags are believed to ‘contain the disease of which one desires to be rid’ (1893: 460),
and they are thus transferred to the tree. This notion is an example of ‘contagious
transfer’, a subcategory of Frazer’s ‘sympathetic magic’, whereupon a ‘person is
supposed to influence vegetation sympathetically. He infects trees or plants with
qualities or accidents, good or bad, resembling and derived from his own’ (Frazer
1900: 39).
Skorupski elucidates this form of magic with the following equation: ‘A certain
property, F, is transferred from the initial object, a, to the goal object, b, by some
method of transfer such as surface contact, admixture, incorporation, inhalation, etc.’
(1976: 134). In the case of the rag-tree, the ‘certain property’ is illness; the ‘initial
object’ is the participant/patient; the ‘goal object’ is the tree; and the ‘method of
transfer’ is the tying of a rag. The illness is thus transferred from the person, through
the rag – the ‘vehicle of the disease’, as Hartland terms it (1893: 460) – and into the
tree.
93
10 – THE IMPLANTATION OF DISEASE
As noted in Chapter 1, in E. M. Forster’s Howards End (1910), whilst Mrs Wilcox is
describing Howards End to Margaret Schlegel, she mentions that the estate contains
the ‘finest wych-elm in Hertfordshire’. She explains that, for the cure of toothache,
‘country people’ would implant pigs’ teeth into the tree’s trunk (1910 [2000]: 8.61).
This illustrates that it was not only rags which were affixed to trees for folk
remedies; other items – apparently such as pig’s teeth – could also be used.
Additionally, objects were not only attached to trees; they were also inserted into
them, in what Hand describes as a ‘more intimate kind of transference, namely, the
implantation of disease’ (1966: 63). Hand lists three forms of implantation:
‘plugging’, ‘nailing’, and ‘wedging’, all three of which involve physically inserting
objects – which he terms Zwischenträger; the intermediate agents (1966: 65) – into
the bark of a tree in order to ‘plug’ a disease beneath its bark. In the example given
by Forster, the pigs’ teeth are the intermediate agents, but other objects were
similarly ‘plugged’ or ‘wedged’.
Nail-clippings, for example, were used in the remedy for toothache; by wrapping
toe- and fingernails in tissue paper and inserting them into a slit in the bark of an ash
tree before sunrise, the depositor was assured to never suffer from toothache again
(Roud 2003: 481). Ague and whooping-cough, on the other hand, were cured by
plugging a lock of the patient’s hair into a hole bored into a tree (Hand 1966: 64),
whilst another practice involved making a slit in the bark, placing the patient’s blood
into it, and then wedging the slit closed. If the blood was taken from a wart, for
example, then the wart would be cured (Hand 1966: 69).
Metal pins or nails, however, were the most popular ‘vehicles of disease’ in this
ritual of implantation. Knocking nails into an oak tree was a well-known remedy for
toothache in Cornwall; the toothache was believed to transfer into the tree, from the
sufferer, through the nail (Walhouse 1880: 99n; Porteous 1928: 188). Pins were also
employed as cures for warts; pins were inserted into each wart, then into the bark of
an ash tree, transferring the affliction to the tree (Wilks 1972: 121).
The reason for implanting an object into a tree as opposed to simply affixing it to a
branch is fairly obvious; implantation is, as Hand observes, more ‘intimate’ (1966:
94
63), and as the disease is implanted into the tree this probably assures a higher
chance of transference. The popularity of metal pins and nails is also quite obvious;
although these objects are less ‘intimate’ than teeth, fingernails, locks of hair, and
blood, they are far more easily inserted due to their sharp, narrow points. However,
there may be an even more incidental reason for the popularity of pins and nails as
vehicles of transference.
In the 1945 edition of the Folklore journal, an anonymous contributor describes the
‘Beaumont Tree’ of Silsoe, Bedfordshire, as follows:
Until thirty or forty years before (i.e. before 1880-90) people in the district
suffering from ague would nail strands of their hair or toe nail clippings to the
tree, to effect a cure…Digging about with my pocket knife in the decayed
wood I found a number of old square handmade nails deep in the trunk and
one with a wisp of hair still wound round it…The other tree was alive and
healthy and also had one or two nails in it. They were protruding from the bark
and so could not have been knocked in at a very remote date (1945: 307)
In this example, hair and toenail clippings are implanted into the tree, but they are
held in place by nails. As the hair and toenails decay over time, the metal nails
remain in place until they are the only objects left implanted into the tree. This may
influence how later pilgrims participate in the custom; if they see only metal nails
inserted into the bark then they may believe that the practice is simply to insert metal
nails (such as the later depositors of nails in the tree close to Beaumont’s Tree).
The same process may have occurred at rag-trees; on Isle Maree, for example,
Hartland describes how the coin-tree was originally ‘covered with nails, to each of
which was formerly attached a portion of the clothing of an afflicted person’ (1893:
453), whilst at Gougane Barra, according to Croker, the rags affixed to the original
wooden pole were ‘braced with many pieces of iron’ (1824: 276-277). Metal nails
transitioned from being fastenings for rags to being offerings themselves, due to
matters of convenience or the simple misinterpretation of a custom. Could this
incidental process also account for why coins eventually became the primary
intermediate agents of ritual implantation?
95
11 – COINS AS DEPOSITS
Osborne, in his article on ‘Hoards, votives, offerings: the archaeology of the
dedicated object’ (2004), laments the generic archaeologist’s ‘curious unwillingness
to acknowledge the central importance of the dedicated object’ in deducing the
beliefs behind a custom (2004: 5). This unwillingness, he suggests, stems from three
factors: our privileging of the individual object over the assemblage; the difficulties
involved in proving that an object has actually been dedicated rather than simply lost
or discarded; and our reluctance to study what people believed (2004: 3). Now is not
the time to address the third point (see Chapter 6), but the former two will be
examined here.
How can one recognise a dedicated object? Merrifield offers his opinion: the ritual
deposit is an object ‘deliberately deposited for no obviously practical purpose, but
rather to the detriment of the depositor, who relinquishes something that is often at
least serviceable and perhaps valuable for no apparent reason’ (1987: 22). Another
criterion, which aids in the distinction between deliberate deposition and accidental
loss, is proposed by Dowden who advocates the significance of quantity (2000: 176).
However, specifications designed to distinguish the ritual from the utilitarian are
guilty of identifying dedicated objects by default; as Brück observes in her paper on
ritual and rationality, artefacts ‘which cannot be ascribed a practical role often come
to be interpreted as evidence for ritual practices’ (2007: 284). Brück argues that a
deposited artefact with a perceived lack of functionality does not necessarily
constitute a votive object; functionality is after all, as she asserts, ‘always culturally
defined’ (2007: 298).
Brück, however, is applying this theory to artefacts from the middle Bronze Age;
this thesis, on the other hand, considers largely contemporary objects, which makes a
significant difference. Not only are we better equipped to interpret action undertaken
in our own times and cultures, but in the case of the contemporary coin-tree, the
motives of the depositors can be ascertained through direct engagement with them
(see Chapter 6). Taking all of this into consideration, therefore, there can be little
doubt that the coins inserted into coin-trees are ‘ritual’ deposits. Intentionality is
certainly evident; there is no conceivable practical purpose for their insertion into
96
these trees; they are serviceable objects; and there are a multitude (in some cases,
tens of thousands) of examples in each tree.
However, the question remains, as asked by Osborne: ‘Why did anyone think that
depositing this or that particular object or group of objects was an appropriate way of
marking or establishing communications with transcendent powers?’ (2004: 7).
Some dedicated objects were obviously designed and crafted as dedicated objects –
medieval pilgrim badges, for example, or candles adorned with Christian imagery.
For other dedicated objects, however, this is not the case, and the coin of the coin-
tree falls into this category. It is an object that was made for secular, everyday use
and has been, to use Osborne’s words, ‘“converted” into an item that might be
employed in an exchange with supernatural powers’ (2004: 2) (a process explored in
greater detail in Chapter 5).
Why, though, is the coin deemed suitable in such an exchange? This is no doubt in
part due to the plethora of other such ritual exchanges for which the coin has been
utilised; the coin is, after all, one of history’s most popular votive offerings. Coins
have been a highly common ritual deposit in Britain since the Roman period, with
caches discovered containing hundreds – some even thousands, such as at Lydney,
Gloucestershire; Hallaton, southeast Leicestershire; and the sacred spring at Bath –
of votive coins (Lewis 1966: 47; Woodward 1992: 66; Dowden 2000: 176; Priest et
al. 2003; Williams 2003; Score 2006, 2011; Leins 2007). The coin was also an object
regularly deposited in springs and lakes, as offerings to deities (Dowden 2000: 51) or
as propitiatory ‘sacrifices’ to malignant water spirits (Tuleja 1991: 409).
The coin’s association with luck and good fortune has also enjoyed a long history. A
coin of Trajan (r.98-117 AD), for example, was discovered in the mast-step of a 2nd
-
century AD Roman boat from Blackfriars, London, probably placed there for luck
(Laing 1969: 293), while thirty gold and silver coins were found in association with
skeletons on the ship The Mary Rose, believed to have been carried onboard for good
luck (Hall 2012: 77). Another tradition contended that a coin should always be
placed in the pocket of any new article of clothing in order to attract future fortune
(Radford and Radford 1948: 105), a practice which has evolved today into the
custom of never gifting a purse without placing coins inside. Many other coin-related
traditions continue to be observed; coins are still employed as talismans (Albas and
97
Albas 1989: 608) and continue to be considered symbols of luck: you are
purportedly ensured good luck if you ‘find a penny and pick it up’; place a coin in
every corner of your house; toss a coin into a fountain; cook a coin in your
Christmas pudding, and so on and so forth.
12 – THE BOWED COIN
The ‘bowed’ or ‘crooked’ coin – a coin deliberately bent (Figs. 47-48) – is one of the
most widespread coin-centred customs in the British Isles, and it was utilised for a
number of purposes. To fold a penny in half, as Finucane describes, was a ‘common
sickbed rite’ (1977: 94); accompanied by prayers, coins were often bent while held
over a reclining patient. This rite, however, was employed for more than healing;
bowed coins were considered good luck charms and apotropaic devices.
From the 16th
century onwards, such coins were carried, worn, or given as gifts to
protect against bad luck (Roud 2003: 314). As Hardwick observes, in folk notions,
‘crooked things are lucky things’ (1872: 270), and this belief is evident in several
traditions. During the reign of King Edward I (r.1272-1307), pennies were ritually
bent once a year to ensure the welfare of the king’s hawks (Finucane 1977: 94),
whilst in Yorkshire, bowed coins were utilised as charms against witchcraft; if a
dairymaid, for example, was having difficulty churning butter – a difficulty often
attributed to witchcraft – she would drop a crooked sixpence into the cream to ward
off malevolent forces (Merrifield 1987: 162).
An equally common motivation behind the bending of a coin was the confirmation
of a vow. In Thomas Killigrew’s 17th
-century play, Thomaso, the main character
refers to ‘the bowed Two-pence’ whilst speaking of a vow (2.9.11) (1664: 441), and
the fact that this custom was mentioned only in passing implies that it was relatively
well known (Roud 2003: 314). These vows were usually made during prayers to
saints (Walsham 2011: 213), imploring their help and promising, in exchange for
their prayers being answered, to go on pilgrimage to the saint’s shrine, taking the
bowed coin with them as an offering. The bending of the coin in this case, therefore,
is to distinguish it from other coins; the vow-maker has promised to offer that
particular coin (Spencer 1978: 248).
98
The bending of a coin seems to have derived from the pagan practice of ‘sacrificing’
an object to be devoted (Merrifield 1987: 91; Bradley 1990; Dowden 2000: 176; Hall
2012: 79-80). There is much archaeological evidence for the sacrificing of inanimate
objects, recognisable as ‘sacrifices’ due to a destructive element evinced by the
material record, which Insoll proposes as the ‘defining criteria’ of sacrifice (2011:
151). Examples of this include the votive bending of weapons and tools, such as the
deliberately broken or bent metal objects deposited during the Iron Age in the lake at
Llyn Cerrig Bach, Anglesey (Fox 1946: 69), and during the early Roman period in
the Waltham Abbey hoard, Essex (Manning 1972).
As Bradley writes, the physical destruction of objects is central to the act of offering
them, for it makes them irretrievable to the depositor, nullifies their secular value,
and thus wholly dedicates them to their spiritual cause (1990: 138). Brück also
suggests that intentional destruction – which she terms ‘fragmentation’ – can be
‘thought to facilitate transformation from one state to another’ (2006: 297): in the
case of a coin, therefore, the act of damaging it may be to aid its transition from
secular item to ritual deposit.
13 – TOUCH-PIECES
The most common folkloric use of coins in the British Isles was in folk-medicine,
and another notable example of this was the touch-piece (Fig. 49). From the time of
Edward the Confessor (r.1042-66) to Queen Anne (r.1702-14), English monarchs
would ritually ‘touch’ – and purportedly heal – patients suffering from scrofula, a
form of tuberculosis known as ‘King’s or Queen’s Evil’, so named for the belief that
only the monarch could cure it. The patient would be presented with a touch-piece, a
coin pierced with a hole and hung on a white ribbon, which would be worn by the
patient; if they removed the touch-piece the disease would return (Charlton 1914: 34;
Anonymous 2003: 1234).
Prior to the 15th
century, a variety of silver or gold coins were used in this ritual
(Waddle 1909: 249), but in 1464 the ‘angel’ was minted. It was the smallest gold
coin in circulation, so named for the image it bore of the Archangel Michael
(Anonymous 2003: 1234). A pamphlet written in 1686, The Ceremonies for the
99
Healing of Them that be Diseased with the King’s Evil used in the Time of King
Henry VII, describes the ritual in which it was used: ‘the king shall be crossing the
sore of the sick Person, with an Angel of Gold Noble, and the sick Person to have the
same Angel hang’d about his neck, and to wear it until he be full whole’
(Anonymous 1686: 6). This ritual is also referred to in Shakespeare’s Macbeth, in
which Malcolm describes how ‘a golden stamp’ – the ‘angel’ – was used by the king
in healing ceremonies: ‘The mere despair of surgery, he cures, Hanging a golden
stamp about their necks’ (4.3.151-152).
This use of coins as charms is hardly without precedent; there is a wealth of
archaeological evidence for the physical modification of coins in order to wear them
as amulets and talismans, such as piercing them with holes and hanging them by a
cord, from the late-antique period until the 20th
century (Maguire 1997: 1040-1041;
Davidson 2004; Hall 2012: 82). During the late Middle Ages soldiers also wore
coins for protection on the battlefield, either around their necks or attached to their
helmets (Deng 2008: 167). Other beliefs imbue coins with what Maguire terms
‘extramonetary powers’ (1997: 1053); coins given at Holy Communion, for
example, were believed to cure rheumatism if rubbed on the sufferer’s body (Waring
1978: 63) and worn around the neck as a cure for epilepsy (Radford and Radford
1948: 293; Davidson 2004: 27).
In some cases, specific coins were employed in folk-medicine. The ‘Lockerby
Penny’ is one example; this was a flat piece of silver owned by a family in
Lockerbie, Dumfries and Galloway, which was widely esteemed as a remedy for
madness in cattle. The family would loan the ‘penny’ to other farmers in the area,
who would dip the coin into the afflicted animal’s drinking water (Henderson 1879:
163; Radford and Radford 1948: 223). There was a similar coin in Northumberland,
the ‘Black Penny’, which was a coin or medal owned by a family at Hume-Byers,
used to cure madness in cattle and borrowed by farmers across Northumberland,
Durham, and Yorkshire (Henderson 1879: 163; Radford and Radford 1948: 55).
100
14 – THE COIN’S ‘AMULETIC QUALITY’
Is there a reason coins were so often imbued with these ‘extramonetary powers’?
Clark notes that a material ‘owes its status to physical attributes’ (1986: 6), a notion
shared by Miller, who advises that any analysis of an artefact must ‘begin with its
most obvious characteristic’ (1987: 98). Because coins are such ubiquitous,
commonplace objects, we tend to not look at them in any great detail. In fact,
because coins are largely perceived as denotations of value, they are viewed as
currency as opposed to material objects (Rothschild 1981; Myrberg 2010a; Kemmer
and Myrberg 2011), and it becomes easy to overlook their physical attributes.
However, it may be these physical attributes which give coins what Hall terms their
‘amuletic quality’ (2012: 79).
Deng, for instance, believes that it was the coins’ ‘combination of precious metal,
royal effigy, and “magical” inscription [that] made them suitable for healing
purposes’ (2008: 164). Taking his first point, the physical material of a coin plays a
large role in its ‘amuletic quality’. Certain materials have been widely regarded as
special (Woodward 2000: 109), and the association between metal-making and
magic is evident throughout history (Budd and Taylor 1995; Brück 2006: 306), with
Eliade dedicating an entire chapter, entitled ‘Divine Smiths and Civilizing Heroes’,
to the privileged positions of smiths worldwide and the sense of mysticism
surrounding them (1956: 87-96).
In the British Isles, metal – particularly iron or steel – was considered apotropaic,
often employed to ward off fairies or witches (Henderson 1879: 230; Lawrence
1898; Campbell 2005: 19, 25). It was believed that no fairy would steal a child with
a steel needle in its cap (Hull 1928: 134), while other metal objects were displayed
within the home as repellents for malevolent forces: iron nails in the board of a bed;
a reaping-hook beneath the window; a horse-shoe nailed to the wall (Lawrence 1898;
McPherson 1929: 101; Campbell 1990: 19, 24). In McPherson’s opinion, the
protective powers of these metal objects ‘springs from the time when iron was a new
and mysterious metal’ (1929: 101), and was thus imbued with supernatural
properties.
101
Iron was also considered remedial. Broadwood considers how pieces of the metal
were frequently placed into water because it was believed to give it a tonic property:
‘Was the custom of throwing pins, needles, and other metal things into Holy or
Wishing Wells originally started with the idea of strengthening the drinker?’ (1898:
368), she asks, and this may indeed have been one reason behind the custom.
However, other metals were more widely considered curative.
The touch-piece was a gold coin not simply because of the material’s monetary value
but because gold was widely held to be naturally curative, and Billings suggests that
the constant contact of the gold touch-piece with the skin of the patient as it hung at
the neck may have been a primary factor in the subsequent curing of these patients; a
form of ‘Metallotherapy’ (1906: 70). Indeed, there are numerous examples of gold
being utilised as a remedy. Roger Bacon, a 13th
-century Franciscan friar, maintained
that the consumption of gold ensured good health and longevity (Getz 1998: 58),
whilst Paracelsus, a 16th
-century physician and alchemist, asserted that aurum
potabile, a formula for drinkable gold, could cure even the Black Death (Pagel 1982:
180; Crisciani and Pereira 1998; Byrne 2012: 257).
Similarly, in 19th
-century Scotland, water into which a piece of gold had been
deposited, known as Uisge Or or Long John, was used widely as a panacea, either
drank or applied as a lotion (MacDonald 1903: 371-372). Also in the 19th
century,
golden rings were utilised throughout the British Isles as remedies for a wide variety
of ailments, from warts to bacterial infections. According to folklorist Black, writing
in the 1880s, ‘the virtues of a gold wedding ring for curts, warts, and styes, are
celebrated throughout Christendom’ (1883: 173).
The majority of coins deposited into holy wells – and, indeed, coin-trees – however,
are not gold coins, but copper. Like gold, copper is a material widely imbued with
apotropaic and remedial properties. Copper amulets were worn for protection against
danger and disease (Herbert 1984: 263ff), and medieval skeletons have been
discovered wearing copper-alloy bracelets, believed to reduce swelling (Gilmour and
Stocker 1986: 41; Stones 1989: 159), or copper-alloy plates, possibly employed as
talismans chosen for their curative properties (Knüsel et al. 1995) – curative
properties which are, in fact, supported by science.
102
The contents of Karcioğlu and Sarper’s (1980) edited medical volume demonstrate
how copper affects the gastrointestinal system; hematology; the cardiovascular
system; the nervous system; and dermatology. Copper salts are bactericidal and can
be employed as disinfectants, thus making them useful for treating bacterial
infections (Cameron 1993: 118-121; Knüsel et al. 1995: 380; Brennessel et al. 2005:
184). Additionally, copper’s anti-inflammatory effects have made it a popular
medicinal ingredient throughout history, with the early cultures of Assyria, Greece,
Rome, Egypt, and possibly Native America employing copper remedially (Karcioğlu
and Sarper 1980: xiii; Rij and Pories 1980: 555; Fox 2003: 10).
Possibly for similar reasons, Bald’s Leechbook, an Old English medical text,
stipulates that the ingredients for numerous remedies should be mixed and stored in
brass – a copper-zinc alloy (Brennessel et al. 2005) – vessels. Although Storms
opines that this stipulation belonged to the ‘sphere of magic’ (1948: 134), Cameron
asserts that it was the copper salts formed in the brass vessels, held to be
antibacterial, which motivated the specification (1993: 120-122). This belief most
likely led to the popularity of copper as a therapeutic agent, in the form of copper
bracelets, during the 19th
century – a practice which survives to the present day (Fox
2003: 11; Shuttleworth 2010).
15 – THE ROYAL EFFIGY
The royal effigy engraved on most coins is also considered highly contributive to the
coin’s ‘extramonetary powers’ and ‘amuletic quality’, as a form of image magic
(Herva et al. 2012: 302). From the classical through to the Byzantine periods, the
images of rulers depicted on coins were considered protective agents (Maguire 1997:
1039; Deng 2008: 167-168), and the belief that monarchs are endowed with
protective, curative powers is a particularly long-standing one. Vespasian (r.69-79
AD), for instance, was said to have restored sight to the blind and healed the limbs of
the lame (Billings 1906: 62), and the royal touch continued to be viewed as
particularly efficacious far beyond antiquity – as is evident in touch-piece
ceremonies.
103
In England, coinage was imprinted with the royal effigy in recognisable form from
the reign of Henry VII (r.1485-1509) (Robinson 1992: 1), and this effigy – an
undeniable connection with a monarch who, by divine right, wielded the power to
heal – endowed coins with curative powers (Bloch 1973: 222-223). Crowns and half-
crowns bearing the effigy of Charles I (r.1625-1649) were handed down from one
generation to the next in the Shetland Islands until the 19th
century, believed to be
remedies against scrofula (Bloch 1973: 223), whilst in Scotland, coins minted during
the reign of Queen Victoria (r.1837-1901) were, according to Bloch, ‘held to be
universal panaceas simply because they bore ‘the image of the Queen’’ (1973: 223).
The coin’s preternatural potency, therefore, is in part due to the protective properties
of the royal effigy as well as to the materials it is made from. However, whilst an
examination of the physical attributes of a coin have been illuminating in the
consideration of its ‘amuletic quality’, I have run the risk of taking the advice of
Clark (1986: 6), Miller (1987: 98), and Rothschild (1981) too far, in analysing the
coin as a purely material object, for it is equally significant that the coin has abstract,
representational qualities also.
16 – COINS AND VALUE
‘Money is what money does’, remarks economist Wolman (2012: 12), and what
money does is declare value (Dowden 2000: 176). This is the coin’s primary
purpose; as ‘an abstract means of according value’, according to Macdonald (2002:
90). No other object is quite so intrinsically linked with worth and, more
importantly, with exchange (Shils 1981: 73; Schlichter 2011: 21). Coins are
surrendered in exchange for commodities or services (Kopytoff 1986), and it is this
very purpose which makes the coin a particularly suitable ritual deposit.
As demonstrated throughout this chapter, participation in a ritual tends to imply a
desire for something in return – a folk-remedy, good luck, future fortune, the
protection of a saint, spirit, or deity, etc. – and so rituals necessarily follow the same
basic, economic rules as secular exchange, as described by Appadurai: ‘one’s desire
for an object is fulfilled by the sacrifice of some other object’ (1986: 3). When
104
engaged in such an exchange, it is surely only natural to sacrifice the object most
overtly and intrinsically associated with value and trade: the coin.
‘In a commercial age,’ writes Merrifield, ‘coins tend to play an important part in the
minor ritual practised by individuals’ (1987: 54). In simple terms, if a person wants
something, it is assumed they will pay for it with money, and this modern-day
mentality has spread from the secular realm into the spiritual. This exchange
mentality is most evident with holy wells, into which coins were often thrown as
‘payment’ to the presiding spirit or saint (Brand 1777: 85-86; Hardwick 1872: 277;
Walker 1883: 158; Hartland 1893: 463; Rhys and Morris 1893: 58-59; Hull 1928:
111-112; Jones 1954: 92; Lucas 1963: 40; Bord and Bord 1985: 90-91). This custom
has survived today in the form of the ‘wishing well’, widespread across the British
Isles.
In some rituals, coins are unabashedly used for their financial worth; at holy wells,
offerings were often cast into the wells themselves, but sometimes money was
handed instead to the sites’ guardians (Hull 1928: 107; Dowden 2000: 47), the local
parish priest, or placed in a box in a nearby church, in exchange for the use of the
well (Jones 1954: 93). As Bord and Bord write, the ‘custom of leaving an ‘offering’
at a holy well was not overlooked by the Church, and some clergy took steps to see
that the money was directed their way’ (1985: 91).
Today especially money plays a large role in what Eade and Sallnow term ‘sacred
exchanges’ (1991: 24); at modern-day pilgrimage sites, such as Lourdes in south-
western France, ‘cash donations to the shrine custodians, purchases of candles, alms
to beggars, indeed all kinds of monetary offerings can be fully incorporated into the
religious marketing circuits of the shrine’ (Eade and Sallnow 1991: 24).
17 – REVERSING VALUE
Coins are, in conclusion, employed for such purposes because of their folkloric and
historic associations, their physical attributes, and their secular, everyday purposes,
all of which culminate to produce the ideal object for ritual exchange. However,
coins have not always been at the forefront of folkloric customs in the British Isles.
Although they are listed as items deposited in holy wells during the 18th
and 19th
105
centuries (Brand 1777: 85-86; Hardwick 1872: 277; Walker 1883: 158; Hartland
1893: 463; Rhys and Morris 1893: 58-59; Hull 1928: 111-112; Jones 1954: 92;
Lucas 1963: 40; Mercer 1974: 191; Bord and Bord 1985: 90-91), coins are just one
type of offering amongst many, including rags, ribbons, beads, buckles, buttons,
keys, to name only some.
Indeed, some holy wells contained no coins at all. Hartland describes St. Baglan’s
Well in Llanfalglan, Caernarvonshire, which was apparently emptied in the early
1800s: ‘two basins-full of pins were taken out, but no coin of any kind’ (1893: 453).
Describing another holy well, in Perthshire, Hartland exhibits surprise upon
discovering coins deposited there: ‘Sometimes [participants] go as far as to throw
away their halfpence’ (1893: 463), he exclaims, demonstrating that the deposition of
a coin was perceived as an extreme form of participation.
Likewise, whilst the custom of affixing rags to trees was widespread throughout the
British Isles during the 1800s, only one 19th
-century example of inserting coins into
trees has been identified: Isle Maree (Appendix 2.26). Indeed, the Isle Maree case-
study appears to have been employed as a rag-tree for many years prior to its
emergence as a coin-tree. Evidently, strips of cloth were deemed more appropriate
offerings than coins during this time, and it is not surprising that most 19th
-century
participants (in contrast with 21st-century participants) were more willing to part
with rags than with coins.
Value is subjective (Simmel 1900; Thompson 1979), and, although the economic
worth of a coin may appear fixed and stable, it is as fluid and mutable as any other
object. Wernimont and Fitzpatrick (1972), and Brandstätter and Brandstätter (1996),
in their respective studies on the subjective value of money, demonstrate how such
factors as income, gender, social class, and personality traits greatly influence how
an individual perceives the value of money. Just as the value of money varies from
person to person, it is also contingent upon time period. Inflation has meant that a
coin’s worth will inevitably decrease over time. A study by the Office for National
Statistics of the consumer price index from 1750 to 2003 demonstrates that average
prices have gradually been multiplied by 140; and as prices increase, the value of a
coin decreases. A one decimal penny, for example, would have had greater
purchasing power in 1750 than a £1 in 2003 (O’Donoghue and Goulding 2004: 38).
106
In the past, therefore, coins were more valuable and less ubiquitous, and it is
unsurprising that 19th
-century participants would be less inclined than a modern-day
participant to part with a one penny piece. On the other hand, objects such as rags,
nails, pins, locks of hair, and fingernails were more readily accessible and disposable
than coins, making them far more convenient offerings. And, as mentioned briefly
above, convenience plays a large role in rituals of deposition; as Walhouse observes,
a pilgrim may by necessity source their deposit from ‘any trivial objects ready at
hand’ (1880: 104).
Henderson offers an example of this: St. Mary’s Well, Culloden, was visited by
pilgrims who believed that drinking water from the well and then depositing a coin
ensured good luck for the following year. Henderson, observing the rites performed
at this site in c.1899, describes a group of boys who drank from the well:
But, alas! the ceremony is left in some degree uncompleted, for on
examination it is found that no member of the group possesses a solitary
copper. This part of the rule is thereupon brushed aside. But the tying of
pieces of cloth on the tree is strictly observed, for, beside costing nothing, it
gives each boy an opportunity of indulging in a little tree-climbing… (1911:
323)
Hulse (1995) offers another, more contemporary example of convenience playing a
large role in the selection of items for deposition. Examining St. Trillo’s Well,
Llandrillo-yn-Rhos, Hulse found that offerings of prayers, which had begun to be left
at the holy well since 1992, were a ‘spontaneous and imitative gesture’ (1995: 33);
people visiting the chapel, seeing the past deposits and wishing to add their own,
were forced to write their prayers on scraps of paper sourced from pockets and
handbags: portions of envelopes, pages torn from diaries, receipts, and transport
tickets. In many cases, therefore, matters of convenience and improvisation
determine the nature of objects deposited – and throughout the 18th
and 19th
centuries, coins were evidently not, to use Walhouse’s words, ‘trivial objects ready
at hand’ (1893: 461).
However, throughout the last century a reversal has occurred. As a coin’s economic
value decreased, its utilisation as an object of ritual exchange increased at an
inversely proportional rate. Coins became more commonplace to the point where the
majority of people usually have some coins in their possession, so that if they wish
to participate in a ritual which necessitates the ‘sacrificing’ of an object, a coin is the
107
most convenient object for that purpose. As one participant in the coin-tree custom at
High Force speculated, when asked why he believed people chose to insert coins into
the tree: ‘maybe because they’re just convenient’; whilst an American participant at
Tarn Hows opined that ‘it might just be because coins are pretty handy, aren’t they?
You’ve always got some’.
The custodian of the St. Nectan’s Glen coin-trees, Lawrence Barker, demonstrates
this reversal in his personal consideration of the custom. At this site, the coin-trees
are accompanied by several rag-trees, the branches of which are primarily affixed
with ribbons, and Lawrence believes that the coin-trees were created by ‘people who
had no ribbons or other offerings but still had a wish to make’ (pers. comm.
09/11/2012). In his opinion, therefore, coins are the substitute deposits; few people
today will have ribbons ready at hand or would be willing to tear off a scrap of their
clothing, but it is likely that they will be carrying coins. Henderson’s 19th
-century
example at St. Mary’s Well, where the group of boys could only tie rags to the
branch of a tree because they did not have the coins to deposit in the well, is thus
inverted.
Coins have not only become more readily available in contemporary society; they
have also become more disposable. Coins, particularly one penny and two pence
pieces, are no longer perceived as embodying much value, to the extent that many
people in Britain believe copper coins should be removed from circulation
(Dammann 2012). Dammann, reporting on this decline in value for the Guardian in
2012, describes copper coins as ‘the useless, practically valueless bits of copper-
plated steel which weigh down our pockets and clog up our vacuum cleaners’
(2012). Whilst Wolman, observing that pennies offer very little in both the store of
value and as a medium of exchange, wryly notes that people no longer even tax
themselves by retrieving a penny found on the pavement: ‘Economists will tell you
that it’s not even worth the time and financial hazard involved in stooping down to
pick it up, possibly resulting in a back injury’ (2012: 4).
108
18 – DEBUNKING THE ‘DISENCHANTMENT’
Coins’ ubiquity and decreased economic worth has meant that they have, over the
last century, become ‘trivial objects ready at hand’ (Walhouse 1893: 461), making
them the most appropriate and convenient deposits in the contemporary rituals of the
British Isles. This explains why they replaced rags, nails, and other objects at Isle
Maree, Clonenagh, Ardboe, and Gougane Barra, and subsequently contribute to an
explanation of the emergence of this custom in the 19th
/early-20th
centuries.
However, the majority of coin-trees in the British Isles did not emerge in the
19th
/early-20th
centuries; they were not originally associated with holy wells and did
not gradually transition into coin-trees from (or function as replacements of) previous
incarnations: rag-trees, nail-trees, and so on. Of the 34 coin-tree sites recorded in this
thesis, only one (Isle Maree) definitely pre-dates the 20th
century, and only five more
definitely pre-date the 1990s (Ardboe, Ardmaddy, Clonenagh, Fore, and Gougane
Barra). The remaining 28 sites (82%) are contemporary creations, having been coined
in the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s, and this contemporaneity complicates their
interpretation.
It was outlined in Chapter 1 that folklore is often not believed to have survived the
transition into modernity. Historically, folk customs have been widely perceived as
fragile, tenuous, and endangered phenomena, and the processes of urbanisation and
industrialisation are often held accountable for what Weber heralds the
‘disenchantment of the world’, a world now ‘characterized by rationalisation and
intellectualization’ (1948: 155). According to Foster, writing in the 1950s, industrial
economies ‘are not conducive to the continuation of folk culture. Hence, it can be
assumed that folk cultures will disappear in those places where a high degree of
industrialization develops’ (1952: 171), whilst for Bascom, it was technological
developments that led to this supposed decline: ‘folklore has decreased
as...mechanical devices such as phonographs, radios, moving pictures, and television
have developed’ (1965: 296).
Redner took a similar stance 50 years later, attributing the purported loss of local,
native culture to ‘cultural homogenization...which we now describe by that ominous
term “globalization.”’ (2004: 2). The Western world has, Redner asserts, become a
‘monoculture’, in which no local traditions or customs can survive (2004: 2). Redner
109
and his predecessors paint a rather dour picture, and while not all folklorists concur
with this perspective (McKelvie 1963; Dundes and Pagter 1975; Dorson 1976), the
general consensus appears to be that folklore is far less prolific in the Western world
than it once was.
It is certainly true that some customs have fallen out of use. Returning to the wych-
elm embedded with pigs’ teeth in Forster’s Howards End (1910), Mrs Wilcox
dolefully notes that the ‘teeth are almost grown over now, and no one comes to the
tree’, to which Margaret Schlegel replies, ‘I should. I love folklore and all festering
superstitions’ (1910 [2000]: 8.61). This exchange indicates that by the early 20th
century, such folk practices of implantation had largely declined and were
considered ‘festering superstitions’. However, the coin-tree custom would not be
conceived of us as such; the majority of the coin-trees are contemporary structures,
the products of participation by large numbers of modern-day practitioners.
The contemporary coin-tree therefore confutes the claims that industrialisation,
urbanisation, globalisation, and technological advancements would result in the
‘disenchantment’ of the British Isles. However, should it be viewed, as Peter at
Portmeirion opined (detailed above), as a ‘continuation of an old custom’; as
evidence that it is ‘in our DNA to do things like this, to carry them on. Like throwing
coins into a fountain; something we may not really believe in anymore but we do it
just because we’ve always done it’?
Walsham would advise against this interpretation, advocating that it is misguided to
view customs as ‘the ‘debris’ of pagan mythologies that had defiantly survived from
distant antiquity into modern times in a state of arrested development’ (2011: 474).
Landy and Saler, considering ‘secular magic’ in contemporary society, likewise
reject this binary notion that ‘any lingering enchantment within Western culture must
of necessity be a relic, a throwback’ (2009: 3) The coin-trees, therefore, should not
be interpreted as ‘survivals’, ‘relics’, or ‘debris’ from the past.
On the other hand, however, a custom does not simply spring forth from a vacuum.
As Hugoson asserts in her study of the Swedish Easter Tree, which – like many coin-
trees – appears to have been created post-1990, such a custom can be interpreted as a
‘familiar unknown’; ‘the mere need for new “traditions” is not enough to explain its
popularity and success, but rather that it is perceived as being new and old
110
simultaneously’ (2006: 82-83). The majority of the coin-trees may be contemporary
structures, but their popularity may be attributed to the (accurate) belief that they
grow from the foundations of past meanings and customs.
However, the modern-day coin-tree is not a testament to the continuity of a custom;
they were not being un-intermittently generated from the 19th
century to the present
day. Instead, there was sporadic creation of coin-trees in Scotland and Ireland
throughout the 19th
and 20th
centuries, but as Appendix 2.4 demonstrates, the custom
does not appear to have existed in England and Wales prior to the late 1990s/early
2000s, when there was a sudden leap in coin-tree creation. Indeed, there is evidence
that older coin-trees witnessed a boost in the custom during the same period; the
empirical data collected from the primary Ardmaddy coin-tree (including both coins
within the tree and uncovered during excavation) demonstrates a sharp increase in
the custom during the 1990s (Appendices 2.9 & 5.7). The second section of this
chapter will therefore be a consideration of what could account for the contemporary
renaissance of this custom.
PART 2: THE CONTEMPORARY RENAISSANCE
1 – THE CONTEMPORARY COIN-TREE
There can be no definitive answer to the question of which contemporary coin-tree
was coined first. Perhaps the forester at Bolton Abbey was the first late-20th
-century
practitioner of this custom; as the dental nurse at Hardcastle Crags and the local boys
at Fairy Glen could have been. However, attempts to contact – or even elicit the
names of – these elusive, purported instigators have invariably failed. Other
strategies may be used instead, such as drawing on the testimonies of custodians,
which would indicate that the sites of Bolton Abbey (pers. comm. Moira Smith,
visitors manager, 11/11/2011), Lydford Gorge (pers. comm. Adrian Shaw, senior
ranger, 03/04/2012), or Tarr Steps (pers. comm. Graeme McVittie, woodland officer,
16/01/2012) were the earliest, believed to have been initially coined in the 1990s.
However, as will be explored in Chapter 6, there is often a tendency (even amongst
professionals) to over-estimate a coin-tree’s age, therefore the testaments of
custodians may not be wholly accurate. Also, many custodians could not provide
111
estimated dates of creation for their coin-trees and, as discussed in Chapter 3, the
dating evidence provided by the coins may be equally unreliable. At the present
time, therefore, it is not possible to determine when – and certainly not why – the
first contemporary coin-tree was coined, nor who the original instigator was.
Circumstances surrounding the inauguration of the coin-tree renaissance may remain
obscure, but the rapid rate of dissemination which soon followed is clearly evident.
Following the creation of a few coin-trees during the 1990s, the 2000/2010s
witnessed a considerable and widespread revival. This dissemination is undoubtedly
due to imitation (explored in greater detail in Chapter 5); an individual/group
encounters a coin-tree at one site and they subsequently instigate another coin-tree at
a different site. However, the processes of dissemination in this case are surprising.
Map 4 (Appendix 1.2) displays all coin-tree sites which have a relatively reliable
estimated coining date (either drawn from published material or the testimonies of
custodians), and this demonstrates not only a rapid rate of dissemination, but also a
rather sporadic one. Whilst the ‘non-contemporary’ (i.e. pre-1990s) coin-trees are
clearly exclusive to Scotland and Ireland, the data for the contemporary coin-trees
provides neither a clear point of origin nor an obvious pattern of distribution. Older
contemporary coin-trees (Bolton Abbey, Lydford Gorge, Tarr Steps) are present in
northern England as well as southern, as are the younger sites (Claife Station, Leigh
Woods, Corfe Castle). This suggests that the dispersion of coin-trees was the result
of numerous nexuses and simultaneous networks of dissemination, rather than a
single, linear thread originating from one point.
Not only does this complex network of dissemination make following Whately’s
advice to ‘read superstition backwards’ more difficult, it also indicates that the
reasons behind this modern-day renaissance were not region-specific, but were
applicable to many areas of the British Isles. What contemporary countrywide
factors, therefore, could account for the successful and rapidly-disseminated revival
of the coin-tree custom? The first point to consider is the participants themselves.
112
2 – THE CULT OF THE CHILD
From my ethnographic observations, the current participants of the coin-tree custom
are many and varied. As is evident in Appendices 4.3-4.5, which present the
demographic data of the 219 participants interviewed, this custom is not exclusive to
a certain gender, age-group, or race. Participation is dependent upon one factor:
physical presence at a coin-tree site, and as the majority of coin-trees are located
beside popular footpaths in rural areas, the majority of participants are consequently
the type of people who are likely to engage in leisurely walking: predominantly
white British couples and families, although not exclusively.
There is, however, one primary participatory group of this custom: children. My
observations revealed that a group travelling with children is far less likely to pass a
coin-tree without inserting a coin than a group travelling without children. One
woman told me that she could not ‘imagine just walking past one of these trees,
especially not with children’, whilst a father claimed, ‘I don’t think the children
would let me walk past without putting coins in’.
Many of the groups with children claimed to have only inserted coins for the benefit
of the children: ‘because the boys wanted to’; ‘my daughter wanted to’; ‘for the kids’
sake’, and so on. It is not surprising that the custom of the coin-tree appears to be
very much oriented towards the entertainment of the younger generation. As Opie
and Opie observe, ‘it is the nature of children to be attracted by the mysterious’
(1959: 210), and they maintain that children are ‘tradition’s warmest friends…they
are respecters, even venerators, of custom’ (1959: 22). Indeed, the majority of
widely-practiced folkloric traditions in contemporary Britain are observed for the
benefit of children: Father Christmas, Easter egg hunts, trick-or-treating.
However, children have not always been central to folkloric customs. Indeed,
childhood has not always been viewed as distinct from adulthood; that their actions
are marginalised from those of adults is a relatively modern, Western notion (Sofaer
2007: 88; Baxter 2008: 161). In the past children were not sheltered from adult
responsibilities and experiences but partook in them, and it has only been within the
last century that childhood has begun to be perceived as a period of honoured
innocence (deMause 1974; Borrowdale 1994: 24). This ‘sentimentalization’ and
‘sacralization’ of childhood (Zelizer 1985; Sofaer Derevenski 2000: 4) created a
113
society wherein children are central to family culture, and much effort goes into
catering to their needs whilst simultaneously maintaining their innocence for as long
as possible (Wells 1991: 430).
The ability of the coin-tree custom to address the contemporary parent’s desire to
cater to children’s cultural and educational needs was demonstrated in several
participant interviews. Parents seem to believe that participation in the coin-tree
custom will be ‘exciting’, ‘interesting’, and ‘entertaining’ for their children, with
four groups expressing the opinion that it is important to encourage children’s
involvement in nature, art, and culture, and to provide them with unique experiences
– which they believed the coin-trees offered.
The desire to maintain children’s innocence was also evident. A woman at Bolton
Abbey with two children – a 12 year old girl and 15 year old boy – admitted to being
disappointed that her teenage son no longer wanted to participate in the coin-tree
custom: ‘They just grow out of it, don’t they?’ she lamented. Her son’s disinterest,
however, appeared to make her more determined to encourage her daughter’s
participation.
Likewise, when a couple at Ingleton pointed out the coin-trees to their seven-year-
old daughter, she replied, to her parents’ bemusement: ‘But it’s a waste of money’.
Her surprisingly jaded response seemed to motivate her parents into participation:
they helped her insert a coin and assured her that it was not a ‘waste of money’, but
was ‘for making wishes’. As Wells asserts in her study of the tooth-fairy, many
parents feel that such beliefs are ‘absolutely necessary for the development of
imagination in children, and that adults should do everything in their power to
encourage belief’ (1991: 431). The coin-tree, therefore, provides an ideal vehicle for
broadening a child’s cultural outlook, by offering them the chance to engage with a
structure that combines elements of nature, art, and folklore, whilst simultaneously
(in the opinions of some parents at least) maintaining their innocence by giving them
the opportunity to playfully participate in a rather whimsical ritual.
Tuleja, considering another child-centred folkloric custom, the tooth-fairy, notes that
such practices grew in Britain at a rapid rate from the mid-20th
century, and he
believes that one of the primary reasons was this rise of a ‘child-directed family
culture’ (1991: 413), which he terms the ‘Cult of the Child’ (1991: 414). This mid-
114
20th
-century shift may likewise account for the contemporary rise in the coin-tree
custom. Because fewer adults would earnestly observe such a practice in the 20th
century than they would have done in the 18th
or 19th
centuries (a factor explored in
Chapter 6), there were no ideally situated contemporary producers and consumers of
the coin-trees – until children came to the forefront of ritual play and participation. A
custom is only observed if participants choose to participate, which may account for
the dormancy of this practice throughout much of the 20th
century. By the 1990s,
however, an ideal participatory group had emerged: families with children. The coin-
tree custom could therefore be successfully revived.
3 – THE DAWN OF THE DAY-TRIPPER
As well as the rise of the child-centred family culture, Tuleja also attributes the mid-
20th
-century growth of practices such as the tooth-fairy to the ‘greater availability of
discretionary income’ (1991: 414). One aspect of this factor has already been
explored; inflation causing a decrease in the subjective value of coins, leading to
their utilisations as disposable and convenient deposits for the coin-tree custom.
However, the greater availability of discretionary income played another role in the
emergence of this practice.
As is evident in Appendix 4.6, only a small minority (8%) of the contemporary
participants interviewed were local residents (defined as living within 20 miles of the
coin-tree site). Foreign tourists accounted for some (10%), but the majority group
were domestic tourists on short breaks or day-trips (82%); a fact that is unsurprising
considering the location of most coin-trees at popular natural heritage sites. Indeed,
Van den Eynden (2010), studying plant-centred rituals in contemporary Scotland,
opines that such customs are perpetuated primarily by curious tourists rather than
local residents (2010: 243). As noted above, in order to survive, a custom requires an
appropriate group of participants, and in the case of the coin-tree, the appropriate
group is evidently tourists and day-trippers, of which there are clearly enough to
perpetuate the custom. However, numbers of people with both the ability and
inclination to visit sites of natural heritage have not always been so prodigious.
115
As Yale observes, ‘[a]lthough the appeal of the countryside seems obvious at the
start of the twenty-first century, this has not always been the case’ (2004: 9.1). In the
early 1900s, the concept of walking as a pleasure pursuit, as well as an appreciation
of rural scenery, was confined to the upper classes (Patmore 1972: 11). However,
over the 20th
century this changed. As Britain became increasingly urban, the
popularity of the countryside as a holiday destination rose in tandem (Yale 2004:
9.23); people from all classes became eager to escape the cities, if only for a day.
Consequently, walking has become Britain’s most popular outdoor activity, as well
as a common feature of domestic tourist trips within the British Isles, 70% of which
now involve recreational walks (The Ramblers’ Association 2010: 1).
The 20th
century saw not only a rise in people’s desires to spend their leisure time
walking in rural areas, but also a rapid increase in their abilities to do so. Although
the tourist industry was well-established in Britain by 1940 (Tinniswood 1998: 159),
it was not until the 1960s that mass tourism developed, and holidays became a
common feature of people’s lives, regardless of social class (Barton 2005). Since
then, cultural and heritage tourism in Britain have been increasing (Markwell et al.
1997), and there are a number of reasons for this.
Disposable income, an increase in leisure time, and the advent of paid holiday-leave
are three major contributing factors (Barton 2005). Transportation is another, with
the mobility of a personal car bringing what Patmore terms ‘incomparably greater
freedom to recreational travel’ (1972: 12), allowing drivers far more choice in where
and when they went. Car ownership in Britain has been multiplying rapidly since the
pre-war years: 109,000 in 1919, one million in 1930, two million by 1939 (Patmore
1972: 12), four million in 1950 – to over 34 million in 2010 (Department for
Transport 2011: 1). In 1951, 14% of households had access to a car; this figure had
risen to 75% by 2010 (Department of Transport 2011: 4).
As Tinniswood writes, ‘[f]rom very early on in its history, [the car] was advertised
and marketed as a way for the town-dweller to discover the countryside’ (1998: 160),
and this is certainly what it achieves. This increased mobility has given people
greater opportunity to explore areas of natural heritage, which may otherwise have
been inaccessible. My own fieldwork at the coin-tree sites illustrates this. Of the 33
sites visited, only four were easily accessible from a city using public transport:
116
Hardcastle Crags, Padley Gorge, Marbury Park, and Arnside Knott. Other sites
would have required multiple train and bus journeys, as well as many hours in
transit, and so I opted to use a car. It is easy to appreciate, therefore, why people –
especially families with younger children – are more inclined, or able, to visit sites of
natural heritage now that 75% or so of households have access to a car.
Transportation to a site is not, however, the only contributing factor to level of
accessibility; land ownership is another integral aspect. Historically, the majority of
land in the British Isles has been privately owned; consequently very little was
accessible to the public (Yale 2004: 9.25). This has gradually been changing
throughout the 20th
century, no doubt due to the realisation that heritage tourism had
developed major economic value for Britain. In 1949, for example, the ‘National
Parks and Access to the Countryside Act’ was passed, creating many public rights of
way (Patmore 1972: 242). In 1972, the Woodland Trust was created to safeguard
forests (Yale 2004: 9.22), and the launch of the National Lottery in 1994 resulted in
prodigious increases in funding for the conservation of natural heritage sites (Yale
2004: 1.25). Finally in 2000, the new ‘Countryside and Rights of Way Act’ shifted
the balance of rights from the landowners in favour of public accessibility (Yale
2004: 9.25).
The current economic climate has also greatly influenced the level of tourism at
natural heritage sites. The 2008 recession led to a general decrease in disposable
income, and consequently many people in Britain chose domestic breaks and day-
trips rather than holidays abroad. Indeed, Fiona Reynolds, Director-General of the
National Trust, declares that ‘2009 was the year of the staycation’ (2010: 40), noting
that visitor numbers to National Trust properties rose by 17.5%. Jenny Abramsky,
Chair of the Heritage Lottery Fund, observes the same boom in the domestic tourist
industry, with visits to English Heritage properties having risen by 17% during the
summer of 2009 (2010: 1).
Even for those less affected by the poor economic climate of the late 2000s/early
2010s, short breaks to the British countryside are evidently increasingly appealing.
Since the 1990s, there has been a rise in what Prentice terms ‘secondary’ holidays,
with many people taking a domestic, ‘secondary’ trip as well as holidaying abroad
(1993: 3). And with the growing ease with which people can access natural heritage
117
sites, such trips easily fit into a single day, resulting in the increasingly popular day-
trip. A survey conducted by VisitEngland, VisitScotland, and Visit Wales, for
example, reveals that during 2012, the British took a total of 1,712 million day-trips
to tourist sites, an increase of 11% from 2011 (2012 Great Britain Day Visits Survey
2012: 46), and as the majority of day-trippers tend to head for the countryside (Yale
2004: 1.31), it is unsurprising that coin-tree sites experience high volumes of
visitors.
4 – AVAILABILITY: A CHANGE IN FORESTRY POLICY
Just as a custom requires suitable participants in order to be successfully revived and
disseminated, it also requires physical availability. As explored above, coins became
more available throughout the 20th
century, probably contributing to the rise of the
coin-tree custom. However, there is another necessary component to this practice:
the tree.
With woodland covering an estimated 3.1 million hectares of the United Kingdom
(Forestry Commission 2012: 8), it seems unlikely that a shortage of trees would have
prevented or delayed the dissemination of the coin-tree custom. However, living
trees account for only 17% of all coin-trees catalogued; it is instead logs and wooden
fragments (coarse woody debris; CWD) which are more commonly appropriated for
this custom, accounting for 41%, and until the start of the 21st century CWD was
actively removed by forest management. In 1996, Peterken writes that the aim of
management was ‘to utilise the timber and wood, not to allow it to decay’, because:
accumulations of fallen wood are regarded as breeding grounds for beetles,
which might then infect living trees…dead wood is not allowed to
accumulate, because it is ‘untidy’…Typically, therefore, managed woods
contain unnaturally small amounts of CWD (1996: 396)
Up to and including the 1990s, therefore, logs were not left in situ, and so were not
readily available for potential coin-tree participants. In 2002, however, this policy
changed. The Forestry Commission published a guide offering the opposite advice,
recommending against the removal of CWD and advocating instead that decaying
timber should be left in situ (Forestry Commission 2002).
118
The promotion of deadwood stems from the benefits it provides in the natural
environment, as illustrated by Harmon et al. (1986), Hodge and Peterken (1998), and
Packham et al. (1992: 256-258). As well as playing key roles in carbon storage, soil
nutrient cycling, and hydrological processes, deadwood left in situ also provides
support and shelter for a wide range of species (Hodge and Peterken 1998; 100;
Forestry Commission 2002: 3-4).
The benefits of leaving CWD in situ having been circulated to forest wardens and
rangers countrywide resulted in the wide availability of logs, which could then be
appropriated for the coin-tree custom. Indeed, Chris Moseley, a ranger at Marbury,
Cheshire (Appendix 2.31), cited the 2002 Forestry Commission guide as the reason
for why they had left the coin-tree log of MP2 in situ rather than removing it once it
had fallen, as they would have done a decade earlier (pers. comm. 16/08/2012).
Although the change aimed to encourage the leaving of deadwood in situ for
ecological reasons, it inadvertently led to cultural benefits, providing a vast supply
of ‘canvases’ for the coin-tree custom.
This recent change in Forestry Commission policy probably does not account for the
initial revival of the custom, if the coin-tree custodians are correct when they
estimate creation dates in the late 1990s for the sites of Bolton Abbey, Lydford
Gorge, and Tarr Steps. However, the remaining (dateable) contemporary coin-trees
were purportedly all coined from 2002 onwards, directly coinciding with the reversal
of forestry policy. This reversal therefore, resulting in a new, widespread availability
of logs, may be the primary reason for why the 2000s witnessed such a rapid
resurgence in the coin-tree custom.
5 – ‘FOLKLORE 2.0’
With the establishment of a child-centred family culture, the rise in domestic tourism
and countryside day-tripping, and the greater availability of the necessary materials,
the late 1990s/early 2000s evidently provided the ideal environmental conditions for
the revival of the coin-tree. It also provided abundant opportunity for the custom’s
dissemination, with the rise of a new, technologically-mediated form of
communication: the Internet.
119
It has already been noted that folklorists predicted the loss of folklore as a result of
the rise of mass culture and technology (Bascom 1965: 296). However, Blank (2009;
2012) asserts that such predictions are unfounded, attesting instead that technological
developments are not detrimental to the survival, transmission, creation, and
performance of folk culture – but that they are actually beneficial to these processes.
He asserts that ‘folklore flourishes on the Internet’ (2012: 13), and believes that new
media technology – from laptops and tablets to mobile telephones – is now so deeply
integrated into our communication practices that it has become an instrumental
‘conduit of folkloric transmission’ (2012: 4).
There are certainly enough similarities between face-to-face and computer-mediated
communication to support the theory that vernacular expression transmitted online
can constitute folklore (Fernback 2003; Kibby 2005; Bronner 2009). This evinces
the flexibility with which ‘folklore’ must be approached. I defined ‘folklore’ above
as traditional customs, beliefs, and legends transmitted orally, but oral transmission
has come to include web-based communication, thus altering – and greatly extending
– the definitional parameters of ‘folklore’. It also alters the scale of such
transmissions. As early as 1996, Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (1996) was noting the
Internet’s efficacy for transmitting folklore, and in 2005 Dundes asserted that
‘folklore continues to be alive and well in the modern world, due in part to increased
transmission via e-mail and the Internet’ (2005: 406). Thompson, who describes
online folklore as ‘Folkore 2.0’ (2012: 58), likewise states that ‘folklore is enjoying a
tremendous renaissance online’ (2012: 53).
It is unsurprising, therefore, that the transmission of information regarding the coin-
tree custom is prodigiously evident on the Internet (Chapters 2 and 3). Coin-tree
related online articles, forum threads, and personal blogs tend to follow a similar
pattern: the author (or instigator of the thread) writes a piece of varying length
concerning a particular coin-tree site, and comments are subsequently added by
people who have read this piece and wish to inform the author of other coin-tree sites
they are familiar with. On the website Wild About Britain (Anonymous 2007), for
example, a forum post in 2007 concerning the Dovedale coin-trees elicited seven
responses, two of which refer to other coin-trees: ‘I’ve seen this at the Fairy Glen
RSPB reserve near Rosemarkie on the Black Isle’ (2010) and ‘I came across a
120
similar feature at Bolton Abbey in Yorkshire a couple of years ago’ (2010).
Likewise, on Amusing Planet (Anonymous 2009) a blog-post about coin-trees led to
six comments referring to other sites. The Internet therefore functions as a
convenient conduit for the exchange of information regarding the locations of coin-
trees. People who may have been aware of one coin-tree site can learn of many
others, and in some cases, specific directions are given to these sites so that the
readers can locate them.
A particularly illustrative example of the disseminating powers of the Internet is a
thread on the Sheffield Forum entitled ‘How can I find the money tree on Wadsley
Common?’ (2009). The creator of the thread claims that she and her children heard
of the Wadsley/Loxley coin-tree but have ‘been looking for a year now and can’t
find it anywhere!’ She appeals to her fellow forum members for advice, and is not
disappointed: as well as comments regarding other coin-trees, three forum members
respond with directions. One person sent a link to Google Maps on which the coin-
tree’s location has been pinpointed, whilst another person wrote:
i know where it is! if you park in the top car park and walk down the path onto
the big field carry on down to the bottom and turn right towards the woods
when ur into the woods its [sic.] on the little hill just before it drops down to
the other side bang in the middle of the path, hope u find it! (2009)
This forum thread also elicited responses from others who were hoping to locate the
Loxley coin-tree themselves. Some were successful, such as the thread’s instigator,
who announced two weeks after her original post: ‘Thank you, thank you all who
helped! We finally found the tree today by combining all the helpful tips’ (2009).
Others, however, were not successful; another forum member, for example, declared,
‘Spent 4 hours looking for the damned thing. None of the dog walking locals had
heard of it either. So, we made our own!’ (2009). In both cases the custom of the
coin-tree has been perpetuated via the Internet: in one case, the contribution to the
existing coin-tree and in another, the creation of a new one. Both cases were fostered
by this forum, clearly demonstrating how computer-mediated communication
facilitates the transmission and dissemination of folklore.
In some cases, the readers of these posts and forum threads are not familiar with
coin-trees, and it is therefore the Internet which provides them with the knowledge of
this custom’s existence. In the Loxley coin-tree thread on the Sheffield Forum, one
121
member states, ‘I know the common very well, and never heard of this story. ill [sic.]
certainly be on the look out next time im [sic.] up there!’ (2009). Likewise, on the
Sheffield Wildlife forum, an entry about the Padley Gorge coin-trees led to one
commenter exclaiming, ‘I’ll certainly keep my eyes peeled when I’m out in
Derbyshire again’ (2008). A person commenting on the entry on Amusing Planet
similarly declares that, ‘I have lived in England all my life walked in many woods
and trails…and have never come across these trees before, but sure will do some
research and post a definitive guide on my blog’ (2009).
This method of dissemination is evident in academic environments also. In April
2013, I received a number of emails from fellow researchers directing me to a
Contemporary History and Archaeology in Theory (CHAT) email thread entitled
‘Coins and Trees’. Archaeologist John Winterburn had contacted his fellow CHAT
members, describing a recent encounter with the Portmeirion and Snowdon coin-
trees and asking if members were aware of other examples. This request elicited 10
responses (11 including my own), with researchers and heritage professionals from
institutions such as Reading University, University College London, the University
of Manchester, Linnaeus University, Stanford University, and English Heritage, all
contributing their own theories, knowledge, and experiences of coin-trees.
Computer-mediated communication has therefore facilitated the dissemination of
folklore research as well as folklore itself. Indeed, as detailed in Chapter 3, much of
my initial research on the coin-tree custom was conducted online, with the use of
forums, blogs, online articles, and emails.
The Internet provides ideal conditions for the transmission and dissemination of the
coin-tree custom for two primary reasons. Firstly, it offers what Kibby (2005) terms
a rapid and effective ‘distribution mechanism’, computer-mediated communication
allowing for the quick (indeed, instant), widespread, and easy exchange of
information (Blank 2009: 8). Secondly, it is not restricted geographically. Thompson
(2012) and McNeill (2009; 2012) both observe that the Internet has altered not only
how the ‘folk’ communicate and transmit folklore, but also what constitutes the
‘folk’. Because of the global discourse of the Internet, cultural identity is no longer
necessarily equated with geography and therefore a ‘folk group’ has no need for a
geographical base (Thompson 2012: 55). A person can be sitting at their computer
122
exchanging information about the coin-tree custom with someone in a different
county, country, or even continent.
The rapid, geographically-unbound distribution mechanism of the Internet may
therefore account for the seemingly sporadic patterns of dissemination witnessed
across the British Isles. As explored above, Map 4 (Appendix 1.2) illustrates that the
coin-tree custom did not disperse in a logical pattern from one focal point, spreading
from north to south for example, but that it appears to have emerged almost
simultaneously at locations as distant as Yorkshire and Devon. This is probably due
in part to the increase in domestic travel; it is not unlikely that a person visited
Bolton Abbey one year and then visited Lydford Gorge the next, disseminating the
custom over 300 miles south of where they originally witnessed it. However, it is
probably also due to the Internet.
The Internet became an increasingly staple feature of many households during the
2000s, with the percentage of UK households boasting Internet access rising from
9% in 1998 to 42% at the start of 2002, and escalating from there (Office for
National Statistics 2010). It is probably no coincidence that this coincides with the
rapid early-21st-century dissemination of the coin-tree custom. If the ‘folk’ of the 21
st
century are no longer bound by geography then the dissemination of 21st-century
folklore is not either, and the coin-tree custom was able to spread rapidly and widely
across the British Isles via computer-mediated communication.
6 – CONCLUSION
When Archbishop Whately advised that ‘almost every system of superstition, in
order to be rightly understood, should be…read backwards’ (1860: 196), he assumed
a neat, linear progression, leading the researcher back from the present-day to a
specific point of origin. Likewise, when Peter at Portmeirion described the coin-trees
as a ‘continuation of folklore’ and claimed that the custom is ‘something we may not
really believe in anymore but we do it just because we’ve always done it’, he also
implied that while the beliefs and notions behind a custom may evolve over time, the
physical custom itself has a traceable continuity. However, as this chapter has
demonstrated, this is not always (if ever) the case.
123
The origins of the coin-tree are far too complex and convoluted to simply ‘read
backwards’. Rather than a successive line of evolving customs, the coin-tree has
proven itself to be more an amalgamation of numerous strands of traditions, beliefs,
and substitutions, with individual coin-trees ‘evolving’ at different rates and in
varying orders. As Clifford observes: ‘Metaphors of continuity and “survival” do not
account for complex historical processes of appropriation, compromise, subversion,
masking, invention, and revival’ (1988: 338).
There was not one single practice or belief which led to the original emergence of
the coin-tree custom, but rather a myriad: the tree’s history of ritual and folkloric
employment; the tree’s relationship with the holy well and the act of deposition; the
rag-tree and the notion of contagious transfer; and the implantation of disease via the
use of pins, nails, and bodily substances. The coin’s rise to the forefront of ritual
deposition is likewise the result of numerous strands: the imbuement of folk-
remedial and apotropaic powers to the coin because of its material and the image it
bears; the coin’s status as a symbol of value and exchange; and the decreasing value
of the coin combined with its increased ubiquity resulting in its employment as a
convenient ritual deposit.
The above factors were all combined in various ratios and sequences, leading to the
creation of the coin-tree custom. Their contemporary re-emergence, however, is the
result of an entirely different set of processes. The mid/late-20th
-century rise in the
‘child-directed family culture’ (Tuleja 1991: 413) produced an ideal participatory
group, as did the rapid growth of domestic tourism, which reflects an increase in the
number of people not only with an inclination to visit British sites of natural
heritage, but with the ability to do so. The 2002 Forestry Commission guide,
recommending that deadwood be left in situ rather than removed, accounts for the
greater availability of logs necessary for this custom. And the early-21st-century
growth of the Internet produced an effective dissemination mechanism, enabling the
wide and rapid transmission of folklore on what Kibby (2005) believes to be an
unprecedented scale.
In conclusion, the contemporary coin-tree has not prospered despite the modernity of
its environment, but because of it. The 21st century, with its shifted family values,
mass domestic tourism, and boom in technologically-mediated communication,
124
proves to provide the ideal environmental conditions under which folklore can, and
does, flourish. And so, when Benedict stated that ‘folklore has not survived as a
living trait in modern civilization’ (1932: 292), she could not have been more
mistaken.
125
CHAPTER 5: CONTEMPORARY ENGAGEMENT
It is a warm and sunny day in Cumbria during the May half-term holidays (2012),
and the footpath which hugs the shore of Tarn Hows is teeming with walkers. The
route around the lake, however, is not strenuous, and so many are walking with
children. Nearly all have stopped to examine the primary coin-tree, a densely-coined
uprooted stump which rests on a raised earthen bank, its eastern end overhanging
the path. It is particularly conspicuous because the sunlight is accentuating the
lustre of the coins, and their neat, longitudinal arrangement along the bark makes
their distribution appear precise and deliberate.
A family of three from Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, who are on holiday in
Cumbria, turn the corner of the path and are immediately greeted by the sight of the
coin-tree. The mother is English, the father French, and both are in their forties.
Their daughter is in her early teens. The parents, walking a little ahead, notice the
coin-tree instantly and stop to examine it.
Walkers congregating around an Ingleton coin-tree, Yorkshire (Photograph by author)
126
‘Look at this,’ the father gestures to his daughter. ‘It’s full of coins.’
The daughter is initially sceptical that the patterns in the bark are created by coins
but, on closer examination, her father’s statement is proven correct; she wonders
what its purpose is. The mother originally believes that it is a sculpture, commenting
on the symmetry of the coins, and she is doubtful that they would be ‘allowed’ to add
their own. However, in the time they spend examining the coin-tree, another group
of walkers approaches and, utilising a nearby rock as a tool of percussion, hammer
in their own coins. The family of three follow suit.
Searching through their pockets and purses, they find that the lowest denomination
coin they have is a 10 pence piece. The mother is hesitant to use it, claiming that
every other coin in the tree is copper and she fears that they will ‘ruin the pattern’.
When the father points out several five and 10 pence pieces amidst the copper coins,
she relents, and so the father and daughter clamber up the steep bank to the root-end
of the log, wanting to make their contribution in a more sparsely-coined area. Using
the same rock that they had witnessed the other group employing, the father helps
the daughter hammer in their coin, and then the mother climbs up wielding a
camera; the daughter points out ‘her’ coin and the mother takes several
photographs of it, before descending again to the path.
At this point, I introduce myself and explain the nature of my research. They are very
curious and ask me as many questions as I ask them; the mother is eager for
confirmation that the coin-tree is not an official sculpture. When I enquire about
what they believe the ‘purpose’ of the coin-tree to be, there is a moment’s hesitation,
and then the mother tentatively theorises that the tree is ‘for wishes’, ‘like a wishing
well’. We speak for a further few minutes about the nature of the site, and when I ask
how they would feel if someone were to remove their coin, the mother is instantly
indignant, recalling how she had witnessed people removing coins from a fountain in
France: ‘I think it’s cheeky’, she opines. ‘Things like this, they’re almost
sacrosanct.’
The father is now eager for them to continue their walk and so they depart. As they
disappear around a corner, the daughter smugly announces, ‘So money does grow
on trees’, to which the mother replies resignedly, ‘I guess I can’t use that excuse
anymore.’
127
1 – INTRODUCTION
‘We cannot, in general,’ writes Gell, ‘take up a point of view on the origination of
the artefact which is the point of view of the artefact itself. Our natural point of
vantage is that of the originating person, the artist, because we, also, are persons’
(1998: 67-68). In other words, an understanding of an object necessitates an
understanding of people’s perceptions of – and motivations in creating – said object.
Advocating this approach, Mall (2007) criticises past archaeological studies which
have focused on objects without exploring the processes resulting in their creation.
Instead, a consideration of how and why an artefact was made should be central to
any analysis or interpretation of it, and this chapter aims to address these questions in
relation to the coin-tree.
The coin-tree, however, is not simply an artefact; it is an accumulation, the
production of which is an ongoing process. Coin-trees are not created at one fixed
time by a single ‘originating person, the artist’ (Gell 1998: 68), and then
subsequently used by other persons. Instead, the producers are the users; the users,
the producers, and the crafting of a coin-tree is the result of a large quantity of
‘artists’ making their contributions over a long period of time. In the case of the
coin-tree, participation is production. In understanding these structures, therefore,
our ‘natural point of vantage’ is that of the thousands of people who have added their
coins to these structures, thus creating the coin-trees in the process.
Fortunately, these producers/users still currently produce and use these coin-trees,
and are thus available to question. This chapter, therefore, utilises my ethnographic
data, as well as the material evidence of the coin-trees themselves – which testifies to
the motivations of past depositors – in a consideration of how people engage with
the coin-trees; how they interact with the structures physically; and why they choose
to participate in the custom, subsequently becoming the ‘artists’ themselves.
128
2 – ENGAGING WITH THE COIN-TREE: PRIOR KNOWLEDGE
A person’s engagement with an object can begin prior to any actual physical
encounter with it. For instance, one couple at Aira Force had chosen to take the
specific path which passes the primary coin-tree in order to contribute their own
coins. The man had come across the coin-tree on a previous visit and had told his
partner of it, who in turn had asked to see it. In this example, therefore, the woman –
who had never physically seen the coin-tree before – had begun her engagement with
it prior to her visit; she had heard a description and her curiosity had been piqued.
Likewise, a young girl on Mt. Snowdon was motivated to continue climbing by the
promise of a coin-tree, told by her father that there is a ‘magic-tree’ at the peak of the
mountain. Similarly at Becky Falls and Lydford Gorge, young children had been
informed of the coin-trees by their guardians prior to their visits; one young girl had
been asking ‘is this it?’ to every log they had passed, despite her grandmother having
assured her that she would ‘know it when she saw it’. Like the woman at Aira Force,
these children were curious about the coin-trees, as structures they had heard of but
never seen; their engagements with the coin-trees thus preceded their actual
encounters with them.
In the majority of cases, however, this is not the typical order of events. Few
practitioners of the custom have prior knowledge of the presence of coin-trees; only
17% of interview participants had come across other coin-trees before the day of
their interview. Several participants had heard about coin-trees from other people,
and two women had researched the custom on the Internet. However, other than
these examples, the majority of people had not been aware of the phenomenon
before the day of their interview, and it is clear that the insertion of a coin is rarely a
planned ritual.
In the vast majority of cases, therefore, people come across these coin-trees by
chance rather than by design. This is evidenced by the lack of planning and
preparation involved in this practice. For example, I witnessed over 200 people insert
coins into these trees, and not a single one had come prepared with a hammer in
order to make the insertion of coins easier. Instead, they either inserted coins into
pre-existing cracks or employed handy objects as makeshift tools of percussion:
129
most often nearby rocks (Figs. 50-51, also seen in Fig. 37), but I have also witnessed
a pocket-knife and the sole of a shoe employed for such a purpose.
Some practitioners, however, appear to have planned their participation prior to their
visit, and this is evidenced by the nature of some of the deposits. It is unlikely, for
example, that the depositors of the metal plates engraved with names and screwed to
the bark of the primary coin-tree at Aira Force (Fig. 52) (Appendix 2.7), just
happened to be carrying engraved metal plates and a handful of screws. It is more
likely that they came to the site prepared to make their contribution, as did the
depositor of the red candle on Isle Maree (Fig. 53) (Appendix 2.26). Similar
examples of foresight were rife at St. Nectan’s Glen (Appendix 2.36), where a
variety of objects not likely to have been fortuitously carried by the participant have
been deposited (albeit most left by the waterfall as opposed to on the coin-tree):
semi-precious stones, a rubber duck, memorials of deceased pets in plastic wallets,
painted pieces of slate, and candles (Fig. 54).
The nature of these clearly pre-meditated deposits – which I term ‘planned deposits’,
in contrast to the ‘casual deposits’ of coins – indicate that some practitioners have
come upon these sites by design. Indeed, at St. Nectan’s Glen three interview
participants told me that they had brought items deliberately to deposit: a pair of
women had come prepared with ribbons to attach to the nearby rag-tree, while
another woman had brought and deposited a candle the previous year. However, as is
evidenced by the table in Appendix 3.5, which groups all catalogued deposits of
coin-trees into three categories – casual, ambiguous, and planned – overtly planned
deposits are clearly in the minority, suggesting that so too is planned participation.
The ‘casual’ deposits of coins and other objects (plastic tokens, hair accessories,
jewellery, clothing, a receipt, a feather, a flower) likely to have been carried or
sourced on site (totalling 166,046) far outnumber their planned counterparts (metal
plaques, a candle, a semi-precious stone) (totalling 5), as well as ambiguous objects,
which are not obviously one category or the other (nails, screws, bolts, ribbons,
string, a drawing pin, a battery, a beer bottle cap) (totalling 106).
Even deposits which appear to have involved effort and are highly personal may
have been improvised on-site; at Ardmaddy, for example, a note was written
addressing the coin-tree, ‘Dear Wishing-Tree’. The anonymous writer of the note
130
appealed to the tree for a romantic partner, provided a lengthy list of their desired
qualities, before folding the note neatly and lodging it in a fissure of the bark. The
nature of this deposit would imply intention and planning; however, it was written
on the reverse of a pharmacy receipt. As Hulse (1995) notes in his examination of
the written prayers deposited at St. Trillo’s Well, Llandrillo-yn-Rhos (referred to in
Chapter 4), attention should not simply be paid to the message such notes contain,
but also to what they have been written on. A receipt indicates spontaneity,
demonstrating the large role played by convenience and improvisation in the
sourcing of deposits.
Indeed, as is outlined in Chapter 4, the convenience of coins – the likelihood that a
person would be in possession of a coin at any given time – led to the proliferation of
coins being utilised as deposits, indicating that participation in this ritual is largely
unplanned. In fact, the experience of coming across these monuments by chance
appears to be a primary aspect of the coin-trees’ appeal to some. As one participant
told me, ‘it’s really nice that you can just be wandering along the path and stumble
across something like this’, whilst another claimed that there is ‘definitely something
nice about just coming across these trees by surprise’. One woman at Tarr Steps
excitedly exclaimed, upon seeing the primary coin-tree, that ‘you don’t expect to see
something like this out here’.
3 – THE FIRST ENCOUNTER
If an individual has no prior knowledge of an object, then the first stage of their
engagement with that object is the first encounter. Not having approached the coin-
trees by design, why did the participants approach them at all? Why do so many of
these sites’ visitors put their activity – recreational walking – on hold in order to
examine structures which they know little-to-nothing about? What is it that draws
whole congregations of people to these coin-trees?
Certainly the coin-trees are physically striking, and no doubt attract many visitors
purely through their aesthetic qualities (a factor considered in more detail below).
However, my one-hour observations revealed there to be another primary factor
involved in attracting members of the public to the coin-trees at each site, and it is a
131
word which has already been used: congregations. People congregate around coin-
trees. They converge; assemble; crowd. And in doing so, they attract more people.
Both my observations and interviews revealed that people were far more likely to
approach a coin-tree if another group had already gathered around it. As a result,
groups and individuals stopping to examine coin-trees tended to be clustered
together, often overlapping and attracting still more groups in a snowball-like effect
(Figs. 55-56).
The same is true of inserting coins. If a group of visitors witnessed another group
inserting a coin, then the chances were much greater that they would insert coins
also. This also worked in reverse; Peter at Portmeirion (described in Chapter 4), who
had seen no other group interacting with the coin-trees, seemed rather sceptical when
I informed him that the coins had been inserted by members of the public. Having
not witnessed anybody participate in this custom himself, Peter did not seem inclined
to believe that the coin-trees were products of public participation, and was therefore
reluctant to participate himself.
Likewise, a number of visitors at each coin-tree site have doubted the public nature
of these structures, querying whether the coin-trees were official pieces of art. At
Dovedale (Appendix 2.18), three groups believed the primary coin-tree to have been
the work of a single artist or a piece of ‘community art’, whilst at Tarr Steps
(Appendix 2.39), one woman described the coin-tree as ‘folk art’. Similarly in
Cumbria, six people admitted to originally perceiving the coin-trees as sculptures,
possibly sponsored by the National Trust, and were unsure whether or not they
would be ‘allowed’ to insert a coin of their own – an opinion also expressed by a
German couple at Ingleton (Appendix 2.25). One woman claimed to not ‘even know
if we should touch it’. Unsurprisingly, all of the individuals and groups who viewed
the coin-trees as official pieces of art had not witnessed fellow walkers insert coins.
Without the knowledge that the coin-trees are the products of a custom observed by
members of the public, they did not consider participating themselves.
132
4 – ‘QUEUE MENTALITY’
This desire to legitimize action by noting how others have acted is certainly not
atypical in human behaviour. Indeed, it is a form of behaviour that has been explored
by numerous cognitive scientists, sociologists, and economists, and is a phenomenon
which has been variously labelled ‘social learning theory’ (Bandura 1977; Rogers
1995); ‘the bandwagon effect’ (Granovetter 1978; Anderson and Holt 1996); ‘herd
instinct’ (Trotter 1916); ‘herd behaviour’ (Banerjee 1992); and ‘social contagion’
(Raafat et al. 2009). Basically, it is a form of imitation.
Imitation has always constituted a vast aspect of our learning processes; as Meltzoff
observes, a ‘wide range of behaviours – from tool use to social customs – are passed
from one generation to another through imitative learning’ (2005: 55). As children
we learn through imitating the actions of others, and we continue to do so as adults,
to the extent that imitation is what Dijksterhuis has termed ‘default social behaviour’
(2005: 207-208); we do it without thinking about it. We rely on social validation to
dictate the terms of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not.
Social validation is behind the vast majority of examples of collective behaviour:
religious revivals, fashions and fads, political choices, consumer preferences, and
mob violence. Consciously or subconsciously – rightly or wrongly – people trust the
majority, and so they follow suit. And, in doing so, they add to that majority,
encouraging others to follow suit in a snowball-like effect (Markus 1987; Rogers
1995: 333). Bikhchandani et al. term the basis of this model ‘information cascades’
(1992; 1998), whereby people infer from the participation of others the potential
benefits for themselves, a process highly evident in public protests, demonstrations,
and riots (Lohmann 1994). A person is far more likely to participate in a riot, for
example, if they see a high number of others doing so, and this number is known in
economics as the ‘threshold’ (Rogers 1995).
As defined by Rogers, a ‘threshold’ is ‘the number of other individuals who must be
engaged in an activity before a given individual will join that activity’ (1995: 320).
Some individuals may have a threshold of 0; these individuals are known as
innovators or ‘instigators’ (Gravonetter 1978: 1422), and they are few and far
between. The majority of people have high thresholds, and will need to have
133
observed many of their peers participate in a new activity before they themselves
will imitate that behaviour.
There are, however, far subtler examples of information cascades than
demonstrations and riots, and these often occur in our daily lives. A person sitting in
a boring lecture or party will often wait to observe others leaving before they
themselves will (Gravonetter 1978: 1424). A person, having to decide between two
restaurants, will probably choose the restaurant which appears the most popular
(Banerjee 1992: 797; Bikhchandani et al. 1998: 151-152). An individual trying to
decide which model of mobile telephone, television, or even car to purchase will
have been greatly – if not consciously – influenced by the models they perceive to be
the most popular.
It is this behaviour – this desire for social validation – which is evident in the
public’s participation in the custom of the coin-tree. The majority having never seen
or heard of coin-trees before approach these structures with no prior knowledge of
the custom and no assurances that participation is even permitted. As sociologist
Krassa writes, an individual, ‘for fear of social isolation, must observe some
minimum level of support’ before they will participate (1988: 111). People’s
opinions and actions are interdependent, and therefore many individuals – unless
their threshold is 0 – will need to believe that other individuals have inserted coins
into a coin-tree in order to infer that the custom is permitted.
This is how innovations are diffused (Bandura 1977); this is how the custom of the
coin-tree appears to have spread across the British Isles, despite the fact that many of
its participants admit to not knowing the ‘purpose’ of the custom. An individual
observes a group congregating around a coin-tree, which immediately piques their
curiosity. They then witness other individuals insert coins and so, taking their cue
from their peers and submitting to the ‘emotional contagion’ of their environment
(Hartfield et al. 1994: 2), they imitate and insert a coin themselves. Thus is the nature
of accumulation, which Gamble describes as having a ‘magnetic-like effect’ (2007:
122); deposits attract more deposits, often at an exponential rate.
As evident as imitation is at the coin-tree sites, I do not propose this theory based
solely on my observations; many of the custom’s participants admitted to imitation
being their primary motivation for participation. A high proportion of individuals
134
who inserted coins explained that they had only done so ‘because other people had
done it’. At Tarn Hows, an American couple claimed that they had seen another
group insert coins and had ‘wanted to know what all the fuss was about’, an answer
identical to one given by a man at Dovedale. One man, also at Tarn Hows, believed
that the participants are ‘just copying, adding to it...I don’t think there’s any deeper
reason than that’, a sentiment shared by many other participants, while another man
termed this process of imitation ‘the queue mentality’. He explained that if ‘you see
enough people doing something then you join in, and you don’t really ask why’.
It may be argued that every custom requires an instigator; that there must have been
one person with a ‘threshold’ of 0 who decided to insert the first coin into the first
coin-tree. At every coin-tree site, in fact, there must have been one person or group
who decided to insert a coin into a tree when nobody else had. The questions of what
motivated their desire to instigate this practice, and why they chose that particular
tree at that particular site, cannot be answered without speaking with the instigators
themselves. However, even these instigators were probably inspired to act through
imitation.
As explored in Chapter 4, no custom springs forth from a vacuum; it is unlikely that
there was an original instigator whose creation of the first coin-tree was an entirely
isolated or random incident. People probably originally began inserting coins in
order to adhere to – and imitate – the similar predecessor custom of inserting metal
objects into trees. Subsequently, once the custom of coin insertion had become
established, it may have spread from one site to another through imitation; a person
sees a coin-tree at one site and instigates the custom at another site, thus is the nature
of dissemination. In the case of the coin-tree, therefore, even creation proves to be
mimetic.
5 – A MATTER OF IMITATION
The human inclination to imitate does not only encourage individuals to participate
in the custom, but it influences how they participate. For example, the woman from
Staffordshire at Tarn Hows (see above) was reluctant to insert a 10 pence piece,
despite it being her only coin, because she believed the other coins inserted were all
135
copper and did not want to ‘ruin the pattern’. It was only once her husband pointed
out several other silver coins that she relented. Likewise, another woman chose to
insert a penny because she ‘didn’t want to spoil the pattern’, and at Dovedale and
Ingleton, several groups claimed that they had chosen to insert specifically copper
coins because the majority of other people had done so, as is evident in Appendix
3.1, which indicates the significantly high proportion of one and two pence pieces.
Imitation evidently influences which coins are selected for insertion; it also
influences where they are inserted. In many of the coin-trees a repetitive pattern of
coins is clearly visible; most often in longitudinal distributions, following the grain
of the wood (Figs. 19 & 57), but radial formations, wave- or ripple-like patterns,
diagonal, and annular arrangements are also evident (Figs. 20-23). This imitative
placement reveals the participant’s desire to ‘follow the pattern’; a desire to adhere
and contribute to the uniformity of a larger design.
Imitation also influences how these coins are inserted. As noted above, many
participants utilise rocks as tools of percussion when inserting coins into coin-trees,
but often because they have witnessed other people doing so. Even if there are other
conveniently sized rocks in close proximity to the coin-tree, they will specifically
use the rock they have observed other individuals using. They may even bend the
coin over during insertion because others have done so; at Dovedale, one man chose
to bend his coin because ‘other people had’, while at Cumbria, similar reasons were
given by several participants.
A custom is, evidently, contagious. All it requires is for one instigator with a low
threshold to insert one coin into one tree because they have witnessed the practice
elsewhere, and for enough individuals to observe and imitate the action, and the
diffusion of the coin-tree custom becomes self-sustaining. The human inclination to
imitate and model our behaviour on the actions of others is no doubt at the basis of
how and why this custom has spread, seemingly without the impetus of any driving
agent or organisation, across the British Isles. However, just as creation proves to be
mimetic, the opposite is also true: imitation can be creative (Ingold 2007).
Simulation, contrary to the word’s definition, forges something new; a depositor not
only imitates, they contribute. Every time a coin is added to a coin-tree, no matter
how imitatively done, it alters that coin-tree. Every contribution supplements and
136
changes, causing patterns to form; and every attempt to maintain a pattern causes it
to grow, spread, and transform. And this leads to the next section of this chapter: a
consideration of aesthetics.
6 – ART AND AESTHETICS
As briefly discussed above, most coin-trees have striking physical appearances, as
has been observed by a wide variety of participants at many of the coin-tree sites.
The coin-trees have been described as ‘pretty’, ‘beautiful’, ‘lovely’, ‘striking’, and
‘impressive’, and many people – whether they had inserted a coin or not –
photographed the coin-trees, either taking photographs of each other inserting a coin
or standing beside/sitting on the tree, or taking ‘artistic’ shots of the coin-trees alone,
sometimes climbing above the structures to photograph the trees at different angles
(Figs. 58-62).
Shuel (2010), a contributor to the Folklore Society newsletter, also noted this aspect
of the coin-tree custom. He manages an online specialist picture library called
Collections, and he observes that three of his contributors have sent photographs of
the Isle Maree coin-tree (2010: 7), illustrating an aesthetic appreciation of these
structures. Indeed, when a woman at Tarn Hows suggested taking a photograph, her
companion pointed out that a photograph would not ‘do it justice’, indicating that an
appreciation of the coin-trees is very deeply rooted (no pun intended) in their
physical qualities.
Not all coin-trees would be considered aesthetically striking. Those with only a small
number of coins embedded into their surfaces are not particularly arresting, primarily
because it is coin density and patterning which are generally considered attractive or
compelling. The decision of a depositor to instigate a new coin-tree – or add to a
peripheral coin-tree as opposed to the primary one – is probably due to a desire to
distinguish their deposit from others (as discussed in greater detail below). However,
it may also still be aesthetically motivated; prompted by the confidence that a
‘fledgling’ coin-tree will eventually become as patterned and densely coined as the
primary coin-tree, bound to gradually transform into a piece of ‘art’ – a notion which
137
may be all the more attractive when the depositor considers that they will have
personally instigated this piece of ‘art’.
As has already been observed, many members of the public also believe the coin-
trees to be official art installations, and one question posed to me by a woman at
Portmeirion credits the theory that coin-trees are sometimes perceived as products of
an artist’s work. As explained in Chapter 3, in order to catalogue the coins, I drape a
stringed net over the coin-trees, which forms a grid across the trees’ surfaces (Fig.
10). I then photograph each individual grid-square in order to catalogue the coins at a
later date. Having observed me lay the grid across a coin-tree, the woman asked if I
was ‘doing that for an art project?’
Regardless of the public’s view, however, the undeniable fact is that coin-trees are
not the products of any single artist’s work. However, this does not mean that they
cannot be considered ‘art’, the most basic definition of which, as outlined by the
Oxford English Dictionary, is ‘the expression or application of human creative skill
and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing
works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power’ (OED Online
2014). Nowhere in this definition does it state that ‘art’ is only ‘art’ if it is created by
a single and officially proclaimed ‘artist’. Instead, it claims that ‘art’ is the visual
product of human creativity, appreciated for its beauty; a definition which aptly
encapsulates the coin-tree.
However, the question of whether coin-trees constitute ‘art’ is beyond the scope (and
disciplinary interests) of this thesis. The point here is that the coin-trees are widely
appreciated for their aesthetic qualities, and this is a relevant point. Coote and
Shelton, in their work on Anthropology, Art and Aesthetics, note that the ‘‘artness’ of
the object sometimes seems to be of secondary importance after their political or
symbolic roles’ (1992: 3); in the analysis of an object – both in anthropology and
archaeology – its aesthetic qualities are sometimes side-lined in favour of its
practical or symbolic purposes. However, as Gell stresses, ‘the distinction we make
between ‘mere’ decoration and function is unwarranted; decoration is intrinsically
functional, or else its presence would be inexplicable’ (1998: 74). In other words, the
‘artiness’ of the coin-tree has a function – indeed, it appears to have several.
138
7 – CAPTIVATION
The appearance of the coin-trees plays a primary role in attracting participants in the
first place; their striking physicality draws people in, enticing them. Gell terms this
process ‘captivation’ (1998: 68ff), using the Trobriand Islanders’ utilisations of their
elaborately adorned canoe prow-boards as ‘psychological weapons’ as an example of
the ‘bewitching effect’ of art (1998: 71ff). From my observations, the coin-trees do
appear to have such a ‘bewitching effect’ on those who pass by, the majority of
whom stop in their tracks at first sight of the trees and approach to examine them,
making exclamations such as ‘how fabulous’ and ‘bizarre’.
What is it, however, that causes this captivation? Gell, asserting that the causes are
deeper than simple aesthetic pleasure, writes of the ‘technology of enchantment and
the enchantment of technology’ (1999: 167), maintaining that it is an observer’s
failure to understand the technical processes of an object’s manufacture – what he
terms ‘cognitive stickiness’ (1998: 85-86) – that reels the observer in. Simply put,
we are attracted to objects that we do not understand; it is ‘their becoming rather
than their being’ that entices and confuses us (Gell 1999: 166). Gell believes,
therefore, that the elaborately designed prow-boards of the Trobriand Islanders’
canoes are designed to be impressive not (entirely) for their aesthetics, but because
of the magical skill that is believed to have crafted them (1999: 166). Art historian
Baker is in agreement, claiming that observers of a piece of art are ‘lured by the
narratives of making’ (2005: 199).
The enigmatic object is therefore the captivating object. And what is more enigmatic
than a log or a stump that has been embedded with thousands of coins for reasons
beyond the observer’s comprehension? That the coin-trees are disorienting is
evidenced by the sheer numbers of passers-by who have physically halted at their
first sight of a coin-tree, and have then needed to approach it in order to ascertain if
what they think they are seeing coincides with what they are actually seeing.
Greenblatt (1991) dubs this type of reaction ‘wonder’; the near-paralysing ‘startle
reflex’ exhibited in reaction to that which ‘cannot be understood, that can scarcely be
believed’ (1991: 20). A large number of people have exhibited disbelief when first
encountering a coin-tree or when told by their companions that the trees are clustered
with coins; some, having only glanced at the coin-trees, have initially assumed that
139
the coins were fungi, rot, or fissures in the bark. Upon realising that the trees are
indeed embedded with coins, their next question is invariably ‘why?’
It is, therefore, the mystery of the coin-tree which seems to attract most people.
Indeed, if the same coin-tree was an official installation in an art gallery, having been
crafted by a single artist, accompanied by an information plaque detailing that
artist’s use of materials and the symbolism they had hoped to convey, would it evoke
the same reactions (Danesi 1999: 29)? Would it captivate its observers to the same
extent? Possibly not, for it is the enigmatic nature of the coin-tree which appears to
draw people in.
8 – AESTHETIC APPRECIATION
The aesthetic qualities of coin-trees, however, do more than reel their observers in;
they constitute a large factor in people’s appreciation of them. Colonel Edington,
who visited the Isle Maree coin-tree in 1927, observed that the visual effect of the
clustered coins made the tree appear to be ‘covered with metallic scales. The scaly
covering forms armour something like what is depicted on a dragon’ (cited in
McPherson 1929: 75). Over eighty years later, a woman used the same analogy to
describe the primary coin-tree at Ingleton to her young daughter: ‘it’s scaly, like a
dragon’. Similarly, a teenage girl at Dovedale compared the coin-tree to a crocodile,
observing the scale-like appearance of the coins; at Bolton Abbey a young girl
compared the texture to that of a fish; and a boy at Snowdon described the coin-tree
as a ‘cactus’. One man, also in Dovedale, observed that the lustrous metal of the
coins contrasted against the rough surface of the trees created a ‘nice effect’, making
the structure ‘nice to look at’, while a woman at Tarn Hows expressed an almost
identical opinion, asserting that ‘it’s quite effective having the metal of the coins
against the wood of the tree. Quite a stunning contrast’.
Many other participants, likewise, commented on the colours of the coins, two
different groups at Portmeirion, for example, excitedly pointing out the ‘shiny gold
coin’ (a Polish grosz) inserted into one of the stumps. Indeed, certain coins do appear
to have been inserted for their colours, as opposed to their denominations. One
family at Grizedale, one at Snowdon, and a young girl at Becky Falls, for example,
140
chose to insert silver coins because of their lustre, just as two other participants
specifically chose ‘shiny’ copper coins to insert.
This preoccupation with colour and lustre is not atypical (Clark 1986; Creighton
2000) – and it is certainly not insignificant. Young believes that ‘colour is a crucial
but little analysed part of understanding how material things can constitute social
relations’, commenting on how colours can animate objects by evoking space,
energy, and light (2006: 173). Jones and MacGregor similarly assert that colours
play a key role in an object’s ability to fascinate and, to use Gell’s (2002) term,
captivate us. They believe that there are two primary aspects of colour which cause
neurophysiological effects: firstly, ‘the material qualities of the coloured object, its
relative degree of sparkle, brilliance or shininess’, and secondly, the ‘effect of colour
on patterning’, made all the more striking if bright colours are juxtaposed against
dull ones (2002: 14). Both of these effective aspects of colour are present in the coin-
trees; the copper colour of the coins, for example, has a long history of being
considered aesthetically pleasing (Keates 2002: 111), and the contrast of the
luminous metal against the dull bark of the wood creates an even greater dazzling
effect, this juxtaposition playing a large role in Gell’s ‘technology of enchantment’.
Jones and MacGregor, however, point out that colour is a temporal component of the
environment, influenced by the level of sunlight, the time of day, and the season
(2002: 10; see also Tilley 2004). This temporality is highly evident in coin-trees,
which are much more striking (and hence much more captivating) in the sunlight,
with the light reflecting from the coins, making the contrast between the brilliant
shine of the metal and the dull surface of the tree much more pronounced (Fig. 63),
producing what Saunders (1999) terms the ‘aesthetics of brilliance’. In damp
weather, on the other hand, the colours of the coins are dulled and the bark of the
tree is made slippery and shiny, causing the contrast between the two materials to
become much more subdued. The coins are far less distinguishable from the surface
of the trees, and the coin-trees become far less noticeable (Fig. 64).
The placements of the coins, which – as noted above – often appear to follow
geometric patterns (Figs. 19-23, 57), also contribute to people’s aesthetic
appreciation. Gell writes that ‘[p]atterns by their multiplicity and the difficulty we
have in grasping their mathematical or geometrical basis by mere visual inspection’
141
causes what he terms ‘unfinished business’ (1998: 80), slowing perception down so
that the observer can never fully grasp the observed. Upon seeing a coin-tree for the
first time, many people are awed by the sheer volume of coins which have been
moulded into vast, repetitive patterns.
It is this awe and this striking physicality which people seem to remember most
clearly after they have engaged with a coin-tree. For example, in June 2012 I
attended a wedding and was seated next to a man who asked me about my
occupation. When I described the topic of my thesis to him, he broke into a smile
and withdrew his mobile telephone, before proceeding to show me numerous
photographs he had taken of the coin-trees at Portmeirion, several months before. He
knew nothing of the custom or its history, but he could clearly recall how he had felt
upon first seeing the coin-tree, describing them as ‘amazing’. He asked me about the
patterning of coins in other coin-trees and queried whether they were all so
‘symmetrical’, indicating that in the case of this individual, at least, it is the
appearance of the coin-trees that dominates the memory of them.
The aesthetics of the coin-trees, in conclusion, play three primary roles in people’s
engagements with them: firstly, they attract; secondly, they influence people’s
experiences of them at the time of participation; and thirdly, they dominate people’s
memories of them after participation. This key role played by physical appearance
reveals that coin-trees are not simply passive objects which people react to; they are
active subjects which, through the power of their aesthetic qualities, have the agency
to draw people in, to captivate them, and to create vivid and lasting images in
people’s memories.
9 – INTERACTIVITY
If coin-trees are so greatly appreciated for their aesthetic qualities, does it follow that
they are awarded the same levels of protection as the paintings and sculptures that sit
in art galleries across the world? It would appear not, for with the exception of the
Ardmaddy coin-tree (Appendices 2.9 & 5), protected behind a fence to deter cattle
(Fig. 9), every other coin-tree in the British Isles has been left unprotected, from both
nature and the sites’ visitors, as discussed in much greater detail in Chapter 7. With
142
no measures being taken to either discourage or encourage the custom of the coin-
tree, it is interesting to observe how the public respond to these structures. With no
fences or grim-faced security guards to deter people from approaching the trees,
visitors tend to engage with coin-trees in a very different manner than they would a
piece of art in a gallery, where observers primarily do what their title suggests: they
observe. That is, after all, the activity which art galleries and museums are primarily
intended to foster.
Art historian Candlin (2008; 2010) notes how museums and galleries are
ocularcentric; they are ‘pre-eminently visual spaces’ (2010: 2). Likewise, Classen
and Howes write that in a museum environment, ‘objects are colonized by the gaze’
(2006: 200), while Feldman comments on the ‘visual hegemony that dominates
museum discourse’ (2006: 246). Museums and art galleries, however, do not simply
foster visual experience; they actively discourage tactile engagement. Whilst some
practices have been implemented to offer tactic engagement, such as tactile replicas
(Spece and Gallace 2008), it is usually with objects of lesser quality or ‘value’
(Candlin 2008: 18), and as Chatterjee notes, ‘is often treated as a special activity
rather than a right’ (2008: 2). Generally, museums and galleries stymie and
stigmatise physical contact, keeping the more ‘valuable’ objects behind glass cases
and beyond reach (Candlin 2010), marshalling people’s experiences to the point
where sight is the only sense associated with gallery/museum environments.
Coin-trees, however, are not in gallery/museum environments, and evidently people
are not inclined to adhere to the same etiquette. They perceive the coin-tree as a
structure not to be simply looked at but to be interacted with, and it is this interactive
nature that appears to appeal to many people; the fact that the public can approach,
touch, and contribute to – rather than simply observe – what is essentially a piece of
communal art. Candlin believes that, in order to understand an object, attention must
be paid to how people physically engage with it: what they touch and how they touch
(2010: 190). For the coin-tree, it appears that very little is off-limits.
People view these structures as something to sit on – indeed, the coin-trees at Brock
Bottom (Appendix 2.13) and Corfe Castle (Appendix 2.16) were originally intended
as benches (pers. comm. Greg Robinson, Countryside Ranger, 06/03/2012; Phil
Stuckey, Area Ranger, 16/04/2012), although, as one teenage boy at Dovedale
143
remarked, coin-trees do not make particularly comfortable seats. People climb on
these structures in order to photograph them at different angles. In Ardboe, Northern
Ireland (Appendix 2.8), local resident Pat Grimes recalled how he and his friends
would climb the coin-tree as children (pers. comm. 07/04/2012). At Corfe Castle, a
young child walked along the coin-tree (Fig. 65). At Tarn Hows, a teenage boy
scrambled beneath the coin-tree, just to see if he could fit. At Ingleton, the primary
coin-tree was climbed on by several children (Figs. 66-67) – one boy even claiming
that he could not get down – and two different groups averred that it was ‘lucky’ to
walk under the archway formed by the tree. At Dovedale, a man used the coin-trees
to scrape the mud from his hiking boots, and at Snowdon, one of the coin-tree posts
is often employed as a helpful support-structure, with many walkers gripping it for
balance as they ascend or descend the rocky steps (Fig. 68) – whilst for a dog, the
coin-tree constituted a convenient post to empty its bladder against.
Simple touching, however, appears to be the prominent mode of physical interaction
with the coin-trees. One woman at Tarn Hows commented on how the greatest
appeal of the coin-tree is the freedom to just ‘go up to it, touch it, feel it. It makes it
fun, interactive’, whilst another person asserted that the ‘best thing about these trees
is that the kids can just come up to them, touch them.’ Indeed, even people who did
not insert a coin still stopped at the trees to touch them, often running their hands
along the edges of the coins and commenting on how ‘weird’ it felt. A mother and
daughter at Dovedale, for instance, seemed to find great pleasure in trailing their
fingers over the surface of the primary coin-tree, feeling the contrast of the smooth,
cold bumps of the clustered coins against the warm, grainy texture of the tree. Other
parents at Ingleton, Malham, and Tarr Steps also encouraged their children to ‘feel
the coins’.
Why do these people so often employ haptic perception in their engagements with
coin-trees? Psychologist Field would claim that it is a symptom of ‘touch-hunger’, a
term she coined in her work on our society’s prevailing ‘look but don’t touch’
attitude (2001). Since the late 20th
century, museums and art galleries have attempted
to rectify this attitude by introducing tactual education in their exhibitions and
events, hoping to foster what Candlin has termed ‘intimate engagement’ with objects
(2010: 141). Touch exhibitions, such as Nicholas Bourriaud’s Touch: Relational Art
from the 1990s to Now, a 2002 exhibition at the San Francisco Art Institute, have
144
provided haptic access to the public (Candlin 2010: 152-186), and have gone some
way in highlighting the benign and, as Candlin termed it, ‘reparative’ nature of touch
(2010: 7). Likewise, the Touch Me exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum in
2005 and the Tactical Explorations exhibition in the Northlight Gallery,
Huddersfield in 2006 (Onol 2008) were designed to emphasise the vital importance
of touch in our perceptions of objects. The co-curator of the Touch Me exhibition,
Hugh Aldersey-Williams, claims that we live in a ‘touch-starved society’ (2005: 4),
and he wished to prove that ‘[h]ow things feel is critical to our response to them’
(2005: 4).
That we do indeed live in a ‘touch-starved society’ is a concept affirmed by the
events following Robert Morris’ 1971 exhibition at the Tate Gallery. Morris created
numerous exhibits in which the design was for visitors to interact with the structures
on display; to touch, climb, and balance on them. After a mere five days the
exhibition was closed – not because of a lack of popularity, but for the opposite
reason. It had become too popular. Visitors engaged with the exhibits so exuberantly
that the structures suffered from excessive wear and tear, and several of the visitors
were injured through their overly-enthusiastic physical interaction (Candlin 2010:
167ff).
Evidently, when given an inch people will take a mile, and if this example reveals
one aspect of human psychology, it is that society’s stigma of touch has caused
people to want to touch all the more – and rightly so. Barnard and Brazelton
maintain that touch is the ‘foundation of experience’, playing a key role in learning
and development (1990), while Critchley (2008) and McGlone (2008) describe it as
evocatively linked with emotion, and Weber stresses how vital it is to
communication, describing tactile engagement as ‘integrative and synthesizing’
(1990: 14). From infancy, humans use touch to gain information about their
environments (Tuan 1977; Warren 1982: 84); through touch we can learn about an
object’s material qualities: weight, texture, temperature, density, strength, and
stability (Lederman 1982: 131). Touching provides us with a much more intimate
knowledge of an object (Classen 2005: 277), subsequently ‘unlocking’ that object
(Romanek and Lynch 2008: 277), and evidently this is what the participants of the
coin-tree custom crave.
145
10 – ‘TAGGING’ TREES
The interactive nature of the coin-trees extends beyond touching, sitting on, and
climbing over; at the centre of this custom seems to be a sense of collective effort. A
person who stumbles upon a coin-tree can be more than an observer; they can be a
contributor. They do not simply look at the coin-tree; they add to it. Indeed, it seems
to be the sense of contribution that motivates participation; people are attracted to the
idea that they are contributing something of their own – their coins – to a communal
piece.
At Aira Force, for instance, one woman stated that inserting a coin is ‘leaving
something of yourself for others to see’, whilst three others claimed they had
participated because they had wanted to ‘add to’ this ‘pretty’ and ‘interesting’
monument. Another woman likened the custom to graffiti – ‘only artistic graffiti’ –
while at Portmeirion, one man claimed that inserting a coin into a coin-tree is ‘a nice
way of saying ‘I’ve been here’. Like graffiti, carving your name into a tree’. These
customs, he maintained, ‘are about leaving your mark’, an expression also used by
participants at Ingleton, Tarr Steps, and St. Nectan’s Glen, where one woman
declared that ‘you can’t come to a place like this and not leave your mark’.
It appears that the psychology behind graffiti – that innate need to proclaim ‘I was
here’ – is also at the basis of the coin-tree custom. As Campbell writes, ‘human
beings, as a collective species, seem to have a desire to embellish objects,
themselves, and the environment’ (2001: 117). People wish to collectively adorn
public places with items and images that were not originally designed to be there –
from coins in a tree to spray-painted images on a wall – in order to create a
communal (and slightly defiant) public monument. There are examples of this from
across the world and throughout history (see Reisner 1971).
The Berlin Wall is a particularly illustrative example of collective embellishment
motivated by imitation. This 4.5 metre-high and 166 kilometre-long wall was
swathed in graffiti, the product of thousands of people making their contributions,
adding their pattern or image to the collective whole. But the ‘artists’ were not just
the hooded youths we stereotypically associate with graffiti; everybody was
contributing, and as Waldenburg observes:
146
By 1987 the Wall was full…Everyone had something to say to everyone now:
the early pensioner, the late migrant, the neighbourhood kids, the anonymous
alcoholic and the famous artist…huge numbers allowed themselves to be jerked
out of their role as passive recipients to become active participants (1990: 14)
These passive recipients became active participants through imitation, just as the
participants of the coin-tree custom make the transition. They observe others
contribute to a collective embellishment and they follow suit, and as with coin-trees,
graffiti evinces the dynamic nature of imitative action. Curtis’ online project,
‘Graffiti Archaeology’ (2005), for example, presents graffiti as an animative and
protean form of cumulative practice. By creating timelapse collages of photographs
of graffiti-embellished walls over a number of years, Curtis demonstrates that such
pieces of human expression are not simply added to, but are constantly changing,
with graffiti artists/writers competing, collaborating, and submerging each other’s
work, creating something new each time.
Today there are similarly imitative yet dynamic collective embellishments in cities
such as Paris, Rome, Budapest, Moscow, St. Petersburg, and New York, in the form
of love-lock accumulations (Fig. 69-72). In a largely 21st-century practice, couples
write their names or initials onto padlocks and then attach them to structures – most
often bridges, such as the Ponte Milvio (Fisher 2007) or the Brooklyn Bridge (Miller
2011). They then throw the keys into the river below to symbolise their commitment
to each other. In Moscow, metal tree-like structures have been erected specifically
for this purpose on Luzhkov Bridge, whilst on the Pont des Arts in Paris, the
accumulation of love-locks reached such quantities that one of the bridge’s railings
collapsed under their weight in June 2014 (Willsher 2014).
This form of collective embellishment links in with the concept of imitation
discussed above. In an article in CBS News, one family from Canada admitted that
when they saw people chain padlocks to the Brooklyn Bridge, they ‘just sort of
joined the pack, so to speak. If there’s any semblance to it, it’s kind of lost to us’
(Miller 2011). As with the coin-trees, the majority of people appear to participate
simply because others have done so. As Niccolò Machiavelli wrote in 1532: ‘Men
nearly always follow the tracks made by others and proceed in their affairs by
imitation’ (1532: 49); this appears to be as true today as it was in the 16th
century.
147
It is unsurprising that trees should be similarly utilised for graffiti. Names and
initials have been carved into many of the trees on Isle Maree (Fig. 73), a custom
which has survived since at least the mid-1800s, when Mitchell described the tree
surrounding the sacred well as ‘covered with initials. A rude M, with an anchor
below it, tells of the seaman’s noted credulity and superstitious character. Two sets
of initials, with a date between, and below a heart pierced by an arrow, probably
record the visit of a love-sick couple’ (1863: 253).
At Bolton Abbey and Claife Station there are prominent examples of trees being
utilised in this way (Figs. 74-75), and at Aira Force, Dovedale, Brock Bottom, Fairy
Glen, Malham, Ingleton, High Force, Corfe Castle, Becky Falls, St. Nectan’s Glen,
and Snowdon there are trees/posts which are adorned with both graffiti and coins
(Figs. 76-80). The granite cliffs at High Force were also covered in graffiti (Fig. 81),
and at St. Nectan’s Glen hundreds of pieces of slate, balanced on the cliff-face
behind the primary coin-tree, have been engraved with names, initials, and messages
(Figs. 82-83). I witnessed a slightly different tradition at Hardcastle Crags; wads of
clay had been fixed to the bark of a tree and faces carved into them – a slightly more
creative method of saying ‘I was here’ (Fig. 84).
To an extent, these people are participating for the sake of the larger work; their
additions constitute only very small portions of the greater picture. Their
contributions are anonymous and merely one of many. As Macrow described Queen
Victoria’s contribution to the coin-tree on Isle Maree: ‘It is now without doubt as
tarnished and bent as the rest – it may even be one of those which have fallen on to
the ground beneath. So Time, the great leveller, treats alike the gifts of princes and
paupers’ (1953: 89). Queen Victoria’s coin is indistinguishable from the rest;
conducting fieldwork at the site, for example, there is no method I could employ to
ascertain which of the coins she inserted.
In their collective anonymity, the coins – in the case of Macrow’s description – have
come to represent equality. Indeed, economist Wolman asserts that ‘many people see
cash’s anonymity as an almost sacred virtue’ (2012: 7). It is the very nature of coins
that they cannot be traced to their previous owners; they are alienable,
indistinguishable, thus constituting the archetypal anonymous deposit. This is,
however, only one way of viewing the coin as a deposit.
148
11 – INDIVIDUATION
Returning to the analogy of the Berlin Wall, it is true that each individual addition is,
in the strictest sense of the term, anonymous – unless, of course, the ‘artist’ has
signed their full name beneath their contribution. However, graffiti actually has the
opposite purpose, which Stewart has termed ‘a matter of individuation’ (1988: 165),
and what Abel and Buckley describe as ‘announcements of one’s identity, a kind of
testimonial to one’s existence in a world of anonymity’ (1977: 16). These
contributions to collective embellishments, therefore, are not designed to uphold
anonymity, but to defy it.
When a teenager spray-paints their ‘tag’ – their signature, pseudonym, or monogram
– on public property, it is what Waldenburg dubs a ‘form of basic self-expression’
(1990: 12). That tag represents their identity. Likewise, when a person scratches their
initials into a library desk or the wall of a public toilet, it is simply a manifestation of
what Reisner calls the ‘“I was here” syndrome’ (1971: 70); they want to leave their
individual mark, their handprint. In such a way can material things act as metaphors
for, and constructions of, ‘the self’, as Brück observes (2004, 2006).
As discussed above, this desire to leave one’s mark is a key factor in people’s
participation in the coin-tree custom. The participants do not view their coins as
anonymous deposits but as personal objects – they are contributing their coin
amongst other people’s coins. My observations, for example, reveal many of the
participants to be highly concerned with remembering which coin is theirs. At
Portmeirion, a couple from London hoped that they could return in 10 years and still
be able to identify their coins, whilst at Tarr Steps, a father told his young daughter
to ‘remember which ones are yours for next time’. At Dovedale, a couple from
Birmingham, who had visited the site the year before, hoped to identify the coins
they had inserted previously; they were unsuccessful, despite having deliberately
bent their coins in order to distinguish them.
Other participants at Dovedale tried similar tactics. Two young boys bent their coins
over during insertion in order to recognise them on their return journey along the
path (in this case, they were successful). A young girl from Kidsgrove inserted a 10
pence piece specifically so that it would be distinguishable from the many copper
coins; another girl from Bakewell chose to insert a shiny 20 pence piece for the same
149
reason. At Malham, a woman was able to identify the coin she had inserted on her
visit in 2011: a 20 pence piece.
Choosing to insert silver or particularly lustrous copper coins is a clear defiance of
the anonymity Macrow discussed with regards to the Isle Maree coin-tree (1953: 89).
These people intend for their deposits to be distinguished from the majority – as one
woman on Snowdon admitted, she had inserted a five pence piece because she had
wanted to be ‘different’ – and as Jones and MacGregor observe, ‘[c]olour is
powerful in the construction of difference’ (2002: 12). Kemmers and Myrberg,
looking broadly at the archaeology of coins, note the importance of colour in
people’s perceptions and uses of coins (2011: 95-96), whilst Myrberg focuses
specifically on colour in her work on 13th
-century coins from Gotland in the Baltic
Sea (2010b).
The royal colours of purple and red offer another example of colour having been
widely used to distinguish one from many, and may have been the reason behind the
deposition of a two pence piece at Fairy Glen which had been painted red, and was
clearly distinguishable from the surrounding coins (Fig. 85). Red obviously
possesses various strong metaphorical associations (Myrberg 2010b: 98), and while
it is impossible to deduce the specific reason this colour was chosen (as a visual
metaphor, a favourite colour, or simply lack of other options), it is reasonable to
assume that the choice to alter the colour of the coin was a method of demarcation.
Likewise, one lustrous copper coin will be easily demarcated from hundreds, even
thousands, of dull coins – although as the coin will tarnish over time, this is only a
temporary method of distinction.
The choice to insert higher denominations, such as one and two pound coins (25 £1
coins have been recorded and one £2 coin), may simply have been the result of the
depositor having no other options. However, it is also possible that the participants
wished to differentiate their deposits – and thereby themselves – from the masses. As
one participant at Aira Force exclaimed upon noticing a £1 coin inserted into the
tree, ‘someone’s rich!’
Such examples of conspicuous consumption are certainly not without precedent in
ritual contexts. Bradley considers the role of prestige – ‘the common currency of
non-market societies’ (1990: 137) – in ritual deposits of the Late Bronze Age, when
150
lavish offerings presented to deities were intended to lend themselves to ‘the quest
for personal prestige’ (1990: 188). Likewise, examining ritual deposits in Archaic
Greece, Day observes that ‘competitive self-presentation or social display on the
dedicator’s part played a major role in dedicatory practice’ (2010: 182); there was a
social role to votive offerings just as there was a religious role, and dedicants aimed
to project their status by dedicating particular objects. However, it is not only the
elite who aim to distinguish their deposits from others’; smaller, more modest
objects could equally be personalised.
At the watery deposition site of Fiskerton in Lincolnshire, for example, 152 objects
dating from the Iron Age to the later Roman period (plus three objects probably from
the medieval period) have been discovered, ranging from military items, such as
swords and spearheads; workers’ tools, such as hammerheads; and items which
possess what Parker Pearson and Field have described as ‘feminine associations’
(2003: 176), such as a jet ring, amber beads, and a copper-alloy bracelet. A person’s
gender and occupation, therefore, could be reflected in their deposit. The fact that
many of these objects also appear to have been used before their deposition,
exhibiting signs of wear (Parker Pearson and Field 2003: 176), indicate that they
bear traces of their users/depositors – and are hence all the more personalised.
Likewise at Bath, objects ranging from a tin mask and bronze pin containing a pearl,
to a barbed bronze fish-hook have been discovered in the Temple of Sulis Minerva,
together with 34 engraved gemstones, probably of Flavian or Trajanic date (1st-2
nd
centuries AD). These gemstones bear a vast array of impressions: Jupiter, Cupid, a
circus scene, a charioteer, a lion, a goat, horses, cattle, an eagle, a trophy of arms, to
name only some. Although Cunliffe believes that in this particular case the 34
gemstones were probably deposited by a single person, these Roman intaglios surely
offered much opportunity for the personalisation of deposits; a soldier could
commission a gemstone engraved with a trophy of arms; a farmer, a horse, cattle,
and ears of corn (Cunliffe 1969: 76-79). In this case, even mass produced items can
be individuated.
However, Snodgrass (2006) comments on the difficulties facing a dedicant who is
offering an object identical to the items deposited by many others. Certain
dedications, he writes, are:
151
too numerous and too cheap to be seen as motivated by competitive
ostentation. To dedicate one’s own bronze dress-pin can hardly be classed
as conspicuous consumption, especially when one is adding it to a
collection of which the archaeological residue, over two and a half
millennia later, itself may run to thousands (2006: 265-266)
The same applies to coins in a coin-tree. When adding one coin to thousands (48,000
in the case of Ingleton (Appendix 2.25); 26,000 at Aira Force (Appendix 2.7)) – an
action which is performed more often than not through imitation – surely a sense of
homogeneity and anonymity prevails. And yet, just as people defy the uniformity of
their offices, desk-spaces, and school-lockers with personalised adornments, people
are determined to defy homogeneity by utilising objects as ‘emphatic assertions of
personality’ (Harris 1991: 203).
Accumulations provide the ideal opportunity for this construction of identity
(Gamble 2007: 116). For example, the practice of affixing padlocks to love-lock
bridges and structures (as discussed above) may not seem to offer the ideal
opportunity for making assertions of individuation and personality, for most
padlocks are relatively similar. And yet the depositors have discovered creative
methods of not only distinguishing their padlocks from the rest, but of utilising the
padlocks as metaphors of their identities, a process particularly notable on the love-
lock ‘trees’ at Luzhkov Bridge, Moscow. Not only are the padlocks here engraved
with the depositors’ initials, but many have been elaborately decorated; they have
been painted, adorned with patterns, embellished with stickers and textiles (Fig. 72).
Some have been wrapped in knitted ‘jackets’, suggesting a high level of planning,
while in other cases a clear display of conspicuous consumption is evident in the
form of impractically large padlocks, obviously having been commissioned for this
specific purpose; a boast that the depositors’ love for each other is ‘bigger and better’
than that of other depositors?
Likewise, if the depositor of a coin in a coin-tree wishes to distinguish their coin
from others’, as a testimony to their individual personality rather than to anonymity,
then they must find ways to differentiate it. The selection of particularly lustrous
coins is one obvious method, as is the decision to insert coins of higher
denominations – an obvious (albeit possibly subconscious) claim of status. The
insertion of coins into hard-to-reach places, such as particularly high on a living tree,
is another method; the family of three who clambered up the steep bank to the root-
152
end of the primary coin-tree at Tarn Hows (see above) specifically wanted their coin
to be inserted in a less ‘heavily populated’ area of the tree. Depositing coins into a
new, or less-densely coined, tree is possibly another example of a participant wishing
to distinguish their deposit from others.
Depositing a different kind of object altogether is, however, the most obvious
method of differentiation (Figs. 86-89): screws (Aira Force, Bolton Abbey,
Grizedale, Ingleton, Isle Maree, Malham), nails (Aira Force, Bolton Abbey,
Dovedale, Grizedale, Hardcastle Crags, Ingleton, Isle Maree, Malham, Snowdon), a
drawing pin (Stock Ghyll), hair clips (Isle Maree), an earring (Isle Maree), a
necklace (Isle Maree), a badge (Isle Maree), a metal token (Aira Force), semi-
precious stones (St. Nectan’s Glen), ribbons (St. Nectan’s Glen), a beer-bottle cap
(St. Nectan’s Glen), and metal plaques engraved with names (Aira Force). Were
these objects deposited to declare the depositor’s individuality?
This preoccupation with personalising a deposit may also explain why initials
accompany several coin offerings (Fig. 90). For example, a two pence piece inserted
into a coin-tree at Dovedale has the letter ‘R’ written on it in silver pen; was the
coin’s depositor (whose name presumably begins with ‘R’) hoping to identify their
coin on their return journey? Likewise, on the coin-tree in Brock Bottom arrows
have been scratched into the tree (one of which is labelled ‘E’), pointing towards
certain coins; at Snowdon, ‘MB’ may have been scratched onto a coin-tree for a
similar reason. An identical method is evident at High Force, while at Ingleton, the
initials ‘R & L’ have been imprinted onto a two pence piece, and 36 coins have been
distributed in a pattern to form the initials ‘A.B’ (or ‘B.B’), encased within a
rectangle of coins.
This method of personalising coins through the use of graffiti is not unique to coin-
trees, nor to modern-day Britain. The practice is evident in 12th
-century AD Corinth,
where a hoard of 30 gold nomismata of Manuel I (1143-1180) was uncovered in the
1938 excavations of Old Corinth, buried in the fill of a road. 14 of these coins had
graffiti scratched onto their surfaces, including letters such as ‘K’, ‘T’, and ‘H’ (Fig.
91), and Harris suggests that this graffiti may have been used as ‘identification
marks’ (1939: 273). By physically associating the coin with the person, the coin
153
essentially becomes that person’s ‘tag’, their expression of identity and
individuation.
Since antiquity, ritual deposits have been ideally associated with the depositor’s
identity, such as model limbs and personal items, from clothes and jewellery to locks
of hair (Dowden 2000: 176). These objects are not designed to simply represent the
depositor; they are designed to be the depositor. As Tilley writes, the ‘thing is the
person and the person is the thing’ (2006: 63), and this merging of objects with
people extends to more than ritual deposits. Gell terms this merge the ‘objectification
of personhood’ (1998: 74), which subsequently leads to ‘distributed personhood’,
whereby the deposit becomes a detached part – a ‘spin-off’ – of the depositor (1998:
104). This process is clearly evident throughout history. Chapman, for example,
writing of prehistoric south-eastern Europe, notes how ‘the process of objectification
is the key element of artefact creation – not so much production as reproduction’
(2000: 132). The artefact is personalised through its assimilation with its creator.
Votive objects have been similarly personalised throughout history. Dedicatory
statues presented at temples, in ancient Greece and the Near East for example, were
often designed to represent the dedicant – and subsequently ‘stand in’ for them, as a
simulacrum or substitute (Keesling 2003). Stieber believes that the majority of
ancient votive images were ‘intended as surrogates for their dedicants’ (2004: 39),
and Napier asserts that this personalisation of votive objects was believed to greatly
aid in the establishment of relationships between dedicants and the object’s
otherworldly recipients (1986: 46). A similar mentality may be evident in the
plethora of votive portraits dedicated to the shrines of saints across 14th
- and 15th
-
century Europe, such as the numerous silver and gold effigies commissioned by
Charles the Bold (1433-1477), each presented to shrines in fulfilment of a vow
(Velden 2000). Velden opines that votive portraits were intended to evoke ‘the
presence of an individual rather than testifying in anonymity’ (2000: 239).
12 – MONEY AND METONYMY
According to this concept of the ‘objectification of personhood’, when a person
inserts a coin into a coin-tree, they are leaving a part of themselves behind. Coins,
154
however, are not particularly personal items. We do not craft our own coins and,
although many of the coin-tree deposits have been actively personalised, the vast
majority of them have not. When viewed en-mass, a coin-tree would still be
considered a largely anonymous accumulation; coins are after all, as outlined above,
often valued for their anonymity (Wolman 2012: 7). However, they are not only
viewed as anonymous objects, but as transient.
Whatever coins we have in our purses and pockets are only temporary residents
there. The owner of a coin only represents a brief, inconsequential stage in the
biography of that coin and vice versa: the coin will no doubt pass in and out of the
owner’s possession swiftly and casually, and once it is out of that owner’s
possession, it will retain no link with them. They share only a nugatory and easily
severed relationship, one which will no doubt be repeated many more times in both
the person’s and the coin’s biographies. In this sense, the coin is an alienable object,
in that it can be easily divorced from its possessor, as opposed to an inalienable
object, which is metonymically linked with its producer/possessor (Weiner 1992;
Brück 2004: 313; Fowler 2004: 58).
However, as Thomas asserts, a thing ‘is not immutable’ (1991: 28); an object must
be analysed for what it has become – how it has been appropriated and
recontextualised – not simply for what it was made to be. Just as a person’s
biography can take an unpredicted turn, so too can an object’s. And in this case, it is
the coin’s biography which suddenly veers down an unfamiliar path. When a person,
standing before a coin-tree, takes a coin from their pocket or purse, that coin is an
alienable object. However, Fowler recognises that the divide between alienability
and inalienability can be crossed in certain circumstances, acknowledging that ‘all
things are potentially inalienable to some degree’ (2004: 59, emphasis in original),
and it is through performance that the coin inserted into the coin-tree transitions from
an alienable to an inalienable object.
Mitchell explores how performance can transform objects; ‘in and through
performance, objects of material culture become subjects’ (2006: 385). Therefore,
through the performance of the coin-tree custom, through the action of inserting the
coin into a coin-tree, the properties of the coin are altered. It has become the ‘index
of agency’, to use Gell’s term (1998: 13); it has been removed from the realm of
155
secular exchange and has been recreated as a ritual object – and as a personal object.
It is through this recreation that the depositor becomes inalienable from the deposit.
And although the depositor will likely walk away and never see this coin again, it is
their coin now, in a way that it never was before. Prior to their encounter with the
coin-tree, their possession of the coin was purely physical. After the encounter,
however, the tie between them has become metonymical; ironically, it is through
relinquishing the coin that they gain any significant possession of it.
13 – THE COIN AS MEMENTO; THE COIN AS SACRED?
The participants’ desires to return to the coin-tree site at a later date in order to see
their coin – as implicitly expressed by visitors at Dovedale, Portmeirion, Malham,
and Tarr Steps, and certainly implied at other coin-tree sites – is a nostalgic
sentiment, endowing the coin with the status of a memento. Physically, the coin is the
antithesis to the souvenir or keepsake; it is not taken or kept, but is deposited, left.
However, it is still an object which elicits the memory – indeed, constructs the
memory (Hodder 2012: 24) – of a place and an experience. Stewart (1993), writing of
the ‘souvenir’, describes the metonymical link between object and event/experience,
a link which certainly applies to the coin in a coin-tree, which acts as a snapshot of
the depositor’s engagement with that coin-tree; an object which is intended to evoke
a future memory of a past event.
In this sense, the coin as memento fits one of Gell’s most basic binary relations
between the artist (the depositor) and the index (the deposit): the index responding as
patient to the artist’s agency (1998: 33). ‘The index is,’ Gell writes, ‘in these
instances, a congealed ‘trace’ of the artist’s creative performance’ (1998: 33). An
object absorbs part of its creator, becoming a snapshot of their creative experience; a
‘congealed residue of performance and agency in object-form’ (Gell 1998: 68).
Likewise, the coin becomes a physical trace of the participant’s experience at the
coin-tree site.
The performance of the coin-tree custom, as discussed above, removes the coins
from a secular realm of monetary exchange – but where does it move them to?
Suddenly, not only are these coins personalised, inalienable objects, but they are
156
inviolable and, to an extent, sacred. Participants at Aira Force and St. Nectan’s Glen,
for example, described the inserted coins as ‘offerings’, whilst the woman from
Staffordshire at Tarn Hows explained why she believed people should not remove
coins from either coin-trees or fountains: ‘I think it’s cheeky. Things like this,
they’re almost sacrosanct.’ Indeed, there does appear to be a certain taboo
surrounding the removal of coins.
It is interesting to note that few people would feel any guilt over pocketing a coin
they find on the pavement, and yet at most coin-tree sites I have observed parents
chiding their children for trying to remove coins. A father at Tarr Steps admonished
his son for removing coins by telling him that he was ‘stealing people’s wishes’, and
four different groups have actually returned other people’s coins, which had fallen to
the floor, to their original slots. Several participants have made an effort to secure
their coins, ensuring that they would not easily fall/be pulled out, one woman
admitting that she had not ‘wanted somebody else to come along and take it.’
A man in Malham, not convinced that his coin was secure, used his pen-knife to
create a deeper slit and then hammered his coin in once more. When another man
asked me if I would remove the coins during my fieldwork in order to check their
years of mint, his wife seemed appalled by the notion, exclaiming ‘surely you
wouldn’t do that’ – to which I assured her I would not. And at Ingleton, seven coins
have actually been nailed to the tree (Fig. 92), demonstrating not only a desire to
prevent their removal, but also a greater level of intentionality, illustrating that not
all coins represent casual deposition.
There are certainly exceptions to this notion of the inviolability of these coins. One
man at Portmeirion appeared to have removed a five pence piece, but upon seeing
me quickly returned it. He claimed that it had fallen into his hand and was returning
it so as not to attract ‘bad luck’, but the wry comments of his partner indicate that he
was simply embarrassed to have been caught ‘red-handed’. At Hardcastle Crags, the
primary coin-tree was stolen in its entirety three years ago (pers. comm. Andrew
Marsh, National Trust Warden, 27/09/2011), and more recently, a coin-tree at High
Force, County Durham, was damaged by vandals, who proceeded to take all of the
coins (pers. comm. Steve Gillard, Visitor Attraction Manager, 14/07/2012), points
explored in greater detail in Chapter 7.
157
However, the majority of visitors appear to view the coins as ‘sacrosanct’, to the
extent that when one young man from China reached out to touch the coins, his
companion sharply admonished him, opining that he did not think it ‘would be
allowed’; his friend quickly withdrew his hand. The coins, therefore, have been
removed from the realm of the secular and the ‘everyday’, and are now perceived as
precious and inviolate. Through the performance of the coin-tree ‘ritual’, the coins
have transitioned from being alienable and profane objects, and have become
inalienable, almost sacred, deposits. This highlights the fluid, mutable nature of
value (Thompson 1979), which Mackenzie describes as ‘not inherent...but
multivalent and variously realised’ (1991: 21). It also highlights the importance of
considering the material biography of coins (Myrberg 2010a; Kemmer and Myrberg
2011), which, according to Hall, ‘frees us from understanding objects only in terms
of their original purpose and allows us to explore their contingent, performative
roles’ (2012: 74).
It was demonstrated in Chapter 4 that coins, particularly one penny and two pence
pieces, are no longer perceived as embodying much value. Monetarily they are worth
very little. However, once they are embedded into a coin-tree, their value is no
longer ascribed economically, but spiritually or metaphorically; they transition from
disposable loose change to inviolable ritual deposits. They are imbued with new
worth, demonstrating another process of transformation induced by the performance
of this custom.
14 – THE TREE AS INCIDENTAL
The same transition occurs with the tree itself, although to a lesser extent. A few
participants have exhibited a similar respect for the tree as the majority have for the
coins. Some people appear to have feared damaging the tree; at Tarn Hows, for
example, a mother advised her daughter to insert her coin into a pre-existing crack,
not wanting to damage the bark further, whilst another mother scolded her teenage
son for climbing on a coin-tree whilst posing for a photograph. In Portmeirion, a
couple from China described the tree as a ‘special place’, as did a woman at Fairy
Glen and several participants at St. Nectan’s Glen, while another man described it as
a ‘sacred tree’.
158
However, on the whole, the tree does not enjoy the same revered status as the coins it
is embedded with. While there is a taboo surrounding the removal or damage of the
coins, no such taboo appears to apply to the actual tree. As discussed above, people
interact very physically and freely with these structures, sitting on them, climbing on
them, scrambling under them, and so on. This suggests that the trees are not
generally perceived as sacred or inviolate structures.
The irrelevance of the tree itself is highlighted by the evident irrelevance of the trees’
species, a theory credited by the sheer variety of coin-tree species (numbering 11),
illustrated in Appendix 2.5.2 Species appears to have no bearing on the decision to
insert a coin into a particular tree. Only one participant has correctly identified the
species of a coin-tree – an ash tree at Dovedale – and even they were only hazarding
a guess based on the species of the surrounding trees. Many incorrect guesses have
been made, but all of the participants seemed to consider my question about species
irrelevant to the discussion, indicating that species is not a fundamental element of
this custom.
The condition of the tree appears to be slightly more relevant; a greater quantity of
logs and stumps were employed than living trees, constituting 40% and 32% of all
coin-trees respectively. However, the lower quantity of living coin-trees (17%) may
be due to practical rather than spiritual or metaphorical reasons. Fewer branches and
foliage, as well as their generally lower height, make the coins inserted into logs and
stumps more visible. Additionally, participants may be reluctant to insert their coins
into living trees, aware of the damage they may cause. It appears, therefore, that
people utilise whichever trees are most convenient (i.e. based on condition, size,
level of decomposition, visibility, and proximity to a well-traversed footpath). It is
unsurprising, therefore, that oak would be most popularly employed as a coin-tree,
for it is also the most common tree in the British Isles, with ash (another popular
species of coin-tree), coming a close second (Forestry Commission 2003: 35).
It appears, therefore, that convenience is the primary factor in the utilisation of any
given log or stump in this custom, rather than any symbolic significance. Perhaps the
trees are viewed simply as convenient and, in some cases, aesthetically pleasing
2 This is not a comprehensive list of every coin-tree species. In the majority of cases, only the living
or recently felled coin-trees were identifiable; subsequently there may be even greater variety
amongst species.
159
‘altars’ upon which people can securely deposit their coins (as explored in Chapter
4). This was, after all, the first function of the earliest known coin-tree; Pennant
writes of how, on Isle Maree, a ‘stump of a tree is shewn as an altar’ (1775: 330).
Trees make particularly appropriate ‘altars’ because, in many cases, they are
physically pliant – a coin can be inserted into its bark with relative ease – and they
provide a sense of permanence; once a person’s coin is inserted securely into the
bark, it gives the impression (accurate or not) that it will remain there.
The interviews revealed other elements of the coin-trees to be wholly incidental;
location, for example. Despite many coin-trees being within 500 metres of historical
sites and monuments (see maps of sites and monuments at each coin-tree site in
Appendix 2), when asked if they were aware of these sites, many participants
seemed to find the question irrelevant. Most said that they knew of no such sites, and
the few who did listed only tourist attractions from the much wider area, such as
Beatrix Potter’s and Wordsworth’s cottages in Cumbria; the town of Portmeirion; a
slate mine on the slopes of Snowdon; Corfe Castle; and Lydford Castle.
There are a few cases whereby historical or cultural sites are relevant to the location
of a coin-tree. At St. Nectan’s Glen, the supposed nearby Medieval chapel of St.
Nectan (see Chapter 6) was cited by two participants as the reason they considered
that specific site to be ‘special’, while in the Republic of Ireland, the coin-trees’
close proximities to the sites of holy wells (Fore and Clonenagh) and religious
structures (Gougane Barra) is certainly considered pertinent. However, in the vast
majority of cases, neither the tree itself nor its location are perceived as significant or
inherently sacred.
This factor enhances the transformative abilities of the custom. The coins are
perceived as inviolate and, to an extent, sacred, not because they are embedded in an
inherently ‘special’ tree or viewed in the context of a sacred site, but because the
depositors themselves have imbued the coins with spiritual or metaphorical
significance. The participants have forged something new; their imitative actions
have created a sacrosanctity that was not there before, illustrating the transformative
powers of ritual performance.
160
15 – CONCLUSION
By observing and interviewing participants of the coin-tree custom, a much greater
insight has been attained into how members of the public engage with these
structures, and subsequently how the ongoing process of their creation is maintained
with little or no impetus from a driving agent or organisation. Although every
participant’s encounter with this custom will be different to some degree, the themes
outlined in this chapter will colour many people’s experiences: an absence of prior
knowledge; an attraction to the coin-tree through ‘captivation’ or curiosity; the
impulse for physical interactivity with the structures; and the appreciation of
aesthetics.
Another notable aspect of people’s engagements with the coin-trees was an
inclination to imitate paired with the desire to individuate, two impulses proven to be
far from mutually exclusive. What has also been illustrated in this chapter is the
transformative power of ritual performance. The coin, an alienable, anonymous, and
disposable object, is constructed as both a metaphor of identity and as an inviolable
deposit through the simple act of inserting it into the bark of a tree. This construction
demonstrates that physical imitative action (inserting the coin) can create something
both personal and new. The accumulation of the coins viewed en-mass may imply
homogeneity, but each coin is different: it was inserted by a variety of people for a
variety of reasons. Every deposit represents a different depositor, who chose to
participate (and chose how to participate) for their own personal reasons, and this
malleability is the focus of the next chapter.
161
CHAPTER 6: THE MUTABILITY OF MEANING
It is a bitterly cold day in Dartmoor National Park, Devon, and light snow is falling
intermittently. However, it is Easter Sunday and so, despite the weather, Dartmoor is
relatively busy. Becky Falls Woodland Park is particularly popular, perhaps
because, as well as woodland trails and a scenic waterfall, the park also offers an
indoor theatre, a children’s craft centre, and a reptile house. Many groups are,
however, braving the circuitous woodland trail, along which Becky Falls’ cluster of
coin-trees is located.
The cluster is particularly conspicuous; coin-trees are situated either side of the
footpath and the primary coin-tree, a y-shaped log propped up against a boulder, is
highly visible, with a large volume of coins both inserted into the bark and
distributed loosely on top. Labelled ‘Money Trees’, the cluster is pinpointed on the
map distributed to visitors, and there is an interpretation panel – the supporting
The coin-trees and rag-trees of St. Nectan’s Glen, Cornwall (Photograph by author)
162
wooden post of which is also embedded with coins – standing directly in front of the
primary coin-tree. It states the following:
Nobody knows the exact origin of the Money Tree, but local legend has it
that many years ago, this path was the main route from the Moor to Bovey
Tracey. It is said that a huge serpent lived in the brook and ate the
occasional unsuspecting traveller. In order to ensure safe passage, the pixies
would apply an invisibility charm to any traveller, so long as they paid a
small toll by placing a coin in the tree. This ensures safe passage. However,
if you take a coin from the tree you will incur the wrath of the pixies. You
have been warned!
The primary coin-tree is difficult to miss, and when a family turns the corner of the
footpath they notice it instantly, stopping to read the interpretation panel. The mother
and father are in their forties, their two daughters aged between nine and twelve, and
they are from south Wales. They tell their daughters that the coins are ‘for the
pixies’. They are polite with me, answering a few brief questions – such as
confirming that they had never seen a coin-tree before – but the temperature seems to
be dropping and they are impatient to be on their way. When their daughters ask for
coins, they give them each a penny and then move on, leaving the girls to deposit
their coins alone.
The older girl immediately takes charge. ‘The tradition is,’ she explains to her sister,
‘that if you throw your penny and it lands on the tree then the pixies will give you a
wish’. The younger girl is eager to follow her sister’s instructions; standing on the
footpath she tosses her coin, but it lands on the ground between the two limbs of the
coin-tree. Her older sister takes aim and follows suit; her coin hits the tree but
ricochets off it, dropping to the ground also. The girls glance at each other,
hesitating, at which point their mother calls back to them. They give the coin-tree one
last dispirited glance before breaking into runs and disappearing down the footpath.
Five minutes pass and light snow begins to fall. Another family group approaches:
grandparents in their sixties and a granddaughter aged eight, from Wiltshire. They
notice the primary coin-tree instantly, but it quickly becomes clear that they had not
stumbled upon it by chance. ‘Is this the pixie tree?’ the granddaughter excitedly asks,
striding purposefully towards it. The grandmother explains to me that they had
visited Becky Falls four years before without their granddaughter, and had described
the coin-tree to her on their journey here today, promising that they would take her
to see it. The grandmother reads the interpretation panel aloud, elaborating a little
163
by claiming that it is ‘lucky’ to insert a coin. Her granddaughter subsequently asks
for one, specifically requesting a five or 10 pence piece because ‘pixies like shiny
things’. Her grandparents oblige, fishing out a five pence piece, but when she asks to
hammer it into the tree, it is clear that her grandparents, eager to keep moving, are
unwilling to spend time searching for a suitable tool of percussion. ‘Leave it on top,’
the grandfather suggests, already moving on along the footpath. He assures her that
people will not steal it; ‘the pixies will keep it safe’.
1 – INTRODUCTION
The earliest known reference to the custom of inserting coins into trees was in 1860,
when Campbell referred to coins ‘placed in chinks in rocks and trees at the edge of
the “Witches’ Well”’ in Islay (1860: 134). This practice has therefore survived a
period of at least 154 years, and physical participation in the custom has changed
little over this time. The participant selects a coin of relatively low denomination and
inserts it into the bark of a tree. Granted, methods of insertion vary, but the final
result remains the same: a tree adorned with coins.
However, as formulaic as folkloric structures and customs can be, they do not
necessarily indicate homogeneity of purpose, motivation, and ‘meaning’. Folklore is
not a fixed entity; it is malleable, mutable, and many scholars have focused on this
element of mutability, demonstrating how folktales and customs have been gradually
acclimatized to modern culture. Niles (1978), for example, reviews the contemporary
modifications undergone by traditional fairy-tales; McKelvie (1963) surveys
folkloric survivals in the West Riding of Yorkshire; and Dore (1958) explores how
traditional practices have persisted in the world’s largest metropolis: Tokyo.
Folklore, though, does not only change over time; it also varies widely in the present,
and the primary objective of this chapter is to consider the variegated contemporary
interpretations of the coin-tree custom. As Skorupski argues, ‘to explain a ritual is to
explain why it is performed’ (1976: 46-47); a folk-custom can only be contextualized
with an understanding of why the practitioners – the ‘folk’ themselves – participate
in it. However, too often assumptions are made concerning these reasons (Wuthnow
164
1989: 124), and the most misleading inference is that of homogeneity and fixed
‘meaning’.
In 1985, Honko posed the following questions:
Our concept of meaning is derived from a linguistic stereotype maintained
by dictionaries, according to which meaning is conceived of as verbal,
clear-cut, and stable. But is it so? What if meaning were something totally
different, namely, to a large extent non-verbal, amorphous, changing…and
of relatively short duration…? (1985: 38)
Honko presents ‘meaning’ as a mutable, transient, and varied aspect of folklore,
demonstrating that any endeavour to deduce a single meaning of a custom – the
meaning – is both misguided and misleading. When a custom is observed by multiple
participants, in numbers ranging from several to several million, how can one single
motivation be ascribed to every individual? Granted, physical actions can be widely
imitated; participation in folk customs tends to be uniform, formulaic, and ritualized.
However, humans are emotionally heterogeneous creatures, and thus the reasons
behind participation – and the ‘meanings’ ascribed to the custom – will be as diverse
as the participants themselves (Houlbrook 2014).
2 – APPLYING PURPOSE
A discussion of the contemporary folkloric purposes of the coin-tree may seem
overdue, but it has waited until now simply because any assigning of purpose occurs
surprisingly late in the chronology of a person’s engagement with a coin-tree.
Indeed, it perhaps would not occur at all if the participants were not prompted in
their interviews to consider what the purposes of the custom might be. Unless a
participant is with a child or a child themselves (an element explored below), then,
unprompted, they are not likely to discuss what they believe the purpose of the coin-
trees to be. Indeed, when asked why they had participated in the custom, many
appeared nonplussed; despite having inserted coins into a coin-tree mere seconds
before my question, they could not offer me a firm reason for why they had done so.
In fact, many of the participants seemed disconcerted or embarrassed by my
attention, and they were eager to assure me that they had not participated in the
custom because they were ‘superstitious’ but simply because others had done so.
165
Others seemed to believe that any purpose assigned to the coin-tree was incidental; it
was the pleasing aesthetics and the interactivity fostered by the coin-tree that had
appealed to them. For many of the participants, therefore, the themes discussed in
Chapter 5 – imitation, art and aesthetics, and interactivity – are the primary
motivations behind participation. There were, however, other purposes proposed for
the coin-trees.
Many participants, when asked to suggest a purpose, proposed that the custom
stemmed from some form of ‘superstition’ or ‘folklore’, to use their words, but they
could only guess at the origins or specific meanings. Indeed, the words ‘my guess
is…’, ‘I’m guessing…’, and ‘I have no idea, but…’ littered people’s responses, and
many respondents answered my questions with tentative questions of their own: ‘is it
a good luck thing?’; ‘is it a wishing thing?’; ‘is it some sort of folklore?’ Their lack
of solid knowledge, however, did not deter them from making spontaneous, ad-lib
judgments regarding the purpose of the custom, often drawing upon more
widespread and familiar traditions as analogies.
Occasionally, older traditions were drawn upon. Three people at Portmeirion and one
at Fairy Glen associated the custom with paganism, asking if it is ‘some pagan
thing?’ One man believed the custom to be some form of ‘folklore throwback’ to the
Roman practice of ‘giving value back to the earth’. One woman connected the
custom to the tradition of touching wood, which she described as the pagan custom
of acquiring ‘good luck from the tree spirits’; another woman opined that the custom
was about ‘leaving an offering. Like when we used to throw coins into springs’. The
tradition of blowing out candles on a birthday cake was also drawn upon; one person
at Portmeirion and another at Tarr Steps compared the custom to ‘blowing out
candles – it’s for good luck or making wishes’.
Humour was also widely employed in people’s interpretations of the coin-trees. Six
different people, on their first encounter with a coin-tree, exclaimed ‘so money does
grow on trees’, with one woman saying ‘I want one of them in my garden but I bet it
wouldn’t grow’. A man at Corfe Castle, upon hearing that the older coin-trees were
probably employed for healing, remarked, ‘it’d heal piles if you sat on it’ – and then
hastily apologised for his ‘crude sense of humour’. The ranger at Marbury Park made
the pun that a coin-tree is a ‘branch of the TSB’, and another pun was made on
166
Snowdon when a coin fell from a coin-tree and a witness noted wryly, ‘the penny’s
dropped’.
Other humour-related interpretations of the coin-trees involve their economic worth.
A local business owner in Malham claimed that he considers the Malham coin-trees
to be his ‘retirement fund’. Other people jested that they should take the coins for
themselves; a man at Malham told me, ‘we’re waiting for you to clear off so we can
take [the coins]; we’ve got bills to pay’. Another man at Portmeirion opined that if
he was researching a coin-tree, he would be tempted to ‘take a chainsaw to it and get
the coins’, whilst a teenage boy at Lydford Gorge joked that he and his family should
carry the coin-tree home, burn the wood, and use the coins to pay for their next
holiday.
3 – THE WISHING-TREE
Although interpretations of the coin-trees varied widely, there were some analogies
which were drawn upon more frequently, the most notable tradition being that of the
wishing-well/fountain. 35 different groups made this comparison, claiming that the
custom of inserting a coin into a tree is similar to that of depositing it in a wishing-
well/fountain: ‘it’s like throwing coins into a wishing-well’; ‘I’m guessing people do
it to make wishes, like in a wishing-well’; ‘I always thought it was like wishing-
wells or fountains, which I guess go back to sacred springs and paganism’, and so
on. Indeed, this does appear to be the prevailing analogy utilised.
When asked why they had inserted coins into the coin-trees, wishing was a
particularly popular answer; in addition to the 35 references to wells/fountains, a
further 32 people opined that coins are inserted into a coin-tree ‘for making wishes’,
and 18 groups termed the coin-tree a ‘wish/wishing-tree’ (Appendix 4.7). At
Ardmaddy, where the primary coin-tree is pinpointed on maps and labelled on
signposts as the ‘Wishing Tree’ (explored below), there is overt evidence that the
tree is appealed to as a granter of wishes. The note written on the reverse of a receipt,
described in Chapter 5, addresses the coin-tree, ‘Dear Wishing-Tree’, and expresses
the desire for a romantic partner. Also evident was the notion that the coins were
physical manifestations of wishes; at Ingleton, a mother told her children that ‘each
167
coin is a wish’ and that the purpose of the coin-tree is ‘for putting wishes in’. Also at
Ingleton, when a young boy removed a coin, his mother scolded him: ‘you can’t take
other people’s wishes’, while at Tarr Steps, as mentioned above, a father discouraged
his son from pulling out coins by claiming that he was ‘stealing people’s wishes’.
The coin-tree custom was also widely associated with luck, with 52 participants
making this connection: ‘it’s for luck’; ‘I assume it’s for luck’; ‘maybe it’s a good
luck thing’. Five people termed the coin-tree a ‘luck/lucky/good-luck-tree’
(Appendix 4.7) and five more associated the custom with ‘good fortune’. Generally,
this association is made because of the connection between coins and luck: one
person noted that ‘pennies are meant to be lucky’; two others opined that ‘finding a
penny is lucky’; and three people recited the jingle, ‘find a penny, pick it up, and all
day long you’ll have good luck’. Two separate groups recalled the belief that a coin
minted in your year of birth is particularly lucky.
Theories of exchange were drawn on by some participants. At Snowdon, one person
suggested that ‘you give something up and you get something in return’; a notion
shared by others at Dovedale, Ingleton, and Hardcastle Crags: ‘if you give [the coin-
tree] a coin, you’ll get a wish’. At Malham, one young girl asserted that the higher
the denomination of coin you insert, the more wishes you can make, whilst also at
Malham, when one man asked his companion if he could borrow a coin, he was
drolly told that ‘if it isn’t your coin, you don’t get the luck’.
It is interesting to note that these people who, by their own admission, do not know
the purpose of the coin-tree, were still able to offer illuminating answers, and they
did this by creating impromptu connections between the coin-tree and customs
which they are more familiar with, such as the wishing-well and the concept of lucky
pennies. However, this strategy of improvising an explanation for the custom by
drawing on analogies with other traditions is most evident when children engage
with coin-trees.
4 – ‘A CHILD’S KIND OF FAIRY-TALE’
As explored in Chapter 4, children are the primary participatory group of the coin-
tree custom. They are also, in many cases, central to interpretations of it. Many
168
adults described the purposes of these trees by drawing on child-friendly concepts
and inventing improvised traditions on the spot, often for the benefit of their
children. Indeed, an adult’s interpretation of the coin-tree is often dependent upon
whether or not a child is present (Houlbrook 2014: 52-53).
One couple at Dovedale believed that participation in the custom was motivated
entirely by imitation, but they admitted that, if questioned by their children, they
would probably claim that the coin-trees are ‘for good luck’. Also at Dovedale, a
couple from Birmingham had visited the previous year without their young son and
had apparently inserted a coin only because ‘everyone else was doing it’. On this
trip, however, in the presence of their son they claimed that the custom was ‘lucky’.
Other ideas and imaginative theories concerning the coin-trees appear to have been
hastily concocted by parents. One man told his son that ‘the tradition is, if you can
carry the whole log home, you can keep the coins’, while another man at Portmeirion
pointed a coin-tree out to his young son and informed him that ‘this is where pennies
come from; they grow on penny trees’. A father at Ingleton told his daughter not to
touch the tree because ‘it’s not ready yet. When it’s ready, it’ll fall down and all the
money will come out – we’ll have to come back for that’.
Fairies played a prominent role in child-focused interpretations of the coin-trees. One
pair of grandparents at Aira Force told their granddaughter that the coin-tree was a
‘fairy-tree’; people leave their coins in the tree for the fairies in exchange for wishes.
This notion was repeated by families with young children at Fairy Glen, Malham,
and Hardcastle Crags, while at Becky Falls, three families claimed that the coins are
left for pixies. At Stock Ghyll, one grandmother made an impromptu connection
between coin-trees and the tooth-fairy for the benefit of her grandchildren, playfully
querying if the tooth-fairy sources her coins from the tree. She divulged to me that
this was ‘more of a child’s kind of fairy-tale’, which is why she had chosen it.
It is hardly surprising that fairy-centred traditions are employed in interpretations of
the coin-tree custom. The amorphous, mutable nature of the term ‘fairy’ itself
(Williams 1991) makes it easily adoptable and adaptable for a range of customs,
while – in modern times – a ‘fairy’ is a child-friendly concept (Wells 1991), which
makes it particularly appropriate for a practice primarily observed by, or for the
benefit of, children. Fairies, however, are not the only supernatural creatures
169
associated with coin-trees. At Ingleton, one family described the coin-tree as a
‘magic money-tree’ created by a wizard, while in other cases it was the children
themselves who fostered connections between coin-trees and supernatural beings.
The pair of sisters at Becky Falls, for example (described above), invented the
‘tradition’ whereby the participant attempts to throw their coin onto the coin-tree and
if it lands successfully, the pixies will grant their wish.
Likewise, a young girl at Dovedale improvised an explanation for the coin-trees,
drawing on the fairy-tale (indeed, mythological) tradition of securing safe-passage
across dangerous terrain by paying a fee – embedding a coin into the coin-tree – to
some overseeing supernatural power. It was her mother, however, who suggested
that it was ‘trolls’ who were guarding this point along the path, no doubt drawing on
the well-known tale of the Three Billy Goats Gruff. Another young girl, on
Snowdon, told her parents that participation in the custom is ‘for luck so we don’t
fall off the mountain.’
It is unsurprising that such fairy-tale motifs are employed in explanations of the
coin-tree custom. In their studies on folklore, Opie and Opie demonstrate children’s
innate ability to quickly invent, re-invent, and disperse folktales and customs (Opie
and Opie 1959; Opie 1994); through their vast exposure to fairy-tales, they become
adept at applying a fairy-tale-like structure to objects and events in the real world
(Bettelheim 1976: 45; Zipes 1997: 10). And it is this ease with which children relate
to fairy-tales that motivates adults to draw upon them in their own explanations.
However, the coin-tree is not simply ‘children’s folklore’. As Bauman writes:
There is a large corpus of folklore which is often classified as children’s lore,
though its performance almost inevitably involves people who are beyond
the age of childhood, suggesting that this lore might be more productively
considered as structuring the interaction between members of different age
categories…The lore is shared in the sense that it constitutes a
communicative bond between participants, but the participants themselves
are different, the forms they employ are different, and their view of the
folklore passing between them is different. (1971: 37)
The example Bauman gives of this shared lore is the nursery rhyme, which is
typically taught by adults to children for the purposes of entertainment or instruction.
It is neither wholly ‘children’s lore’ nor ‘adult’s lore’ because it is taught by adults to
children; instead, it is both. However, the children and adults engaged in this sharing
170
of lore do not necessarily perceive it similarly; the grandmother who tells her
granddaughter that a coin-tree is a ‘fairy-tree’ probably does not believe this to be
the case. Her granddaughter, on the other hand – if young enough – will quite readily
believe.
Children and adults, therefore, will not interpret the ‘traditions’ of the coin-tree with
equal earnestness, just as they do not play identical roles in the transmission of coin-
tree lore, although they each contribute symbiotically to the sharing. The role of an
adult guardian is to fabricate a ‘tradition’ that will interest or entertain a child, and
the role of a child is to provide an excuse for their guardians to suspend their
disbelief, if only for a moment, and permit themselves to indulge in some whimsical
ritual-participation. It is unsurprising, therefore, that adults who have inserted a coin
for the benefit of children exhibited little embarrassment when I approached them,
while adults without children appeared awkward and slightly defensive when asked
why they had participated. Without the child-half of the symbiotic equation, there is
no earnest ear to benefit from the adult’s imaginative interpretation, and therefore
there is no need for it – and subsequently, as some seemed to believe, no excuse for
participation.
5 – THE MUTABILITY OF MEANING
Evidently there is not one single interpretation of the coin-tree custom, but a myriad.
This is due in part to a lack of official written doctrine. Oral traditions, or customs
which are passed on through simple observational imitation (as the coin-tree largely
appears to be), can easily be tailored to any given audience simply because they are
not written down (Vansina 1985: 147). Granted, there are numerous articles,
discussion forums, and personal blogs on the Internet which explore the custom of
the coin-tree, but there is no official piece of writing which states definitively the
purpose of all coin-trees. Hence the ‘meaning’ of the coin-tree custom is subject to
personal interpretation.
If the man at Portmeirion believes that the coin-tree is a ‘folklore throwback’ to the
Roman practice of giving value back to the land, then it is. If the girls at Becky Falls
believe that if your coin lands on the coin-tree the pixies will grant your wish, then
171
this has become the tradition. And if the grandmother at Stock Ghyll tells her
grandchildren that the coin-tree is where the tooth-fairy sources her coins, then this,
too, becomes the tradition. With the coin-trees, the consumers are the producers; the
custom therefore ‘means’ whatever they want it to ‘mean’ in that particular moment.
This evident multiplicity is compatible with Honko’s theories on ‘meaning’ (1985).
Honko maintains that the ‘meaning’ of a folkloric text or custom is not ‘clear-cut,
and stable’ but is ‘amorphous, changing…and of relatively short duration’ (1985:
38). ‘Meaning’ is situational, and I cannot (or, at least, should not) make any
definitive assertions about the ‘meaning’ of the coin-tree custom. Additionally, a
clear distinction must be made between collective belief and individual belief
(Honko 1964: 10); it cannot be stated that ‘the inhabitants of the British Isles believe
that inserting a coin into a coin-tree will result in the fulfilment of their wishes’. It
can only be stated that certain individuals claim to believe this.
The evident ambiguity and mutability of ritual is demonstrated in numerous
anthropological studies. Fernandez’s (1965) work on the cult Bwiti of northern
Gabon, for example, evinces that multiple participants can observe a custom in
identical homogeneity, and yet their interpretations of this custom can vary greatly.
Interviewing members of the cult, Fernandez found that identical ritual actions do
not necessarily indicate identical ritual interpretations. Despite the fact that the ritual
studied by Fernandez was intended to promote the unity – nlem-mvore, ‘one-
heartedness’ – of the cult, there were vast discrepancies within the personal
interpretations of the ritual’s key actions and symbols.
This ‘variation in the individual interpretation of commonly experienced
phenomena’, as Fernandez terms it (1965: 906), is evident in many other
anthropological studies. Jordan’s work on the Taiwanese Jiaw, a ceremonial
supplication to the deities, for example, revealed there to be ‘not a single theological
justification given for the event by all informants’ (1976: 104), and Leach’s work on
the rituals of the Shans, the Burmese, and the Kachins of the Hukawng Valley
illustrates a similarly superficial facade of unity of intent and interpretation (1964:
281).
172
Orthodox religion is equally subject to divergent interpretations. Bowman’s study of
pilgrimage to Jerusalem (1991), for example, clearly highlights the extent to which
individual characteristics and personal backgrounds can influence a participant’s
interpretation of pilgrimage and ritual, as does Stromberg’s (1981) analysis of the
perceptions of religious symbolism among Swedish Protestants. This divergence of
perspectives is also evinced in Reader’s study of pilgrimage to the Buddhist temples
on the Japanese island of Shikoku (1993) and in Sallnow’s work on pilgrimages in
the South American Andes (1991).
Evidently, factors such as personality, age, gender, and levels of knowledge result in
individuals maintaining different beliefs. Equally, what the coin-tree ‘means’ is
dependent upon who the participant is, their social role, and who they are with
(Honko 1964: 14; see also Brück 2001). It is also influenced by such unpredictable
determinants as emotional moods. For example, there have been two examples of
families ignoring coin-trees because a child is immersed in a tantrum, and if a
teenager is despondent, or a parent impatient or flustered, then this has also
influenced how a group has engaged with coin-trees.
There are also external factors such as the weather. In poor weather, fewer people are
likely to engage with coin-trees, and those who do probably spend less time
participating in the custom (as discussed in Chapter 3). The families at Becky Falls
(described above), for instance, only briefly engaged with both the coin-trees and
myself because of the low temperature and snowfall. Had it been a warm day,
perhaps the parents of the two young girls would have lingered long enough to watch
their participation in the custom, which may have influenced how the girls
interpreted it. Similarly, the grandparents of the other girl may have agreed to
hammer the coin into the coin-tree, thus affecting the method of participation.
6 – MODERNISING MEANING
The coin-tree custom proves to be entirely situational, inclusive, ambiguous, and
mutable – essentially so, for as Dundes stresses, ‘folktales…must appeal to the
psyches of many, many individuals if they are to survive’ (1980: 34). However,
despite this vast variety of interpretations and analogies, some were far more popular
173
than others, while some were absent entirely. Considering, for example, how widely
employed coins and trees were in folk-remedies in the British Isles (explored in
Chapter 4), I had assumed that the contemporary practitioners would draw on
connections between the coin-tree and healing. However, of the 219 participants
interviewed, only two made any reference to healing or folk-medicine in their
interpretations of the coin-trees (in connection with clootie wells, discussed below).
Initially this surprised me, especially considering that the Isle Maree coin-tree, the
earliest known surviving manifestation of this custom, was originally concerned
specifically with healing. However, on further consideration it became clear that the
participants’ disinclination to associate the custom with folk-remedies is not
anomalous, but is in fact entirely consistent with the processes involved in the
continuation, diffusion, and adaptation of folkloric customs.
Folkloric customs and structures are not static. The fact that the Isle Maree coin-tree
was at some point employed for its supposed curative properties does not necessitate
all other coin-trees to be connected with healing. Bradley (1990), advocating the
importance of contextual archaeology in his consideration of Bronze Age and
Roman votive deposits, asserts that the interpretations of a ritual artefact can change
over time. Indeed, this change is central to a custom’s continuity; a continuity which,
according to Hallam and Ingold, ‘is due not to its passive inertia but in its active
regeneration’ (2007: 6). The same is true of the coin-tree.
However, it is not the coin-trees themselves which have changed. Generally, all
coin-trees share the same physical properties – trees embedded with coins –
regardless of when and where they were produced. It is the producers themselves
who have changed. As Shills remarks, ‘[t]raditions are not independently self-
reproductive or self-elaborating. Only living, knowing, desiring human beings can
enact them and re-enact them and modify them’ (1981: 14-15). It is the human actors
who continue a tradition, who adapt and modify it to make it both more convenient
and more relevant.
Rogers, examining the diffusion of innovations, asserts that in order for an
innovation to be successfully adopted, there must be some capacity for adaptation
(1995: 330). A person can mimic the essential elements of a custom – the actual
insertion of a coin into a coin-tree – but for the custom to be relevant to them, it must
174
be malleable enough for the participants to shape and colour it to their liking. Indeed,
malleability is imperative if a custom, old or new, is to survive. Ideas which are
compatible with contemporary society are successfully disseminated; ideas which
are not, fail (Bascom 1965: 29).
In order for a custom to retain its appeal over time, it must therefore be receptive to
numerous recreations and the addition of what Brunvand terms ‘editorial matter’
(1983: 23-24). In other words, a custom survives if it can be made relevant to
modern participants. The folkloric associations of coins and trees with healing, for
example, are no longer relevant to contemporary British society. This is
unsurprising; illness and premature death were a much greater concern in the past
than they are today (Vyse 1997: 12ff), and scientific and technological developments
have meant that, in most cases, those concerned for their health are more likely to
visit a medical centre than participate in a folkloric custom (Hamilton 1981: 102).
And when a custom is no longer relevant to contemporary society, this usually
results in its attenuation (Shils 1981: 283-285) – unless it is suitably adapted.
If folk-medicine is no longer widely relevant to contemporary British participants,
therefore, then what has risen to replace it? As explored above, the coin-tree is
particularly relevant to modern-day society because it caters to children, providing
them with the opportunity for ritual play. However, it is not only children who
participate in this custom. Also, while the continuation of a custom necessitates a
propensity for adaptation, there must also be a degree of retention and familiarity. A
custom must adapt if it is to survive, but while participants require it to be relevant to
contemporary society, they also desire some sense of antiquity (a notion explored in
greater detail below). They therefore, either consciously or subconsciously, seek out
interpretations of the coin-tree which address both of these needs.
In order to do this, the coin-tree custom is recreated by drawing analogies with other
traditions. As Cushing writes, the successful introduction of a new custom can
depend on ‘the similarity of the material to the already existing traditions’ (1965:
269). Folklore, as asserted by Opie and Opie, ‘feeds on other matter’ (1978: 68); a
more dominant or familiar tradition is imprinted onto the new (or recreated) custom.
It is unsurprising, therefore, that such a high number of participants drew on
analogies with wishing-wells/fountains, with wish-fulfilment and notions of luck
175
central to their interpretations of the coin-tree custom. These notions are ideally
suited to the task of acclimatising the coin-tree, because they are compatible with
contemporary ideas and customs – wishing-wells and lucky pennies – whilst
simultaneously being deeply enough rooted in the past to boast a certain sense of
antiquity.
This modernisation of the ‘meaning’ of the coin-tree is clearly traceable in
interpretations of the Isle Maree coin-tree. As outlined in Chapter 4, in the 18th
and
early 19th
centuries the tree was employed in healing rituals, and closely associated
with the holy well of St. Maelrubha. However, with the loosening grip of the Church
and the declining faith in the power of saints and holy wells the traditions needed to
adapt in order to retain their popularity. By the late 19th
century, the tree had become
a ‘wishing-tree’, a term employed by Dixon (1886: 150), Godden (1893: 499),
McPherson (1929: 76), Barnett (1930: 114), and Macrow (1953: 88-89). It was now
believed that, as described by McPherson, a ‘wish silently formed when any metal
article was attached to the tree, or coin driven in, would certainly be realised’ (1929:
76). No longer associated with healing, the tree became imbued with the power to
grant wishes or to ensure good luck (MacLeish 1968: 420), the only traditions which
participants seem to observe today. Local residents in Gairloch, for example,
associate the tree with only two things: wish-making and luck. The tree has therefore
shed its curative properties and became a wishing-tree instead, a custom much more
inclusive.
7 – COINING THE COIN-TREE: WHAT’S IN A NAME?
As demonstrated above, there is a lack of official doctrine concerning the coin-tree,
which has resulted in a lack of uniform ‘meaning’. It has also resulted in a lack of
official title, and subsequently the name of these structures can be changed at will. In
this thesis they have been dubbed ‘coin-trees’ because this is the most basic, neutral
description of them. Others, however, use different terms for these structures (see
Appendix 4.7), which invariably indicates how they are perceived. As Derrida
observes, ‘when a name comes, it immediately says more than the name’ (1995: 89);
it is, according to Pearce, a ‘medium for the communication of information’ (1992:
176
123). And not only does a name reveal how we perceive an object, it also influences
it (Lindsay and Norman 1972: 438).
Some names for these structures refer simply to their physical components; 74
people described them as ‘money-trees’; 32 as ‘coin-trees’; and 22 as ‘penny-trees’.
Names often draw upon description, especially when the namer is otherwise
unfamiliar with an object. As Soames writes, words ‘stand for objects and the
properties we take them to have…What it is for language to be meaningful is for it to
have this representational capacity’ (2005: 7). Subsequently, when asked to name
these structures, some people have taken a very literal approach: ‘coined tree’; ‘a tree
with coins in’; ‘a trunk with coins in’.
However, other popular names for the coin-tree also indicate a perceived purpose,
such as ‘wishing-tree’ and ‘good-luck-tree’ – which also aid in making the custom
more compatible with other traditions. For example, when Dixon described the coin-
tree on Isle Maree as ‘the wishing-tree’ (1886: 150), he was doing more than simply
naming the structure; he was establishing a ‘meaning’ for it. Rogers considers the
importance of titles in his examination of the diffusion of innovations; with words
being the ‘thought-units that structure perceptions’, the name given to an innovation
invariably ‘affects its perceived compatibility, and therefore its rate of adoption’
(1995: 236). I will consider this notion with a brief anecdote.
In early 2012, I met with a curator from a museum who was considering organising a
family-based event about coin-trees. However, she did not wish to use the term
‘coin-tree’, preferring ‘wishing-tree’ instead, claiming that the link it evokes with
wishing-wells and -fountains makes the custom more identifiable for her target
audience: families. She believed, not incorrectly, that people are generally more
likely to show an interest in an idea or commodity with which they are at least
vaguely familiar, and that the name of such an idea or commodity plays a central role
in people’s perceptions of it.
Evidently, names are flexible and arbitrary (Lindsay and Norman 1972: 438), and
they can be changed depending upon who, and to whom one, is speaking. For
example, as Brown notes, ‘each thing has many equally correct names’ (1958: 20),
and these different terms are employed depending upon the situation; for example,
when speaking to a child, simpler and shorter names may be used, reserving the
177
longer or more specific titles for adult conversation: a ‘tree’ to a child may become a
‘sycamore’ to an adult, which may in turn become an ‘Acer pseudoplatanus’ to a
botanist. Likewise, an adult may refer to a coin-tree as a ‘wishing-tree’ when
speaking to a child, but as a ‘money-tree’ when conversing with a peer.
Names may be fluid; conversely, they also have the capacity to become fixed. To
refer to a coin-tree as ‘a coin-tree’ is to employ an adjective for reference, using a
term at first designed to describe an object’s empirical content; it is ‘a coin-tree’
because it is a tree with coins embedded in its bark. However, to refer to a coin-tree
as ‘the coin-tree’ indicates a change in context. The use of the word ‘the’ suggests a
certain level of establishment. As Macnamara notes, as ‘a first approximation, the
has the force of suggesting that everyone in the conversation knows precisely what is
being referred to’ (1982: 145, emphasis in original). ‘The coin-tree’ refers to a
specific coin-tree, one which the speaker is familiar with – and subsequently ‘coin-
tree’ is no longer an adjective but a noun.
Again, when Dixon referred to Isle Maree’s coin-tree as ‘the wishing-tree’ (1886:
150, emphasis added), he was not only naming the structure and ascribing a purpose
to it; he was also imbuing it with a certain level of establishment. Some
contemporary participants have done the same: nine people described a coin-tree as
‘the money-tree’; two as ‘the pixie-tree’; one as ‘the wishing-tree’; and another as
‘the fairy-tree’. Not only does the use of ‘the’ in these contexts indicate a sense of
familiarity with the structures, it also implies that the namers perceive them as
individual, unique, and enduring (Nelson 1977: 122).
The use of capital initials further establishes the term ‘Coin-Tree’ as a proper noun,
which designates something as particular and unique (Valentine et al. 1996: 2).
When ‘a coin-tree’ becomes ‘The Coin-Tree’ it has undergone a further level of
establishment. At Ingleton, Becky Falls, and Bolton Abbey, for example, the primary
coin-trees are labelled ‘The Money Tree’ (see below). Likewise, Meurig Jones,
Estates Manager of Portmeirion Village, referred to the Portmeirion coin-trees in
email correspondences with me as ‘The “Wishing Trees”’ (pers. comm. 21/12/2011),
a name shared by the primary Ardmaddy coin-tree, which is labelled ‘Wishing Tree’
on Ordnance Survey maps (Fig. 93), as well as in a tourist pamphlet and walker’s
signpost (Fig. 94) (see below).
178
Such examples suggest that these particular trees have come to be perceived as
established, familiar, important, and unique as individual structures. Kripke
distinguishes between using a description to denote a meaning and using it ‘to fix a
reference’ (1980: 5); in these examples, the latter has been achieved.
8 – FIXING MEANING
When a participant is offered no authoritative explanation for why a custom exists,
they are free to name and interpret it as they choose. However, what if there was a
voice of authority stating that a coin-tree is a ‘coin-tree’, and that it means x, y, or z?
The introduction of official names and explanations would, in a sense, canonise the
coin-tree, subsequently influencing how people perceive the custom. Personal
interpretation would be replaced by subscription and adherence.
The presence of coin-tree labelling on maps and interpretation panels offer such
‘official names and explanations’. This process is clearly evident at Clonenagh, Co.
Laois (Appendix 2.15), where the coin-tree is accompanied by an information panel
erected by Laois County Council (Fig. 95) (see page 82). This interpretation panel
clearly places the coin-tree in a Christian context, matter-of-factly linking it with St.
Fintan and the holy well which once stood nearby. The Ireland Lonely Planet guide
repeats this information in its entry on Clonenagh: ‘Its claim to fame is St Fintan’s
Tree, a large sycamore; the water that collects in the groove in one of its lower
branches is said to have healing properties’ (Davenport 2009: 504).
Another example of this fixing of ‘meaning’ is evident at Ingleton, Yorkshire
(Appendix 2.25), where an interpretation panel – supported on a wooden post also
embedded with coins – accompanies the primary coin-tree (Fig. 96), which it has
dubbed ‘The Money Tree’. It offers the following information:
Does money really grow on trees? Most of the coins in this tree are 2p
pieces. Can you find any very old coins in the tree? Some people say pushing
a coin into the tree trunk will bring you good luck.
This does not necessarily tell the reader anything they could not have decided for
themselves, and yet these four short sentences have a striking effect on how
participants at Ingleton perceive and engage with the coin-tree. They are told that
179
this structure is called ‘The Money Tree’. Therefore, when I asked my interview
participants – 22 groups – what they would dub the structure, 100% of them replied
a ‘money-tree’, with only one group embellishing it a little by naming it the ‘magic
money-tree’. At every other coin-tree, I have received an assortment of names; at
Ingleton, however, no such equivocation was evident. Indeed, when one man
asserted that it is a ‘money-tree’ and his companion asked him how he knew, he
responded by pointing to the interpretation panel and answering, quite simply,
‘because it says it is.’
The sentence, ‘[m]ost of the coins in this tree are 2p pieces’, also greatly influences
the way people participate in this custom, with several participants expressing the
opinion that their coins needed to be two pence pieces. One woman, having read the
panel, requested a two pence piece from her companion; when asked if it had to be
that specific denomination, she replied firmly, ‘yes, it says so’.
The meaning of the custom has also lost some of its malleability through the printing
of these 15 simple words: ‘Some people say pushing a coin into the tree trunk will
bring you good luck’. What is a rather diffident comment often appears to be
interpreted as unequivocal fact, with participants reading the interpretation panel and
then stating matter-of-factly that the custom is intended to ensure good luck.
Granted, other explanations were drawn upon, such as the coin-tree having been
created by a wizard. However, every participant who read the panel repeated the
information written there, as if the printing of words has the power and authority to
fix ‘meaning’.
This process of fixing ‘meaning’ was also evident at Becky Falls (Appendix 2.11),
where the primary coin-tree was similarly accompanied by an interpretation panel
(described at the beginning of this chapter) (Fig. 97). According to this panel, ‘local
legend’ avers that, in order to avoid being eaten by a serpent, people would place a
coin on the tree as a ‘small toll’ to the pixies, who would subsequently ensure the
depositor’s safe passage. This ‘local legend’ clearly influences people’s
interpretations of this coin-tree, with two groups calling it ‘the pixie-tree’, three
groups claiming that they were depositing their coins ‘for the pixies’, and one young
girl (described above) claiming that if she and her sister successfully threw their
coins onto the tree, the pixies would grant their wishes.
180
This thesis itself is equally responsible for the ‘fixing of meaning’. By simply
researching and writing about coin-trees, I am constructing meaning. Firstly, I have
chosen to label them ‘coin-trees’, which has influenced what others name them; for
example, when discussing coin-trees with a friend who had previously been aware of
the custom, I asked her what she called them; she replied, ‘I didn’t have a name for
them until I talked to you, but now I’d call them ‘coin-trees’.’
Secondly, by choosing to research them I am declaring them a subject ‘worthy’ of
research. This clearly has an impact on how this custom is perceived by both
custodians and members of the public, who are often initially surprised by the
academic attention these structures are receiving and then, as if inspired by this
attention, begin to consider the custom in a different light. As already observed
above, people often do not consider the custom’s ‘meaning’ until I question them
about it; the fact that there is an academic researcher asking them about ‘meaning’
may lead most people to believe that there must necessarily be a meaning.
Thirdly, by presenting my research at conferences, delivering public lectures,
publishing papers in journals, being interviewed by local newspapers, writing an
online blog about the Ardmaddy excavation, and producing an interpretive leaflet on
the Ardmaddy coin-tree, I am also contributing to the dissemination of this custom
and the construction of meaning. However, I am always cautious about publically
voicing my interpretations of the custom. For example, in my interview for The
Oban Times (Patterson 2013: 2) concerning the Ardmaddy excavation, I refrained
from even suggesting why people insert coins into coin-trees, aware that my opinion
may be perceived as fact. However in this case, simply my adoption of the local
name for this tree – the ‘Ardmaddy wishing-tree’ – implies a purpose (i.e. wish-
fulfilment), demonstrating that no matter how distant or careful a researcher attempts
to be, they cannot help but contribute to the construction or fixing of meaning.
9 – CASE-STUDY: ST. NECTAN’S GLEN, ENGLAND
St. Nectan’s Glen, Cornwall (Appendix 2.36), is one coin-tree site which clearly
illustrates how ‘meaning’ can be manipulated and become fixed over time. It is a
privately owned glen, following the River Trevillet to a 60ft waterfall (Fig. 98),
181
which descends into a granite basin known as St. Nectan’s Kieve, ‘kieve’ being the
Cornish word for bowl/basin/cauldron (Madge 1950: 29). It is named after the 5th
-
century saint whose hermitage was allegedly built above the waterfall. There are five
coin-trees at this site; the primary coin-tree (Fig. 99) and one other are located by the
waterfall, in the commercially-owned section of the glen, while three are situated
further west along the glen.
As well as over 4000 coins inserted into the coin-trees, a vast variety of objects have
also been deposited in the kieve. The branches of nearby trees are adorned with rags,
ribbons (Fig. 100), shoelaces, key-rings, pendants, prisms, and hair bobbles. In some
cases, very personal items have been deposited: one branch has been adorned with a
lock of somebody’s hair (Fig. 101), while another is affixed with a plastic wallet
containing the photograph of a dog, ‘Ollie’, accompanied by the words ‘I miss u
sooo much…’ (Fig. 54). Other items appear to have been ad-lib deposits, such as a
Polo mint slipped onto a twig.
The cliff faces on either side of the waterfall have been equally bedecked with
visitors’ deposits, some more personal than others: candles (some bearing religious
images), a rubber duck, jewellery, hair clips and bobbles, a water flask, etc. (Fig. 54).
Scratching messages onto pieces of slate and displaying them against the cliff faces
also appears to be particularly popular. Some pieces contain names or initials, whilst
others bear personal memorial messages (Figs. 82-83). Other pieces of slate have
been piled on top of each other, in or beside the water throughout the glen, forming
what are known as ‘fairy stacks’ (Fig. 102).
Although it is unclear when the practice of deposition first began at this site, it was
probably no earlier than the 1970s. A scene in Redgrove’s novel The Glass Cottage
(1975) takes place in St. Nectan’s Glen, which the author devotes four pages to
describing the aesthetic and geological properties of in great detail. He does not,
however, mention any evidence of deposition at the site – and neither do any earlier
sources which describe the glen (Gilbert 1820: 586-587; Hawker 1832: 28-31;
Redding 1842: 35-36; Hawker 1846: 72-73; Hawker 1864: 27-29; Madge 1950). The
earliest known reference to the practice of deposition at St. Nectan’s Glen is
Varner’s 2002 online article ‘Sacred Sites – St. Nectan’s Glen’, and even this does
not refer to coin-trees, but to deposits of rags and ribbons.
182
Indeed, judging by a photograph of the primary coin-tree taken by Sally Daffarn in
2006 (Fig. 103), the custom of coin insertion does not appear to have been prolific in
the mid-2000s, suggesting that this coin-tree does not far pre-date the 2000s.
Contrasting Sally’s photograph with one taken in 2013 (Fig. 104), it is clear that coin
density has increased greatly within the last 6/7 years, quantities having at least
quadrupled. Within this short time-frame, however, various forms of ‘leaving your
mark’ have manifested themselves prolifically at this site.
This theme of ‘leaving your mark’ featured heavily in participant interviews; one
woman asserted that ‘you can’t come to a place like this and not leave your mark’,
whilst Sally Daffarn, who had inserted a coin into the primary coin-tree in 2006,
claimed to have done so because she ‘wanted to feel part of the wonderful aura at the
site’ (pers. comm. 15/05/2012). Another woman compared the insertion of a coin to
‘leaving a part of yourself in a sacred place, like lighting a candle in a church’. The
words ‘sacred’ and ‘spiritual’ also featured heavily; one woman from Spain
described the glen as a ‘sacred place’; another woman, a ‘beautiful, spiritual place’;
whilst a third described it as ‘really special’, explaining that she is not ordinarily
‘spiritual’, but ‘it’s easy to get carried away in a place like this’.
Although only two interview participants referred explicitly to St. Nectan and his
‘medieval chapel’, this figure is central to historical representations of the site. As
the St. Nectan’s Glen visitor website claims: ‘Saint Nectan is believed to have sited
his hermitage above the waterfall’ (St Nectans Waterfall nd.). Similarly, in
Redgrove’s The Glass Cottage (1975), the author describes how ‘St. Nectan’s
Hermitage’ was located in the glen, and this was ‘where the Cornish Saint had lived
and prayed and healed’ (1975: 216). Whilst in 2008, Melton simply recounts the life
of St. Nectan in his encyclopedic entry on St. Nectan’s Glen (2008: 287). Clearly St.
Nectan, and the belief that his hermitage was situated above the glen’s waterfall, is a
primary contributing factor to the ‘sacred’ atmosphere of the site.
However, it is unlikely that St. Nectan had any connection at all with the glen which
bears his name, a theory strongly posited by Madge (1950). The first known
reference to this waterfall and glen was made in the 1799 edition of Thomas Gray’s
Traveller’s Companion, in which it was not described as ‘St. Nectan’s Glen’, but as
‘Nathan’s Cave’ (Gray 1799: 15), and Madge believes that the name ‘Nathan’ may
183
simply have been connected to two graves in the nearby churchyard of Tintagel:
Nathan Williams, 1712, and Nathan Cock, 1762 (1950: 32). Secular origins of the
glen’s name, however, did not appeal to poet Robert Stephen Hawker, who visited
the glen in 1830. In 1832, he published a poem entitled ‘The Sisters of the Glen’, in
which he recounts the local legend of two ‘ancient’ sisters, who mysteriously
appeared one day in the glen, their origins unknown, and lived in the ‘reliques of a
human cell’ until they died.
In the first edition of this poem, Hawker begins by describing the glen, and his
opening line reads: ‘It is from Nathan’s mossy steep…’ (1832: 28, emphasis added).
14 years later, however, when Hawker republished his poem in Echoes from Old
Cornwall (1846), the title had been altered to ‘The Sisters of Glen-Neot’, referring to
the 9th
-century Cornish monk St. Neot, and the opening line of this slightly altered
poem reads: ‘It is from Neot’s sainted steep…’ (1846: 72, emphasis added). In
Hawker’s 1864 reprint of the poem, it had been changed further still: now entitled
‘Saint Nectan’s Kieve’, it opens with: ‘It is from Nectan’s mossy Steep…’ (1864:
27, emphasis added). Hawker claims, in his accompanying note to the 1864 version
of the poem, that the waterfall ‘has borne for Ten Centuries the Name of St. Nectan’s
Kieve’ (1864: 27), which is ironic considering that a mere 18 years before he had
referred to it as ‘Glen-Neot’ (1846).
Over a period of 32 years, therefore, both the name of the glen and its saintly
associations had changed: from Nathan, to St. Neot, to St. Nectan. Madge believes
that this process of change was almost exclusively the result of Hawker’s poems
(1950: 64), and Hawker himself admitted to some poetic license, claiming in the note
to the latest version of his poem in Cornish Ballads: ‘I invented it myself’ (1869: 9).
As for St. Nectan’s hermitage, widely accredited to have been built above the
waterfall, this structure was equally romanticized over time. Despite Hawker having
described it in 1832 as simply ‘four walls matted with ivy and overgrown with
gorse’ (1832: 31), he ascribes it Christian origins in his 1864 edition: ‘the outline of
an Oratory, or the Reliques of a Hermitage’ (1864: 27). Already in 1842 Redding
had described the structure as ‘four walls covered with vegetation, the roofless
remnant of the abode of some hermit in times gone by, who resided there to pray for
the souls of shipwrecked mariners’ (1842: 35). And while Baring-Gould and Fisher,
184
in their work on The Lives of British Saints, are wary of using Hawker as a source in
their entry on St. Nectan – ‘Mr. Hawker was a man of lively imagination, and the
story may be merely ben trovato’ (1913: 1) – they still likewise accept without
question that the structure above the waterfall was connected with St. Nectan: ‘S.
Nighton’s (Nectan’s) Kieve is a waterfall at Trethevy where was his chapel’ (1913:
2).
Madge, however, posits a much more secular purpose for this structure, which he
notes ‘had no ancient and, above all, no ecclesiastical features’ (1950: 59). He claims
instead that the structure was an 18th
-century grotto or pleasure-house built by the
owners of the Trevillet estate (1950: 59). Indeed, the earliest known reference to this
structure, Gilbert’s Historical Survey of the County of Cornwall (1820), describes it
as ‘the remains of a small temple, or summer-house, erected most probably, by the
family of Wood [of Trevillet estate]’ (1820: 586-587).
The probable secular origins of this structure appear to be little known. On their
website, as described above, the owners of St. Nectan’s Glen today recount the belief
that St. Nectan had built his hermitage in the glen, creating (or in this case,
maintaining) a narrative that will appeal to their visitors. Even English Heritage
appears to have accepted this tradition; on their website PastScape, which describes
England’s archaeological and architectural heritage, there is an entry for the site of
this structure, Monument No. (SX 08 NE 20), which it describes as the ‘alleged site
of the Medieval chapel of St Nectan’ (English Heritage 2007).
As Madge asserts, Hawker ‘laid the foundation for all the “legends” that have kept
poets, guides and tourists busy ever since’ (1950: 30), and this is evidently still true
today, with many people harbouring a misconception about this site borne from a
poet’s desire to romanticise his subject: to convert its namesake from an unknown
Nathan to a Christian saint, and its 18th
-century summer-house into a hermit’s cell.
The belief that St. Nectan’s Glen is a ‘sacred’ or ‘magical’ site undoubtedly
motivates participation in the acts of deposition, including the coin-trees, but it also
undoubtedly derives from the belief that the glen was once home to a medieval saint.
But while this belief is drawn upon by the glen’s private owners on their website,
probably hoping to draw more (paying) visitors, it is less likely to be based on
historical fact than on the imagination of a writer exercising his poetic license.
185
10 – FOLKLORISMUS: MANIPULATING MEANING
The case-study of St. Nectan’s Glen demonstrates that interpretations of the coin-
trees are not simply dependent upon personal inclination; they can be greatly
influenced by the beliefs and assertions of others – even others such as Hawker, who
visited this site nearly 200 years ago. However, more often it is the beliefs and
assertions of others today which colour participants’ interpretations. In some cases,
for example, the coin-tree custodians publically offer their own interpretations,
sometimes presenting them as fact. These interpretations draw on analogies not only
with ‘already existing traditions’, but with ‘already existing traditions’ specific to
that geographic location, and there is usually one common motivation behind this:
tourism.
As folklorist Newall observes, often what we perceive as a continuation of a tradition
actually proves to be a ‘deliberately inserted renaissance’ (1987: 146); customs
which may appear old are, in many instances, actually the result of recent and
conscious invention. Christmas carols, national anthems, the clan tartans of Scotland
(Trevor-Roper 1983: 19): these are all products of what Hobsbawn has termed
‘inventing traditions’ (1983: 1), and folk customs are subject to a similar ambiguity
of ‘authenticity’. Their malleability, so vital to their survival, consequently makes
them all the more susceptible to appropriation, modification, and recontextualisation,
often for commercial reasons.
‘Tourism’, writes Kneafsey, ‘could be seen as a use of landscape as a resource’
(1995: 136), and with landscapes being intrinsically connected to the identity of a
place, it is unsurprising that they are so often drawn upon in tourism as a resource to
display that identity. However, landscapes are not static. As Muri observes, ‘[s]pace
is newly constituted…to the extent that new meanings are attributed to it and
experience is structured to support tourist activities’ (2001: 61). The folklore of a
landscape – such as the custom of the coin-tree – is suitably pliable for this function,
and can easily be adapted or manipulated for what Muri terms ‘showcase tactics’
(2001: 55).
Numerous scholars have examined how tourism has impacted and modified folk
traditions worldwide. Creighton (1997), for example, considers the impact ‘nostalgia
186
tourism’ has on the folk traditions of Japan. Muri (2001), focusing on a tourist
attraction in the Montafon valley, Austria, considers how central tourism is to the
process of imparting and interpreting folk traditions; whilst Silverman (2002) studies
how archaeological tourism has influenced contemporary constructions of history
and traditions in Peru. Newall (1987) offers numerous examples from across Europe
of such ‘showcase tactics’, recounting illustrative anecdotes such as how schoolboys
from Inzell, Germany, were instructed by their headmaster in 1955 to build models
of ‘ghosts’ from their local legends out of moss and branches, and to display them at
the roadside to ‘please summer visitors’ (1987: 136).
Britain likewise draws on local legends for the sake of tourism; for example, in 1975
the British Tourist Authority produced an information sheet listing the haunted
hotels and inns of England and Wales (Newall 1987: 143), whilst the Dungeon tours
of Edinburgh, London, Blackpool, and York recount local horror stories, offering
tourists the ‘ultimate thrill-filled journey through [the city’s] murky past - perfect for
a day out with your mates!’ (Dungeons nd.). These are all examples of the conscious
reutilisation of folklore and the deliberate adaptation of tradition, a phenomenon –
referred to as ‘folklorismus’ by Newall (1987) and as ‘fakelore’ by Dorson (1976) –
which is evidently employed most often for commercial purposes (Zipes 1997: 12).
Coin-trees appear to have been similarly utilised.
In some instances, coin-trees are simply presented as features of interest at tourist
sites. For example, at Aira Force a ‘Money Tree’ is pinpointed on the map displayed
at the start of the route, and included in its key (Fig. 105), just as ‘money trees’ are
labelled on the map given to visitors at Becky Falls (Fig. 106), and a signpost
alongside the track in Ardmaddy Estate declares ‘Wishing Tree 2.2km’ and instructs
walkers to follow the arrows (Fig. 94). Similarly, a photograph of a young girl
studying a coin-tree features in the Bolton Abbey visitors leaflet, accompanied by a
brief entry which reads: ‘Money Tree: Can you begin to guess how many pennies
there are?’ (Fig. 107). And on the Bolton Abbey website, ‘The Money Tree’ is listed
amongst the site’s ‘highlights’:
Follow the path from the stepping stones bridge up stream through the
woodland. Along this path you will pass three fallen trees all laden with
coins. Who pushed the coins in the tree and how did they do it? Can you
pull them out? (Bolton Abbey nd.)
187
In the National Trust online magazine, Things to see and do in South Lakes (2011),
there is a brief reference to ‘the “money tree”’ at Tarn Hows in the ‘Look out for…’
section, alongside views of the Coniston Fells and Belted Galloway cattle (2011: 1).
Photographs of coin-trees are displayed on tourist websites for Isle Maree,
Ardmaddy, and St. Nectan’s Glen – indeed, when I visited St. Nectan’s Glen to
conduct fieldwork, I was asked by the manager to upload some of my photographs
onto their website. These are all examples of coin-trees simply being presented as
features of interest or tourist attractions.
However, other examples demonstrate overt contextualisation of the coin-trees, with
site managers and land-owners sharing their own interpretations of the custom. The
Malham tourism website, for example, presents a photograph of a coin-tree alongside
the description: ‘On the footpath to Janet’s Foss a couple of tree stumps have become
home to hundred’s [sic.] of lucky pennies, add a coin and make a wish with Jennet
the queen of the fairies…’ (Malhamdale.com nd.). Similar levels of interpretation are
presented on panels accompanying coin-trees at Ingleton, Becky Falls, and
Clonenagh, information for the latter having been repeated in the Ireland Lonely
Planet guide (2009: 504).
At Ardmaddy, information about the coin-tree is included in a pamphlet available in
the self-catering cottages on Ardmaddy Estate. Alongside a photograph of the coin-
tree, the pamphlet describes the tree (a hawthorn) and offers the following
explanation:
In Celtic culture, the Hawthorn is a sacred tree and you made your wish or
prayer at the tree and then placed a coin in the bark. Another offering is a
ribbon of cloth tied to a branch. These offerings were for the tree spirits and
fairies who would grant your wish if they saw fit.
At Portmeirion, an article from Wales Online, entitled ‘Putting coins in trees rooted
in superstition’ (McCarthy 2011), is displayed in the lodge where visitors pay their
entrance fees. It quotes estate manager Meurig Jones as claiming that ‘an old
tradition…says that any illness you are suffering will leave you when you force
money into wood’. When tourists enquire about the coin-trees, they are shown a
printed copy of the article. While at High Force (Appendix 2.24), information on the
coin-tree is presented on the site’s Facebook page, where a picture of the coin-tree is
accompanied by the words: ‘This is the Money Tree that has been here for many
188
years. Visitors push money into the bark of the tree that fell in a storm for good luck.
Apparently it’s an old Yorkshire custom’ (Anonymous 2012) (Fig. 108).
11 – A (FOSTERED) MISCONCEPTION OF AGE
The description of the High Force coin-tree on the site’s Facebook page is
particularly illustrative of a custodian’s desire and ability to harness folk traditions
for commercial purposes. Not only does the online text claim that the custom is
observed ‘for good luck’ and that it is apparently ‘an old Yorkshire custom’ – thus
locating it within other ‘already existing traditions’ – but it also claims that the coin-
tree has ‘been here for many years’. As with the ‘meaning’ of the custom, age can be
subjective. The text does not specify how many years exactly, nor does it give any
relative notion of the word ‘many’, which could refer to decades, centuries,
millennia, but it does imply a certain level of antiquity. However, this implication is
misleading, for Steve Gillard, ranger at High Force, estimates that the primary coin-
tree was originally coined in c.2006 (pers. comm. 09/09/2012), six years before the
text and photograph were added to the Facebook page. The term ‘many years’ may
be subjective, but it surely does not accurately apply to six.
As demonstrated in Chapter 4, the majority of coin-trees do not pre-date the 1990s.
However, as with the High Force example, members of the public have been misled
into believing that the coin-trees are much older than they are, with some custodians
actively – albeit perhaps innocently, unaware themselves of the coin-trees’ real ages
– encouraging this projection of age onto these structures, in a sense ‘staging’
antiquity (Holtorf and Schadla-Hall 1999: 236).
The Yorkshire Dales National Park magazine, The Visitor, ran an article in 2011
entitled ‘Wood yew be-leave it!’, in which it describes the Malham coin-trees
(Appendix 2.30): ‘People have hammered copper coins into this dead tree trunk near
Janet’s Foss waterfall for good luck for many years, and if you look closely you may
find some very old pennies’ (2011: 10). The ambiguous term ‘many years’ is again
utilised; subjective enough to avoid accusations of inaccuracy, but certainly implying
antiquity. However, despite this implication, area ranger Catriona Kilner estimates
that the custom only began in Malham in the late 1990s/early 2000s (pers. comm.
189
20/10/2011). The vague but suggestive term ‘many years’ is also used on the
interpretation panel at Becky Falls: ‘local legend has it that many years ago…’ (Fig.
97).
At Ingleton (Appendix 2.25), the interpretation panel (Fig. 96) challenges the reader
to find ‘old coins’ in the tree, which led many people to mistakenly identify modern
coins as pre-decimalisation coins. One man claimed that a worn one penny piece was
a ‘threepence’, whilst many others have claimed that two pence pieces are ‘old
pennies’. Granted, there are two pre-decimalisation pennies inserted into this tree –
the dates are unidentifiable, but the sizes of the coins (31mm in diameter) and the
vague outlines of Britannia indicate that they are, indeed, ‘old pennies’ (Fig. 109).
However, as this coin-tree is probably no older than 20-30 years,3 these coins cannot
have been inserted whilst still in circulation. Perhaps the tree’s custodians – the
Ingleton Scenery Company, who have not responded to my queries – inserted the
coins themselves in order to ‘age’ the tree; applying an artificial patina to strengthen
a sense of authenticity (Kalshoven 2010: 68-69). The same reason may account for
why a 1933 three pence piece was placed on the cliff face behind the primary coin-
tree at St. Nectan’s Glen (Fig. 110).
It is not difficult to understand why these coin-tree custodians may wish to covertly
over-estimate the age of these structures; they probably believe that their visitors
would be more interested in a structure which boasts some antiquity, and that such a
structure may attract other (paying) visitors. Certainly, people appear disappointed to
discover that there are no ‘old pennies’ and that the coin-trees themselves are
relatively recent structures, obviously preferring the illusion of age. This desire is not
uncommon; Gormley notes that the ‘English national psyche has been a victim of the
past, binding us to a reverence for the old things’ (2007: 7), whilst Butler writes of ‘a
nostalgia for authenticity’ (2006: 466) and Lowenthal of ‘nostalgic affliction’ (1985:
10), an affliction characterised by the high demand for antique shops, vintage
clothing, and period dramas.
The coin-tree custom is certainly not the only British ‘tradition’ which appears far
older than it is. Hobsbawm and Ranger note how many ‘traditions’ – from
3 According to the three separate participants I interviewed who had visited the site regularly and
could not remember the tree being there prior to the 1980s.
190
ceremonies of the British monarchy to Christmas carols – are just some of the many
customs ‘which appear or claim to be old [but] are often quite recent in origin’
(1983: 1). A custom will feel more firmly established if it is bestowed with a sense
of age; in this way, age authenticates. As Lowenthal asserts, by implying that a
structure boasts some antiquity, the designation ‘lends it status’ (1985: 265).
The authenticating power of age is well-documented. Holtorf and Schadla-Hall,
writing of ‘age-value’, clearly demonstrate a perceived inherent connection between
age and authenticity (1999: 232). Objects wear their patinas as badges of pride
because they are viewed as evidence of antiquity (Goffer 1980: 264), and value is
attributed to age, from collectors’ items (Spooner 1986) to ordinary, everyday
objects which eventually find their way into museum displays simply because of
their antiquity (Macdonald 2002). As Penrose observes, ‘the older something
becomes the more important it tends to be thought’ (2007: 13). The same applies to
customs, which appear to be viewed by many as only interesting insofar as they are
seasoned.
This tactical adaptation of customs and age is not regarded in modern-day
scholarship as a necessarily negative process. Scholars of folklore acknowledge that
folk ‘traditions’ are fluid and malleable, and that the employment and adaptation of
folk customs for commercial reasons can – and often does – have positive effects.
Bendix (1989) asserts that changes are not made to traditions only in order to
encourage tourism, but to maintain the traditions which are at threat because of
tourism (1989: 132). Expressing a similar sentiment, Muri, in her consideration of
tourism’s impact on Austrian folk traditions, advocates that mass media has ‘been
instrumental in preserving traditions’ (2001: 55). While Creighton, in her study of
the marketing of tradition in the Japanese travel industry, asserts that in some cases
tourism has provided Japanese villages with the economic means to remain intact
and retain their traditions. ‘One may bemoan the loss of tradition to
commercialization,’ she writes, ‘…but in some cases these forces have also brought
about the means to keep traditions bemoaned as lost from disappearing altogether’
(1997: 248-249).
The coin-tree custom may similarly benefit from economically-motivated
adaptations. If members of the public are more likely to be interested in a coin-tree if
191
they believe it to be associated with local legends and traditions, or to be older than it
is, then these fostered interpretations will probably incite their participation – and
thus contribute to the continuation of the custom.
12 – A (NATURAL) MISCONCEPTION OF AGE
However, not all adaptations of the coin-tree custom are actively fostered by
custodians; most occur organically, perpetuated by the participants themselves. For
example, the misconception of the age of these structures can occur naturally,
without the impetus of a suggestive ‘many years’ written on a webpage or
interpretation panel. At coin-tree sites where no interpretation is offered at all,
members of the public are still inclined to believe that the structures are older than
they are.
Many people, when studying the coin-trees, have looked for ‘old coins’, and several
have asked me if I have discovered any, one young boy at Bolton Abbey (Appendix
2.12) even enquiring if I had come across any Roman coins. Even the custodians
appear to over-estimate the ages of their coin-trees, accidentally rather than by
design. For example, there is some dispute over the age of the Padley Gorge coin-
trees (Appendix 2.32) amongst the wardens and rangers; Chris Millner, Longshaw
Senior Warden, estimates that the custom began in the late 1970s or early 1980s
(pers. comm. 15/12/2011). Tom Lewis, Area Ranger, however, does not remember
the coin-trees being there when he worked at the site in the 1990s (pers. comm.
14/11/2011).
A similar disparity was evident at Marbury, Cheshire (Appendix 2.31). Jim Jeeves, a
volunteer ranger, seemed to believe that the custom was a long-standing one in the
park. Accompanying me to the coin-trees in August 2012, he proudly told me that
many of the coins were ‘very old’; when we looked closer at the dates and
determined that actually none of them were pre-decimalisation, he seemed rather
disappointed. ‘The coins are much older in the other one,’ he assured me. However,
the coins inserted into the second coin-tree were also all decimal. Jim, however, did
not seem to notice; pointing out a well-worn two pence piece, he erroneously
192
claimed that it was an ‘old penny’. Chris Moseley, Park Warden, however, does not
believe that the custom far pre-dates 2008/2009 (pers. comm. 16/08/2012).
It is not difficult to understand why the age of this custom is often misconceived as
much greater than it is. People seem to assume that as a folkloric custom it must
necessarily also be a long-standing one, and this opinion is often supported by the
physical appearance of the coin-trees. Often when people find what they describe as
‘old pennies’ they are in fact looking at two pence pieces which have been weathered
beyond easy recognition, a process which takes surprisingly little time. Figure 111
shows that coins which are damaged and heavily worn may appear ‘old’, but closer
examinations reveal their years of mint to be very recent. Other coins (Fig. 112)
exhibit signs of verdigris, the green compound which affects copper or bronze upon
over-exposure to air (Sharpe 2003: 419). These coins cannot have been inserted into
their respective coin-trees prior to 2008 – evidenced by their years of mint or their
coat-of-arms designs – and yet in a few more years, because of weathering and
verdigris, they may be unrecognisable.
13 – LOCATION AND ORGANIC MANIPULATION
As with the misconception of age, the harnessing of a site or landscape’s ‘already
existing traditions’ in order to interpret the coin-tree custom is not always actively
fostered by the coin-tree custodians. It can also be an organic process instigated by
the participants themselves. It has already been demonstrated that the coin-tree
custom has been adapted to time, its ‘meanings’ modernised. The custom has not,
however, only been subject to temporal acclimatisation, but to geographic adaptation
also, geographic location greatly influencing the perceptions and interpretations of
participants.
Place names are one significant factor. As was discussed above, names are highly
instrumental in colouring people’s perceptions of a place, thing, or practice, and this
is clearly evident when the name of a coin-tree site fosters an association with local
legend. The Malham coin-trees (Appendix 2.30), for example, are located along a
trail which passes Janet’s Foss, a waterfall which, according to local legend, is the
home of the queen of the fairies, Janet/Jennet. Consequently, at Malham five
193
different groups of visitors – all of whom claimed to have not read about the coin-
trees, and had therefore not been influenced by commercial adaptation of local
folklore – referred to ‘fairies’ whilst discussing the custom. One father told his son
that, by inserting a coin, you are ‘making a wish to the fairies’; a grandfather told his
grandchildren the same. One man, impatient to be on his way after his companion
had inserted a coin, said, ‘come on, we’re losing time watching the fairies’, whilst a
woman told her companion that people insert coins to make wishes to ‘Janet, the
fairy queen’, to which her companion sceptically replied, ‘the queen of the fairies is
called Janet?’
Fairy Glen (Appendix 2.19), on the Black Isle, is another example of the name of a
site influencing participants’ interpretations of the coin-tree custom. One mother
assured her two children that if they inserted a coin the fairies of the glen would
grant their wishes, while another woman opined that the custom was about ‘making
wishes, especially with it being called Fairy Glen’. The history of an area can also
impact personal interpretations; one woman, for instance, described how she had
originally regarded the custom as pagan, believing the Black Isle, an area ‘full of
myths and legends’, to have a long history of witchcraft.
Following this line of enquiry, I visited the owner of a small ‘crystal shop’, Panacea,
in the nearby village of Rosemarkie, which sells crystals, herbs, and aromatherapy
oils. When I asked the owner of this shop, Cornelia Hughes, if she was familiar with
the coin-tree custom, she seemed wryly amused by my query and admitted that the
custom is ‘not as esoteric as people think’. Although she asserted, quite firmly, that
the coin-tree belongs to ‘no Wiccan tradition’, she did accept that most visitors to
Fairy Glen assume a link to magic and witchcraft, and she can understand why; she
believes that Fairy Glen contains ‘great energy’.
The physical environment of the coin-tree can also influence perceptions of the
custom. At Snowdon, for example, three different groups referred, with varying
levels of earnestness, to their safety on the mountain as a central aspect of the
custom. One man from Australia jokingly queried if the coins are deposited as ‘an
offering to the mountain gods’; a young girl claimed that coins are inserted to ensure
the climber’s safety; whilst a male student from UCL suggested that people
participate as a ‘celebration for surviving the climb; a kind of ‘thank you mountain’’.
194
This notion is comparative with cairn building: the deposition of a stone onto a cairn
in mountainous areas for good luck on the climb, and it is notable that several such
cairns were located on the same route up Snowdon as the coin-trees.
Alternatively, at Gougane Barra (Appendix 2.21), participants drew on the Christian
nature of the site, with one person theorising that the deposition of a coin was ‘a way
of making an offering to the saint of a place’; whilst another opined that the custom
was ‘like putting money in collection at church’. At Portmeirion (Appendix 2.33), on
the other hand, the architectural nature of the site – an Italian-styled village-cum-
holiday resort built between 1925 and 1975 – resulted in more secular
interpretations, with one man suggesting that the town’s architect, Sir Clough
Williams-Ellis, had created the coin-tree, and a woman querying if it was an art
project.
The most notable geographically-motivated interpretations of the coin-tree custom,
however, are dependent upon country, dividing the Scottish and Irish coin-trees from
those in England and Wales. While participants of the coin-tree custom in England
and Wales associate the coin-trees with vague notions of wishes and luck, in
Scotland and Ireland associations appear to be more focused. A particularly notable
example is the association of coin-trees with rag-trees and clootie wells, the history
of which was traced in Chapter 4.
14 – THE COIN-TREE AND THE RAG-TREE
One particularly notable example of a geographically-specific ‘already existing
tradition’, which was drawn upon in interpretations of a coin-tree, was the clootie
well of Munlochy (Fig. 113), the Black Isle, six miles south-west of the Fairy Glen
coin-trees. In a tradition which, according to Van den Eynden, possibly pre-dates the
7th
century AD (2010: 243), the trees surrounding the spring of Saint Boniface’s well
are heavily adorned with pieces of clothing in a custom which is still very much
observed today – together with the tradition of depositing a coin in the spring of
Saint Boniface’s well, which runs through the cluster of rag-trees (Fig. 114).
It is probably no coincidence that the Fairy Glen coin-trees are a mere six miles
away from this clootie well, which Van den Eynden describes as ‘the best known in
195
Scotland’ (2010: 243). This is a site which pairs together the historic customs of
depositing coins in water and of adorning trees with personal objects, which are
intended to represent (or stand in as substitute for) the depositor. The coin-tree,
therefore, is particularly compatible with these two ‘already existing traditions’
because it can be viewed as an amalgamation of them; as the most recent incarnation
of two long-standing traditions.
Indeed, of the six groups interviewed at Fairy Glen, three opined that there is a
connection between coin-trees and clootie wells, drawing on a custom which they
were probably more familiar with. A man claimed that the coin-tree is probably ‘the
same thing as clootie wells; leaving offerings for healing or prayers’, while one
woman specifically connected the coin-trees to the clootie well of Munlochy,
claiming that if rag-trees are used for healing then ‘maybe coin-trees are too’. And it
is probably no coincidence that the only two interview participants who referred to
healing in their interpretations of coin-trees were at the same site – a site which is in
close proximity to a clootie well still in use today. Folk-remedies are evidently not
entirely redundant; they are, however, geographically limited, although not
exclusively to Scotland. In Ireland, for example, the customs of rag-trees/clootie
wells and coin-trees appear to be even more closely interconnected.
15 – HEALING IN IRELAND
As was demonstrated in Chapter 4, many coin-trees in Ireland are connected with –
or more accurately described as – rag-trees, with items of clothing often deposited
alongside coins (Figs. 115-116). The depositors of these objects are unknown, for I
did not witness participation. Having asked Jane O’Reilly, local business owner in
Fore, Co. Wesmeath (Appendix 2.20), who she believes inserts coins into the trees,
she admitted that she too had never actually seen anybody doing it; ‘and yet every
time I go there,’ she added, ‘more things have been attached’ (pers. comm.
04/10/2012). Her theory is that the participants of this custom are mainly ‘the
Travelling people’, who ‘still believe in the traditional ways of healing’. According
to Jane, many Irish Travellers visit Fore believing that the water from St. Feichin’s
vat (Fig. 117), located beside a rag-tree also embedded with coins, is curative. She
has heard that they bathe their children in the vat, then attach an offering to the
196
nearby tree, and – not wishing to be seen by the local residents – they conduct these
rituals at night.
Jane’s theory connecting rag-trees with Irish Travellers is supported by opinions and
tales recounted by other local residents. The owners of a guesthouse in Abbeyleix,
Co. Laois, for example, opined that customs such as rag-trees are upheld
predominantly by ‘the Travellers’, an opinion also expressed by two local residents
in the city of Limerick, who asserted that Travellers attach rags to trees before
leaving an area; if the rag blows away, it is taken as an indication that the depositor
will not return to the site. And in Doon, Co. Limerick, a local business owner spoke
of a tree in Ireland – she could not remember its exact location – which ‘the
Travellers’ visit to cure warts.
Perhaps these accounts should be taken with a pinch of salt, considering the
stereotyping and prejudice that the Irish Travellers are often subjected to. However,
the customs recounted are certainly in-keeping with the literature on the subject,
which offers many examples of the Travellers’ beliefs in symbolic transference
(Trigg 1973: 40) and their veneration of holy wells and associated rag-trees.
Delaney, for example, recounts being told by Traveller children that ‘their families
travel across Ireland to go to healers and visit holy wells for cures’ (2000: 33), while
an extract in Griffin’s ‘The Globalization of Pilgrimage Tourism?’ presents an
account by Traveller children in Co. Wexford of their annual pilgrimage to holy
wells: ‘We go to holy wells in the summer and in the winter. We go to pray for other
people and for ourselves’ (2007: 27).
Holy wells are obviously not venerated solely by the Travellers, and their customs
and beliefs have much in common with the customs and beliefs of the Irish in
general. As Barnes writes, ‘[s]uperstitions shared by the Travellers appear no
different from those of Irish rural folk’; however, he also adds that ‘certain
superstitions have been “adapted to the road”’ (1975: 248). Traditional Christian
customs are rather uniquely re-interpreted by the Irish Travellers (Court 1985: 81),
whose religious beliefs are described by Trigg as ‘syncretic’ (1973: 27), and by
Griffin as a ‘faith mixed with superstition and visits to religious sites’ (2007: 27).
Their unique approaches to traditional Christianity are particularly evident at the
sites of holy wells, where, as Foley writes, ‘Travellers in particular, have a deep and
197
unique set of practices at the well, which occasionally brings them into conflict with
religious and settled practices’ (2011: 477). Their ‘variant, even deviant use of the
sites’ and ‘unique performances’, as Foley writes (2011: 37), include the custom at
Father Moore’s Well, Tobernalt, to bathe their children in the water (Foley 2011:
477) – a custom reminiscent of the rituals apparently undertaken at St. Feichin’s vat
in Fore. The customs surrounding the holy wells of Ireland evidently blur the lines
between ‘religion’, ‘magic’, and ‘folk-medicine’ (Rackard et al. 2001: 7).
Foley believes that the Irish Travellers’ wide reverence for holy wells may actually
be the result of the settled communities’ negative perceptions and treatment of them:
‘Excluded from both spiritual (by a generally disengaged church) and medical
(through limited access to health care services) settings, Traveller’s [sic.] gravitate to
those healing places which were open to them and for which they have had a long
cultural attachment’ (2011: 37). This negative treatment of them, though, may have
also resulted in the adoption of a rather furtive, reticent approach to ritual –
highlighted by Jane O’Reilly of Fore, who claimed that the Travellers, widely
perceived as an enigmatic people (Trigg 1973: 1; Gmelch 1985: 3), prefer to conduct
their rituals in the privacy of night (pers. comm. 04/10/2012).
16 – MEMORY: A NEW ‘MEANING’
Coin-trees in the Republic of Ireland, therefore, may still be employed for healing, in
contrast to those in Scotland, such as Isle Maree, which appear to have shed their
folk-remedy associations, whilst those in England do not seem to have ever had such
associations. However, the customs of affixing rags and inserting coins prove not to
be entirely identical. Jane O’Reilly, describing the rag/coin-trees at Fore (Appendix
2.20), explained that the custom involves affixing an object that will ‘deteriorate
quickly, something close to you’ onto the branches of the trees (pers. comm.
04/10/2012).
These designations allude to a belief in sympathetic magic, whereby an object which
was ‘close to you’ is employed to represent the depositor’s malady, and as the object
degrades, the malady is also believed to deteriorate, subsequently leaving the
depositor cured (Bord and Bord 1985: 59; Foley 2011: 473). The ephemeral,
198
transient nature of these deposits – having obviously negative archaeological
implications – is central to their roles in this custom, which is why, as Jane
explained, pieces of fabric are preferred over more durable objects. Jane used ‘tin-
foil’ as an example of the type of material which people would not deposit on these
trees, specifically because of its durability (pers. comm. 04/10/2012).
Ironically, however, tin-foil was found on one of the trees at Fore: a compact piece
of tin-foil attached to a rag on one of the coin/rag-trees (Fig. 118). And this is not the
only example of diuturnal materials being deposited on these trees, with metal
hairclips, bracelets, earrings, and key-rings adorning the trees’ branches in high
numbers. Coins, however, are the most obvious example of durable deposits,
contradicting the belief that objects are chosen for their temporality, and suggesting
that, although coin-trees may be employed for healing in the Republic of Ireland,
they may – like the coin-trees elsewhere in the British Isles – have evolved to fulfil
another purpose.
Recently, holy wells have developed what Foley terms ‘new meanings around grief,
hope and memorial, exemplified by left offerings marking premature death, serious
illness and loss’ (2011: 475). The holy wells, and their respective rag-trees,
therefore, are no longer solely the destinations of pilgrims seeking cures; they have
also become memorials for those whom the pilgrims have lost. At St. Bridget’s Well
and rag-tree in Liscannor, Co. Clare, for example, the narrow stone passageway
leading to the holy well is lined with hundreds of letters, photographs, photo frames,
statues, and rosary beads, amongst numerous other offerings, many of which were
clearly deposited in memorial for somebody (Figs. 119-120). As Rackard et al. aptly
note:
Some holy wells look like shrines to recycling, with discarded fire-grates,
bedsteads and even parts of washing machines framing the tokens of the
devotion. This most modest sort of holy well is not a dump, however…it is
just the opposite, for the rags, damaged statues and rusting metal are
consigned not to oblivion, but to memory (2001: 12)
A different kind of deposit is required for this new role of holy wells and rag-trees:
the durable kind. Participants in the custom of affixing objects to trees may no longer
be choosing specifically ephemeral deposits so that their maladies fade at the rate of
the deposit’s decay. Instead, objects may be deposited in memoriam for a lost loved
199
one, chosen specifically for their durability. As Petts observes, durable monuments
‘serve to crystallise into physical form the dynamic act of remembrance’ (2003: 194-
195), whilst Bradbury notes that people desire a ‘concrete representation’ of their
loved ones (2001: 224). Metal objects – such as coins – would certainly fit this new
requirement.
Trees, likewise, provide suitable memorials. There is an aspect of durability to them,
but more importantly they can, according to Francis et al., represent ‘seasonal cycles
of birth, maturation, death, decay and regeneration’ (2001: 226). A relatively recent
development in memorialisation involves mourners planting trees in honour of the
deceased, a more eco-friendly custom than erecting headstones. The website Life for
a Life, for example, offers mourners the chance, for a minimum donation of £495, to
plant a tree in a ‘Memorial Forest’ (Life for a Life 2011). As Bradbury writes, these
‘‘woods for the dead’, which make oxygen for the living, beautifully illustrate the
fluid and flexible nature of our mortuary customs’ (2001: 225). They also illustrate
the fluid and flexible nature of trees, which, through the performance of
commemorative ceremonies (Connerton 1989: 44ff), can shift from natural structures
to monuments of memorialisation, a process which is evident at the Munlochy
clootie well, where a large piece of cloth, adorned with the words ‘R.I.P SCOTT’,
has been attached to a tree (Fig. 121).
Trees in roadside memorials have likewise been harnessed as ritualised mnemonic
devices (Jalland 2010: 263-265). To an extent, these trees ‘shift from site to
surrogate’, to use a phrase coined by Marion Bowman, Head of Religious Studies at
the Open University (pers. comm. 11/06/2013). For example, in North Radstock,
Somerset, where a tree was adopted as a memorial site for a young boy who had died
in a car accident, there were impassioned protests when plans emerged to remove the
tree to ease traffic congestion. On a ribbon attached to the tree was written ‘losing
this tree would be like losing [the victim] all over again’ (Marion Bowman, pers.
comm. 11/06/2013), illustrating the extent to which the tree had come to represent
the victim.
One example from my fieldwork demonstrates that coin-trees can equally be utilised
as monuments of memory. While I was collecting the empirical data of the coin-trees
in Fairy Glen, the Black Isle (Appendix 2.19), three women in their sixties, all from
200
Norfolk, lingered on the bridge overlooking the waterfall and coin-trees, taking
photographs of them for several minutes. Concerned that I was intruding in their
photographs, I stepped away from the coin-trees and immediately – as if they had
been waiting for me to leave – the three women approached. They clearly wanted
privacy, and there was an air of solemnity as two of the women hung back and the
third moved forward, silently hammering pennies into two of the coin-trees. She
used a rock, conveniently placed atop the primary coin-tree, as a tool of percussion.
I lingered on the sidelines for a moment, waiting for the women to turn back towards
the bridge before I approached them. I aimed my questions at the woman who had
hammered the coins in, and she seemed more than happy to answer them. She told
me that she and her husband had visited Fairy Glen nearly every year for the past
decade, and had always inserted coins into the tree. However, since their last visit,
her husband had died, and so she had returned this year to continue their tradition ‘in
honour of him.’
This example is illustrative for a number of reasons. Firstly, it demonstrates the
performative and ritualised actions common to commemorative ceremonies
(Connerton 1989: 44ff): the air of solemnity as the woman stepped forward, her
friends lingering behind, and the respectful silence as she inserted the coins into the
tree. Secondly, it reveals another aspect – another ‘meaning’ – of the coin-tree: its
ability to act as a monument of memory; the coin as a durable mnemonic device
embedded into a structure which can be used to represent seasonal cycles, as well as
decay and regeneration. And thirdly, it clearly illustrates the mutability of ‘meaning’.
For the last decade, this woman and her husband had visited Fairy Glen and inserted
coins into the tree for a very different reason: to make wishes. Apparently they had
originally thought the custom was associated with magic, believing the Black Isle to
have a long history of witchcraft. However, following her husband’s death in 2011,
she returned to Fairy Glen and embedded more coins into the coin-trees, not to make
wishes but to act ‘in memory’ of her husband; ‘in honour’ of him. As a wife, she had
perceived the coin-tree custom very differently than as a widow. The ‘meaning’ of
the coin-tree, therefore, proves to be vague, mutable, and highly situational, not only
variously interpreted by different people in different locations, but also by the same
person in the same location, but at different stages in their life.
201
17 – CONCLUSION
Coin-trees are not diverse structures. Granted, some are logs while others are stumps,
and some are still fledglings, containing only a few coins, whilst others are well-
established monuments, affixed with thousands. But essentially they are all alike:
they are trees adorned with coins, and the custom of deposition is similarly
homogenous. Even the historical examples of coin-trees, such as Isle Maree, are
united with the contemporary case-studies through the similarities of their
appearances and the relatively uniform methods of physical participation.
Physical evidence of homogeneity in how a structure is utilized or treated, however,
does not constitute uniformity of motive. The very nature of coin-trees – as
unofficial and enigmatic structures often stumbled upon by chance – encourages
great variation in the why of participation. What the coin-tree ‘means’ is dependent
upon who the participant is, who they are with – whether alone, in a group of peers,
with children – their emotional mood at the time, and at what stage in their life they
encounter a coin-tree. The coin-tree custom has not one ‘meaning’, but a myriad.
This situational aspect of folklore is not incidental, but often integral to its survival.
Because customs and symbols (such as the coin and the tree) can be diversely
interpreted, individuals can ascribe the ideas, purposes, and motivations that are
more suited to their position at the time of participation (Fernandez 1965: 906; Gore
1998: 66). They thus become broadly inclusive; anybody can participate if they wish.
The coin-tree, therefore, acts as what Eade and Sallnow term a ritual ‘void’, a space
which, (usually) free from authoritative prescription, can accommodate diverse
meanings and practices (1991: 15). It is for this reason that ambiguity and mutability
are often essential to a folkloric custom; ‘integral to its efficacy’, as Bell writes
(1992: 184). Its participants must be permitted the freedom to perceive and interpret
it as they choose, otherwise they may not participate at all.
202
CHAPTER 7: THE FUTURE OF THE COIN-TREE
It is a dry and mild Thursday in June, and I am at the site of the Brock Bottom coin-
tree, Lancashire. I have arranged to meet Greg Robinson, a Countryside Ranger for
the Wyre Council who patrols the area, in the visitors’ car park. Greg greets me
enthusiastically, eager to show me the coin-tree. He leads me down to the River
Brock, where we follow a narrow but well-maintained path through the forest. He is
curious about my project and, as we walk, asks questions about the coin-tree
custom: he wants to know about other sites and where this custom originated.
Apparently he has been asked these questions by visitors but is always unsure how to
respond.
It is an easy walk, flat but a little muddy, and we follow the river for just over five
minutes before reaching the coin-tree. I fail to notice it at first. The log itself is large
and easily visible, its northern end jutting out onto the path, but not quite enough
coins have been inserted to make it immediately noticeable. Greg leads me to it,
The Ardmaddy Excavation, Argyll (Photograph by author)
203
declaring ‘Here it is,’ with the gusto of a proud custodian, before proceeding to
point out the features he finds most interesting. He notes the numerous examples of
graffiti scratched into the tree’s bark, predominantly people’s initials, and remarks
on the number of coins that have been bent over during insertion, querying if this
was incidental or an aspect of the custom itself. He asks if other coin-trees are
similar.
Greg cannot stay with me for long; a secondary school class are coming for a
fieldtrip and he has to prepare for a lesson on how the forest has been affected by
human activities. I observe that the coin-tree would be a perfect example and he
assures me that they will be stopping to look at it. Soon enough, 30 or so students
are led around the corner by their teacher, who points out the coin-tree. One girl
asks, nonplussed, why anybody would want to put their money into a tree, while a
group of boys quip about dragging it to a bank and depositing the coins. As the
group moves away, one boy sits on the coin-tree and imitates riding a horse.
When asked his personal opinion of the custom, Greg replies that it ‘seems a fun
idea’ and adds that, over time, as the coin-tree becomes older and certain coins drop
out of service, it will become even more interesting. Visitors apparently stop to
examine the different coins, looking for pre-decimal examples; ‘It has created a bit
of an attraction,’ Greg remarks. However, as far as he is aware, Wyre Council have
not advertised the coin-tree as an attraction in any form, and while he does not
believe that the custom should be discouraged, neither does he think that measures
should be taken for its protection. He stresses the interactive nature of the coin-tree
as its most important feature, claiming that, ‘It’s there for people to sit on and
clamber about on. It will eventually rot away,’ he adds with a regretful shrug. ‘But
not for many years.’
PART 1: CONSERVING THE COIN-TREE
1 – INTRODUCTION
Thus far, this thesis has been concerned with coin-trees in the past and present
tenses. It has considered the historical customs and beliefs which may have led to the
coin-tree custom, and it has examined how the practice has manifested itself in the
204
present day; how people interpret and engage with these contemporary structures.
For a fuller contextualisation, the tense shifts in this final chapter and the focus turns
instead to the coin-trees’ future.
Part one of this chapter will examine the heritage of coin-trees, asking whether these
structures are protected, whether they should be, and, if so, how. I will make
strategic recommendations based on experience during fieldwork and engagements
with custodians, heritage professionals, and members of the public. Part two will
draw on data collected during the Ardmaddy excavation (see Chapter 3 for
methodology and Appendix 5 for data) in considering the archaeological
implications of this folkloric custom. It will question what coin-trees will proffer as
future archaeological sites; what future archaeologists would find in 100-200 years
and how they would interpret those finds.
2 – THE MORTALITY OF THE COIN-TREE
‘Wood is a perishable material’, write Young and Lonsdale (1977: 3). This may
seem a fairly obvious point but it is a fact frequently forgotten. Trees appear to be
such permanent features in our landscape that we often overlook their mortality, but
all trees eventually succumb to gravity, and their remains – stumps, logs, branches –
are equally susceptible to the ill-effects of the passing of time. They decay, losing
mass through respiration, leaching, and fragmentation (Harmon et al. 1986: 156),
until there is little remaining of them. Indeed, this process has already reached a later
stage in some of the coin-tree case-studies (e.g. BA1, BA2, HF3, MH19), which may
be little more than fragments of woody debris within the next few years (Figs. 122-
124).
The coin-trees, however, are not only threatened by the natural processes of the
passage of time, but by human activity. The freedom to interact with these structures
may be the basis of their appeal (see Chapter 5), but it also threatens their longevity.
Actions such as touching, sitting on, and climbing over the coin-trees (Figs. 65-68)
may seem harmless, but they can cause erosion and damage, as well as eliciting fears
from the coin-tree custodians who are anxious to ensure their visitors’ safety. The
coin-tree log at Freeholders Wood, Yorkshire, for example, was removed by the
205
forest rangers in c.2006 because, as Phillip Hibbs, Trees and Woodlands Officer,
notes, ‘it was in a dangerous condition (and people were climbing higher and higher
up the tree to knock in the coins)’ (pers. comm. 19/10/2011).
Elsewhere, damage and destruction through human intervention is even more
explicit. At High Force, County Durham (Appendix 2.24), the primary coin-tree was
destroyed in early 2012. As Figures 125-127 show, between 2009 and 2012 the log
underwent severe decomposition, and by the time fieldwork was conducted on the
site in September 2012 there was nothing left of the coin-tree bar fragmented woody
debris. Steve Gillard, Visitor Attraction Manager for High Force, however, does not
believe that the coin-tree’s disappearance was the result of natural causes: ‘The coins
disappeared, so I presume the visitors took them. I am under the impression that the
destruction of the branch had some human intervention, which is a great shame’
(pers. comm. 16/07/2012).
Similar events occurred at Clonenagh, Co. Laois (Appendix 2.15), where little
remains of the original coin-tree bar a coin-less fragment (Fig. 34), a scattering of
woody debris, and five coins distributed on the ground close to the present coin-tree.
Considering how prolifically the original tree had been coined (Fig. 33), it appears
that a high volume of coins have been removed from the site. At Hardcastle Crags,
Yorkshire (Appendix 2.23), this was taken one step further. Andrew Marsh, National
Trust Warden, describes how the site’s primary coin-tree ‘was stolen a couple of
years ago by some adventurous types who dragged it across the river and up a very
steep bank (I hope it was worth the effort)’ (pers. comm. 27/09/2011).
Despite the obvious vulnerability of these structures, few measures have been taken
to ensure their preservation and, judging by my engagements with their custodians,
no plans are in the pipeline to slow the rates of decay or prevent damage caused by
visitors. The Ardmaddy coin-tree, Argyll (Appendix 2.9), which is the focus of the
excavation detailed below, is the only coin-tree to be protected within a wooden
enclosure (Fig. 9), but the fence was erected to deter cattle rather than people, who
can still access the coin-tree via a stile.
On the whole, the coin-tree custodians exhibit rather resigned attitudes towards the
eventual destruction of the coin-trees, believing it to be inevitable. Ranger Greg
Robinson (see above) admitted that the coin-tree at Brock Bottom (Appendix 2.13)
206
‘will eventually rot away, but not for many years’, an opinion shared by Graeme
McVittie, Woodland Officer of Tarr Steps, who sees no point in protecting the coin-
trees in his custodianship because they will ‘decay over time’ (pers. comm.
16/01/2013). Likewise, one visitor in Cumbria opined that ‘there’s no point
protecting it; you can’t stop the tree from decaying. It’s just the cycle of life’.
However, some heritage professionals have exhibited concern over the protection
and preservation of coin-trees. Joanna Pugh, an external affairs consultant working
for the National Trust, informed me that: ‘we have a coin tree at our property at Aira
Force…which is raising some interesting questions in terms of management and
protection’ (pers. comm. 21/05/2013). Whilst Sharon Webb, Director of Kilmartin
House Museum, appeared greatly relieved when I contacted her regarding my small-
scale excavation at the site of the Ardmaddy coin-tree. She responded with:
‘Fantastic, we have been quite concerned about the tree and the deposits in and
around it as it slowly dies. It’s a very well loved tree’ (pers. comm. 05/03/2013).
Evidently the preservation of these structures is a concern for some.
This division of opinion leads to the question of whether the eventual destruction or
disappearance of the coin-trees should be accepted as inevitable, or should we be
actors rather than witnesses, actors with the opportunity – or even obligation – to
implement and promote preservation practices? The answers to these questions are
not clear-cut, dependent as they are upon a number of factors, not least how effective
preservation attempts might prove to be. However, the foremost determinant is
whether or not we consider the coin-trees to be ‘worthy’ of protection.
3 – ‘GREEN MONUMENTS’
Trees have a long history of being valued and protected. Cultures worldwide have
demonstrated a tendency to regard specific trees as ‘special’ and to subsequently
bestow upon them a certain level of protection (Schwarze et al. 2000: 1), and
modern-day Britain is no exception. The most recent ‘incarnation’ of the
Glastonbury Thorn – the hawthorn which supposedly grew from Joseph of
Arimathea’s staff when he visited Glastonbury with the Holy Grail – is today
207
protected behind a fence (Fig. 134, see below), and there are probably vast numbers
of other trees venerated and safeguarded by their local communities.
The Major Oak of Sherwood Forest, the hollow trunk of which was purportedly used
as a hide-out by Robin Hood, is one such example. The Nottinghamshire County
Council website states: ‘Because of its national importance, conservation measures
to the tree have been carried out continually since 1908’; conservation measures
which include a protective fence, steel poles supporting its heaviest branches, and
tree surgeons inspecting it periodically.
Likewise in Wales, the inhabitants of Carmarthen have carefully preserved an old
oak stump in concrete and enclosed it behind railings for protection, local legend
asserting that ‘when the oak falls down, then sink the town’, and there was great
concern when plans to improve Carmarthen’s central road threatened the removal of
this stump (Wilks 1972: 135). Other communities have also rejected council plans
which have endangered ‘special’ trees, and Milner cites numerous examples of trees
in Ireland which, predominantly because of their association with fairies, are stoutly
protected by the local populace at the expense of road development (1992: 140).
In Ireland, such trees are listed on the online Heritage Tree Database (Tree Council
of Ireland nd.), a list which has been added to by members of the public following
the online plea: ‘We all want our heritage and ancient trees to survive as long as
possible and to do this we need to protect them. The only way we can do this is to
know where they are...’ So far, over 1300 ‘heritage trees’ have been added. Included
amongst these are the coin-trees of Gougane Barra (Appendix 2.21), Fore (Appendix
2.20), and Clonenagh (Appendix 2.15), which are clearly well-established structures
in their local areas. In fact, the original Clonenagh coin-tree is well enough
established to have been listed as a registered historical site on the National
Monuments Service website, labelled the ‘Holy Tree’ (SMR No. LA017-003004)
(National Monuments Service nd.).
In Scotland, certain trees have also been given official heritage status. In 2002, a
panel of judges awarded the accolade of ‘Heritage Tree of Scotland’ to 100 trees;
amongst this list is the Ardmaddy coin-tree, dubbed by Rodger et al. the ‘Wishing
Tree of Argyll’ (2003: 87). The coin-tree’s custodian, Charles Struthers of
Ardmaddy Castle, was awarded a wooden trophy inscribed with the words
208
‘Scotland’s Heritage Trees 2002: Wishing Tree’, which he proudly displayed on my
visit to the site (Fig. 128).
Less official and standardised attention, however, appears to have been given to trees
of England and Wales. The British Tree Council launched its ‘Green Monuments
Campaign’ in 2003 when it outlined the shortcomings of tree preservation in a letter
to Tessa Jowell, former Secretary of State at the Department of Culture, Media and
Sport. On their website, they state the following:
The value of trees of historical, cultural or ecological importance is already formally
recognised in many countries. This is not the case in the UK.
In contrast to historic buildings, there are no legal safeguards specific to ancient
trees or others of heritage significance. Many of them could be felled tomorrow
without penalty. (Tree Council nd.)
In order to rectify this, the Tree Council are attempting to compile a list of ‘heritage
trees’ in Britain and Ireland, and are campaigning for ‘safeguards for green
monuments’; ‘encouragement for custodians to look after them’, and ‘support and
advice on their care’. A condensed list of these ‘green monuments’ is presented in
Stokes and Rodger’s The Heritage Trees of Britain and Northern Ireland (2004),
which reproduces the entry on the Ardmaddy coin-tree from Rodger et al.’s Heritage
Trees of Scotland (2003: 87), but does not refer to any of the English or Welsh coin-
trees. The vast majority of coin-trees are therefore not recognised as ‘green
monuments’, in need of protection or preservation.
4 – THE COIN-TREE’S AMBIGUITY
Having investigated the reasons behind the coin-tree’s absence on such lists, it was
discovered that it is these structures’ ambiguity which excludes them from the remit
of the leading English heritage organisations. English Heritage, for example,
informed me that they would not be responsible for the preservation of coin-trees
unless they were listed structures (pers. comm. Lynne Taylor, Assistant Practice
Manager, English Heritage, 14/06/2013). However, the designation coordinators at
English Heritage claim that they ‘do not designate natural features such as trees, and
therefore would have no involvement in the preservation of coin-trees’ (pers. comm.
Victoria Ellis, Designation Coordinator, English Heritage, 24/06/2013). They
209
advised that Natural England and Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) would be more
appropriate.
However, Natural England state that coin-trees fall outside their remit also: ‘Tree
preservation orders can be made on live trees but as most [coin-trees] are felled then
that would not apply’ (pers. comm. Jim, Natural England, 23/09/2013). The
Environment and Transport Administration repeated this: ‘TPOs are usually placed
on living trees’ (pers. comm. Sarah Tudor, 04/10/2013). Natural England state that
the coin-trees will instead be ‘the responsibility of the land owner’ (pers. comm. Jim,
Natural England, 23/09/2013). It is therefore the coin-tree’s ambiguity as a natural
but no longer living feature which excludes it from the remit of the large English
heritage organisations, and results in it simply falling instead under the jurisdiction
of individual custodians.
However, as noted above, individual custodians are often indifferent about
preserving their coin-trees or unsure how to. The National Trust, for example, is the
largest custodian of coin-trees, managing 13 of the 33 coin-tree sites in the British
Isles, resulting in at least 90 individual coin-trees being in their care. However, none
of these are protected. Although rangers and wardens are beginning to consider the
conservation of coin-trees (see Joanna Pugh’s comments above), the National Trust
have not yet implemented any strategies of preservation.
As a major custodian of British trees generally, managing nearly 25,000 hectares of
woodland in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, Watkins, writing for the
National Trust magazine, asserts that they take the responsibility of tree
custodianship very seriously (2011: 32). As Watkins rightly asks, ‘is it not strange
that if…ancient trees are as much a gateway into the past as a historical castle, they
do not share the same legal protection?’ (2011: 32). He advocates a resolution, put
before the National Trust AGM in 2000, which proposed that ‘trees should be given
as much care as old houses and landscaped gardens’ (2011: 32). However, as
promising as this resolution was, the National Trust’s assurance to value and protect
their trees has evidently not stretched to include coin-trees.
210
5 – AGE, AUTHENTICITY, AND THE HERITAGE DEBATE
The discrepancy between what was proposed by the National Trust and what is
actually being done to protect these structures may be due to a matter of perception
of value. One word used by Watkins is highly illustrative of this, implying that a
certain category of trees are valued over others: that word is ‘ancient’, clearly
indicating that the category of trees he is referring to as deserving of the National
Trust’s protection are trees which boast a certain antiquity. As explored in Chapter 4,
only a minority of the coin-trees would fit this requirement: Isle Maree, Ardmaddy,
and the four sites in Ireland, while the remaining coin-tree sites date to the late
1990s/early 2000s.
However, if we perceive age to be an authenticating virtue (see Chapter 6), does its
absence necessarily denote inauthenticity? Does a lack of antiquity designate an
object or structure unworthy of protection and heritage status? To some, it would
appear so. Victorian art critic John Ruskin, for example, writing of architecture,
opined that the ‘greatest glory of a building is not in its stones, nor in its gold. Its
glory is in its Age, and in that deep sense of voicefulness’ (1849: 172). In Ruskin’s
opinion, therefore, it is a structure’s antiquity rather than its physical or cultural
virtues that merits attention.
In recent years, however, heritage professionals have begun to challenge this time-
centred criterion for attention (Byrne 2009: 230). Schofield, writing of ‘Modern
Times’ for the Conservation Bulletin, poses the following questions:
Is there consensus on what we allow into the heritage ‘club’ and what are the
rules of admission? What do we leave at the door because it is thought to be
too new or too everyday – and often both? How and when should its
definition be extended into modern times, a period for which we have an
abundance of site types, perceptions, experiences and sources? (2007: 2)
English Heritage, perhaps in response to such questions, have broadened their
definition of ‘heritage’. They have begun to, as Penrose writes, challenge ‘the
current orthodoxy within the heritage industry that places value, or assigns sites a
designated protective status, only once a respectable ‘cut-off’ period of at least 30
years has passed’ (2007: 9). In the early 2000s they began to advocate progressive
forward planning and established an English Heritage programme entitled ‘Change
and Creation’, which addressed the question of whether aspects of the British
211
landscape from 1950-2000 can be considered as part of our ‘heritage’ and
subsequently should be protected (Bradley et al. 2004).
If we begin to record and preserve the monuments of the late 20th
and early 21st
centuries now, then we can address our own heritage and legacy while it still
survives; as Schofield notes: ‘Today’s landscapes have the potential to become
tomorrow’s heritage’ (2007: 2). The heritage industry, therefore, has begun to view
modern-day structures and landscapes in a different light; as not only worthy of
preservation, but – in some cases – in need of it. The coin-trees’ modernity should
therefore not exclude them from the heritage industry’s attention. The question
remains, however, whether we should actively protect them. As Bradley et al. ask,
‘should time and nature be allowed to decide what our legacy is?’ (2004: 5).
The threats encountered by the coin-trees, as outlined above, are numerous. Not only
will the naturally destructive processes of time take their tolls on the trees, but the
public’s physical interactions with them, although central to the custom, endanger
the structures themselves; here the ‘devotees’ are the ‘destroyers’ (Lowenthal 1995:
124). While contemporary structures, such as coin-trees, may appear stable and
permanent, they are often surprisingly ephemeral (Bradley et al. 2004: 7), and if
there is concern for the loss of cultural memory (Connerton 2006), then it is
important to plan preservation before it is needed. However, if actions were taken to
protect and preserve the coin-trees, what forms would they take?
6 – REMOVING THE COIN-TREE
Removal has become a major method of historical salvage (Lowenthal 1985: 285).
The coin-trees could be removed from their natural, accessible – and subsequently
destructive – environments, and transported to museums or other centres for
conservation. There are, for example, instances of coin-trees and coin-tree sections
having been removed for storage by custodians. However, the success of these
conservation attempts either remains to be seen or is ambiguous at best. For
example, at Freeholders Wood, as described above, the forest rangers removed the
coin-tree, anxious for their visitors’ safety, and, as Phillips Hibbs explained, the
‘majority of the stem was taken away to one of our nearby workshops, but has since
212
disappeared!’ (pers. comm. 16/12/2011). Possibly due to a lack of diligence on the
custodians’ part, the current location of this coin-tree is now unknown.
Another example of coin-tree removal involves an attempt made by a local resident;
a section of the original Ardboe coin-tree, which fell during the winter of 1973-74,
was salvaged by Pat Grimes. However, nearly four decades later the wood has
decayed so completely that nothing remains of the section itself bar 79 coins, which
Pat stores in a cup beside his front door (pers. comm. 07/04/2012). No doubt the
same fate awaits another five salvaged sections, two of which are from the later
Ardboe coin-tree, which fell during a storm in 1997. One is now stored in a garage
behind Coyle’s Cottage, the home of the Muintirevlin Historical Society (Fig. 129),
whilst another is contained within a cardboard box and held in store at the Ulster
Folk and Transport Museum (Fig. 130) (ACNR 346-1998).
Another three sections are fallen limbs from the Ardmaddy coin-tree, two of which
are stored on a shelf above a sink in the games room of Ardmaddy Castle (Fig. 131),
whilst the third is displayed amidst plant pots, buckets, and geological ‘curiosities’
on a ledge beside the castle’s main entrance (Fig. 132). Although these sections are
all intact at present, they will not remain so for long; even protected from the
elements and further coin-insertion, they are not adequately stored to greatly delay
the rate of decay.
Certain methods can be employed to conserve wood, which involve creating
environments which restrict the activities of wood rotting fungi or bacteria
(O’Sullivan 1990: 69). In the timber industry, for example, wet storage is employed
for conserving boles; this method involves keeping wood moisture at a high level by
artificial irrigation, denying the input of oxygen to the timber. This method,
however, involves high investment costs and monitoring input (Odenthal-Kahabka
2009), and is therefore probably unfeasible for the preservation of coin-trees – not to
mention possibly destructive to the coins themselves. While wet storage may
conserve the wood, it will have a different effect on the metal.
This is a problem often encountered with the conservation of wood-metal composite
objects (pers. comm. Sam Sportun, Collections Care Manager and Senior
Conservator, Manchester Museum, 30/01/2013). Waterlogged wood, for example, is
often impregnated with polyethylene glycol (PEG) for preservation, but PEG
213
solutions are acidic and would corrode the coins (Selwyn et al. 1993: 180). And
while there are certain solutions which can treat waterlogged wood while minimizing
corrosion of the metal – Selwyn et al. advocate Witcamine RAD 1100, a resin which
can be used instead of PEG (1993: 194) – it is clear that the presence of metal in
coin-trees would complicate conservation processes.
Even if removal of the coin-trees could ensure the preservation of both the wood and
the coins, there are still numerous disadvantages, the most grievous being, in
Lowenthal’s opinion, ‘the loss of environmental context’ (1985: 286). Attempts,
however, can be made to recreate this environmental context. Lynn Museum,
Norfolk, for example, have produced a replica of the boles and inverted stump of
Seahenge (see Chapter 2), advertising on their website that, as a visitor, you can:
‘Step back in time as you walk into a life size replica of Seahenge’. Although such a
recreation is by its very nature static and artificial (Pye 2001: 73), and a museum
environment is a far-cry from the salt-marsh it probably originally stood in
(Brennand 2004), efforts have been made to simulate experience and physical
engagement.
It is not, however, only an artefact’s environment which changes during removal; the
artefact itself is altered. Classen and Howes believe it to be ‘inevitable’ that an
object, removed from its place of production and stored in a museum, should take on
a different role (2006: 201). For example, the original Seahenge boles, preserved
with PEG and vacuum freeze-dried, are now viewed statically within glass cases;
whilst every effort has been made to preserve their physical structures, their socio-
cultural context has been dramatically altered.
A museum environment, according to Macdonald, almost sanctifies an object: ‘Once
they are in museums – such is the magic-conferring power of these institutions –
objects are special.’ (2002: 92). This opinion is shared by Paine, who notes a striking
parallel between ‘museumification’ and ‘sacralization’ (2013: 2), asserting that when
an object becomes a ‘museum object’ it ‘acquires a new meaning, a new value, a
new personality’ (2013: 2). This process is what Kirshenblatt-Gimblett terms the
‘museum effect’ (1991: 410), whereby objects become ‘enshrined’ by their museum
environments (1991: 386). Objects are perceived differently if viewed through the
glass of a museum cabinet (Crowther 1989: 43); they have certain virtues bestowed
214
upon them because of their environment (Gathercole 1989: 74) and, according to
Pearce, they come to ‘share a perceived spiritual or intellectual worth’ (1992: 33).
The fragment of the Ardboe coin-tree at Ulster Folk and Transport Museum (Fig.
130), for example, has entered another stage of its biography; it is no longer a tree to
be touched, climbed on, and embedded with coins. It is a historical artefact, to be
looked at, studied, and handled with care – if at all. Indeed, upon my visit to the
museum it struck me how differently I engaged with this coin-tree section than I
have done with others. Although always careful with tactile examinations, I was
particularly hesitant to touch this section, concerned that it would fragment, and I
handled it gingerly, with an almost reverential care.
However, ‘museumizing’ objects does more than ‘sanctify’ them; it also anchors and
ossifies them in a process of ‘museumification’. It occurred to me that the location of
the Ardboe coin-tree section – in the store of a museum – not only prohibits it from
being actively engaged with by members of the public, but prevents it from being
seen by them. Only my academic credentials privileged me this engagement with the
section; as Gathercole observes, some objects ‘are at the core of museum
scholarship, locked away in store-rooms, revealing their secrets only to the initiated’
(1989: 76). Therefore another effect of museum acquisition is the fostering of a (real
or perceived) sense of inaccessibility (Pye 2001: 75).
As Macdonald asserts, museums ‘remove [objects] from daily use and transaction. A
museum, for most objects, is a final resting place – a moment frozen in time for
future contemplation’ (Macdonald 2002: 92). Although placing an object in a
museum will probably extend its material life, it is no longer a ‘living’ object. As
Jones observes, ‘prolonging the object’s existence materially is not necessarily
equivalent to continuing its social ‘life’’ (2006: 120). A coin-tree or coin-tree
fragment no longer plays a role in the coin-tree custom once it has been stored away
in a box, a shed, a museum. It has become an artefact rather than an agent in a
folkloric custom, simply because people can no longer insert coins into its bark. It is
clear therefore that, if the desire is to conserve the social life of a coin-tree as well as
its material existence, preservation should be performed in situ.
215
7 – PRESERVATION IN SITU
Butler, discussing ‘heritagization’, observes how landscapes and monuments are
altered during the processes of preservation (2006: 468), while Smith and Akagawa
comment on the difficulties involved in safeguarding heritage that is part of ‘living
culture’ without ‘fossilising, freezing or trivializing it’ (2009: 2-3). The heritage
industry aims to achieve a delicate balance between preserving a physical site whilst
simultaneously allowing the continuation of the associated intangible cultural
heritage (Timothy and Boyd 2003), but they do not always succeed.
Timothy and Boyd, examining the wear and tear suffered by heritage sites through
substantial tourist numbers, list education and interpretation as potential management
strategies (2003: 174-175). This method has been adopted at Hadrian’s Wall, where
heritage professionals acknowledge that they have two primary aims: to conserve the
site but also to make it available for public enjoyment and education (Hadrian’s Wall
Heritage 2008a: 16). They advocate displaying conservation messages at key areas
along the wall, communicating the fragility of the site and appealing to visitors’
consciences by reminding them that their actions could determine whether or not the
site will be preserved for future generations (Hadrian’s Wall Heritage 2008b: 68).
For this purpose, a code of conduct was issued entitled Every Footstep Counts
(Hadrian’s Wall Heritage 2007: 5), which advises visitors on how they should
behave on Hadrian’s Wall’s National Trail, not forbidding certain behaviour but
explaining the damage it can cause.
Through similar use of displays, exhibits, and printed brochures, the public could be
made aware of the dangers posed to the longevity of the coin-trees. Information
boards erected beside the coin-trees could request that visitors do not climb on the
structures, explaining the damage caused. However, as physical engagement is
central to the custom of the coin-tree, and as some custodians recognise this – such
as Greg Robinson at Brock Bottom – they may not wish to implement such
restrictions, recognising that they would change the nature of the sites themselves.
Skounti (2009) demonstrates how a site can be transformed by preservation attempts,
not necessarily for the better, by considering the heritage of Place Jemaâ El Fna, a
market square in Marrakech. This square has been an open area of performance and
trade for much of Marrakech’s 1000 year history; however, 21st-century preservation
216
attempts limited access to the square, consequently compromising the intangible
cultural heritage of the site. The individuals bound up in this cultural heritage, from
henna artists to snake-charmers, were denied the freedom to utilise the site as they
had done previously, and many locals complained that the square had ‘lost its nature’
(Skounti 2009: 87).
8 – FENCING/FOSSILIZING: THE STONEHENGE CASE-STUDY
Another useful comparative case-study for issues of preservation is Stonehenge,
access to which has been a contested subject for over a century now. Prior to the 20th
century, the prehistoric monument of Stonehenge in Wiltshire was accessible to all,
as the coin-trees are today. However, unlimited accessibility led to increasing
damage, the 19th
century seeing visitors regularly chipping away at the stones for
‘souvenirs’, chalking and carving marks onto them, and leaving mounds of litter at
the site (Chippindale 1978: 110-111). Guards and police were employed to attend the
stones over the years, but their presence was not enough and in 1900 two of the
stones fell. Incensed by this damage, in 1901 the custodian of the site erected a fence
to enclose the monument and began charging a shilling for admission (Chippindale
1978: 112). As Darvill writes, Stonehenge became ‘caged and tamed as never
before’ (2006: 19).
In 1978, a further step was taken to prevent damage: another fence was erected, this
one preventing even paying visitors from walking amongst the stones. Instead
visitors could only view Stonehenge from the path to the west of the monument
(Richards 1991: 130). Today, a circular route has been constructed together with a
viewing platform (Darvill 2006: 276-277), but the monument remains physically
inaccessible to anybody without the proper academic credentials – or the money – to
arrange private viewings, except for one day a year, the Summer Solstice, when
visitors are temporarily permitted to walk amongst the stones (Darvill 2006: 275).
The monument of Stonehenge is now well protected, but at what cost? As Bender
asserts, the landscape of Stonehenge ‘has become ossified and roped off’ (1998:
146). Accessibility, however, is not always the issue; most visitors, past and present,
seem more concerned with the aesthetically crippling effects of the fences.
217
Following the erection of the first enclosure in 1901, a group of archaeologists led by
Flinders Petrie protested against the ‘artistic’ debilitation of the fence. In a letter to
The Times on 7th
February, 1901, Petrie contended:
To do anything to break the marvellous effect of the lonely plain and great
masses of stone would be cruel. The sight is the most impressive in England,
and on no account should it be destroyed by a hideous iron railing (cited in
Chippindale 1978: 115).
Almost a century later, Bender makes a similar complaint, proclaiming that ‘[r]oped
off, fenced in, set in their polite green sward, the stones today are viewed by the
visitor in isolation’ (1998: 6). They have been removed from the surrounding
landscape, designated a ‘museum piece’ rather than a ‘living site’ (1998: 9).
The negative effects of the enclosure are even commented on by experts in
sustainable tourism. In 2006, National Geographic interviewed a panel of 419
experts on 94 World Heritage destinations. Stonehenge did not rate highly, one
sustainable tourism expert observing that ‘the site is protected by fencing to
discourage defacing the structures, but the visual sightlines are disrupted’, while
another remarked that ‘overregulation has made the visitor’s experience rather
disappointing, charm is gone’ (Tourtellot 2006). Granted, efforts have recently been
undertaken to improve the infrastructure of the site, by relocating the visitor centre
and decreasing the level of fencing (Department for Culture, Media & Sport 2011),
and as Morris, writing for The Guardian, opines, the ‘removal of stock fences and
ugly security barriers is…bound to be welcomed by just about everyone’ (2011).
However, a rope fence still prevents visitors from walking amongst the stones.
As Lowenthal observes: ‘Protection can debase the ambience of antiquities even
when their fabric remains intact’ (1985: 276); protection keeps the structures
standing, but it does not keep them ‘alive’. Enclosing the coin-trees within fences is,
therefore, not an ideal solution. As interview participants at the coin-tree sites have
opined, protection of the structures should not be undertaken at the expense of the
custom. Many people fear that protecting the coin-trees behind fences might detract
from the aesthetics, making them ‘eyesores’, as suggested by one woman in
Cumbria. Barriers would also prevent, or at least discourage, people from inserting
their own coins, a concern expressed by several of the participants. The general
consensus appeared to be that the coin-trees should ‘definitely be kept accessible’ to
218
the general public, with one teenage girl from Dovedale asserting that protecting the
coin-trees behind fences would ‘defeat the object’ of them.
In conclusion, the erection of fences would prove almost as restrictive as removing
the coin-tree entirely. All methods of preservation thus appear to pose problems,
either removing the coin-trees from their environmental contexts or from their
cultural/social contexts. At the centre of the coin-tree custom is the public’s freedom
to participate, and there appears to be no method suitable for protecting the structures
of the coin-trees without simultaneously suppressing the custom and designating the
coin-trees relics of the past rather than ‘living sites’, freezing them at one particular
point in time (Jones 2006). As Munjeri observes, ‘intangible heritage does not
survive under overly interventionist and or restrictive conditions’ (2009: 148).
9 – ‘FREEING’ NOT ‘FREEZING’: INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE
If there is no solution for preserving the physical structures of the coin-trees without
suppressing the custom, perhaps doing the opposite is in order: preserving the
custom at the expense of the structures (Cameron 1995: 285). As Liebs writes,
‘cultural processes are, in some instances, as important as the artifacts they produce’
(1995: 366), and in order to preserve them, Munjeri advocates ‘freeing’ rather than
‘freezing’ the conditions under which the custom exists (2009: 148). Too many
restrictions and prescriptions smother a custom, and so rather than enforcing
censorships in order to protect the tangible heritage, perhaps attention should be
given instead to the intangible cultural heritage.
UNESCO defines intangible cultural heritage as ‘the practices, representations,
expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and
cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases,
individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage’ (2003: 2.1). A widespread
concern for the preservation of the intangible aspects of cultural heritage is a fairly
recent phenomenon, and the heritage industry is still endeavouring to identify the
most appropriate means of securing its safeguard (Skounti 2009).
This search was officially begun in 2003, when the Convention for the Safeguarding
of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (hereafter ICHC) was established as a
219
counterpoint to the 1972 World Heritage Convention, which privileged the world’s
grand and aesthetic sites and monuments over its intangible cultural expressions
(Smith and Akagawa 2009: 1). It was adopted by UNESCO’s General Conference in
2003 and entered into force in many countries (notably excluding the UK) in 2006
(Smith and Akagawa 2009). Its primary purpose was to ‘safeguard the intangible
cultural heritage’ (UNESCO 2003: 1a), which involves ‘measures aimed at ensuring
the viability of the intangible cultural heritage, including the identification,
documentation, research, preservation, protection, promotion, enhancement,
transmission, particularly through formal and non-formal education, as well as the
revitalization of the various aspects of such heritage’ (UNESCO 2003: 2.3).
10 – SUSTAINABILITY
As Kurin notes, the ICHC cannot ensure the viability of intangible cultural heritage,
but it can – and should – ‘aid traditional cultural practices and their practitioners so
they have the opportunity to survive and even flourish’ (2004: 74). In order to aid the
cultural practice of the coin-tree, therefore, the opportunity for participation in the
custom must be maintained, which would certainly not involve enclosing or
removing the coin-trees, and the materials required – the coins and the trees – must
retain their accessibility. So long as participants can source trees and coins, there will
be viability for the continuation of this custom.
However, in some cases, even when the materials are present, other issues may
prevent the continuation of the coin-tree custom. Some custodians, for example, do
not view the process of dissemination favourably, exhibiting anxiety over the
practical consequences of the custom spreading to other trees. Stephen Dowson,
National Trust Ranger at Aira Force (Appendix 2.7), for example, opines that the
primary coin-tree is a ‘lovely sculpture’ and does not believe the custom should be
discouraged. However, he adds, ‘We are starting to get coins knocked in at other
areas like tops of posts, wooden gates and on standing live trees which we do not
want’ (pers. comm. 27/09/2013). Sam Stalker, National Trust Ranger at Tarn Hows
(Appendix 2.38), repeats this sentiment, claiming that their primary coin-tree ‘is a
feature that I would personally like to keep, as it provides some intrigue and
entertainment for visitors’. However, he adds that he would ‘not like to see lots of
220
coin trees being created around the tarn, as [a] bit of metal pushed into trees can be
dangerous if you ever had to cut them up with a chainsaw in the future’ (pers. comm
23/09/2013).
Likewise, the custodians of the island of Gougane Barra (Appendix 2.21) have been
attempting to deter visitors from inserting coins into trees, in order to protect them
from copper poisoning. A sign was attached to the current primary coin-tree (GB1),
requesting visitors to not insert coins into its bark. This sign was no longer attached
to the tree on my visit in September 2012; however, numerous coin-sized slots are
evident in GB1, as well as other trees on the island, suggesting that the custodians
may have been removing the coins in an attempt to suppress dissemination. They
have not responded to my queries, and so have neither confirmed nor denied this.
11 – COMBATING THE CUSTOM: THE GLASTONBURY THORN
Another tree within the British Isles has been subject to similar treatment, with the
coins embedded in its bark having been removed in order to prevent the proliferation
of the custom: the Glastonbury Thorn. This is a hawthorn (Crataegus) growing atop
Wearyall Hill, Somerset, which is believed to be the offspring of the original Holy
Thorn. This tree is said to have sprung from St. Joseph of Arimathea’s staff, which
he thrust into the ground on his visit to Britain in the 1st century AD. Together with
its offspring, this tree purportedly blossomed annually at Christmas in
commemoration of Christ’s nativity (Walsham 2011: 492). It is, according to Milner,
England’s ‘most celebrated sacred tree’ (1992: 141).
There are currently several ‘Holy Thorn’ offshoots within the town. One, however, is
most widely associated with the original because it is said to stand where St. Joseph
thrust his staff into the ground (Fig. 133). This tree (known hereafter as the
Glastonbury Thorn) was planted in 1951 by members of Glastonbury Town Council
but was vandalised in 2010, with unknown vandals cutting down its branches. New
shoots began to grow and tourists continued to visit it, but its popularity is believed
to put this fragile tree at risk; I first became aware of the site following an article on
BBC News (Jenkins 2012), which describes how visitors threaten the vandalised
tree’s recovery by inserting coins into its bark.
221
On my visit to the site, John Coles, former mayor of Glastonbury, accompanied me
to Wearyall Hill where the current, vandalised Glastonbury Thorn stands, together
with a young sapling, also said to be the offspring of the original Thorn (Figs. 133-
134). Both are protected within metal enclosures. Although there were no coins
inserted into the Glastonbury Thorn on the day of my visit, there were numerous
ribbons, some adorned with names or personal messages, affixed to the railings of
the protective fence. Several of these messages refer to the ‘solstice’, indicating that
their depositors were at the site during the summer and winter solstices (one at least
in 2012, according to the message), which is a particularly popular time for
Neopagan pilgrimage to the site (John Coles, pers. comm. 06/04/2013).
John Coles explains that the ribbons, when densely clustered, prevent sunlight from
reaching the trees, and so he visits Wearyall Hill at least once a month in order to
remove them. He also comes equipped with a knife to dislodge any coins he finds
inserted, asserting that the copper will kill the trees. There have been other deposits
which he has felt inclined to remove: pieces of paper with what he terms ‘pagan or
atheist obscenities’ written on, as well as a number of rather obscene items, such as
condoms. He estimates that this custom of depositing objects at the Glastonbury
Thorn began in the early 2000s. It is unclear who has been depositing the coins – and
why – for no participants were present on the day of my visit. However, John Coles
perceives this as a negative, destructive practice, hoping to prevent damage to the
tree by removing coins whenever he sees them.
12 – STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS
The above examples highlight the perceived negative effects of the coin-tree custom,
presenting dissemination as a process that requires regulation. At Gougane Barra and
Glastonbury, the chosen method of regulation is simply the removal of the coins and
other deposited objects. This raises certain questions concerning heritage
management. Is it the modernity of the coins at Gougane Barra and Glastonbury that
make the site custodians willing to disregard and dispose of what is essentially a
whole context of ritual deposition?
222
Finn (1997), examining how Chaco Canyon, a prehistoric complex in the Southwest
US, has become a focus for New Age ceremony and deposition, questions whether
the contemporary ritual objects deposited at the site should be considered ‘‘junk’ or
archaeological objects of meaning and value’ (1997: 169). LoPiccolo, curator of the
site, viewed them as the latter, claiming that these modern-day deposits ‘were of
value as signifiers of continued use of the Chaco Canyon site’ (Finn 1997: 169).
Believing it to be his responsibility to collect these objects for the future
archaeological record, rather than simply disposing of them, LoPiccolo catalogued
them, entering their details into a database. Perhaps the custodians of coin-tree sites
could consider similar management strategies, cataloguing any removed objects for
the benefit of future archaeologists and ethnographers. Having discussed this issue
with John Coles, he has decided to save and store any items he removes (pers.
comm. 03/12/2013).
In cases whereby custodians do not wish to discourage the custom overall but aim to
prevent widespread dissemination, such as some National Trust rangers (see above),
other methods may be more effective. For example, preventative measures are being
considered at Dovedale (Appendix 2.18), but only with regards to coin insertion into
living trees (pers. comm. Simon Nicholas, Ranger, 22/05/2012). Logs, stumps, and
wooden posts, on the other hand, are freely available for the custom, and – unlike at
Gougane Barra, where, despite the custodians’ best efforts, seven of the eight coin-
trees are living trees – at Dovedale this figure is only one of 14. This demonstrates
the benefit of ensuring that alternative ‘canvases’ are available for the custom’s
participants; if a site’s managers do not wish living trees to be utilised, they should
provide logs or stumps for the practice, which would shift the (potentially
destructive) ritual attention away from living trees.
Timothy and Boyd (2003) discuss similar heritage management strategies
undertaken at sites such as Chartres Cathedral and Versailles, whereby the principle
of dispersion is adopted. In order to alleviate the physical pressures on one site,
management direct tourists’ attention to an alternative area through the use of
brochures and information boards, thus dispersing the concentration of visitors
(2003: 168). A similar approach has been adopted at the Roman baths at Bath;
however, it is not visitors who are redirected but their deposits. Originally visitors
deposited coins in the sacred spring but, according to Verity Anthony, Collections
223
Assistant: ‘In order to preserve the site, we request that people deposit coins in a
designated bath…as this is a manageable space which can be monitored’ (pers.
comm. 04/12/2013).
Perhaps such measures should be adopted at coin-tree sites where living trees
predominate, such as Loxley (Appendix 2.28), Cragside Estate (Appendix 2.17), and
Gougane Barra (Appendix 2.21). Policies of strategic dissemination could be
encouraged and employed; logs could be tactically placed – and referred to in
brochures or pinpointed on maps – in order to entice visitors’ attention away from a
ritually-employed living tree and to bear the brunt of the custom instead. Perhaps, as
at Bath, signs could be erected requesting that visitors insert their deposits into
particular trees.
If living trees are threatened, therefore, alternatives should be provided: logs and
stumps, which could act as deflectors. This should not be difficult to ensure,
following the Forestry Commission’s 2002 guide advocating that deadwood be left
in situ (detailed in Chapter 4). The relative certainty of the enduring presence of logs
and stumps along Britain’s popular rural footpaths, therefore, signifies that the tree
component of this custom will continue to be accessible, for the foreseeable future at
least. However, what of the other key component of the coin-tree: the coin?
13 – DE-COINING THE COIN-TREE
Today, coins are even more ubiquitous in the British Isles than trees are. It was
postulated in Chapter 4 that coins grew to dominate the ritual-deposition arena in the
British Isles because of their prevalence; while most people who stumble across a
coin-tree will not be carrying rags or nails, their pockets or purses will probably
contain some loose change, making coins a far more convenient deposit. However,
while coins may boast a c.2000 year history in Britain (Hobbs 1996: 9), their future
accessibility is likely to be far more modest.
Copper coins have already lost much of their value, and the realm of economics is
rife with predictions that, as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) posit, ‘money’s destiny is to become digital’ (2002: 7). The
OECD predicts that digital money is diffusing at such a rapid rate, physical cash will
224
inevitably become marginalised in market transactions (2002: 8). The Payments
Council of the UK are making similar claims, noting the expensive and
environmentally costly process of distributing hard cash, together with the rise of
electronic spending – debit cards, the Internet, mobile payments – as core reasons for
why, by 2015, hard cash will make up less than half of UK monetary transactions
(2010: 13-14).
For the purpose of his research, economist Wolman (2012) eschewed physical
money for 12 months and reportedly encountered very few difficulties, illustrating a
departing dependence on hard cash and the advent of ‘immaterial money’ (Schlichter
2011: 2), which is subsequently leading to what Palley terms the ‘e-money
revolution’ (2001/2002). The Payments Council predict that cash is unlikely to
disappear entirely, but that by 2050 using physical money for market transactions
may have become a minority activity (2010: 14); in all likelihood, therefore, over the
next few decades coins will become increasingly marginalised. This may mean that
in 30-40 years, the chances of a person carrying loose change may be as slim as the
chances of them carrying nails or rags; they will subsequently be unable to
contribute a coin to a coin-tree if they happen to come across one.
Obviously the custom of the coin-tree cannot be sustained in the absence of coins –
however, this may not mark the demise of the intangible cultural heritage. As has
been illustrated frequently throughout this thesis, a custom can be adapted; as
Wolman asks, ‘[i]f we close the book on pennies…What will people throw into
wishing wells?’ (2012: viii). The answer: something else.
The safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage should not consist of freezing the
conditions of a custom (Kurin 2004: 74; van Zanten 2004: 41; Penrose 2007: 10). In
fact, it often necessitates the acceptance that the custom will change; in the ICHC,
UNESCO recognises that intangible cultural heritage ‘is constantly recreated by
communities and groups in response to their environment’ (2003: 2.1); it is not a
permanent fixture, but is fluid and malleable. Safeguarding efforts should be more
concerned with encouraging creation and recreation rather than attempting to
preserve traditions which, if not given the freedom to change, will become stagnant
and alienated from their living socio-cultural environments (Nas 2002: 139-140;
Amselle 2004: 89).
225
It is the very mutable nature of intangible cultural heritage which makes it far more
resilient than the tangible heritage (Skounti 2009: 73); while a coin-tree may decay,
the custom which surrounds it will sustain itself through its propensity for
adaptation. If, in the future, coins are no longer widely carried, then participants will
employ other objects as deposits; just as coins replaced rags and nails in this practice
because they became the more convenient offering (see Chapter 4), another category
of objects will, in turn, be adopted as substitutes for coins. However, without the
precognitive powers to know what objects will commonly occupy the pockets of the
average 22nd
-century individual, it cannot be predicted what form these substitute
deposits will take, but they will likely be small, low in economic value, and
relatively disposable. Whatever objects are adopted as replacements, once again the
custom will re-acclimatise itself, demonstrating that its indomitability does not stem
from any preservation attempts, but from its ability to conform to a changing
environment.
In conclusion, while little can be done to preserve the tangible cultural heritage of
the coin-trees, perhaps little should be done to preserve the intangible heritage, rather
than risk ossifying the custom. Perhaps action should be taken to discourage active
suppression of the custom, which includes removing the coin-trees (unless they pose
a danger), erecting enclosures which deny access, and any measures which deter
participation. In cases where custodians are anxious for the health of their living
trees, policies of strategic dissemination – tactical placement of logs, for example –
could be employed, which may ensure the custom persists with little threat to living
trees. However, nothing can be done to secure the future wide-accessibility of coins,
and although the intangible cultural heritage of the coin-tree may not diminish, it will
inevitably change. Many years from now the coin-tree will have become a distant,
mysterious ancestor of the custom’s most recent incarnation – whatever that may
turn out to be.
14 – CATALOGUING COIN-TREES
The acceptance that the structures of the coin-trees will eventually be lost and the
custom will inevitably change incites the need to record the practice. The ICHC lists
226
identification and documentation as the first two measures taken to ensure the
viability of intangible cultural heritage (UNESCO 2003: 2.3). These, therefore,
should perhaps be the primary two measures taken to ensure the preservation of the
coin-tree custom. Strategies which include the cataloguing of coin-trees and
recording details of the custom should be implemented.
However, due to the ambiguous nature of coin-trees, no leading heritage organisation
in Britain will accept responsibility for these structures (see above), nor will they
foster collaboration between the different coin-tree custodians. This thesis, therefore,
is the first attempt at identification and documentation; it offers the initial creation of
a catalogue and employs ethnographic methodologies in recording details of the
custom. However, this thesis is intended only as a starting point for these strategies;
more work on a larger scale will need to be undertaken in order to adequately
identify, document, and disseminate understanding of the coin-tree custom. Coin-tree
custodians have, for example, exhibited a desire to view a catalogue of coin-tree
sites. Most rangers and wardens I have corresponded with, along with many
members of the public, have questioned me about other coin-trees (see Greg
Robinson above), and some have asked specifically to see my list of sites. This
demonstrates a demand for access to a catalogue of coin-trees.
However, few PhD theses are widely disseminated amongst the public. Perhaps,
therefore, an alternative, more accessible medium should be employed, and in
modern times there is not a more effective method of disseminating information than
the Internet (Karp 2004). Interview participants have apparently researched the
custom of the coin-tree out of curiosity on the Internet, and it is clear by reading
personal blogs and forum threads that many individuals have turned to the Internet as
an information resource for this custom (see Chapter 4). However, such information
would be far more accessible if it was located in one place: on a single website
dedicated to a catalogue of coin-trees.
Using the online Irish Heritage Tree Database (2012) as a template, this digital
catalogue could offer a summary of the history of the coin-tree custom, together with
individual entries for each tree. These index records could include information
regarding the trees’ locations, species, and histories, accompanied by photographs,
and an entry form could be made available for any readers aware of coin-trees not
227
included in the catalogue. Made accessible to the public, this inventory would not be
a static archive but a growing compendium, and it would certainly address the first
two UNESCO measures of ‘identification’ and ‘documentation’, as well as
‘research’, ‘promotion’, and ‘transmission’ (UNESCO 2003: 2.3). It would also, to
an extent, address the matter of ‘preservation’ through digital curatorship; there may
be no simple solution for preserving these structures physically, but they can be
preserved digitally.
Additionally, a centralised participatory coin-tree website would provide a forum for
a wide range of people to express their views of the coin-tree custom and on matters
of heritage, with such communicative technologies now enabling the accumulation
of a more inclusive level of public opinion (Schofield et al. 2012: 304).
Consideration, however, would be required regarding whether the publication of all
coin-tree locations would pose a risk to the coin-trees themselves, and whether this
risk outweighed the benefits of identification, documentation, digital preservation,
and public collaboration.
15 – THE ARDMADDY WISHING-TREE PROJECT, SCOTLAND
The above strategies were all employed at the site of the Ardmaddy coin-tree
(Appendices 2.9 & 5). The primary tree at Ardmaddy is heavily decayed and
fragmented, and will probably only survive in its current state for a limited number
of years. This is a concern for some heritage professionals in the region (see Sharon
Webb’s statement above), and, acting on this concern, in 2013 I applied to the
Heritage Lottery Fund for a grant to undertake the ‘Ardmaddy Wishing-Tree
Project’.
For my (successful) application, I recommended that physical conservation of the
coin-tree would not only prove impractical, but that it would remove it from its
socio-cultural context. I advocated instead the production of a photographic record of
the tree, the undertaking of a small-scale archaeological excavation at the site, and
the creation of an interpretive leaflet, made available for visitors to Ardmaddy
Castle. I also recommended the compilation of an ethnographic record, with a series
of public lectures delivered throughout Argyll to not only promote and transmit the
228
research, but also for the researcher – myself – to engage with local residents and
gather their oral histories concerning the site of the coin-tree.
During the excavation, further transmission of the custom was made via an online
blog (Houlbrook 2013b) which describes the tree and details the excavation, while
an interview with The Oban Times (Patterson 2013: 2) disseminated the research to a
wider audience. Additionally, following the excavation I delivered public lectures
summarising the project and had a peer-reviewed entry published on Berkeley
University’s archaeology group blog, Then Dig, entitled ‘Sanctifying our Sites: Self-
reflection on an archaeological dig’ (Houlbrook 2013c). This entry (reproduced in
Appendix 6) considers the recontextualising agency of archaeology, focusing on how
perceptions of a coin-tree are altered when it is declared an archaeological site.
Further fostering accessibility, the excavation report will be offered to the
Archaeology Data Service, which will preserve the data in digital form and make it
publically available.
Without altering the coin-tree itself, the ‘Ardmaddy Wishing-Tree Project’
successfully addressed most of the measures outlined by the ICHC for the
safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage: identification, documentation, research,
promotion, and transmission (UNESCO 2003: 2.3). Again, however, this was only a
small-scale project, and is intended as a starting point with the aim that leading
heritage organisations will recognise the need for, and benefit of, preserving the
intangible cultural heritage of coin-trees. That the Heritage Lottery Fund agreed to
fund the project is hopefully indicative of a turning point in the heritage sector’s
perceptions and treatment of coin-trees within the British Isles. And the excavation
at the site of the ‘Ardmaddy Wishing-Tree’ leads onto Part Two of this chapter: the
coin-tree as a future archaeological site.
PART 2: RECONSTRUCTING THE COIN-TREE
1 – INTRODUCTION
I end this thesis with a suppositional vignette. Imagine that the year is 2200 and
suspend your disbelief enough to assume that the study of archaeology in the British
Isles has changed little over the intervening centuries. Obviously technologies have
229
advanced and various movements in archaeological theory will have risen and fallen
with their usual transience. Post-processualism will have been ousted by Post-post-
processualism, and future archaeologists will no doubt view 21st-century
methodologies with the same sanctimonious disapproval with which we view 19th
-
century methodologies. However, let us believe that the fundamental principles of
archaeology remain the same; that people are still interested in material history; and
that British universities still house and fund departments of archaeology – which,
given the current economic climate, may unfortunately prove the most difficult
supposition to believe.
So the year is 2200, coins have become marginalised, and the custom of inserting
coins into trees has ebbed and been replaced by other customs. There are, therefore,
no active coin-trees remaining. However, a 21st-century coin-tree site has been
discovered and the future archaeologist has been called upon to excavate the site and
to interpret the evidence. Supposing that no measures are put in place to actively
conserve the coin-tree structures, what would a coin-tree and its surrounding
environment proffer as an archaeological site? How would a future archaeologist
analyse and interpret the material evidence if they had no prior knowledge of the
coin-tree custom? Drawing on data from the excavation at the Ardmaddy coin-tree
(Appendix 5), it is the aim of this section to answer these questions. First and
foremost, however, is the question of whether there would even be material evidence
remaining.
2 – THE FUTURE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE: THE TREE
Some coin-trees will last longer than others. This is a simple fact based on current
age, physical condition, species, location, and density of coinage. Obviously those
which are living trees will have a longer life expectancy than logs, stumps or
fragments, but whether they will still be standing in 2200 is largely dependent upon
current age and species. The Douglas fir at Cragside Estate (Appendix 2.17), for
example, will in all likelihood survive to see the 23rd
century; despite its vast size
and estimated age of 150 years, it is still only a ‘teenager’, to use National Trust
Ranger Sue Turnbull’s expression (pers. comm. 08/09/2012).
230
Appendix 2.6 details the life-expectancies of trees according to species, and the long
life-expectancies of oak, sycamore, Scot’s pine, holly, and lime may indicate that
trees at Clonenagh, Gougane Barra, Isle Maree, Marbury Park, and High Force may
also still be standing by 2200. However, this is certainly not an exact science;
storms, diseases, and human intervention may all prematurely shorten a tree’s
expected life-span. Also, living trees only account for 43 (18%) of the 245 coin-trees
catalogued. The most common form of coin-tree is the log, accounting for 98 (40%),
and the survival of (non-living) wood over long periods of time is rare (Taylor 1981;
Brunning and Watson 2010). However, although the decomposition of the coin-trees
is inevitable, it cannot be predicted with any certainty how long the process will take,
as so many variables influence the rate of decay.
Size is one significant variable; the larger the log, the longer it will last (Farmer
1972: 8; Harmon et al. 1986: 181). The species of a tree can also determine how
susceptible it is to rot and decay (Abbott and Crossley 1982; Harmon and Hua 1991:
605; Schowalter et al. 1992: 374). Indeed, studies conducted by Mattson et al. (1987)
suggest that the density loss of logs, caused by decay, varied by more than 10-fold
among tree species. However, a study by Swift et al. (1976) demonstrates that weight
loss varied more considerably between individual branches than they did, overall,
between species.
Numerous factors cause this variety. A higher percentage of heartwood in the bole
causes slower rates of decay (Harmon and Hua 1991: 605). Logs in plots with south
and east aspects have a higher rate of decay than those with west aspects (Mattson et
al. 1987). Certain organisms will cause decay at a faster rate than others (Yin 1999:
81-82). Branches and boles on the ground have a faster rate of decay than those off
the ground (Mattson et al. 1987). This last point may account for how the primary
Isle Maree coin-tree (Fig. 6) (Appendix 2.26), supported by stakes, has survived
since the 19th
century, and may indicate that the primary coin-trees of Padley Gorge
(PG1) (Appendix 2.32) and St. Nectan’s Glen (SNG1) (Appendix 2.36) (Figs. 135-
136), propped up against a tree and a rock-face, may outlast their neighbouring coin-
trees (PG2 & SNG2) (Figs. 137-138), which are fully grounded.
However, the quantity of coins may also determine the speed of decay. Boles with
damaged or absent barks – which can be caused by the insertion of many coins – will
231
decay far more rapidly than boles with their barks intact (pers. comm. Sam Sportun,
Collections Care Manager and Senior Conservator, Manchester Museum,
30/01/2013). Heavily coined coin-trees, therefore (such as IG3, AF1, and BA5) may
decompose at a faster rate than those with fewer coins. This may balance the rates of
decay between PG1 and PG2 at Padley Gorge (Figs. 135 & 137); while PG1,
propped up from the ground, contains 1675 coins, its grounded counterpart contains
only 91 and its bark is subsequently far more intact. They may, therefore, decay at
relatively similar rates, and the same may apply to the coin-trees of St. Nectan’s
Glen.
However, as situational and unpredictable as the rates of decay are, it appears
inevitable that the majority of coin-trees will have deteriorated by 2200. However,
not all. Although Brunning and Watson write of the ‘rarity of survival’ of wood, they
concede that ‘wood does survive in many places, some of which may be quite
unexpected’ (2010: 3). If, for example, a coin-tree had become waterlogged in the
intervening decades between now and 2200, then it may still survive intact. For
example, at Malham (Appendix 2.30), MH1 runs directly over Gordale Beck, resting
in places on the riverbed (Fig. 139), and the cluster of FG1-FG4 at Fairy Glen
(Appendix 2.19) are hanging over or resting in the pool of water at the foot of the
Fairy Glen waterfall (Fig. 140). At St. Nectan’s Glen (Appendix 2.36), SNG1 (Fig.
136) is propped up above a pool at the bottom of the waterfall; over time, it is likely
that it will fall and become partly submerged by the water. In fact, the vast majority
of coin-trees are located within close proximity to bodies of water, some of which
may have become submerged by 2200.
If a coin-tree does become waterlogged then it may be preserved for many years
because normal biological decay is arrested in waterlogged environments. Without a
supply of oxygen, the activity of fungi and bacteria is limited, and while, over time,
cellulose is lost from the cell structure of the wood, it can be replaced by water
which would maintain the structure of a coin-tree (Brunning and Watson 2010: 22).
However, a coin-tree is not just a wooden artefact. It is the sum of its constituents:
both tree and coins, and subsequently, as posited above, its conservation proves all
the more exacting; while PEG solutions could be employed to preserve a
waterlogged coin-tree, it would corrode the coins.
232
Additionally, although the majority of coin-trees are within close proximity to water,
it is often in the form of waterfalls and relatively fast-flowing rivers; the chances of
the future archaeologist recovering a fully intact waterlogged coin-tree are, therefore,
minimal. It is more likely that she will find sites closely resembling the Ardmaddy
coin-tree site, at which an excavation was undertaken in September 2013 (Appendix
5). Here, a hawthorn roughly a century old has died, fallen, and begun to fragment,
producing a scattering of both woody debris and coins on and beneath the ground
within its vicinity. As this coin-tree further decays, it will continue to lose its coins
until there is only a scattering of woody debris and coins on and beneath the ground.
By 2200, therefore, there may be no coin-trees left at all, only coins.
3 – THE FUTURE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE: THE COIN
It is unlikely that any intact coin-trees will remain for the future archaeologist to
analyse and interpret. Once the coin-tree logs and stumps have begun to decay, the
coins begin to loosen and fall (Fig. 141). At Isle Maree (Appendix 2.26), this has
already occurred; 390 coins were found on the ground within the cluster of coin-trees
(Fig. 142), and no doubt far more would be unearthed if a full excavation of the
island was undertaken.
Even the modern-day coin-trees have begun to lose their coins; Bolton Abbey’s
BA1-BA3 (Figs. 122-123), for example, fragment on touch, losing both chunks of
wood and coins, and it will probably not be long before the coins of other
contemporary – but heavily decayed – coin-trees, such as HF3 (Fig. 124), PM8 (Fig.
143), HC2, MH2, and MH19 begin to loosen and fall out. By 2200, therefore, once
the logs and stumps have decayed, there may be nothing left of the coin-trees bar
clusters of coins. Some may still be on ground-level, but following two centuries of
growth, the surrounding vegetation will no doubt have covered the majority of coins,
and many will be buried beneath layers of soil. However, the future archaeologist
may have acquired permission to excavate; to dig and see what remains to be
unearthed. If so, what would she find?
She may find nothing. Coins which have fallen from a coin-tree will not necessarily
remain at that site; natural processes, such as wind displacement and animal
233
foraging, may cause dislocation. Another form of ‘animal foraging’ may also be
responsible for displacement: human thievery. In the cases of High Force and
Clonenagh, for instance, described earlier in this chapter, the primary coin-trees
became so badly decayed that visitors were able to take the vast majority of the
coins, leaving only woody debris in their wake. In such a case, the archaeologist’s
search may yield nothing at all.
If, however, a coin-tree site is not particularly accessible to visitors – such as Isle
Maree – or if a coin-tree site is fortunate enough to attract only visitors who
respectfully leave the coins in situ, then the future archaeologist’s excavation may
prove to be more fruitful. She may unearth large quantities of coins scattered within
close proximity of where the coin-tree(s) once stood. The small-scale excavation at
Ardmaddy, for example, recovered a total of 703 small finds, 691 of which were
coins. These were all unearthed within 2m of the primary coin-tree in six small
(1mx1m or smaller) test pits (Appendices 5.2 & 5.3); if a fuller excavation had been
undertaken, it is likely that an even larger volume of coins would have been
uncovered. The future archaeologist may achieve a similarly fruitful excavation at
other coin-tree sites, recovering hundreds, possibly thousands, of coins.
The evidence of the coins in isolation, with the trees having decayed and
disappeared, may seem scanty and insufficient but archaeologists are nothing if not
thrifty: the future archaeologist has been taught to make a little evidence go a long
way. The question which invariably follows, therefore, is how she would analyse and
interpret the material evidence most likely left by the coin-tree: the coins themselves.
In order to answer this question, comparisons will be drawn with how contemporary
archaeologists have interpreted the remains of an equally obscure site: the Hallaton
Hoard (East Leicestershire). Discovered in 2000 and excavated by the University of
Leicester Archaeology Unit (ULAS), this site, situated on a hilltop in Hallaton,
southeast Leicestershire, has yielded the largest assemblage of Iron Age coins
recovered under controlled archaeological conditions in Britain, offering what Leins
claims to be ‘an unprecedented opportunity to study a large group of coins in their
original depositional context’ (2011: 39).
Over 5000 Iron Age and Roman Republican gold and silver coins were recovered,
along with a Roman iron cavalry helmet (Williams 2003; Leins 2007, 2011). The
234
coins appear to have been deliberately buried in at least 15 separate hoards and,
although there is no evidence of a building having occupied the site, there is
indication of an enclosure or boundary. The additional presence of pig, sheep, and
cattle bone deposits have led archaeologists to propose that the site was an open-air
gathering place with possible ceremonial significance (Priest et al. 2003: 359-360;
Score 2006: 206; Leins 2007: 39; Score 2011: 152-164).
The archaeologists interpreting the finds at the Hallaton Hoard were able to estimate
a relatively short time-period of deposition: late pre-conquest and/or the early
Roman period (Leins 2007: 25-26; Leins 2011), the majority of the coins having
been issued roughly between AD20-50. For the deduction of a time-frame, they used
the testimony of the coins, which are particularly valuable finds for the archaeologist
precisely because of this ability to offer a relatively accurate means of dating
(Betlyon 1985: 163). Would an excavated coin-tree site proffer similar dating
evidence?
4 – DATING THE SITE
The future archaeologist may uncover a large number of coins, but what state would
she find them in? Coins may be made of relatively durable material – which is why
they are so often found preserved in archaeological contexts – but they are certainly
not impervious to the degrading processes that accompany exposure over long
periods of time. By 2200, the coins will have undergone two centuries of corrosion,
having been exposed to wind-borne particle abrasion, rain, and deteriorating
chemical processes. Although copper – which is the primary material of
contemporary British coins minted prior to 1992, and the coating of one penny and
two pence pieces since then (see below) – is only moderately susceptible to attack by
corrosion in comparison with other metals (Shreir et al. 1963: 4.41-44; Goffer 1980:
256), it is still susceptible.
An unprotected surface of copper will likely grow dull within just a few weeks of
exposure, a coating forming through a chemical reaction between the metal and
components of the atmosphere, such as oxygen, carbon dioxide, and water (Goffer
1980: 252). Within a few years, the copper surface will begin to show signs of
235
verdigris (Fig. 144), the green compound to which copper is converted following
over-exposure to the atmosphere (Sharpe 2003: 419). Additionally, coins inserted
into coin-trees are even more susceptible to corrosion because of their physical
contact with the trees. Wood is harmful to metal, the substances it contains, such as
water and acetic acid, often accelerating the corrosive process of any metal object in
contact with it (Farmer 1962; Anonymous 1979: 2; Umney 1992).
The rates of corrosion will be dependent upon the metallic compositions of the coins
themselves. While copper and its alloys are only moderately susceptible to acetic
acid, steel is more vulnerable (Shreir et al. 1963: 3.3; Anonymous 1979: 5), and this
may result in a higher rate of corrosion in more recent coins. In 1992, in response to
the increase in the world-market price of metals, the Royal Mint altered the
composition of one penny and two pence pieces from bronze (97% copper, 2.5%
zinc, 0.5% tin) to copper-plated steel (Royal Mint, nd.). One penny and two pence
pieces minted after 1992, therefore, are likely to corrode at a faster rate than coins
minted before. Figure 145, for example, shows three coins inserted into IG3 which
are highly corroded, their surfaces having flaked away. Although their damaged
states prevented accurate dating, a ‘20’ is legible on the two pence piece on the right,
indicating that it was minted after 1992.
Indeed, the 691 coins recovered at the Ardmaddy excavation reveal an interesting
correlation between the date of a coin and its level of corrosion. As outlined in
Chapter 3, each coin was assigned a corrosion level ranging from 1-4, with level 4
coins being the most heavily corroded (Appendix 5.10). As Graph 3 (Appendix 5.10)
demonstrates, correlating these levels with the dates of the coins illustrated that the
newer the coin, the more likely it is to suffer from high levels of corrosion. All pre-
decimal coins were classed as level 2, and high volumes of level 3 or 4 coins were
not recorded until 1993, the number spiking for those coins issued in 2000.
Evidently, therefore, it is not the age of the coin which will determine its physical
state when the future archaeologist uncovers it, but its metallic composition.
The corrosive material of the wood and over-exposure to the atmosphere may result
in high levels of corrosion, but it is unlikely that the coins will remain exposed to the
atmosphere and the wood of the tree for extended periods of time. As explored
above, the coins will probably fall from the trees as the wood decays, and will
236
eventually become buried. Studies have shown that burial in soil produces even
faster rates of corrosion than exposure to the atmosphere because of chemical
deterioration caused by ‘bronze disease’ (Goffer 1980: 252-253; Betlyon 1985: 164;
Ganorkar et al. 1988).
However, for the coins recovered during the Ardmaddy excavation, this has not
proven to be the case. As Graph 4 (Appendix 5.10) demonstrates, there appears to be
little correlation between the level of corrosion of the coins and their depths of
burial. It is, as Scott asserts in his study of copper and bronze artefacts, nigh on
impossible to predict the rates of corrosion of a buried object (2002: 35ff). The
factors influencing corrosion rates are numerous and complex, including the soil
type, moisture content, pH level, chloride-ion and calcium content, groundwater
content, size and chemical composition of the specimen, bacterial activity, the
presence of stones and tree roots, depth of burial, and bulk density, to name only
some (Shreir et al. 1963; Scott 2002).
The difficulties in predicting corrosion rates, however, make it no less probable that
many of the coins at these sites will be suffering from some form of corrosion by the
time the future archaeologist excavates them, and many may be deemed illegible.
The designs and writing on the coins may have devolved, some having disappeared
altogether, and the copper surfaces may have become bubbled, flaked or fractured
(Walker 1976: 329), as is evidenced by the number of coins already having
succumbed to corrosive processes (Figs. 145-146). However, as the data gathered
from the Ardmaddy excavation demonstrates, even coins suffering from high levels
of corrosion can proffer invaluable information: of the 691 coins uncovered, 468
were intact enough to reveal their years of issue, with only 133 proving too worn or
corroded to provide this information (Appendix 5.7).
The years of issue have been decipherable on older coins as well as new. The year
1875 was identifiable on a one penny at Isle Maree; by the time I had dated this coin
it had been in existence for 137 years, whilst pennies dating to 1914, 1921, 1922, and
1927 were identified during the Ardmaddy excavation, with other coins also dating
to the 1930s, 1940s, and 1960s. Even coins which are too worn or corroded to yield a
specific year of issue can still proffer some dating evidence utilising elements such
as size and outlines of design (Walker 1976: 329).
237
I was, for example, able to identify eight highly worn coins at Ardmaddy as pre-
decimal because of their designs and sizes: seven coins were identified as pre-
decimal one pennies because their diameters were within the 30-31mm range and the
vague outlines of Britannia or the name ‘GEORGE’ could be discerned on some,
whilst another was identified as a pre-decimal halfpenny because of its diameter of
25mm. Two other coins were identified as decimal halfpennies (issued between
1971-1983) due to their diameters of 17mm. The future archaeologist may likewise
employ size and design in methods of identification.
A more specific method of dating would be the analysis of the elemental
composition of the coins. There are a number of non-destructive evaluation
techniques which have been employed by archaeologists in their analysis of coins
(Al-Saa’d 1999; Klockenkämper and Hasler 1999; Delrue 2007; Bendall et al. 2009;
Kirfel et al. 2011). With these techniques improving every year – Epstein et al.’s
2010 study of 1st-century Judean coins, for example, demonstrates that X-ray
fluorescence and lead isotope analysis could be employed to date even highly
corroded coins – it is not unreasonable to assume that the future archaeologist would
have the technology at her disposal to analyse the compositions of her excavated
coins. This would certainly narrow the possible time-frame of deposition.
For example, the difference in the compositions of one penny and two pence pieces
minted before and after 1992 – a shift from bronze to copper-plated steel (see above)
– may provide the future archaeologist with a method for determining which coins
were minted prior to 1992 and which were issued after. The same methods of
analysis could be employed for five and 10 pence coins, which were cupronickel
until January 2012, and have since been nickel-plated steel (Royal Mint, nd.).
Likewise, if the elemental components of coins are altered again in the future, there
is potential for a more accurate terminus ante quem.
5 – ISSUES WITH DATING
There are, however, problems with utilising coins to determine time-frames of
deposition, for it should not be assumed that the coins excavated at a site represent
every coin ever deposited there. The Ardmaddy excavation, for example, flagged a
238
discrepancy between the material data of the coins and the ethnographic evidence.
As noted above, the Ardmaddy excavation yielded a number of pre-decimal coins:
17 dated as pre-decimal and eight identified as pre-decimal through size and design.
The vast majority of the coins, however, were decimal; the most common year of
issue was 1971, but as Graph 1 (Appendix 5.7) illustrates, the decade which
produced the highest quantity of deposited coins was the 1990s. The large volume
issued in the 2000s also demonstrates that the custom of coin deposition did not
cease with the fall of the tree. These results imply that the custom of coin-insertion at
Ardmaddy became popular during the 1970s and escalated from there.
However, the ethnographic evidence suggests that the custom was well-established
at this site far earlier. One woman who spoke to me after I presented a public lecture
at Kilmartin House Museum assured me that her mother, who walked along the
Degnish-to-Ardmaddy track quite frequently during the 1920s, described the tree as
being prolifically coined by that time (pers. comm. 14/10/2013). Additionally, the
tree’s custodian, Charles Struthers, believes that the custom was popular in the first
half of the 20th
century, recalling how numerous the coins had been when he had
inserted his own as a child during the 1950s (pers. comm. 21/12/2011). Certainly the
custom had to have been well-established by the 1970s at least, due to the coin-tree’s
inclusion on an Ordnance Survey map published in 1978, labelled ‘Wishing Tree’
(Fig. 147).
With only 25 coins uncovered during the excavation which pre-date 1971, the
empirical evidence does not agree with this chronology. It is possible that oral
tradition and local memory have projected greater antiquity onto this coin-tree than
is accurate (see Chapter 6), but the coin-tree’s presence on the OS map from the
1970s certainly indicates that it was well-established by then. As Anne Patrick,
Research Coordinator, Ordnance Survey, said: ‘Single named trees are shown [on
maps] when they are prominent landmarks’ (pers. comm. 03/10/2013).
While the dates of the coins imply that deposition at Ardmaddy became prominent
during the 1970s, alternative evidence indicates an earlier terminus ante quem for
this custom. This suggests that the coins recovered only represent a sample of those
initially inserted into the coin-tree. Perhaps a greater number of older coins were
removed from the site, by either natural or human means, or are buried at different
239
distances from the tree, or indeed at greater depths than my small-scale excavation
had opportunity to uncover. This indicates therefore that unless the future
archaeologist can undertake a full-scale excavation and is confident that she has
uncovered all – or at least the vast majority – of coins on site, the coins should not be
used to establish a firm time-frame of deposition, but only an approximate one.
6 – INTERPRETING THE COIN-TREE SITE AS A ‘HOARD’
Having established a rough time-frame, the next task for the future archaeologist will
be interpretation. Despite nearly two millennia separating their creations, the East
Leicestershire hoard and the coin-trees will leave fairly similar remains: buried
coins. At coin-tree sites, these coins are viewed out of context; the future
archaeologist will not know that they were once embedded into trees. They may,
therefore, designate the collection of coins a ‘hoard’, defined simply by Osborne as a
‘quantity of similar items being found together’ (2004: 5). Chapman observes, rather
tongue-in-cheek, that a mere two similar items discovered together is the ‘minimum
necessary to establish the presence of a hoard’ (2000: 112), and – subject to them not
having been removed through human intervention – there will probably be more than
two coins uncovered at coin-tree sites.
The remaining coins, therefore, will likely be labelled a ‘coin hoard’. However, will
the future archaeologist be able to identify that these coins were not deliberately
buried? The distribution of the coins may yield the relevant information. At Hallaton,
the coins have been divided into two groups: 3409 were from stratified
archaeological deposits – possibly originally placed in bags and buried in distinct
clusters (Score 2006: 198) – and the remaining 1883 coins lacked stratified contexts;
they were found scattered.
Although the coins uncovered during the Ardmaddy excavation were not buried in
distinct clusters, they collectively yielded evidence for a single stratified
archaeological deposit; as the site plans (Appendix 5.6) clearly indicate, closer
proximity to the coin-tree produces higher concentrations of coins. The coin-tree is
at the nexus of coin distribution. In pits 1, 2, 4, and 5 greater volumes of coins were
excavated along the edges of the pits closest to the coin-tree. Pit 3, judging by the
240
high volume of woody debris, probably contained a large limb of the coin-tree which
decayed, leaving a significantly high quantity of densely distributed coins throughout
the pit. This indicates that, following full decay of the coin-tree, the area in which it
now lies will yield a similarly high and densely concentrated volume of coins, and
finds will become sparser the further from this area the future archaeologist
excavates. She may identify that the coins’ distribution suggests a clear nexus; an
epicentre of coin deposition, and subsequently hypothesise that there was a central
focus around which they were deposited.
Without the tree, however, she will not know what this central focus consisted of.
The coins will offer some evidence for this. As they will probably not be recovered
in distinct clusters, their distribution will suggest that they were not buried by their
depositors, but that their burial was more likely the product of time and natural
processes. However, if not buried, then how were they deposited?
Bradley, writing of prehistoric hoards, describes how many offerings were deposited
in such a fashion so as to be irredeemable; deposits could either be physically
damaged – thus rendering their economic value moot – or deposited in a location
from which they could not be recovered (1990: 138) (see Chapter 4). Insoll views
this as a form of ‘sacrifice’, evinced in the archaeological record by a destructive
element (2011: 151), i.e. bending and physical damage. This ritual ‘no-returns’
policy is clearly evident in the coin-tree custom, which involves inserting coins as
securely as possible to prevent removal (see Chapter 5). Additionally, 228 (33%) of
the 691 coins uncovered during the Ardmaddy excavation exhibited signs of damage
(Fig. 148) (Appendix 5.11); of these, 77 were crooked and bent. In the majority of
coin-trees, a large quantity of coins are similarly bent (Fig. 149).
The future archaeologist, following the work of Bradley (1990) and Insoll (2011),
may correctly assume that these coins were intended as irredeemable deposits.
However, she may also over-interpret the evidence. For example, having spoken to
participants of this custom who have folded their coins over during insertion, it is
clear that in most cases the process of bending is incidental rather than integral to the
custom. At Dovedale, three different participants bent their coins over in order to
distinguish them from the surrounding coins, while other participants have bent
theirs in order to make them more secure.
241
The future archaeologist, however, does not know that these coins were inserted into
a tree, and may therefore (over-)interpret the crooked states of the coins as evidence
that their physical damage was a central component of the custom, done deliberately
in order to (possibly ritually) demonetise the coins (see Chapter 4 for information
regarding the ritual bending of objects). If the future archaeologist has read up on her
folklore then she may further over-interpret the bent coins, incorrectly identifying
them as similar to the bowed and crooked coins employed for healing and luck
throughout the medieval and early modern periods (see Chapter 4).
However, the future archaeologist may also notice that the edges of many of the
coins – both bent and not – are abraded and chipped, probably as a result of impact.
Of the 77 bent and crooked coins uncovered during the Ardmaddy excavation, 67 of
these exhibited damaged edges, while a further 151 coins which were not
bent/crooked showed similar signs of damage through percussion along their edges
(Appendix 5.11). Considered in light of the coins’ abraded edges, therefore, the
future archaeologist may conclude that any damage to the coins was the result of
them having been hammered into something. Indeed, the rocks often employed as
tools of percussion may still be evident.
Although there were no obvious tools of percussion discovered during the Ardmaddy
excavation, rocks have been identified at many coin-tree sites which have probably
been employed as ‘hammer-rocks’. At Aira Force (Appendix 2.7), for example, there
were four possible tools of percussion, utilised by participants to hammer their coins
into AF1 (Fig. 150). These rocks included a square piece of slate (measuring
1.5x10x10cm), a jagged piece of slate (1x3x3cm), a rounded piece of sandstone
(10x10x11cm), and a square piece of limestone (6x13x15cm). These rocks would
probably not instantly pique the archaeologist’s curiosity; with slate, sandstone, and
limestone all being common in the Lake District (Stone 1999), these four rocks
would not be perceived as imported materials, and the future archaeologist may not
recognise their significance. However, she may notice that all four rocks show signs
of abrasion (highlighted in Fig. 150).
Although these particular rocks will probably not be interminably employed as tools
of percussion, they will be replaced by others. And if their replacements – or their
replacements’ replacements – are still within close proximity to coin-tree sites by
242
2200, the future archaeologist may notice similar signs of abrasion, indicating that
they had been employed as tools of percussion. She may also detect metallic residues
on the edges of the rocks, suggesting a connection with the coins, and she may
recognise that the sizes of these rocks permit the theory that they could have been
hand-held tools.
The evidence would signify, therefore, that the coins had not been buried but had in
fact been hammered into something, and also that the bending of the coins was
incidental rather than integral to the deposition, as the result of percussion.
Additionally, it may signify that some of the depositors, at least, had not come
equipped with their own tools of percussion, having resorted instead to nearby rocks
– possibly indicating that the act of deposition was not a planned but impromptu act.
7 – IDENTIFYING THE RECEPTACLE
If the archaeologist does conclude that the coins were hammered into something, a
question will inevitably follow: what were they hammered into? With no remains of
a structure evident, the future archaeologist will probably posit that the receptacle of
the coins was either stolen or naturally perishable; probably the latter, for what kind
of thief would remove and discard the coins before stealing the receptacle? And
judging by the level of damage incurred by the coins through percussion, she will
probably further hypothesise that the material of the receptacle was of moderate
density: not as firm as rock but less yielding than earth. The future archaeologist will
also observe that the site (in most cases) is heavily forested. Even if the area has
been deforested by 2200 there will still be methods she could employ to determine
this, most notably palynology: the microscopic analysis of pollen grain (Erdtman
1969; Moore et al. 1991).
Palynology is not only used to determine the volume and species of vegetation
previously growing on a site, but also to trace vegetational changes. Niklasson,
Lindbladh and Björkman (2002), for example, employed pollen analysis in their
study of a Swedish forest and were able to determine that oak (Quercus) and pine
(Pinus) grew in abundance at the site until the 18th
/19th
centuries, when they were
243
replaced by other species. Similarly employing palynology, Wille et al. (2002) were
able to establish the nature of the vegetation once growing in a deforested area in
Ecuador; Binney et al. (2011) reconstructed past tree line patterns in Canada and
Alaska; and Hughes (2011) ascertained the level of deforestation undertaken in the
classical Mediterranean. Even in the event of deforestation at the coin-tree sites,
therefore, the future archaeologist will likely be able to determine the volume and
species of trees which once grew there.
Will the future archaeologist put these points together to conclude that the coins
were hammered into trees? The evidence is certainly there, but its successful
interpretation will depend entirely upon the archaeologist’s skills of deduction. She
may correctly conclude that the material of the coins’ receptacle was wood, and,
depending upon the age of the coin-tree and the stage of decomposition, there may
be some indisputable evidence for this: coins still inserted within wooden fragments.
During the Ardmaddy excavation, 32 coins were uncovered embedded in fragments
of wood (Fig. 151); of these, 10 were pre-decimal coins, suggesting that coin-
embedded wooden fragments may survive intact long enough for the future
archaeologist to uncover them. In other cases there may still be notable quantities of
woody debris amidst the soil – as was the case in pit 3 at the Ardmaddy excavation –
or staining of the soil matrices surrounding the coins where the wood has decayed.
There may be further physical evidence surviving which would indicate the presence
of a large log at the site of coin deposition. Trees create such impacts on their
environments that even centuries after their complete decay there are still markers
testifying to their presence (Langohr 1993: 45; Peterken 1996: 195). The most
obvious marker is that of the tree-hole or tree-throw, a depression – usually in the
form of a deep, crescent-shaped pit – created when the root system of a tree, and its
associated soil and subsoil, are torn from the ground when the tree falls (Darvill
2008). These depressions become long-lasting features in the landscape and have
been employed as archaeological data in the contextualising of prehistoric sites
(Crombé 1993; Langohr 1993; Evans et al. 1999). For those coin-trees which fell,
pulling their root systems from the ground, notable tree-throws may be produced;
however, in the majority of cases, coin-trees are logs which did not fall naturally but
were felled, their root systems not having been pulled from the ground.
244
However, as Henry and Swan (1974) demonstrate, focusing their study on a one-
tenth-acre square plot in a forest in New Hampshire, woodland has the potential to
reveal its own history based on numerous factors. By establishing the time
relationships between living stems, unburied dead trees, and buried tree fragments,
Henry and Swan are able to trace the course of forest succession over a period of
several hundred years, illustrating that it would be possible for the future
archaeologist to determine that there had been a log of substantial size – which may
have caused a depression simply through its extended presence on the ground –
within the area of coin deposition.
8 – RITUAL INTERPRETATIONS
With the testimonies of the coins, the hammer-rocks, and the forest itself, the future
archaeologist may be able to determine how – and into what – the coins were
deposited. However, will she be able to understand why they were deposited? Firstly,
she will need to decide whether the coins constitute a ‘ritual’ hoard or a ‘non-ritual’
hoard, as distinguished by Bradley (1990: 10).
Archaeologists have tended to make this distinction based on a set of criteria, the
primary point being, as mentioned above, the question of sacrifice: are the artefacts
irredeemable and physically damaged? Non-ritual deposits, such as ‘savings hoards’,
generally occur in locations from which they can be retrieved; ritual deposits, on the
other hand, tend to be treated as ‘sacrifices’; they should be difficult – or impossible
– to recover and physically damaged (Robertson 1974: 18; Bradley 1990: 10; Insoll
2011). However, although the future archaeologist has probably theorised that the
coins were hammered into something and were thus intended to be semi-
irredeemable, she may be naturally more inclined to propose a secular purpose for
the hoard from the outset.
British archaeology has a history of approaching hoards pragmatically, often having
viewed ritual explanations with suspicion (Bradley 1990: 16). Although this
tendency has changed since the 1990s – as is evidenced by the ritually-rich
interpretations of the East Leicestershire hoard, for example – the future
245
archaeologist’s perspective may be coloured by scholarly assertions that, by the 21st
century, Western society had transitioned into a ‘secular age’ (Taylor 2007: 1), all
local traditions and customs having succumbed to what Redner terms ‘cultural
homogenization…which we now describe by that ominous term “globalization”’
(2004: 2). If the future archaeologist believes that the 21st
century was a largely
secular age, then she may find it difficult to reconcile the dates of the coins with a
ritual interpretation of their deposition.
However, the future archaeologist may know that non-ritual hoarding was not a
prominent feature of the 20th
and 21st centuries; in modern, Western society, banks
and building societies – or even jars and piggy-banks – are far more common
deposition sites than holes in the ground (Laing 1969: 54). And the coins themselves
offer additional testimony to the ritual aspect of this deposition. For non-ritual
hoards, coins of higher value, such as those made of gold and silver, were the more
popular deposits than coins of lower value, most probably because gold and silver
coins occupy far less space than their equivalent value in copper coins, and while
copper is liable to depreciation, precious metals tend to retain their value. (Robertson
1956: 265-267; Laing 1969: 52-67; Robertson 1974; Aitchison 1988: 271; Newton
2006: 213).
At a coin-tree site, therefore, where the vast majority of identifiable British coins
will be one and two pence pieces, the future archaeologist may conclude that this
assemblage was not a savings hoard. Additionally, the sheer quantity of coins may
suggest multiple depositors – possibly one coin per participant – rather than a select
few individuals, and the deposition of coins over a period of time as opposed to on
one occasion (Aitchison 1988: 271), may lead the future archaeologist to advocate a
designation of ritual-hoarding.
This form of assemblage, produced by numerous depositors, is not strictly speaking
a ‘hoard’, but rather what Laing terms an ‘accumulation’ – a collection of artefacts
deposited over a period of time – the most common case of which in Britain is the
deposition of coins in sacred springs or wells as votive offerings (Laing 1969: 57).
One of the most famous accumulations of coins in the British Isles is from the
Roman fort of Carrawburgh on Hadrian’s Wall, where between 15,000 and 20,000
coins were recovered from the sacred well of the nymph Coventina, their dates
246
ranging from the reign of Augustus (27 BC-14 AD) to the late 4th
or early 5th
century
(Laing 1969: 57; Aitchison 1988: 275). This quantity of coins, likely deposited by
numerous participants over a long period of time (in the case of Carrawburgh,
roughly 300 years) rather than on one occasion, is more akin to the levels and
duration of deposition at coin-trees.
As well as the coins, there may be other deposits which suggest ritual significance.
At the East Leicestershire hoard, for example, although there is no evidence of a
temple or shrine having occupied the site (despite indications of an enclosure or hill
boundary), the presence of other objects – most notably animal bones – led
archaeologists to suggest that the site was ‘an important religious centre’ (Priest et al.
2003: 360); ‘closely associated with ritual sacrifice and/or feasting’ (Leins 2007:
39); and ‘an open air meeting place for specific ritual processes’ (Score 2006: 206).
While the presence of such remains as animal bones is not indisputable evidence for
ritual activity, it has been interpreted thusly; the same may apply to the non-coin
deposits recovered at coin-tree sites.
At Ardmaddy, of the 703 small finds recorded, 12 were not coins (Appendix 5.12).
Of these, four were of pliable material: two pieces of string, a shoelace, and a piece
of blue, plastic-coated wire (Fig. 152). As there were numerous pieces of cloth –
ribbons, string, rags – currently tied to the coin-tree’s branches, as have been found
at other coin-tree sites (Isle Maree, Fore, St. Nectan’s Glen), it is possible that these
four finds were, likewise, initially affixed to the tree’s branches. The two pieces of
string, for example, were knotted to form loops, suggesting that they were tied
around something.
Such finds may lead the future archaeologist to posit a connection between the
custom of coin-deposition and rag-trees, an accurate connection (see Chapter 4),
which may also aid in the archaeologist’s identification of the receptacle as a tree.
However, all four pliable finds at Ardmaddy were recovered from the turf or the top
10cm spits, indicating that they had not been buried for long periods of time. The
perishable nature of these deposits suggests that they would not survive to be
uncovered by the future archaeologist.
247
The more durable non-coin deposits, on the other hand, are far more likely to
survive. Jewellery, for example, also links coin-trees with rag-trees and the belief
that objects worn close to the body made suitable deposits. Items such as a hairclip, a
badge, an earring, and a necklace chain have been discovered deposited at Isle Maree
(Fig. 88) (Appendix 2.26), and due to their durable materials, may survive to be
recovered by the future archaeologist. Metal nails and pins may also survive (Fig.
86), connecting the coin-tree with the custom of nail- and pin-trees. At Ardmaddy,
one large, bent, hand-cut nail was uncovered amidst coins (Fig. 153) (Appendix
5.12), whilst 64 nails, one screw, and one drawing-pin have been discovered
embedded into other coin-trees. These connections with past folkloric customs – rag-
trees, nail-trees, pin-trees – may lead the future archaeologist to interpret the site
ritually and theorise that similar reasons may lie behind the insertion of a coin into a
tree as they did behind the attaching of rags, nails, and pins.
Other aspects of the site may lead to ritual interpretation. As at Hallaton, at
Ardmaddy there may be evidence of an enclosure. The wooden fence erected in the
1990s to protect the coin-tree from livestock will probably not still be standing but
evidence of it may remain in the form of postholes, no doubt adding fuel to the
future archaeologist’s theory that the site was a ritual space, having been demarcated
from the surrounding landscape. As Score argues in her analysis of the Hallaton
Hoard, boundaries are ‘common features in ritual space and…may mark the point at
which sacred and profane met’ (2011: 156).
However, no other coin-tree has been enclosed or physically protected, so these sites
will produce no evidence of demarcation. Their close proximities to footpaths (Fig.
154), on the other hand, may be observed and included in analyses. Score, for
example, notes the close proximity of the Hallaton Hoard to Roman roads, which
may have utilised previous trackways, as evidence suggesting the site was a
communal gathering place for dispersed groups (2011: 156).
Even if the footpaths beside coin-trees are no longer traversed by 2200, there are
certain techniques which the future archaeologist could employ to determine their
presence. Aerial photography, for example, has been used by archaeologists since the
1920s (Crawford 1929), and has been employed to identify lines of communication,
such as roads and tracks, which are not easily noticeable from the ground (Wilson
248
1982: 137-138). Technologies have developed further, and digital remote sensing,
such as satellite imaging and infrared photography, have been used to identify even
prehistoric footpaths (Sheets and Sever 1988; Sheets et al. 1991; Trombold 1991;
Whitridge 2013). The future archaeologist therefore will have the means to establish
that (in most cases) the sites of deposition are located directly beside footpaths, and
she will most certainly, and correctly, propose that this close proximity is more than
mere coincidence. However, she may also note that the paths do not actually lead to
the deposition sites but past them, suggesting that these sites were not primary
destinations in and of themselves.
With 23 of the 33 coin-tree sites visited located within close proximity to bodies of
water – rivers, waterfalls, lakes – the future archaeologist may also postulate that
water was significant in the choice of the areas as deposition sites. This would also
be correct, as the high quantity of tourists encountering coin-trees is probably largely
due to the fact that waterfalls are popular tourist attractions, and rivers, lakes, etc.,
are often features of popular rural walks. For example, of the 100 walking routes
described in Countryfile: Great British Walks (Scott 2010), 68 feature rivers,
streams, lakes, canals, waterfalls, and the sea. However, the future archaeologist runs
the risk of over-interpreting water’s significance. During interviews, no participants
expressed any sentiments that suggested a ritual connection between coin-trees and
waterfalls, rivers, etc., but their close proximity may lead the archaeologist to draw
on comparisons made elsewhere within the British Isles with the many water-
deposition sites of ritual hoards (Laing 1969; Bord and Bord 1985; Merrifield 1987;
Aitchison 1988; Bradley 1990; Fulford 2001; Cool and Richardson 2013).
9 – THE DEPOSITORS
The future archaeologist has questioned when the custom was practiced and why.
She may then turn her attention to the participants, and question who was depositing
these coins. The material record may offer some evidence to draw upon for such an
enquiry. The presence of foreign currencies may be considered significant,
suggesting that foreign tourists were amongst the participants. At Ardmaddy, for
example, 14 examples of worldwide foreign currency were uncovered during
249
excavation (Appendix 5.8). Indeed, 231 non-British coins have been catalogued
across coin-tree sites (Appendix 3.3), with only seven of the 32 sites containing no
foreign currency. It is certainly possible, therefore, that the future archaeologist will
encounter some non-British coins in her investigation.
Numerous archaeological surveys have noted the significance of foreign coinage
discovered in hoards and other assemblages, and interpretations vary. Middle Eastern
coins found in a Viking hoard in Sweden, for example, have been perceived as
evidence of early trade (Anonymous 2008; Owen 2008). Italian, Egyptian, and
Middle Eastern coinage unearthed in a hoard in India has been cited as evidence of
the import of valuta (Digby 1980). East Asian coins excavated at sites in North
America (Beals 1980; Olsen 1983) and Chinese coins discovered in New Zealand
(Neville and Park 1987) have been interpreted as proof of immigrant communities
retaining their home-currencies. Evidently, archaeologists draw heavily on evidence
of diversity in their interpretations of coin finds; it is therefore likely that the future
archaeologist would give foreign coins much consideration in her interpretation of
the coin-tree site.
In all likelihood, she would hypothesise that the foreign coins had been inserted by
tourists. This is not always the case; during fieldwork at Snowdon, for example, I
interviewed an English woman who inserted a two Euro cent left-over from a recent
holiday abroad because she considered that particular coin as disposable. However,
from my own observations, many foreign coins are inserted by foreign participants.
The future archaeologist’s most likely hypothesis would therefore be largely correct,
and this may lead her to theorise that domestic tourists also participated in the
custom. If she researches land-custodianship and usage of the sites during the period
of coin-deposition, she will know that they were all popular routes for leisurely
walking, many of which attracted both foreign and domestic tourists.
There is, however, no material evidence which indicates children’s central role in
this custom, which would probably lead to an absence of children in interpretations;
as Baker observes, ‘archaeologists have always assumed that men were present at
archaeology sites, but that…children had to be found’ (2008: 166). Granted, there
have been archaeological studies concerned with how children and unstructured
‘child-play’ can influence artefact-distribution (Bonnichsen 1973; Hammond and
250
Hammond 1981), and the archaeology of children is a growing research topic
(Sofaer Derevenski 2000; Lillehammer 2000; Kamp 2001; Baxter 2008). However, it
is unlikely that the central role played by children in the coin-tree custom will be
identified in the absence of any obvious material evidence for it.
Without the participants to question, the future archaeologist cannot know exactly
why they participated, only how. She thus runs the risk of over-interpretation. She
may not account for playfulness or for imitation, believing instead that every
depositor had a ‘ritual’ motive for participation, and – probably drawing on the same
coin- and tree-related traditions explored in Chapter 4 – she may be inclined to seek
ritual motives where, in fact, there are none. The customs and beliefs of the 19th
century may thus be projected onto the 21st century in the analysis of this custom;
rather than considering the possibility that a person deposited a coin simply because
others had done so or to entertain children, the future archaeologist may theorise that
the 21st-century participant was motivated by residual beliefs in the coin’s apotropaic
or curative powers.
10 – CONCLUSION
Given their predominantly organic natures and the low levels of protection bestowed
upon them, coin-trees are certainly not permanent structures. It is clear, however,
that their transience will not result in a disappearance from the material record.
Subject to the coins being left in situ, these structures will leave enough evidence of
their existence for the future archaeologist to piece together.
If adeptly analysed, the archaeological remains of most coin-tree sites would testify
to an accumulation of low-denomination coins deposited over a number of years,
possibly decades, inserted into a wooden structure, possibly a log, by tourists, many
of whom had not come prepared with a hammer judging by the signs of impact
evident on nearby rocks. Evidence of other forms of deposits are indicative of a long
and complex ritual narrative, suggesting that the custom manifested itself in various
forms and was therefore a mutable, rather than a fixed, entity. The material evidence
251
of the coin-trees will, therefore, proffer enough information for a fairly accurate
analysis.
Interpretation, however, may prove more difficult. There will probably be enough
material evidence left to ascertain the physical components of participation in this
custom, but not to determine personal motivation. The ‘how’ will be answered, but
not necessarily the ‘why’ – hence the importance of collecting ethnographic data. It
is hoped that the evidence compiled in this thesis and in subsequent projects may
eventually be used to complement the future archaeologist’s interpretation of the
material remains of coin-trees, so that a fuller understanding of the mutable nature of
this custom may be attained.
252
CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION
1 – THE COIN-TREE CONTEXTUALISED?
It was the aim of this thesis, as stated in its title, to contextualise the contemporary
coin-tree. In order to do this, I compiled a catalogue of coin-trees in the British Isles,
conducted research on the history of the practice, and undertook fieldwork at each
site. Data was gathered regarding the physical structures themselves: the tree species,
conditions, and sizes; their locations; and the quantities, denominations, dates, and
distributions of the coins. As well as drawing on the material evidence, relevant
literature on the sites was identified, ranging from the works of 19th
-century
antiquarians to walkers’ online forums, and ethnographic data was gathered. This
involved interviewing (both via email, telephone, and face-to-face) the coin-tree
custodians, heritage professionals, and members of the public who had participated
in the custom. An hour of observation was also made at each coin-tree site, noting
how people engage with these structures.
These methods were all employed in an attempt to contextualise the contemporary
coin-tree. Questions which this thesis aimed to answer included: How widespread is
the coin-tree custom within the British Isles? How ‘old’ or ‘new’ are the structures?
Who participates in it and why? What accounts for its recent resurgence? Some
questions were simpler to answer than others.
The age of most coin-trees, for example, was relatively easy to ascertain, based on
the testimony of both land-owners and the dates of the coins themselves. However,
the age of the custom proved far more difficult to establish. Likewise, the question of
who participates in this custom was easily answered: a broad range of people,
regardless of gender, race, and age, who happen to have stumbled upon a coin-tree.
While on the other hand, the question of why they participate proved complex and
multifaceted.
Indeed, the very nature of the coin-tree resists neat contextualisation due to its
mutability. These structures shift from context to context, geographically and
chronologically, but also from person to person. Their ambiguity, as natural and
253
manufactured, as old and new, as sacred and secular, results in a set of structures
which defy both classification and neat contextualisation.
Chapter 4 attempted to ‘read backwards’, to trace the historical customs and beliefs
which resulted in the emergence of the contemporary coin-tree. However, the origins
of the coin-tree proved far too complex and convoluted to simply ‘read backwards’.
Rather than a successive line of evolving customs, the coin-tree is more an
amalgamation of numerous strands of traditions, beliefs, and substitutions: the tree’s
history of ritual employment and its relationship with the holy well; the rag-tree,
nail-tree, and pin-tree, and the notion of contagious transfer; the perceived folk-
remedial and apotropaic powers of coins, as well as their status as symbols of value
and exchange, in both the secular and sacred realms.
Due to the convoluted history and origins of the coin-tree custom, any proposal for
the age of this practice would be tenuous guesswork at best. If dated to the first
reference of the earliest known coin-tree, Isle Maree, this would be 1775, when
Pennant briefly referred to a tree employed as an altar (1775: 330). However, if dated
to the first explicit reference of the insertion of coins into trees, this would be 1860,
when Campbell referred to ‘copper caps… placed in chinks in rocks and trees at the
edge of the “Witches’ Well”’ in Islay (1860: 134). In fact, perhaps the current
custom of inserting coins into trees should be dated to its contemporary resurgence,
in which case the estimated coinage date of the Bolton Abbey coin-tree, c.1991-1996
(pers. comm. Moira Smith, Bolton Abbey Visitor’s Manager, 11/11/2011), should be
utilised in establishing the date of this custom.
This contemporary re-emergence is, likewise, the result of a number of factors: the
mid/late 20th
-century rise in child-oriented families; the growth of domestic tourism;
a change in forestry guidelines; and the late 20th
-century rise of the Internet,
producing an effective dissemination mechanism for the custom as well as
prompting a reconsideration of the definitional parameters of ‘folklore’ and ‘oral
transmission’. As Clifford aptly observes: ‘Metaphors of continuity and “survival”
do not account for complex historical processes of appropriation, compromise,
subversion, masking, invention, and revival’ (1988: 338). Contextualising the coin-
tree historically thus proved complicated and ‘untidy’.
254
Chapter 5 attempted to locate the coin-tree custom in contemporary society and to
consider how people engage with these structures. This flagged a number of
seemingly contradictory factors. For example, an absence of prior knowledge of the
custom was evident on the participants’ parts and yet there were high volumes of
participation. Also, while the removal of coins is perceived as taboo, suggesting that
the coins are viewed as ‘off-limits’, people physically engage with the larger
structures freely, in many cases exhibiting no inhibitions about
sitting/standing/climbing on them. Additionally, there was an evident inclination to
imitate paired with the desire to individuate, leading to another seeming
contradiction: the coin, an alienable, anonymous, and disposable object, is
constructed as both a metaphor of identity and as an inviolable deposit through the
simple act of inserting it into the bark of a tree.
Chapter 6 aimed to consider what coin-trees mean to modern-day practitioners and
what they do; the roles they play in attracting and influencing participation, and in
fostering social relations. These considerations proved equally complicated. The
very nature of coin-trees – as unofficial and enigmatic structures often stumbled
upon by chance – encourages great variation in the why of participation. How an
individual interprets a coin-tree can be dependent upon a number of factors:
geographical location, the presence or absence of ‘official’ interpretation, season and
weather, who they are with, their age, their personality and emotional mood, and at
what stage in their life they encounter a coin-tree. The coin-tree custom thus has not
one ‘meaning’, but a myriad.
However, the ‘untidiness’ of this contextualisation reveals much about the coin-tree
custom: its propensity for adaptation; its situational element; and its inherent
malleability. Indeed, it elucidates much about the nature of folklore itself, which,
despite often being presented as fixed and immutable, is often, by necessity, quite the
opposite. Because customs and symbols (such as the coin and the tree) can be
variously interpreted, they thus become broadly inclusive; everybody can participate
if they so desire. The coin-tree, therefore, acts as what Eade and Sallnow term a
ritual ‘void’, a space which can accommodate various meanings and practices (1991:
15). It is for this reason that mutability is often essential to a folkloric custom.
255
Ironically, the difficulties in contextualising the coin-tree were therefore essential to
a successful contextualisation. Complexity, malleability, mutability, and ‘untidiness’
are not incidental aspects of this contemporary custom, but integral to it. This has
demonstrated the flexibility required when researching a contemporary folkloric
custom; flexibility which, in this case, required the employment of a relatively
unconventional combination of methodologies and theoretical frameworks: most
notably archaeology and folklore.
2 – ARCHAEOLOGY AND FOLKLORE
In Chapter 2, the hope was expressed that this thesis would contribute to the
fostering of a dialogue between archaeology and folklore. While the future of this
academic pairing remains unclear, this research has, in my opinion, successfully
demonstrated the applicability and benefits of employing both archaeological and
folkloric methodologies in the study of a contemporary custom. My research is
particularly suitable for such an approach due to the contemporaneity of my case-
studies; folklore and archaeology could be considered in unison without stretching
either source because the material evidence of the folkloric custom – i.e. the coin-
tree – and the testimonies of the participating ‘folk’ are both current. The material
culture of the coin-trees illustrated how people participate in this custom; the
folkloric data elucidated why.
The sheer volume of coin-trees and coins testify to the popularity of this custom,
while the increases in these quantities observed on return trips, for example at
Hardcastle Crags (Appendix 2.23) and Malham (Appendix 2.30), confirm its
currency. The coin-tree custom is not simply being observed in the present day, but it
is still undergoing the processes of creation.
The empirical evidence of the coins themselves, their denominations and
distributions, evince the prominent roles played by aesthetics, imitation, and
personalisation in the participation of this custom, whilst other objects deposited
amidst the coins attest to the mutability of this practice and the various forms it has
taken. For older coin-trees, about which ethnographic data is harder to source,
archaeological methodologies are invaluable. As particularly demonstrated by the
256
Ardmaddy excavation, the material evidence of the coin-tree can proffer much
chronological information and can be used to determine an approximate time-frame
of deposition at a given site.
On the other hand, the testimony of the participating ‘folk’, along with any relevant
literature, can elucidate what the custom ‘means’ today. Interviews with participants,
contemporaneous literature, and online blogs and forums can reveal why people
choose to participate and what they believe the purpose of the custom is. As this
entire thesis has demonstrated, ‘meaning’ is mutable, relative, and entirely
contingent upon the individual participants, and the material evidence alone fails to
communicate this element of personal motivation. For example, two coins located
side-by-side in the same coin-tree may have been inserted for entirely different
reasons, and unless the researcher can question the actual depositors of those coins,
she cannot know with any certainty why they were deposited. Identical material
remains do not necessarily constitute identical ritualistic beliefs, and this has much
wider implications for archaeological research.
Archaeology and folklore thus evidently complement each other. However, my
research reveals more than this, demonstrating that neither source would be adequate
in isolation. Even the archaeological and folkloric evidence of my case-studies, as
chronologically-concordant as they are, reveal a resistance to neat correlation. An
interpretation of the material culture of the coin-trees alone does not always agree
with an interpretation of the spoken testimony of the participating ‘folk’. For
example, discrepancies are particularly notable in attempts to date certain coin-trees.
As was evident during the Ardmaddy excavation, the information proffered by the
material evidence of the coins did not correlate with estimates of age given by local
residents: whilst the empirical data suggested that the custom became popular during
the 1970s, the testimony of local residents, the land-owner, and a 1978 OS map
indicate that it was well-established much earlier than this, possibly in the 1920s. In
this case, the ethnographic data is considered more reliable. However, at Marbury
Park, Cheshire, although ethnographic evidence suggested that the custom was a
long-standing one in the park, the dates of the coins suggested that it was not, and in
this case, the material evidence was considered more accurate due to people’s
257
propensity to over-estimate the age of local customs – a research find which is
interesting in and of itself.
Evidently, folklore and archaeology do not simply complement each other; they
challenge each other, and this ratifies how invaluable the adoption of both
methodologies is. As Layton (1999) stresses, folklore and archaeology should not be
presented as two pieces of the same whole, reunited to reveal the full picture; rather,
they should be employed to reveal different layers of ‘meaning’ and different modes
of understanding. The two bodies of evidence may not complement each other to
form a full picture of the custom, but they certainly complement each other in their
contribution to a far deeper method of enquiry, prompting questions which would
not have been asked had only one methodology been employed. My research,
therefore, reveals not only that folklore and archaeology can be utilised in unison as
contextualising sources, but that they should be.
3 – LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
A study of coin-trees opens up many questions, and this thesis will have only grazed
the tip of a vast topic. Due to time constraints, for example, fieldwork at a number of
coin-tree sites, brought to my attention too late, could not be undertaken; data from
these sites was therefore not included in this thesis. Indeed, due to the nature of this
custom – as a current practice which is undergoing wide dissemination – coin-trees
are undoubtedly emerging at unknown sites. The catalogue produced in this thesis is
therefore certainly incomplete, but it is hoped that it can act as a starting point for
further studies.
A larger, ongoing program could – and should – be implemented which fosters
collaboration between the various coin-tree custodians and leading heritage
organisations. Strategies should be employed which include the cataloguing of coin-
trees and the employment of ethnographers who can record details of the custom on
a larger scale than this thesis has been capable of offering. This program should
produce information regarding the custom, accessible to scholars, heritage
professionals, and members of the public alike. For this, a digital catalogue should
be implemented, offering a summary of the history of the coin-tree custom, together
258
with individual entries for each tree. These index records could include information
regarding the trees’ locations, species, dimensions, custodianship details, histories,
and photographs, and an entry form could be made available for any readers aware
of coin-trees not included in the catalogue; this inventory would thus not be a static
archive but an ongoing, growing compendium.
This program should also aim to work with coin-tree custodians in implementing
management strategies. It was opined in Chapter 7 that enclosing these structures
within protective fences or removing them would be counter-productive to the
preservation of this custom. In order to preserve the intangible cultural heritage of
the coin-trees, it would therefore be advised that participants simply be given the
opportunity to participate. In cases where land-owners are concerned for the health
of living trees, for example, it is recommended that they provide logs in order to
perpetuate this custom.
Due to word-limit restraints, other issues could not be considered in this thesis.
Questions concerning whether/how gender and ethnicity influence perceptions of,
and engagements with, coin-trees were not asked, but are certainly potential subjects
for future research. Additionally, geographic focus was restricted to the British Isles,
but coin-trees and similar structures/customs have been identified elsewhere, and it is
hoped that they can be the topic of future studies which allow for broader geographic
scopes. In Finland, for example, the custom of depositing coins at ‘sacred’ trees was
practiced during the early 20th
century (Harva 1932: 472; Itkonen 1948: 317-318).
Elsewhere, this custom is – as in the British Isles – current. During my research I
was contacted, via John Billingsley and Jeremy Harte, by an Australian named Peter
Townsend who informed me of the following:
In South Australia there is serious outback desert track called Googs Track.
Part way along this track is a memorial to the father and son who made the
track in the early 1960’s and next to the memorial are a couple of trees
studded with coins. This was a new phenomena [sic.] to us so it was very
interesting to learn about the custom in the U.K. Yes we did add another
coin, some kind of innate compulsion I suppose. (pers. comm. 28/03/2013)
The custom also appears to have manifested itself in Northern California; Professor
Barbara Voss of Stanford University informed me of wooden posts/sculptures
embedded with coins along the Point Reyes National Seashore and in the Mendocino
259
Headlands (pers. comm. 04/10/2013) (Fig. 155). While in Japan, members of the
public are embedding coins into the wooden torii gates (traditional gates placed at
entrances to Shinto shrines) erected at the peak of Mt. Fuji (Fig. 156).
Although direct comparisons should not be drawn between different countries, let
alone continents, it would certainly be interesting to attempt to determine if these
customs had emerged independently or if dissemination of the coin-tree custom has
proven to be worldwide; if the customs in Australia, the United States of America,
and Japan have developed from the same wave of emergence. Indeed, with the
prominent roles played by both the Internet and tourism in the transmission of the
coin-tree custom, it is not unlikely that the practice has spread from one country to
another. Certainly, folklore is not bound by national borders. Lang, for example,
considered how themes from classical Greek myths appeared as far afield as Japan,
Russia, and Samoa, proposing that tales and ideas can be swept ‘like pieces of drift-
wood’ from one place to another (1898: 97), ‘diffused by borrowing’ (1893: 417).
The coin-tree custom is, for example, described in the March 2014 edition of
enRoute, Air Canada’s in-flight magazine, aimed at foreign tourists visiting North-
West England. Whilst describing the sites of Cumbria, Musgrave observes that
‘[t]here are discoveries down every back road, from big hulking ruins to tiny
superstitious details. Hiking through the arboretum at the Aira Force waterfall…I see
coins forced into fallen logs’ (2014: 71). Not only will such publicity disseminate
awareness of this custom to an international audience – probably subsequently
increasing tourist traffic at coin-tree sites – but it may disseminate the custom itself;
will coin-trees begin to emerge in Canada also?
A study of the coin-tree custom and its various manifestations beyond the British
Isles could be made in light of Lang’s driftwood theory. It could also consider such
elements as the mutability of meaning on a much wider level, examining how a
custom spanning cultures and continents can appear physically homogenous but
‘mean’ something different at each location. How is the custom variously interpreted
in different countries? Do they stem from widely disparate traditions exclusive to
their cultures? Do nations manage, protect, or promote these structures differently?
And are the participants primarily tourists?
260
As well as a broader geographic scope, future studies could also enjoy a longer
chronological range. Further research could involve returning to this subject (and to
the coin-tree sites) in a number of years to ascertain whether the custom has spread
further, if it has undergone adaptations, and, if so, how and why it has altered. The
question proposed in Chapter 7 of what people may start to deposit at these sites
instead of coins may be answered; or perhaps, instead, the custom’s resurgence will
prove short-lived and will soon begin to ebb. This will spark further questions about
why the late 20th
/early 21st centuries proved exclusively conducive to the coin-tree
custom.
Further archaeological excavations could also be undertaken. Chapter 7
demonstrated the significant trace left by coin-trees in the material record; the
Ardmaddy excavation recovered 703 finds, mostly coins, and produced a significant
amount of data, and yet this was only a small-scale excavation due to funding and
time-restraints. Larger scale projects, which would allow researchers to excavate
both deeper and over greater areas, would in all likelihood proffer invaluable
information about the chronology of the coin-tree custom and the various forms it
has taken.
Isle Maree (Appendix 2.26) would offer a particularly interesting and insightful site
for such investigations. The North of Scotland Archaeology Society began
archaeological examinations and analysis of the island in 2002 but no excavation
was undertaken. If feasible, a full-scale excavation at this site is recommended, in
order to determine if the time-frame of deposition suggested by the material evidence
coincides with literary records, as well as to ascertain the location of the holy well,
which is no longer visible but features prominently in the literature concerned with
Isle Maree (Pennant 1775 330; Campbell 1860: 134; Mitchell 1863: 251-265; Dixon
1886: 151; Hartland 1893: 453-454; Muddock 1898: 437-438).
Contemporary coin-tree sites may also benefit from future archaeological
excavations, especially in cases where coin-trees have been removed or destroyed,
such as at Freeholders Wood, Hardcastle Crags, and High Force. Additionally, our
understanding of sites for which the literary and ethnographic evidence suggests a
detailed and interesting chronology, such as St. Nectan’s Glen, would benefit from
excavations. Such projects could consider the archaeological implications of these
261
modern folkloric sites, further fostering a dialogue between archaeology and
folklore.
4 – ‘FESTERING SUPERSTITIONS’?
The broader aim of this thesis was to address Van den Eynden’s statement of ‘a need
to update the status of plant symbolism in present times and to assess how relevant it
may be nowadays’ (2010: 239). The conclusion: coin-trees demonstrate a
widespread and popular employment of trees in folkloric customs within the British
Isles at present. Although the ‘traditional’ uses of coin-trees – most notably folk-
remedial – are no longer largely observed, and have been replaced by purposes more
relevant to contemporary society, the coin-tree stands as proof that Benedict was
incorrect in her assertion that ‘folklore has not survived as a living trait in modern
civilization’ (1932: 292).
The coin-tree is not simply a survival; a ‘festering superstition’, to use Margaret
Schlegel’s term from Forster’s Howards End (1910 [2000]: VIII, 61). It is not a
decaying tradition, clinging to survival; it is animate, prevalent, and very much a
feature of contemporary society. As Hartland contends, ‘[t]radition is always being
created anew’ (1885: 117), and the coin-tree attests to this. The custom of tree-
implantation may be an old one, but every contemporary coin-tree, every process of
substitution, recreates the tradition and imbues it with new meaning. This is not an
inert, fossilised tradition; it is an active, dynamic, fluid custom. The coin-tree thus
proves that while folkloric practices may ebb as they become irrelevant to
contemporary society, they are well-equipped to adapt, acclimatise, and re-emerge.
To return to Mrs Wilcox of Howards End:
There are pig’s teeth stuck into the trunk, about four feet from the ground. The country people put them in long ago, and they think that if they chew
a piece of the bark it will cure the toothache. The teeth are almost grown
over now, and no one comes to the tree. (Forster 1910 [2000]: VIII, 61)
Indeed they do not, Mrs Wilcox. For they are all hammering pennies into coin-trees
instead.
262
BIBLIOGRAPHY
2012 Great Britain Day Visits Survey. 2013. The GB Day Visitor: Statistics 2012.
VisitEngland, VisitScotland, Visit Wales.
Abbott, D. T. and Crossley, Jr., D. A. 1982. Woody litter decomposition following
clear-cutting. Ecology 63 (1), 35-42.
Abel, E. L. and Buckley, B. E. 1977. The Handwriting on the Wall: Toward a
Sociology and Psychology of Graffiti. Westport and London, Greenwood Press.
Abrahams, R. 1978. Play. In Newall, V. J. (ed.) Folklore Studies in the Twentieth
Century: Proceedings of the centenary conference of the Folklore Society. D. S.
Brewer, Woodbridge: 119-122.
Abramsky, J. 2010. Investing in success. In Heritage Lottery Fund (eds.). 2010.
Investing in success: Heritage and the UK tourism economy. London, Heritage
Lottery Fund: 1-3.
Ackerman, R. 1987. J. G. Frazer: His Life and Work. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Aitchison, N. B. 1988. Roman Wealth, Native Ritual: Coin Hoards with and beyond
Roman Britain. World Archaeology 20 (2), 270-284.
Albas, D. and Albas, C. 1989. Modern Magic: The Case of Examinations. The
Sociological Quarterly 30 (4), 603-613.
Aldersey-Williams, H. 2005. A Sense of Truth. London, V&A.
Allen, M. J. and Scaife, R. 2007. A New Downland Prehistory: Long-term
Environmental Change on the Southern English Chalklands. In Fleming, A. and
Hingley, R. (eds.) Prehistoric and Roman Landscapes. Macclesfield, Windgather
Press: 16-32.
Al-Saa’d, Z. 1999. Chemical Analysis of Some Umayyad Dirhems Minted at Wāsit.
Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 42 (3), 351-363.
Amselle, J. 2004. Intangible Heritage and Contemporary African Art. Museum
International 56 (1-2), 84-90.
Anderson, L. R. and Holt, C. A. 1996. Classroom Games: Information Cascades. The
Journal of Economic Perspectives 10 (4), 187-193.
Anonymous. nd. British Columbian Ministry of Natural Resource Operations.
http://www.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/teecolo/fmdte/cwdcom.htm (Accessed
15/04/2012).
Anonymous. 1686 [1789]. The Ceremonies for the Healing of Them that be Diseased
with the King’s Evil used in the Time of King Henry VII. Published by His Majesties
Command. London, Henry Hills.
Anonymous. 1945. Beaumont’s Tree. Folklore 56 (3), 307.
263
Anonymous. 1956. Mid-Ulster Observer 29 November, 3.
Anonymous. 1979. Corrosion of Metals by Wood. London, The Department of
Industry.
Anonymous. 2003. Touching for the King’s Evil. The British Medical Journal 1,
1234-1235.
Anonymous. 2007. Money tree. Wild about Britain.
http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/forums/wild-places-and-geography/17126-
money-tree.html (Accessed 10/09/2011).
Anonymous. 2008. Aira Force Money Tree. Treeblog.
http://www.treeblog.co.uk/viewpost.php?id=169 (Accessed 13/09/2011).
Anonymous. 2008. Swedes find Viking-era Arab coins. BBC News 4 April.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7330540.stm (Accessed 13/11/2012).
Anonymous. 2008. Wish Trees. Sheffield Wildlife.
http://sheffieldwildlife.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/wish-trees/ (Accessed
10/09/2011).
Anonymous. 2009. How can I find the money tree on Wadsley Common? Sheffield
Forum. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=504017 (Accessed
10/09/2011).
Anonymous. 2009. The Strange Money Trees of England. Amusing Planet.
http://www.amusingplanet.com/2009/10/strange-money-trees-of-england.html
(Accessed 03/10/2011).
Anonymous. 2011. Growth of ‘mystery’ wishing trees in Portmeirion. BBC News
North West Wales. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-14464862
(Accessed 03/10/2011).
Anonymous. 2011. Lucky Money Tree. Wigan World.
http://www.wiganworld.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9586&sid=4b6c28dbae824db
a92a7da1327fcee89 (Accessed 10/09/2011).
Anonymous. 2011. ‘Witch’s cottage’ unearthed near Pendle Hill, Lancashire. BBC
News Lancashire 8 December.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-16066680 (Accessed 17/01/2013).
Anonymous. 2012. High Force Waterfall, 27 April. Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/High-Force-Waterfall/153905458010620
(Accessed 20/09/2012).
Appadurai, A. (ed.) 1986. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in cultural
perspective. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
“archaeology, n.”. OED Online. March 2014. Oxford University Press.
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/10286 (Accessed 17/03/2014).
264
Arnold, P. P. and Grodzins Gold. A. (eds.) 2001. Sacred Landscapes and Cultural
Politics: Planting a tree. Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing Limited.
“art, n.1”. OED Online. March 2014. Oxford University Press.
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/11125?rskey=HlASwy&result=1&isAdvanced=false
(Accessed 26/03/2014).
Baker, M. 2005. Some Object Histories and the Materiality of the Sculptural Object.
In Melville, S. (ed.) The Lure of the Object. New Haven, Yale University Press: 119-
134.
Bandura, A. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Banerjee, A. V. 1992. A Simple Model of Herd Behavior. The Quartlery Journal of
Economics 107 (3), 797-817.
Baring-Gould, S. and Fisher, J. 1913. The Lives of the British Saints. Vol. 4. London,
Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion.
Barnard, K. E. and Brazelton, T. B. (eds.) 1990. Touch: The Foundation of
Experience. Madison, International Universities Press, Inc.
Barnes, B. 1975. Irish Travelling People. In Fehfisch, F. (ed.) Gypsies, Tinkers and
Other Travellers. London and New York, Academic Press: 231-256.
Barnett, T. R. 1930. Autumns in Skye, Ross & Sutherland. Edinburgh, John Grant
Booksellers Ltd.
Barton, S. 2005. Working-Class Organisations and Popular Tourism, 1840-1970.
Manchester, Manchester University Press.
Bascom, W. R. 1965. Four Functions of Folklore. In Dundes, A. (ed.) The Study of
Folklore. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, Inc.: 279-298.
Bauman, R. 1971. Differential Identity and the Social Base of Folklore. The Journal
of American Folklore 84 (331), 31-41.
Baxter, J. E. 2008. The Archaeology of Childhood. Annual Review of Anthropology
37, 159-175.
Bayliss, A., Groves, C., McCormac, G., Baillie, M., Brown, F., and Brennand, M.
1999. Precise Dating of the Norfolk Timber Circle. Nature 402, December.
Beals, H. K. 1980. Chinese coins in six northwestern aboriginal sites. Historical
Archaeology 14, 58-72.
Bell, C. 1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York and Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
Ben-Amos, D. 1972. Towards a Definition of Folklore in Context. In Paredes, A. and
Bauman, E. (eds.) Toward New Perspectives in Folklore. Austin, University of
Texas Press: 3-15.
Bendall, C., Wigg-Wolf, D., Lahaye, Y., Von Kaenel, H.-M., and Brey, G. P. 2009.
Detecting Changes of Celtic Gold Sources through the Application of Trace Element
265
and Pb Isotope Laser Ablation Analysis of Celtic Gold Coins. Archaeometry 51 (4),
598-625.
Bender, B. 1998. Stonehenge: Making Space. Oxford and New York, Berg.
Bendix, R. 1989. Tourism and Cultural Displays: Inventing Traditions for Whom?
The Journal of American Folklore 102 (404), 131-146.
Bendix, R. 1998. Of Names, Professional Identities, and Disciplinary Futures. The
Journal of American Folklore 111 (441), 235-246.
Benedict, R. 1932. Folklore. In Seligman, E. R. A. and Johnson, A. (eds.)
Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. 6. London, MacMillan and Co., Ltd.:
288-293.
Bennett, G. 1996. The Thomsian Heritage in the Folklore Society (London). Journal
of Folklore Research 33 (3), 212-220.
Betlyon, J. W. 1985. Guide to Artifacts: Numismatics and Archaeology. The Biblical
Archaeologist 48 (3), 162-165.
Bettelheim, B. 1976. The Uses of Enchantment: The Meaning and Importance of
Fairy Tales. New York, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., and Welsh, I. 1992. A Theory of Fads, Fashion,
Custom, and Cultural Change as Informational Cascades. Journal of Political
Economy 100 (5), 992-1026.
Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., and Welsh, I. 1998. Learning from the Behavior of
Others: Conformity, Fads, and Information Cascades. The Journal of Economic
Perspectives 12 (3), 151-170.
Billings, J. S. 1906. The King’s Touch for Scrofula. Manchester, Manchester
Medical Society.
Billingsley, J. 2005. Coin Trees: A new tradition, or a new artefact? Northern Earth.
http://www.northernearth.co.uk/cointree.htm (Accessed 05/05/2013).
Billingsley, J. 2010. Coins Inserted in Trees. FLS News 60, 7.
Binney, H. A., Gething, P. W., Nield, J. M., Sugita, S., and Edwards, M. E. 2011.
Tree line identification from pollen data: beyond the limit? Journal of Biogeography
38, 1792-1806.
Bintley, M. D. J. 2009. Trees and Woodland in Anglo-Saxon Culture. Unpublished
PhD thesis, University College London.
Bird-David, N. 1990. The Giving Environment: Another Perspective on the
Economics System of Gatherer-Hunters. Current Anthropology 31 (2), 189-196.
Black, W. G. 1883. Folk-Medicine; A Chapter in the History of Culture. London,
Elliot Stock.
Blank, T. J. (ed.) 2009. Folklore and the Internet: Vernacular Expression in a
Digital World. Logan, Utah State University Press.
266
Blank, T. J. 2009. Introduction: Toward a Conceptual Framework for the Study of
Folklore and the Internet. In Blank, T. J. (ed.) Folklore and the Internet: Vernacular
Expression in a Digital World. Logan, Utah State University Press: 1-20.
Blank, T. J. (ed.) 2012. Folk Culture in the Digital Age: The Emergent Dynamics of
Human Interaction. Logan, Utah State University Press.
Bloch, M. 1973. The Royal Touch: Sacred Monarchy and Scrofula in England and
France. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Bolton Abbey. nd. The Money Tree.
http://www.boltonabbey.com/highlights/highlights_money.htm (Accessed
02/02/2013).
Bonnichsen, R. 1973. Millie’s Camp: An Experiment in Archaeology. World
Archaeology 4 (3), 277-291.
Bord, J. and Bord, C. 1976. The Secret Country: More Mysterious Britain. St
Albans, Granada Publishing Ltd.
Bord, J. and Bord, C. 1985. Sacred Wells: Holy Wells and Water Lore in Britain and
Ireland. London, Paladin Books.
Borrowdale, A. 1994. Reconstructing Family Values. Melksham, Cromwell Press.
Bowman, G. 1991. Christian ideology and the image of a holy land. In Eade, J. and
Sallnow, M. J. (eds.) Contesting the Sacred: The anthropology of Christian
pilgrimage. London and New York, Routledge: 98-121.
Box, J. 2003. Dressing the Arbor Tree. Folklore 114 (1), 13-28.
Bradbury, M. 2001. Forget me not: memorialisation in cemeteries and crematoria. In
Hockey, J., Katz, J., and Small, N. (eds.) Grief, Mourning and Death Ritual.
Buckingham and Philadelphia, Open University Press: 218-225.
Bradley, A., Buchli, V., Fairclough, G., Hicks, D., Miller, J. and Schofield, J. 2004.
Change and Creation: historic landscape character 1950-2000. London, English
Heritage.
Bradley, R. 1990. The Passage of Arms: An archaeological analysis of prehistoric
hoards and votive deposits. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Brand, J. 1777. Observations on popular antiquities: including the whole of Mr.
Bourne’s Antiquates vulgares, with addenda to every chapter of that work: as also,
an appendix, containing such articles on the subject, as have been omitted by that
author. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, T. Saint.
Brandstätter, E. and Brandstätter, H. 1996. What’s money worth? Determinants of
the subjective value of money. Journal of Economic Psychology 17 (4), 443-464.
Brennand, M. and Taylor, M. 2003. The Survey and Excavation of a Bronze Age
Timber Circle at Holme-Next-The-Sea, Norfolk, 1998-9. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 69, 1-84.
267
Brennand, M. 2004. This is why we dug Seahenge. British Archaeology 78
September.
Brennessel, B., Drout, M. D. C., and Gravel, R. 2005. A reassessment of the efficacy
of Anglo-Saxon medicine. Anglo-Saxon England 34, 183-195.
Broadwood, L. E. 1898. Pins and Metal in Wells. Folklore 9 (4), 368.
Bronner, S. 2009. Digitizing and Virtualizing Folklore. In Blank, T. J. (ed.) Folklore
and the Internet: Vernacular Expression in a Digital World. Logan, Utah State
University Press: 21-66.
Brück, J. 2001. Monuments, Power and Personhood in the British Neolithic. The
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 7 (4), 649-667.
Brück, J. 2004. Material Metaphors: The relational construction of identity in Early
Bronze Age burials in Ireland and Britain. Journal of Social Archaeology 4 (3), 307-
333.
Brück, J. 2006. Fragmentation, Personhood and the Social Construction of
Technology in Middle and Late Bronze Age Britain. Cambridge Archaeological
Journal 16 (3), 297-315.
Brück, J. 2007. Ritual and rationality: Some problems of interpretation in European
archaeology. In Insoll, T. (ed.) The Archaeology of Identities: A Reader. Oxon and
New York, Routledge: 281-307.
Brunning, R. and Watson, J. 2010. Waterlogged Wood: Guidelines on the recording,
sampling, conservation and curation of waterlogged wood. Swindon, English
Heritage Publishing.
Brunvard, J. H. 1983. The Vanishing Hitchhiker: American Urban Legends and
Their Meanings. London, Pan Books Ltd.
Buchli, V. and Lucas, G. (eds.) 2001. Archaeologies of the Contemporary Past.
London and New York, Routledge.
Budd, P. and Taylor, T. 1995. The faerie smith meets the bronze industry: magic
versus science in the interpretation of prehistoric metal-making. World Archaeology
27 (1), 133-143.
Burl, A. 1987. The Stonehenge People. London and Melbourne, J. M. & Sons Ltd.
Butler, B. 2006. Heritage and the Present Past. In Tilley, C., Keane, W., Küchler, S.,
Rowlands, M. and Spyer, P. (eds.) Handbook of Material Culture. London, Sage
Publications: 463-479.
Byrne, J. P. 2012. Encyclopaedia of the Black Death. Santa Barbara, ABC-CLIO.
Byrne, M. 2011. Lucky Money Tree. YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3SiPssfsZA (Accessed 17/08/2012).
268
Camden, W. 1586 [1722]. Britannia: or A chorographical description of Great
Britain and Ireland, together with the adjacent islands. London, Awnsham
Churchill.
Cameron, C. 1995. Authenticity and the World Heritage Convention. In Larsen, K.
E. (ed.) Nara Conference on Authenticity in relation to the World Heritage
Convention. Trondheim, Tapir Publishers: 283-285.
Cameron, M. L. 1993. Anglo-Saxon Medicine. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
Campbell, J. F. 1860. Popular Tales of the West Highlands. Vol. 2. Edinburgh,
Edmonston and Douglas.
Campbell, J. G. 1990 [2005]. The Gaelic Otherworld: John Gregorson Campbell’s
Superstitions if the Highlands and Islands of Scotland and Witchcraft and Second
Sight in the Highlands and Islands. Edinburgh, Birlinn Ltd.
Campbell, S. 2001. The Captivating Agency of Art: Many Ways of Seeing. In
Pinney, C. & Thomas, N. (eds.) Beyond Aesthetics: Art and the Technologies of
Enchantment. Oxford and New York, Berg: 117-135.
Canaan, T. 1927. Mohammedan Saints and Sanctuaries. London, Luzac & Co.
Candlin, F. 2008. Museums, Modernity and the Class Politics of Touching Objects.
In Chatterjee, H. J. (ed.) Touch in Museums: Policy and Practice in Object
Handling. Oxford and New York, Berg: 9-20.
Candlin, F. 2010. Art, Museums and Touch. Manchester, Manchester University
Press.
Casey, J. and Reece, R. (eds.) 1974 [1988]. Coins and the Archaeologist. London, B.
A. Seaby Ltd.
Champion, M. 2000. Seahenge: A Contemporary Chronicle. Aylsham, Barnwell’s
Timescape Publishing.
Champion, S. and Cooney, G. 1999. Naming the Places, Naming the Stones. In
Gazin-Schwartz, A. and Holtrof, C. (eds.) Archaeology and Folklore. London and
New York, Routledge: 196-213.
Chapman, J. 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology: People, places and broken
objects in the prehistory of south-eastern Europe. London and New York,
Routledge.
Charlton, W. 1914. Touch Pieces and Touching for the King’s Evil. Manchester,
Richard Gill.
Chatterjee, H. J. (ed.) 2008. Touch in Museums: Policy and Practice in Object
Handling. Oxford and New York, Berg.
Chippindale, C. 1978. The Enclosure of Stonehenge. The Wiltshire Archaeological
Magazine 70/71, 109-123.
269
Chippindale, C. 1983 [1994]. Stonehenge Complete. London, Thames and Hudson.
Clark, G. 1951. Folk-Culture and the Study of European Prehistory. In Grimes, W.
F. (ed.) Aspects of Archaeology in Britain and Beyond. London, H. W. Edwards: 49-
65.
Clark, G. 1986. Symbols of Excellence: Precious metals as expressions of status.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Classen, C. (ed.) 2005. The Book of Touch. Oxford and New York, Berg.
Classen, C. 2005. Fingerprints: Writing about Touch. In Classen, C. (ed.) The Book
of Touch. Oxford and New York, Berg: 1-9.
Classen, C. 2005. Touch in the Museum. In Classen, C. (ed.) The Book of Touch.
Oxford and New York, Berg: 275-286.
Classen, C. and Howes, D. 2006. The Museum as Sensescape: Western Sensibilities
and Indigenous Artifacts. In Edwards, E., Gosden, C., and Phillips, R. B. (eds.)
Sensible Objects: Colonialism, Museums and Material Culture. Oxford, Berg: 199-
222.
Clifford, J. 1988. The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography,
Literature, and Art. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.
“coin, n.”. OED Online. March 2014. Oxford University Press.
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/35998?rskey=IA9CXj&result=1&isAdvanced=false
(Accessed 24/03/2014).
“coin, v.1”. OED Online. March 2014. Oxford University Press.
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/35999?rskey=IA9CXj&result=2&isAdvanced=false
(Accessed 24/03/2014).
Collis, J. 1974. Data for dating. In Casey, J. and Reece, R. (eds.) Coins and the
Archaeologist. London, B. A. Seaby Ltd.: 189-199.
Connerton, P. 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
Connerton, P. 2006. Cultural Memory. In Tilley, C., Keane, W., Küchler, S.,
Rowlands, M. and Spyer, P. (eds.) Handbook of Material Culture. London, Sage
Publications: 315-324.
Cool, H. E. M. and Richardson, J. E. 2013. Exploring Ritual Deposits in a Well at
Rothwell Haigh, Leeds. Britannia 44, 1-27.
Coote, J. and Shelton, A. (eds.) 1992. Anthropology, Art and Aesthetics. Oxford,
Clarendon Press.
Coote, J. and Shelton, A.1992. Introduction. In Coote, J. and Shelton, A. (eds.)
Anthropology, Art and Aesthetics. Oxford, Clarendon Press: 1-11.
270
Coote, J. 1992. ‘Marvels of Everyday Vision’: The Anthropology of Aesthetics and
the Cattle-Keeping Nilotes. In Coote, J. and Shelton, A. (eds.) Anthropology, Art and
Aesthetics. Oxford, Clarendon Press: 245-273.
Cosgrove, D. and Daniels, S. (eds.) 1988. The Iconography of Landscape: Essays on
the symbolic representation, design and use of past environments. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Court, A. 1985. Puck of the Droms: The Lives and Literature of the Irish Tinkers.
Berkeley, University of California Press.
Coxe, A. D. H. 1973. Haunted Britain: A Guide to Supernatural Sites frequented by
Ghosts, Witches, Poltergeists and other Mysterious Beings. London, Hutchinson and
Co.
Crawford, O. G. S. 1929. Air Photography for Archaeologists. London, Ordnance
Survey Professional Papers n. s. 12.
Creighton, J. 2000. Coins and Power in Late Iron Age Britain. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Creighton, M. 1997. Consuming Rural Japan: The Marketing of Tradition and
Nostalgia in the Japanese Travel Industry. Ethnology 36 (3), 239-254.
Crisciani, C. and Pereira, M. 1998. Black Death and Golden Remedies. Some
Remarks on Alchemy and the Plague. In Bagliani, A. P. and Santi, F. (eds.) The
Regulation of Evil: Social and Cultural Attitudes to Epidemics in the Late Middle
Ages. Firenze, Sismel: 7-39.
Critchley, H. 2008. Emotional Touch: A Neuroscientific Overview. In Chatterjee, H.
J. (ed.) Touch in Museums: Policy and Practice in Object Handling. Oxford and
New York, Berg: 61-71.
Croker, T. C. 1824 [1968]. Researches in the South of Ireland: Illustrative of the
scenery, architectural remains and the manners and superstitions of the peasantry,
with an appendix containing a private narrative of the rebellion of 1798. Shannon,
Irish University Press.
Croker, T. C. 1825. Fairy Legends and Traditions of the South of Ireland. London, J.
Murray.
Crombé, P. 1993. Tree-fall features on final Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites situated
on sandy soils: How to deal with it. Helinium 33, 50-66.
Crowther, D. 1989. Archaeology, material culture and museums. In Pearce, S. (ed.)
Museum Studies in Material Culture. London and New York, Leicester University
Press: 35-46.
Cunliffe, B. 1969. Roman Bath. London, the Society of Antiquaries.
Curtis, C. 2005. Graffiti Archaeology. http://grafarc.org/about.html (Accessed
11/08/2014).
Curtis, M. 2004. Coins in Fallen Trees. FLS News 42, 14.
271
Cushing, F. H. 1965. The Cock and the Mouse. In Dundes, A. (ed.) The Study of
Folklore. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, Inc.: 269-276.
Daly, J. F. 1961. Curative Wells in Old Dublin. Dublin Historical Record 17 (1), 13-
24.
Dammann, G. 2012. The penny has dropped: let’s scrap copper coins.
Guardian.co.uk Wednesday 1 February.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/01/penny-dropped-scrap-
copper-coins (Accessed 08/08/2013).
Danesi, M. 1999. On Cigarettes, High Heels, and Other Interesting Things: An
Introduction to Semiotics. New York, St. Martin’s Press.
Daniel, G. 1981. A Short History of Archaeology. London, Thames and Hudson.
Darvill, T. 2006. Stonehenge: The Biography of a Landscape. Stroud, Tempus
Publishing.
Darvill, T. 2008. Tree hole. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology (2nd
edition). Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Davenport, F. 2009. Ireland. London, Lonely Planet.
Davidson, J. M. 2004. Rituals Captured in Context and Time: Charm Use in North
Dallas Freedman’s Town (1869-1907), Dallas, Texas. Historical Archaeology 38 (2),
22-54.
Davies, D. 1988. The evocative symbolism of trees. In Cosgrove, D. and Daniels, S.
(eds.) The Iconography of Landscape: Essays on the symbolic representation, design
and use of past environments. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 32-42.
Davies, P., Robb, J. G. and Ladbrook, D. 2005. Woodland Clearance in the
Mesolithic: The Social Aspects. Antiquity 79, 280-288.
Day, J. W. 2010. Archaic Greek Epigram and Dedication: Representation and
Reperformance. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Deane, C. D. 1959. Broadcast talk on the Old Cross of Ardboe. Mid-Ulster Mail
Saturday 23 May.
Deetz, J. and Dethlefsen, E. 1965 The Doppler Effect and archaeology: A
consideration of the special aspects of seriation. Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology 21 (3), 196-206.
Deetz, J. and Dethlefsen, E. 1966. Death’s heads, cherubs and willow trees:
Experimental archaeology in colonial cemeteries. American Antiquity 31 (4), 502-
510.
Deetz, J. 1996. In Small Things Forgotten. New York, Doubleday.
Delaney, M. 2000. The Irish Travellers. Teaching Anthropology: SACC Notes 7 (1),
32-35.
272
Delrue, P. 2007. Flip the coin. Preliminary results of compositional EDX analyses on
south-east Arabian coins from ed-Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain, UAE). Proceedings of the
Seminar for Arabian Studies 37, 79-92.
deMause, L. (ed.) 1974. The History of Childhood. London, Souvenir Press.
Deng, S. 2008. Healing angels and “golden blood”: money and mystical kingship in
Macbeth. In Moschovakis, N. (ed.) Macbeth: New Critical Essays. New York,
Routledge: 163-181.
Department for Culture, Media & Sport. 2011. After ‘decades of dithering’,
Government steps in to help secure future for Stonehenge. Gov.uk.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/after-decades-of-dithering-government-steps-
in-to-help-secure-future-for-stonehenge (Accessed 22/05/2014).
Department for Transport. 2011. Vehicles. Transport Statistics Great Britain: 2011.
Derrida, J. 1995. On the Name. Stanford, Stanford University Press.
Dethlefsen, E. S. 1981. The Cemetery and Culture Change: Archaeological Focus
and Ethnographic Perspective. In Gould, R. A. and Schiffer, M. B. (eds.) Modern
Material Culture: The Archaeology of Us. New York and London, Academic Press:
137-159.
Devlin, H. 1948. Collected History of Ardboe. Collected in the summer of 1948 from
the parish of Ardboe, Co Tyrone.
Digby, S. 1980. The Broach Coin-Hoard as Evidence of the Import of Valuta across
the Arabian Sea during the 13th and 14th Centuries. Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2, 129-138.
Dijksterhuis, A. 2005. Why We Are Social Animals: The High Road to Imitation as
Social Glue. In Hurley, S. and Chater, N. (eds.) Perspectives on Imitation: From
Neuroscience to Social Science. Volume 2: Imitation, Human Development, and
Culture. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, MIT Press: 207-220.
Dixon, J. H. 1886 [1984]. Gairlock in North-West Ross-shire: its records, traditions,
inhabitants, and natural history; with a guide to Gairlock and Loch Maree and a
map of illustrations. (4th
reprint). Fort William, Nevisprint Ltd.
Donoho, E. 2014. The Madman amongst the Ruins: The Oral History and Folklore
of Traditional Insanity Cures in the Scottish Highlands. Folklore 125 (1), 22-39.
Dore, R. P. 1958. City Life in Japan. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Dorson, R. M. 1951. The Great Team of English Folklorists. The Journal of
American Folklore 64 (251), 1-10.
Dorson, R. M. 1968. The British Folklorists: A History. London, Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Dorson, R. M. 1976. Folklore and Fakelore: Essays toward a Discipline of Folk
Studies. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, Harvard University Press.
273
Dowden, K. 2000. European Paganism: The realities of cult from antiquity to the
Middle Ages. London and New York, Routledge.
Duff, D. (ed.) 1968. Victoria in the Highlands: the personal journal of Her Majesty
Queen Victoria: with notes and introductions, and a description of the acquisition
and rebuilding of Balmoral Castle. London, Frederick Muller Ltd.
Dundes, A. (ed.) 1965. The Study of Folklore. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Dundes, A. and Pagter, C. R. 1975. Urban Folklore from the Paperwork Empire.
Austin, American Folklore Society.
Dundes, A. 1980. Interpreting Folklore. Bloomington, Indiana University Press.
Dundes, A. 2005. Folkloristics in the Twenty-First Century (AGS Invited
Presidential Plenary Address, 2004). The Journal of American Folklore 118 (470),
385-408.
Dungeons, The. nd. Edinburgh. http://www.thedungeons.com/edinburgh/en/
(Accessed 04/04/2014).
Eade, J. and Sallnow, M. J. (eds.) 1991. Contesting the Sacred: The anthropology of
Christian pilgrimage. London and New York, Routledge.
Easton, T. 1999. Ritual Marks on Historic Timber. Weald and Downland Open Air
Museum Magazine, 22-30.
Eastop, D. 2001. Garments deliberately concealed in buildings. In Wallis, R. J. and
Lymer, K. (eds.) A Permeability of Boundaries? New Approaches to the
Archaeology of Art, Religion and Folklore. BAR International Series 936: 79-83.
Eastop, D. 2006. Outside In: Making Sense of the Deliberate Concealment of
Garments within Buildings. Textile 4 (3), 238-255.
Edwards, E., Gosden, C., and Phillips, R. B. (eds.) 2006. Sensible Objects:
Colonialism, Museums and Material Culture. Oxford, Berg.
Eliade, M. 1956. The Forge and the Crucible: The Origins and Structures of
Alchemy. Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press.
English Heritage. 2007. PastScape. http://www.pastscape.org.uk/ (Accessed
04/04/2014).
Epstein, M. S., Hendin, D. B., Yu, L. L., and Bower, N. W. 2010. Chemical
Attribution of Corroded Coins Using X-Ray Fluorescence and Lead Isotope Ratios:
A Case Study from First Century Judaea. Applied Spectroscopy 64 (4), 384-390.
Erdtman, G. 1969. Handbook of Palynology: An Introduction to the Study of Pollen
Grains and Spores. Copenhagen, Munksgaard.
Evans, C., Pollard, J. and Knight, M. 1999. Life in Woods: Tree-Throws,
‘Settlement’ and Forest Cognition. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18 (3), 241-254.
Evans, I. J. 2010. Touching Magic: Deliberately concealed objects in old Australian
houses and buildings. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Newcastle, Australia.
274
Farmer, R. H. 1962. Corrosion of metals in association with wood: Part 2. Wood 27,
443-446.
Farmer, R. H. 1972. Handbook of Hardwoods. London, Her Majesty’s Stationery
Office.
Feldman, J. D. 2006. Contact Points: Museums and the Lost Body Problem. In
Edwards, E., Gosden, C., and Phillips, R. B. (eds.) Sensible Objects: Colonialism,
Museums and Material Culture. Oxford, Berg: 245-267.
Fenton, A. 1993. Folklore and Ethnology: Past, Present and Future in British
Universities. Folklore 104 (1), 4-12.
Fernandez, J. W. 1965. Symbolic Consensus in a Fang Reformative Cult. American
Anthropologist 67 (4), 902-929.
Fernback, J. 2003. Legends on the Net: An examination of computer-mediated
communication as a locus of oral culture. New Media & Society 5 (1), 29-45.
Field, T. 2001.Touch. Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press.
Finn, C. 1997. ‘Leaving more than footprints’: modern votive offerings at Chaco
Canyon prehistoric site. Antiquity 71, 169-178.
Finucane, R. C. 1977. Miracles and Pilgrims: Popular Beliefs in Medieval England.
London, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd.
Firth, F. M. 2010. Route No. 343. Yorkshire Walks.
http://www.yorkshirewalks.org/diary10/diary343.html (Accessed 10/09/2011).
Fleming, A. and Hingley, R. (eds.) 2007. Prehistoric and Roman Landscapes.
Macclesfield, Windgather Press.
Fleure, H. J. 1948. Archaeology and Folklore. Folklore 59 (2), 69-74.
Foley, R. 2011. Performing health in place: The holy well as a therapeutic
assemblage. Health and Place 17, 470-479.
“folklore, n.”. OED Online. March 2014. Oxford University Press.
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/72546?redirectedFrom=folklore (Accessed
17/03/2014).
Forestry Commission. 2002. Life in the Deadwood: A guide to managing deadwood
in Forestry Commission forests. Edinburgh, Forest Enterprise.
Forestry Commission. 2003. National Inventory of Woodland and Trees: Great
Britain. Edinburgh, Forestry Commission.
Forestry Commission. 2012. Forestry Statistics 2012: A compendium of statistics
about woodland, forestry and primary wood processing in the United Kingdom.
Edinburgh, Forestry Commission.
Forster, E. M. 1910 [2000]. Howards End. New York, Penguin Books.
275
Foster, G. M. 1952. What Is Folk Culture? American Anthropologist 55 (2), 159-
173.
Fowler, C. 2004. The Archaeology of Personhood: An anthropological approach.
London and New York, Routledge.
Fox, C. 1946. A Find of the Early Iron Age from Llyn Cerrig Bach, Anglesey.
Cardiff, National Museum of Wales.
Fox, P. L. 2003. The copper-iron chronicles: The story of an intimate relationship.
BioMetals 16, 9-40.
Francis, D., Kellaher, L., and Neophytou, G. 2001. The Cemetery: the evidence of
continuing bonds. In Hockey, J., Katz, J., and Small, N. (eds.) Grief, Mourning and
Death Ritual. Buckingham and Philadelphia, Open University Press: 226-236.
Frazer, J. G. 1900. The Golden Bough. Vol. 1. London, MacMillan & Co. Ltd.
Frazer, J. G. 1923. Folk-Lore in the Old Testament: Studies in Comparative
Religion, Legend and Law. London, Macmillan & Co. Ltd.
Friedel, R. 1993. Some Matters of Substance. In Lubar, S. and Kingery, W. D. (eds.)
History from Things: Essays on Material Culture. Washington D.C. and London,
Smithsonian Institution Press: 41-50.
Fulford, M. 2001. Links with the Past: Pervasing “Ritual” Behaviour in Roman
Britain. Britannia 32, 199-218.
Gamble, C. 2007. Origins and Revolutions: Human Identity in Earliest Prehistory.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Ganorkar, M. C., Rao, V. P., Gayathri, P. and Rao, A. S. 1988. A Novel Method for
Conservation of Copper-Based Artifacts. Studies in Conservation 33 (2), 97-101.
García Canclini, N. 1995. Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving
Modernity. Minneapolis and London, University of Minnesota Press.
Garner, A. 2004. Living History: Trees and Metaphors of Identity in an English
Forest. Journal of Material Culture 9 (1), 87-100.
Gathercole, P. 1989. The Fetishism of Artefacts. In Pearce, S. (ed.) Museum Studies
in Material Culture. London and New York, Leicester University Press: 73-81.
Gazin-Schwartz, A. 1999. Constructing Ancestors: Archaeology and Folklore in
Scotland. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts.
Gazin-Schwartz, A. and Holtorf, C. (eds.) 1999. Archaeology and Folklore. London
and New York, Routledge.
Gazin-Schwartz, A. and Holtorf, C. 1999. ‘As long as ever I’ve known it…’: On
folklore and archaeology. In Gazin-Schwartz, A. and Holtorf, C. (eds.) Archaeology
and Folklore. London and New York, Routledge: 3-25.
276
Gazin-Schwartz, A. 2001. Archaeology and Folklore of Material Culture, Ritual, and
Everyday Life. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 5 (4), 263-280.
Gazin-Schwartz, A. 2011. Myth and Folklore. In Insoll, T. (ed.) The Oxford
Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion. Oxford, Oxford University
Press: 63-75.
Gell, A. 1998. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford, Clarendon
Press.
Gell, A. 1999. The Technology of Enchantment. In Gell, A. (ed.) The Art of
Anthropology: Essays and Diagrams. London and New Brunswick, Athlone Press:
159-186.
Getz, F. 1998. Medicine in the Middle Ages. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Gilbert, C. S. 1820. An historical survey of the County of Cornwall: to which is
added, A complete heraldry of the same; with numerous engravings. Vol. 3. London,
J. Congdon.
Gilmour, B. J. J. and Stocker, D. A. (eds.) 1986. St Mark’s Church and Cemetery.
London, Council for British Archaeology.
Gmelch, G. 1985. The Irish Tinkers: The urbanization of an itinerant people.
Prospect Heights, Waveland Press, Inc.
Godden, G. M. 1893. The Sanctuary of Mourie. Folklore 4 (4), 498-508.
Goffer, Z. 1980. Archaeological Chemistry: A Sourcebook on the Applications of
Chemistry to Archaeology. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
González-Ruibal, A. 2006. The Past is Tomorrow: Towards an Archaeology of the
Vanishing Present. Norwegian Archaeological Review 39 (2), 110-125.
González-Ruibal, A. 2008. Time to Destroy: An Archaeology of Supermodernity.
Current Anthropology 49 (2), 247-279.
Gore, C. 1998. Ritual, performance and media in urban contemporary shrine
configurations in Benin City, Nigeria. In Hughes-Freeland, F. (ed.) Ritual,
Performance, Media. London, Routledge: 66-84.
Gormley, A. 2007. Foreword. In Penrose, S. (ed.) Images of Change: An
archaeology of England’s contemporary landscape. Swindon, English Heritage: 7.
Gould, C. 2010. Coins Inserted in Trees. FLS News 60, 7.
Gould, R. A. and Schiffer, M. B. (eds.) 1981. Modern Material Culture: The
Archaeology of Us. New York and London, Academic Press.
Granovetter, M. 1978. Threshold Models of Collective Behavior. American Journal
of Sociology 83 (6), 1420-1443.
277
Graves-Brown, P. M. (ed.) 2000. Matter, Materiality and Modern Culture. London
and New York, Routledge.
Gray, T. 1799. The traveller's companion, in a tour through England and Wales;
containing a catalogue of the antiquities, houses, parks, plantations, scenes, and
situations, in England and Wales, arranged according to the alphabetical order of
the several counties. London, G. Kearsley.
Greenblatt, S. 1991. Marvelous Possessions: The Wonder of the New World. Oxford,
Clarendon Press.
Griffin, K. A. 2007. The Globalization of Pilgrimage Tourism? Some Thoughts from
Ireland. In Raj, R. and Morpeth, N. D. (eds.) Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage
Management: An International Perspective. Wallingford and Cambridge, CAB
International: 15-36.
Grigson, G. 1955. The Englishman’s Flora. London, Phoenix House Ltd.
Grimes, P. 1999. The Pin Tree. Loughshore News March.
Grimes, P. 2000. Muintirevlin Remembers. Ardboe, Muintirevlin Historical Society.
Grinsell, L. V. 1976a. Folklore of Prehistoric Sites in Britain. Newton Abbot and
London, David & Charles Ltd.
Grinsell, L. V. 1976b. The Legendary History and Folklore of Stonehenge. Folklore
87 (1), 5-20.
Hadfield, M.1974. The Oak and Its Legends. In Morris, M. G. and Perring, F. H.
(eds.) The British Oak: Its History and Natural History. Faringdon, E. W. Classey,
Ltd.: 123-129.
Hadrian’s Wall Heritage. 2007. Walking in Hadrian’s Wall Country. Hexham,
Hadrian’s Wall Heritage Ltd.
Hadrian’s Wall Heritage. 2008a. An Introduction to Hadrian’s Wall Management
Plan, 2008-2014. Hexham, Hadrian’s Wall Heritage Ltd.
Hadrian’s Wall Heritage. 2008b. The management issues affecting Hadrian’s Wall
WHS. Hexham, Hadrian’s Wall Heritage Ltd.
Hall, M. 2012. Money isn’t everything: The cultural life of coins in the medieval
burgh of Perth, Scotland. Journal of Social Archaeology 12, 72-91.
Hallam, E. and Ingold, T. (eds.) 2007. Creativity and Cultural Improvisation. Oxford
and New York, Berg.
Hallam, E. and Ingold, T. 2007. Creativity and Cultural Improvisation: An
Introduction. In Hallam, E. and Ingold, T. (eds.) Creativity and Cultural
Improvisation. Oxford and New York, Berg: 1-24.
Hamilton, D. 1981. The Healers: A history of medicine in Scotland. Edinburgh,
Canongate.
278
Hammond, G. and Hammond, N. 1981. Child’s Play: A Distorting Factor in
Archaeological Distribution. American Antiquity 46 (3), 634-636.
Hand, W. D. 1966. Plugging, Nailing, Wedging, and Kindred Folk Medicinal
Practices. In Jackson, B. (ed.) Folklore & Society: Essays in honor of Benj. A.
Botkin. Hatboro, Folklore Associates: 63-75.
Harbison, P. 1991. Pilgrimage in Ireland: The Monuments and the People. Syracuse,
Syracuse University Press.
Hardwick, C. 1872. Traditions, Superstitions and Folk-lore, (chiefly Lancashire and
the north of England:) their affinity to others in widely-distributed localities; their
eastern origin and mythical significance. Manchester, A. Ireland & Co.
Hardy, P. D. 1840. The holy wells of Ireland: containing an authentic account of
those various places of pilgrimage and penance which are still annually visited by
thousands of the Roman Catholic peasantry; with a minute description of the
patterns and stations periodically held in various districts of Ireland. Dublin, Hardy
& Walker.
Harlow, I. 1998. Introduction. The Journal of American Folklore 111 (441), 231-
234.
Harmon, M. E., Franklin, J. F., Swanson, F. J., Sollins, P., Gregory, S. V., Lattin, D.,
Anderson, N. H., Cline, S. P., Aumen, N. G., Sedell, J. R., Lienkaemper, W.,
Cromack Jr., K., and Cummings, K. W. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in
temperate ecosystems. Advances in Ecological Research 5, 133-302.
Harmon, M. E. and Hua, C. 1991. Coarse woody debris dynamics in two old-growth
ecosystems. BioScience 41 (9), 604-610.
Harris, D. 1991. What Do Office Workers Place on Their Desks and in Their
Offices? Salmagundi 92, 202-210.
Harris, E., Harris, J. and James, N. D. G. 2003. Oak: A British History. Macclesfield,
Windgather Press.
Harris, J. 1939. A Gold Hoard from Corinth. American Journal of Archaeology 43
(2), 268-277.
Harrison, R. P. 1992. Forests: The Shadow of Civilization. Chicago and London,
University of Chicago Press.
Harrison, R. and Schofield, J. 2010. After Modernity: Archaeological approaches to
the contemporary past. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Harrison, R. 2011. Surface Assemblages: Towards an archaeology in and of the
present. Archaeological Dialogues 18 (2), 141-161.
Hartfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., and Rapson, R. L. 1994. Emotional Contagion.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Hartland, E. S. 1885. The Science of Folk-Lore. The Folk-Lore Journal 3 (2), 97-
121.
279
Hartland, E. S. 1893. Pin-Wells and Rag-Bushes. Folklore 4 (4), 451-470.
Harva, U. 1932. Karjalaista kansanuskoa ja palvontaa. In Härkönen, I. (ed.) Karjalan
kirja. Porvoo, WSOY: 469–482.
Hawker, R. S. 1832. Records of the Western Shore: Verse. Oxford, D. A. Talboys.
Hawker, R. S. 1846. Echoes from old Cornwall. London, Joseph Masters.
Hawker, R. S. 1864. The quest of the Sangraal: chant, the first. Exeter, printed for
the author.
Hawker, R. S. 1869. Cornish Ballads and other poems; Including a Second Edition
of “The Quest of the Sangraal”. Oxford and London, James Parker and Co.
Healy, E. 2001. In Search of Ireland’s Holy Wells. Dublin, Wolfhound Press Ltd.
Henderson, G. 1911. Survivals in Belief Among the Celts. Glasgow, James
Maclehose and Sons.
Henderson, W. 1879. Notes on the Folk-Lore of the Northern Counties of England
and the Borders. London, W. Satchell, Peyton, and Co.
Henkes, B and Johnson, R. 2002. Silences across Disciplines: Folklore Studies,
Cultural Studies, and History. Journal of Folklore Research 39 (2), 125-146.
Henry, J. D. and Swan, J. M. A. 1974. Reconstructing forest history from live and
dead plant material: An approach to the study of forest succession in southwest New
Hampshire. Ecology 55 (4), 772-783.
Herbert, E. W. 1984. Red Gold of Africa: Copper in Precolonial History and
Culture. Madison, University of Wisconsin Press.
Herva, V., Nurmi, R. and Symonds, J. 2012. Engaging with money in a northern
periphery of early modern Europe. Journal of Social Archaeology 12, 287-309.
Hicks, D. and Beaudry, M. C. (eds.) 2010. The Oxford Handbook of Material
Culture Studies. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Hicks, D. 2010. The Material-Cultural Turn: Event and Effect. In Hicks, D. and
Beaudry, M. C. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies. Oxford,
Oxford University Press: 25-98.
Higham, N. J. 2004. A Frontier Landscape: The North West in the Middle Ages.
Macclesfield, Windgather Press.
Hobbs, R. 1996. British Iron Age Coins in the British Museum. London, British
Museum Press.
Hobsbawm, E. and Ranger, T. (eds.) 1983. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
280
Hobsbawm, E. 1983. Introduction: Inventing Traditions. In Hobsbawm, E. and
Ranger, T. (eds.) The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press: 1-13.
Hodder, I. 1987. Bow ties and pet foods: material culture and the negotiation of
change in British industry. In Hodder, I. (ed.). The Archaeology of Contextual
Meanings. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 11-19.
Hodder, I. 2012. Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans
and Things. Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell.
Hodge, S. J. and Peterken, G. F. 1998. Deadwood in British forests: priorities and a
strategy. Forestry 71 (2), 99-112.
Hoggard, B. 2004. The archaeology of counter-witchcraft and popular magic. In
Davies, O. and de Blécourt, W. (eds.) Beyond the Witch Trials: Witchcraft and
magic in Enlightenment Europe. Manchester and New York, Manchester University
Press: 167-186.
Hole, C. 1975. English Traditional Customs. London, B. T. Batsford, Ltd.
Holtorf, C. and Piccini, A. (eds.) 2011. Contemporary Archaeologies: Excavating
Now. Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang.
Holtorf, C. and Schadla-Hall, T. 1999. Age as Artefact: On Archaeological
Authenticity. European Journal of Archaeology 2 (2), 229-247.
Honko, L. 1964. Memorates and the Study of Folk Beliefs. Journal of the Folklore
Institute 1 (1/2), 5-19.
Honko, L. 1985. Empty Texts, Full Meanings: On Transformal Meaning in Folklore.
Journal of Folklore Research 22 (1), 37-44.
Hope, R. C. 1893. The Legendary Lore of the Holy Wells of England: Including
Rivers, Lakes, Fountains, and Springs. London, Elliot Stock.
Houlbrook, C. 2013a. Ritual, Recycling, and Recontextualisation: Putting the
Concealed Shoe into Context. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 23 (1), 99-112.
Houlbrook, C. 2013b. The Ardmaddy Wishing-Tree Project.
http://cerihoulbrook.wordpress.com/ (Accessed 04/04/2012).
Houlbrook, C. 2013c. Sanctifying Our Sites: Self-reflection on an archaeological dig.
Then Dig: Zeitgeist. http://arf.berkeley.edu/then-dig/2013/11/zeitgeist-ceri-
houlbrook/ (Accessed 04/04/2012).
Houlbrook, C. 2014. The Mutability of Meaning: Contextualising the Cumbrian
Coin-Tree. Folklore 125 (1), 40-59.
Howard, M. M. 1951. Dried Cats. Man 51, 149-151.
Hughes, J. D. 2011. Ancient Deforestation Revisited. Journal of the History of
Biology 44, 43-57.
281
Hugoson, M. 2006. “Instant Tradition”: The Introduction of the Swedish Easter Tree.
Folklore 117 (1), 75-86.
Hull, E. 1928. Folklore of the British Isles. London, Methuen & Co. Ltd.
Hulse, T. G. 1995. A Modern Votive Deposit at a North Welsh Holy Well. Folklore
106, 31-42.
Hutton, R. 1996. Stations of the Sun: A History of the Ritual Year in Britain. Oxford,
Oxford University Press.
Ingold, T. 2007. Materials against Materiality. Archaeological Dialogues 14 (1), 1-
16.
Insoll, T. 2004. Archaeology, Ritual, Religion. London and New York, Routledge.
Insoll, T. (ed.) 2007. The Archaeology of Identities: A Reader. Oxon and New York,
Routledge.
Insoll, T. 2011. Sacrifice. In Insoll, T. (ed.) Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of
Ritual and Religion. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 151-165.
Itkonen, T. I. 1948. Suomen lappalaiset vuoteen 1945. Vol. 2. Porvoo, WSOY.
Jalland, P. 2010. Death in War and Peace: Loss and Grief in England, 1914-1970.
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. 2012. The mystery over who attacked the Holy Thorn Tree. BBC News
Magazine. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17589575 (Accessed 04/04/2012).
Johnson, W. 1908. Folk-Memory; or the Continuity of British Archaeology. Oxford,
Clarendon Press.
Jones, A. and MacGregor, G. (eds.) 2002. Colouring the Past: The Significance of
Colour in Archaeological Research. Oxford and New York, Berg.
Jones, F. 1954. The Holy Wells of Wales. Cardiff, University of Wales Press.
Jones, O. and Cloke, P. J. 2002. Tree Cultures: The place of trees and trees in their
place. Oxford and New York, Berg.
Jones, O. and Cloke, P. 2008. Non-Human Agencies: Trees in Place and Time. In
Knappett, C. and Malafouris, L. (eds.) Material Agency: Towards a Non-
Anthropocentric Approach. Boston, Springer-Verlag: 79-96.
Jones, P. and Pennick, N. 1995. A History of Pagan Europe. London and New York,
Routledge.
Jones, S. 2006. ‘They made it a living thing didn’t they…’: The Growth of Things
and the Fossilisation of Heritage. In Layton, R., Shennan, S. and Stone, P. (eds.) A
Future for Archaeology: The Past in the Present. London, UCL Press: 107-126.
Jones, S. 2010. Negotiating Authentic Objects and Authentic Selves: Beyond the
Deconstruction of Authenticity. Journal of Material Culture 15 (2), 181-203.
282
Jordan, D. K. 1976. The Jiaw of Shigaang (Taiwan): An Essay in Folk Interpretation.
Asian Folklore Studies 35 (2), 81-107.
Kalshoven, P. T. 2010. Things in the Making: Playing with Imitation. Etnofoor:
Imitation 22 (1), 59-74.
Kamp, K. A. 2001. Where Have All the Children Gone?: The Archaeology of
Childhood. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8 (1), 1-34.
Karcioğlu, Z. A. and Sarper, R. M. (eds.) 1980. Zinc and Copper in Medicine.
Springfield, Charles C. Thomas Publishers.
Karp, C. 2004. Digital Heritage in Digital Museums. Museum International 56 (1-2),
45-51.
Keates, S. 2002. The Flashing Blade: Copper, Colour and Luminosity in North
Italian Copper Age Society. Jones, A. and MacGregor, G. (eds.) Colouring the Past:
The Significance of Colour in Archaeological Research. Oxford and New York,
Berg: 109-125.
Keesling, C. M. 2003. The Votive Statues of the Athenian Acropolis. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Kemmers, F. and Myrberg, N. 2011. Rethinking numismatics: The archaeology of
coins. Archaeological Dialogues 18 (1), 87-108.
Kibby, M. D. 2005. Email Forwardables: Folklore in the age of the Internet. New
Media & Society 7 (6), 770-790.
Killigrew, T. 1664 [1967]. Comedies and Tragedies. New York, B. Blom.
Kirfel, A., Kockelmann, W., and Yule, P. 2011. Non-Destructive Chemical Analysis
of Old South Arabian Coins, Fourth Century BCE to Third Century CE.
Archaeometry 53 (5), 930-949.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. 1991. Objects of Ethnography. In Karp, I. and Lavine, S.
D. (eds.) Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display.
Washington D.C. and London, Smithsonian Institution Press: 386-443.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. 1996. The Electronic Vernacular. In Marcus, G. E. (ed.).
Connected: Engagements with Media. Chicago and London, University of Chicago
Press: 21-65.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. 1998. Folklore’s Crisis. The Journal of American Folklore
111 (441), 281-327.
Klein, E. (ed.) 1966. A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English
Language. Vol. 1. Amsterdam, London, and New York, Elsevier Publishing
Company.
Klockenkämper, H. B. and Hasler, K. 1999. Detection of Near-Surface Silver
Enrichment on Roman Imperial Silver Coins by X-Ray Spectral Analysis.
Archaeometry 41 (2), 311-320.
283
Knappett, C. 2007. Materials with materiality? Archaeological Dialogues 14 (1), 20-
23.
Kneafsey, M. 1995. A Landscape of Memories: Heritage and Tourism in Mayo. In
Kockel, U. (ed.) Landscape, Heritage and Identity: Case Studies in Irish
Ethnography. Liverpool, Liverpool University Press: 135-153.
Knüsel, C. J., Kemp, R. L. and Budd, P. 1995. Evidence for Remedial Medical
Treatment of a Severe Knee Injury from the Fishergate Gilbertine Monastery in the
City of York. Journal of Archaeological Science 22, 369-384.
Kopytoff, I. 1986. The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process. In
Appadurai, A. (ed.) The Social Life of Things: Commodities in cultural perspective.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 64-91.
Krassa, M. A. 1988. Social Groups, Selective Perception, and Behavioral Contagion
in Public Opinion. Social Networks 10, 109-136.
Kripke, S. A. 1980. Naming and Necessity. Oxford, Basil Blackwell Publisher.
Kurin, R. 2004. Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage in the 2003 UNESCO
Convention: a critical appraisal. Museum International 56 (1-2), 66-77.
Laing, L. R. 1969. Coins and Archaeology. London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Landy, J. and Saler, M. (eds.) 2009. The Re-Enchantment of the World: Secular
Magic in a Rational Age. Stanford, Stanford University Press.
Lang, A. 1898. Custom and Myth. London, Longmans, Green, and Co.
Langohr, R. 1993. Types of tree windthrow, their impact on the environment and
their importance for the understanding of archaeological data. Helinium 33, 36-49.
Larsen, K. E. (ed.) 1995. Nara Conference on Authenticity in relation to the World
Heritage Convention. Trondheim, Tapir Publishers.
Lawrence, R. M. 1898. The Magic of the Horse-Shoe. Cambridge, Riverside Press.
Layton, R. 1999. Folklore and World View. In Gazin-Schwartz, A. and Holtorf, C.
(eds.) Archaeology and Folklore. London and New York, Routledge: 26-34.
Leach, E. R. 1964. Political Systems of Highland Burma. London, Athlone Press.
Lederman, S. J. 1982. The Perception of Texture by Touch. In Schiff, W. and
Foulke, E. (eds.) Tactual Perception: A Sourcebook. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press: 130-167.
Leins, I. 2007. Coins in Context: Coinage and Votive Deposition in Iron Age South-
East Leicestershire. The British Numismatic Journal 77, 22-48.
Leins, I. 2011. The Coins. In Score, V. (ed.) Hoards, Hounds and Helmets: A
conquest-period ritual site at Hallaton, Leicestershire. Leicester, Leicester
Archaeology Monograph 21: 39-60.
284
Lewis, M. J. T. 1966. Temples in Roman Britain. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
Liebs, C. H. 1995. Observations on Authenticity and Cultural Heritage. In Larsen, K.
E. (ed.) Nara Conference on Authenticity in relation to the World Heritage
Convention. Trondheim, Tapir Publishers: 365-368.
Life for a Life Memorial Forests. 2011. http://www.lifeforalife.org.uk/ (Accessed
11/11/2012).
Lillehammer, G. 2000. The world of children. In Sofaer Derevenski, J. (ed.)
Children and Material Culture. London and New York, Routledge: 17-26.
Lindsay, P. H. and Norman, D. A. 1972. Human Information Processing: An
Introduction to Psychology. New York and London, Academic Press.
Lloyd, V., Dean, J. and Westwood, J. 2001. Burn marks as evidence of apotropaic
practices in houses, farm buildings and churches in Post-Medieval East Anglia. In
Wallis, R. J. and Lymer, K. (eds.) A Permeability of Boundaries? New Approaches
to the Archaeology of Art, Religion and Folklore. BAR International Series 936: 57-
70.
Lohmann, S. 1994. The Dynamics of Informational Cascades: The Monday
Demonstrations in Leipzig, East Germany, 1989-91. World Politics 47 (1), 42-101.
Lowenthal, D. 1985. The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Lowenthal, D. 1995. Changing Criteria of Authenticity. In Larsen, K. E. (ed.) Nara
Conference on Authenticity in relation to the World Heritage Convention.
Trondheim, Tapir Publishers: 121-135.
Lucas, A. T. 1963. Sacred Trees of Ireland. Journal of the Cork Historical and
Archaeological Society 68, 16-54.
Lucas, G. 2012. Understanding the Archaeological Record. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
MacDonald, M. 1983. Walking in South Lorn: The Area Between Oban and
Craignish. West Highland Series No. 5. Oban, Oban Times Ltd.
MacDonald, S. 1903. Old-World Survivals in Ross-Shire. Folklore 14 (4), 368-384.
Macdonald, S. 2002. On ‘Old Things’: The Fetishization of Past Everyday Life. In
Rapport, N. (ed.) British Subjects: An Anthropology of Britain. Oxford and New
York, Berg: 89-106.
Machiavelli, N. 1532 [1975]. The Prince (translated by G. Bull). Harmondsworth,
Penguin Books.
Mackenzie, M. A. 1991. Androgynous Objects: String bags and gender in central
New Guinea. Chur and Reading, Harwood Academic Publishers.
MacLeish, K. 1968. The Highlands of Scotland. National Geographic 133 (3), 420.
285
Macnamara, J. (ed.) 1977. Language, Learning and Thought. New York and
London, Academic Press.
Macnamara, J. 1982. Names for Things: A Study of Human Learning. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, and London, MIT Press.
Macrow, B. 1953. Torridon Highlands. London, Robert Hale & Company.
Madge, S. J. 1950. The “Chapel,” Kieve and Gorge of “Saint Nectan,” Trevillet
Millcombe, Tintagel. n.p.
Maguire, H. 1997. Magic and Money in the Early Middle Ages. Speculum 72 (4),
1037-1054.
Malhamdale.com. nd. Janet’s Foss. http://www.malhamdale.com/janetsfoss.htm
(Accessed 10/07/2011).
Mall, A. 2007. Structure, Innovation and Agency in Pattern Construction: The
Kolam of Southern India. In Hallam, E. and Ingold, T. (eds) Creativity and Cultural
Improvisation. Oxford, Berg: 55-78.
Manning, W. H. 1972. Ironwork Hoards in Iron Age and Roman Britain. Britannia
3, 224-250.
Markham, A. and Buchanan, E. 2012. Ethical Decision-Making and Internet
Research Version 2: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee.
Association of Internet Researchers.
Markus, M. L. 1987. Toward a “Critical Mass” Theory of Interactive Media:
Universal Access, Interdependence and Diffusion. Communication Research 14,
491-511.
Markwell, S., Bennet, M. and Ravenscroft, N. 1997. The changing market for
heritage tourism: A case study of visits to historic houses in England. International
Journal of Heritage Studies 3 (2), 95-108.
Mattson, K. G., Swank, W. T., and Waide, J. B. 1987. Decomposition of woody
debris in a regenerating, clear-cut forest in the Southern Appalachians. Canadian
Journal of Forest Research 17, 712-721.
McCarthy, J. 2011. Putting coins in trees rooted in superstition. Wales Online.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/putting-coins-trees-rooted-
superstition-1815850 (Accessed 17/02/2012).
McCarthy, K. 2006. In the Steps of St Finbarre: Voices and memories of the Lee
Valley. Dublin, Nonsuch Publishing.
McCarthy, K. 2011. In the Footsteps of St. Finbarre (Part 270) - The Reworking of
Memories. Cork Independent.
McGlone, F. 2008. The Two Sides of Touch: Sensing and Feeling. In Chatterjee, H.
J. (ed.) Touch in Museums: Policy and Practice in Object Handling. Oxford and
New York, Berg: 41-60.
286
McKelvie, D. 1963. Aspects of Oral Tradition and Belief in an Industrial Region.
Folk Life 1, 77-94.
McNeill, L. S. 2009. The End of the Internet: A Folk Response to the Provision to
Infinite Choice. In Blank, T. J. (ed.) Folklore and the Internet: Vernacular
Expression in a Digital World. Logan, Utah State University Press: 80-97.
McNeill, L. S. 2012. Real Virtuality: Enhancing Locality by Enacting the Small
World Theory. In Blank, T. J. (ed.) Folk Culture in the Digital Age: The Emergent
Dynamics of Human Interaction. Logan, Utah State University Press: 85-97.
McPherson, J. M. 1929 [2003]. Primitive Beliefs in the Northeast of Scotland.
Whitefish, Montana, Kessinger Publishing Co.
Melton, J. G. 2008. The Encyclopedia of Religious Phenomena. Canton, Visible Ink
Press.
Meltzoff, A. N. 2005. Imitation and Other Minds: The “Like Me” Hypothesis. In
Hurley, S. and Chater, N. (eds.) Perspectives on Imitation: From Neuroscience to
Social Science. Volume 2: Imitation, Human Development, and Culture. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, and London, MIT Press: 55-77.
Menefee, S. P. 1974. The ‘Merry Maidens’ and the ‘Noce de Pierre’. Folklore 85 (1),
23-42.
Menefee, S. P. 1975. The ‘Countless Stones’: A Final Reckoning. Folklore 86 (3/4),
146-166.
Mercer, J. 1974. Hebridean Islands: Colonsay, Gigha, Jura. Glasgow and London,
Blackie & Son Ltd.
Merrifield, R. 1954. The Use of Bellarmines as Witch-Bottles. The Guildhall
Miscellany 1 (3), 3-15.
Merrifield, R. 1987. The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic. London, B. T. Batsford
Ltd.
Michell, J. 1982. Megalithomania: Artists, antiquarians and archaeologists at the
old stone monuments. Ithaca , Cornell University Press.
Miller, D. 1987. Material Culture and Mass Consumption. Oxford and Cambridge,
Massachusetts, Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Miller, D. 2007. Stone age or plastic age? Archaeological Dialogues 14 (1), 23-27.
Miller, M. 2012. Face-to-Face with the Digital Folk: The Ethics of Fieldwork on
Facebook. Blank, T. J. (ed.) Folk Culture in the Digital Age: The Emergent
Dynamics of Human Interaction. Logan, Utah State University Press: 212-232.
Miller, M. 2011. Couples Leaving ‘Love Locks’ On The Brooklyn Bridge. CBS
New York. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/11/28/couples-leaving-love-locks-on-
the-brooklyn-bridge/ (Accessed 22/08/2012).
287
Milner, J. E. 1992. The Tree Book: The indispensable guide to tree facts, crafts and
lore. London, Collins & Brown Ltd.
Mitchell, A. 1863. On various superstitions in the North-West Highlands and islands
of Scotland, especially in relation to lunacy. Proceedings of the Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland 3, 251-288.
Mitchell, A. 1974. A Field Guide to the Trees of Britain and Northern Europe.
London, Collins.
Mitchell, J. P. 2006. Performance. In Tilley, C., Keane, W., Küchler, S., Rowlands,
M. and Spyer, P. (eds.) Handbook of Material Culture. London, Sage Publications:
384-401.
Moore, P. D., Webb, J. A. and Collinson, M. E. 1991. Pollen Analysis. Oxford,
Blackwell Scientific.
Morphy, H. 1995. Landscape and the Reproduction of the Ancestral Past. In Hirsch,
E. and O’Hanlon, M. (eds.) The Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives on Place
and Space. Oxford, Clarendon Press: 184-209.
Morris, S. 2011. Stonehenge’s £27m makeover will end its days as a traffic island.
Guardian.co.uk Wednesday 11 July.
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2012/jul/11/stonehenge-27-million-makeover-
a344 (Accessed 22/05/2014).
Morton, A. 2004. Tree Heritage of Britain and Ireland. Marlborough, Airlife
Publishing.
Muddock, J. E. 1898. The Land of Santa Maree. The Celtic Magazine 3, 435-461.
Munjeri, D. 2009. Following the length and breadth of the roots: Some dimensions
of intangible heritage. In Smith, L. and Akagawa, N. (eds.) Intangible Heritage.
London and New York, Routledge: 131-150.
Muri, G. 2001. “The World’s Smallest Village”: Folk Culture and Tourism
Development in an Alpine Context. Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review
13 (1), 53-64.
Murphy, J. 1999. Archaeology as Folklore: The literary construction of the megalith
Pentre Ifan in west Wales. In Gazin-Schwartz, A. and Holtrof, C. (eds.) Archaeology
and Folklore. London and New York, Routledge: 240-253.
Musgrave, S. 2014. King of the Hills. enRoute: Air Canada March, 66-75.
Myrberg, N. 2010a. A Worth of their Own: On Gotland in the Baltic Sea, and its
12th
-century coinage. Medieval Archaeology 54 (1), 157-181.
Myrberg, N. 2010b. The Colour of Money: Crusaders and Coins in the Thirteenth-
Century Baltic Sea. In Fahlander, F. and Kjellström, A. (eds.) Making Sense of
Things: Archaeologies of Sense Perception. Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 53:
83-102.
288
Napier, A. D. 1986. Masks, Transformation, and Paradox. Berkeley and Los
Angeles, University of California Press.
Narváez, P. (ed.) 1991. The Good People: New Fairylore Essays. New York,
Garland Publishing Inc.
Nas, P. J. M. 2002. Masterpieces of Oral and Intangible Culture: Reflections on the
UNESCO World Heritage List. Current Anthropology 43 (1), 139-148.
National Monuments Service. nd. The Archaeological Survey of Ireland.
http://webgis.archaeology.ie/NationalMonuments/FlexViewer/ (Accessed
18/02/2012).
National Trust. 2011. Things to see and do in South Lakes. http://issuu.com/nt-
southlakes/docs/sl_nt_all_t2cdo (Accessed 06/04/2014).
Nelson, K. 1977. The Conceptual Basis for Naming. In Macnamara, J. (ed.)
Language, Learning and Thought. New York and London, Academic Press: 117-
136.
Neville, A. R. and Park, S. 1987. Chinese Coins Down Under: Their Role on the
New Zealand Goldfields. Australian Journal of Historical Archaeology 5, 41-48.
Newall, V. J. 1987. The Adaptation of Folklore and Tradition. Folklore 98 (2), 131-
151.
Newton, D. P. 2006. Founds Coins as Indicators of Coins in Circulation: Testing
Some Assumptions. European Journal of Archaeology 9 (2-3), 211-227.
Nicolaisen, W. F. H. 1991. The Past as Place: Names, Stories, and the Remembered
Self. Folklore 102 (1), 3-15.
Niklasson, M., Lindbladh, M. and Björkman, L. 2002. A Long-Term Record and
Quercus Decline, Logging and Fires in a Southern Swedish Fagus-Picea Forest.
Journal of Vegetarian Science 13 (6), 765-774.
Niles, J. 1978. Storytelling by the Very Young. In Newall, V. J. (ed.) Folklore
Studies in the Twentieth Century: Proceedings of the centenary conference of the
Folklore Society. Woodbridge, D. S. Brewer: 320-331.
North of Scotland Archaeology Society, 2002. Isle Maree, Ross and Cromarty: An
Archaeological Survey. (s.l.) (s.n.)
Nottinghamshire County Council. nd. The Major Oak.
http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/enjoying/countryside/countryparks/sherwood/she
rwoodforesthistory/majoroak/ (Accessed 01/12/2013).
Odenthal-Kahabka, J. 2009. Wald Wissen. Storm Handbook: Coping with Storm
Damaged Timber.
http://www.waldwissen.net/waldwirtschaft/schaden/sturm_schnee_eis/fva_sturmhan
dbuch/index_EN#4 (Accessed 08/11/2012).
O’Donoghue, J. and Goulding, L. 2004. Consumer Price Inflation since 1750.
Economic Trends 604, 38-466.
289
Office for National Statistics. 2010. Internet Access – Households and Individuals,
Historical Internet Access. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/rdit2/internet-access---
households-and-individuals/historical-internet-access/index.html (Accessed
27/03/2013).
Ó Giolláin, D. 2000. Locating Irish Folklore: Tradition, Modernity, Identity. Cork,
Cork University Press.
Oldham, J. 2003. The Tree Name Trail: A key to common trees. Shrewsbury, Field
Studies Council.
Olsen, J. W. 1983. An analysis of East Asian coins excavated in Tucson, Arizona.
Historical Archaeology 17 (2), 41-55.
Onol, I. 2008. Tactual Explorations: A Tactile Interpretation of a Museum Exhibit
through Tactile Arts Works and Augmented Reality. In Chatterjee, H. J. (ed.) Touch
in Museums: Policy and Practice in Object Handling. Oxford and New York, Berg:
91-106.
Opie, I. and Opie, P. 1959. The Lore and Language of Schoolchildren. Oxford,
Oxford University Press.
Opie, I. and Opie, P. 1978. Certain Laws of Folklore. In Newall, V. J. (ed.) Folklore
Studies in the Twentieth Century: Proceedings of the centenary conference of the
Folklore Society. Woodbridge, D. S. Brewer: 64-75.
Opie, I. 1994. The People in the Playground. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Opie, P. 1957. The Present State of Folklore Studies in England. Folklore 68 (4),
466-471.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2002. The Future of
Money. Paris, OECD.
Oring, E. 1998. Anti Anti-“Folklore”. The Journal of American Folklore 111 (441),
328-338.
Osborne, R. 2004. Hoards, votives, offerings: the archaeology of the dedicated
object. World Archaeology 36 (1), 1-10.
Ó Súilleabháin, S. 1945. Foundation Sacrifices. The Journal of the Royal Society of
Antiquaries of Ireland 75 (1), 45-52.
O’Sullivan, A. 1990. Wood in Archaeology. Archaeology Ireland 4 (2), 69-73.
O’Sullivan, S. 1957. The Collection and Classification of Folklore in Ireland and the
Isle of Man. Folklore 68 (4), 449-457.
Owen, J. 2008. Huge Viking Hoard Discovered in Sweden. National Geographic
News, April 8.
Packham, J. R., Harding, D. J. L, Hilton, G. M., and Stuttard, R. A. 1992. Functional
Ecology of Woodlands and Forests. London, Chapman & Hall.
290
Pagel, W. 1982. Paracelsus: An Introduction to Philosophical Medicine in the Era of
the Renaissance. Basel, Karger.
Paine, C. 2013. Religious Objects in Museums: Private Lives and Public Duties.
London and New York, Bloomsbury.
Palley, T. I. 2001/2002. The E-Money Revolution: Challenges and Implications for
Monetary Policy. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 24 (2), 217-233.
Parker Pearson, M. and Field, N. (eds.) 2003. Fiskerton: An Iron Age Timber
Causeway with Iron Age and Roman Votive Offerings: the 1981 Excavation. Oxford,
Oxbow Books.
Patmore, J. A. 1972. Land and Leisure. Harmondsworth, Penguin Books.
Patten, B. and Patten, J. 2009. Coins Inserted in Trees. FLS News 59, 2.
Patterson, E. 2013. Ardmaddy tree secrets unearthed by students. The Oban Times
11 September, 2.
Payments Council. 2010. The Way We Pay 2010: The UK’s Payment Revolution.
London, Payments Council.
Pearce, S. (ed.) 1989. Museum Studies in Material Culture. London and New York,
Leicester University Press.
Pearce, S. M. 1992. Museums, Objects and Collections: A Cultural Study. Leicester
and London, Leicester University Press.
Pennant, T. 1775. A tour in Scotland and voyage to the Hebrides, MDCCLXXII.
Vol. 2. Dublin, A. Leathley.
Penney, S. H. 1976. Axes, Arrowheads and other Antiquities in Irish Folklore. Ulster
Folklore 22, 70-75.
Penrose, S. (ed.) 2007. Images of Change: An archaeology of England’s
contemporary landscape. Swindon, English Heritage.
Peterken, G. F. 1996. Natural Woodland: Ecology and Conservation in Northern
Temperate Regions. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Petts, D. 2003. Memories in Stone: Changing strategies and contexts of
remembrance in early medieval Wales. In Williams, H. (ed.) Archaeologies of
Remembrance: Death and Memory in Past Societies. New York, Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers: 193-213.
Porteous, A. 1928. Forest Folklore, Mythology, and Romance. London, G. Allen &
Unwin.
Portnoy, A. W. 1981. A Microarchaeological View of Human Settlement Space and
Function. In Gould, R. A. and Schiffer, M. B. (eds.) Modern Material Culture: The
Archaeology of Us. New York and London, Academic Press: 213-224.
Prentice, R. 1993. Tourism and Heritage Attractions. London and New York,
Routledge.
291
Price-Beggerly, P. 1981. Don’t Fence Me In. In Gould, R. A. and Schiffer, M. B.
(eds.) Modern Material Culture: The Archaeology of Us. New York and London,
Academic Press: 127-135.
Priest, V., Clay, P. and Hill, J. D. 2003. Iron Age Gold from Leicestershire. Current
Archaeology 188, 358-360.
Pryor, F. 2002. Seahenge: A Quest for Life and Death in Bronze Age Britain.
London, Harper Collins.
Pye, E. 2001. Caring for the Past: Issues in conservation for archaeology and
museums. London, James & James Ltd.
Raafat, R. M., Chater, N., and Frith, C. 2009. Herding in Humans. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences 13 (10), 420-428.
Rackard, A., O’Callaghan, L., and Joyce, D. 2001. Fish Stone Water: Holy Wells of
Ireland. Cork, Cork University Press.
Rackham, O. 1976. Trees and Woodland in the British Landscape. London, J. M.
Dent Ltd.
Radford, E. and Radford, M. A. 1948. Encyclopaedia of Superstitions. London,
Hutchinson and Co. Ltd.
Raglan, L. 1939. The “Green Man” in Church Architecture. Folklore 50 (1), 45-57.
Ramblers’ Association. 2010. Walking facts and figures 2: Participation in walking.
London, Ramblers.
Rapport, N. (ed.) 2002. British Subjects: An Anthropology of Britain. Oxford and
New York, Berg.
Rathje, W. L. 1979. Modern Material Culture Studies. Advances in Archaeological
Method and Theory 2, 1-37.
Rathje, W. L. 1981. A Manifesto for Modern Material-Culture Studies. In Gould, R.
A. and Schiffer, M. B. (eds.) Modern Material Culture: The Archaeology of Us. New
York and London, Academic Press: 51-56.
Rathje, W. 2011. Archaeological intervention in the past, present and future tense.
Archaeological Dialogues 18 (2), 176-180.
Rattue, J. 1995. The Living Stream: Holy Wells in Historical Context. Woodbridge,
Boydell Press.
Ravilious, K. 2008. Witches of Cornwall. Archaeology: A publication of the
Archaeological Institute of America 61 (6).
Reader, I. and Walter, T. (eds.) 1993. Pilgrimage in Popular Culture. Basingstoke,
Macmillan Press Ltd.
Reader, I. 1993a. Introduction. In Reader, I. and Walter, T. (eds.) Pilgrimage in
Popular Culture. Basingstoke, Macmillan Press Ltd.: 1-25.
292
Reader, I. 1993b. Dead to the World: Pilgrims in Shikoku. In Reader, I. and Walter,
T. (eds.) Pilgrimage in Popular Culture. Basingstoke, Macmillan Press Ltd.: 107-
136.
Reader, I. 1993c. Conclusions. In Reader, I. and Walter, T. (eds.) Pilgrimage in
Popular Culture. Basingstoke, Macmillan Press Ltd.: 220-246.
Redding, C. 1842. An Illustrated Itinerary of the County of Cornwall. London, How
and Parsons.
Redgrove, P. 1975. The Glass Cottage. The Hudson Review 28 (2), 173-226.
Redner, H. 2004. Conserving Cultures: Technology, Globalization, and the Future of
Local Cultures. Lanham and Oxford, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Rees, E. 2003. Celtic Sites and their Saints: A Guidebook. London and New York,
Burns & Oates.
Reeves, W. 1857-60. Saint Maelrubha; his history and churches. Proceedings of the
Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 3, 258-96.
Reisner, R. 1971. Graffiti: Two Thousand Years of Wall Writing. New York, Cowles
Book Company, Inc.
Reynolds, E. 2011. Who says money doesn’t grow on trees? Coins mysteriously
appear in trunks up and down the country. Daily Mail Online.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2036581/Mystery-wishing-trees-studded-
coins-illness-away-sick.html (Accessed 03/11/2011).
Reynolds, F. 2010. The swing towards domestic tourism: blip or trend? In Heritage
Lottery Fund (eds.) Investing in success: Heritage and the UK tourism economy.
London, Heritage Lottery Fund: 40-41.
Rhys, J. and Morris, T. E. 1893. Sacred Wells in Wales. Folklore 4 (1), 55-79.
Richards, J. 1991. Stonehenge. London, B.T Batsford Ltd/English Heritage.
Rij, A. M. van. and Pories, W. J. 1980. Zinc and Copper in Surgery. In Karcioğlu, Z.
A. and Sarper, R. M. (eds.) Zinc and Copper in Medicine. Springfield, Charles C.
Thomas Publishers: 535-578.
Rival, L. (ed.) 1998. The Social Life of Trees: Anthropological Perspectives on Tree
Symbolism. Oxford, Berg.
Robb, J. 2004. The Extended Artefact and the Monumental Economy: a
Methodology for Material Agency. In DeMarrais, E., Gosden, C. and Renfrew, C.
(eds.) Rethinking Materiality: The engagement of mind with the material world.
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge: 131-139.
Robertson, A. S. 1956. The numismatic evidence of Romano-British coin hoards. In
Carson, R. A. G. and Sutherland, C. H. V. (eds.) Essays in Roman Coinage
presented to Harold Mattingly. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 262-285.
293
Robertson, A. S. 1974 [1988]. Romano-British coin hoards: their numismatic,
archaeological and historical significance. In Casey, J. and Reece, R. (eds.) Coins
and the Archaeologist. London, B. A. Seaby Ltd.: 13-35.
Robinson, B. 1992. Silver Pennies and Linen Towels: The Story of The Royal
Maundy. London, Spink & Son, Ltd.
Rodger, D., Stokes, J. and Ogilvie, J. 2003. Heritage Trees of Scotland. London,
Tree Council.
Roe, H. M. 1939. Tales, Customs and Beliefs from Laoighis. Béaloideas 9 (1), 21-
35.
Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. New York, Free Press.
Romanek, D. and Lynch, B. 2008. Touch and the Value of Object Handling: Final
Conclusions for a New Sensory Museology. In Chatterjee, H. J. (ed.) Touch in
Museums: Policy and Practice in Object Handling. Oxford and New York, Berg:
275-286.
Rothschild, N. A. 1981. Pennies from Denver. In Gould, R. A. and Schiffer, M. B.
(eds.) Modern Material Culture: The Archaeology of Us. New York and London,
Academic Press: 161-181.
Roud, S. 2003. The Penguin Guide to the Superstitions of Britain and Ireland.
London, Penguin Books.
Royal Mint. nd. Coin Designs and Specifications.
http://www.royalmint.com/discover/uk-coins/coin-design-and-specifications
(Accessed 03/10/2011).
Royal Mint. nd. Mintage Figures. http://www.royalmint.com/discover/uk-
coins/circulation-coin-mintage-figures (Accessed 03/10/2011).
Ruskin, J. 1849. The Seven Lamps of Architecture. London, Smith, Elder, and Co.
Sallnow, M. J. 1991. Pilgrimage and cultural fracture in the Andes. In Eade, J. and
Sallnow, M. J. (eds.) Contesting the Sacred: The anthropology of Christian
pilgrimage. London and New York, Routledge: 137-153.
Sanderson, S. F. 1957. The Present State of Folklore Studies in Scotland. Folklore
68 (4), 457-466.
Saunders, N. J. 1999. Biographies of Brilliance: Pearls, Transformations of Matter
and Being, c. AD 1492. World Archaeology 31 (2), 243-257.
Schama, S. 1996. Landscape and Memory. London, Fontana Press.
Schiff, W. & Foulke, E. (eds.) 1982. Tactual Perception: A Sourcebook. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Schlichter, D. S. 2011. Paper Money Collapse: The Folly of Elastic Money and the
Coming Monetary Breakdown. Hobollen, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
294
Schofield, J. 2007. Editorial: Modern Times. Conservation Bulletin English Heritage
56, 2.
Schofield, J., Kiddey, R. and Lashua, B. D. 2012. People and Landscape. In Skeates,
R., McDavid, C. and Carman, J. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology.
Oxford, Oxford University Press: 296-318.
Schowalter, T. D., Caldwell, B. C., Carpenter, S. E., Griffiths, R. P. and Harmon, M.
E. 1992. Decomposition of fallen trees: Effects of initial conditions and heterotroph
colonization rates. In Singh, K. P. and Singh, J. S. (eds.) Tropical Ecosystems:
Ecology and Management. New Delhi, Wiley Eastern Limited: 373-383
Schwarze, F. W. M. R., Engels, J., and Mattheck, C. 2000. Fungal Strategies of
Wood Decay in Trees. Berlin, Springer-Verlag.
Score, V. 2006. Ritual, Hoards and Helmets: A ceremonial meeting place for the
Corieltavi. The Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society 80, 197-207.
Score, V. (ed.) 2011. Hoards, Hounds and Helmets: A conquest-period ritual site at
Hallaton, Leicestershire. Leicester, Leicester Archaeology Monograph 2.
Score, V. 2011. Hallaton: Sacred Space in Context. In Score, V. (ed.), Hoards,
Hounds and Helmets: A Conquest-Period Ritual Site at Hallaton, Leicestershire.
Leicester, Leicester Archaeology Monograph 21: 152-164.
Scott, C. (ed.) 2010. Countryfile: Great British Walks. London, BBC Books.
Scott, D. 2002. Copper and Bronze in Art: Corrosion, Colorants, Conservation. Los
Angeles, Getty Publications.
Seligman, E. R. A. and Johnson, A. (eds.) 1932. Encyclopaedia of the Social
Sciences. Vol. 6. London, MacMillan and Co.
Selwyn, L. S., Rennie-Bisaillion, D. A., and Binnie, N. E. 1993. Metal Corrosion
Rates in Aqueous Treatments for Waterlogged Wood-Metal Composites. Studies in
Conservation 38 (3), 180-197.
Shakespeare, W. 1990. Macbeth. The Tragedy of Macbeth. Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. 1987. Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Sharpe, D. W. A. (ed.) 2003. The Penguin Dictionary of Chemistry. London,
Penguin Books.
Sheets, P. and Sever, T. 1988. High-Tech Wizardly. Archaeology 41 (6), 28-35.
Sheets, P., Hoopes, J., Melson, W., McKee, B., Sever, T., Mueller, M., Chenault, M.
and Bradley, J. 1991. Prehistory and Volcanism in the Arenal Area, Costa Ruca.
Journal of Field Archaeology 18 (4), 445-465.
Shephard, V. 1994. Historic Wells In and Around Bradford. Loughborough, Heart of
Albion Press.
295
Sheridan, M. J. and Nyamweru, C. 2008. African Sacred Groves: Ecological
Dynamics and Social Change. Oxford, James Currey Ltd.
Shils, E. 1981. Tradition. London, Faber and Faber.
Shreir, L. L., Jarman, R. A., Burstein, G. T. 1963. Corrosion. Oxford, Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Shuel, B. 2010. Coins Inserted in Trees. FLS News 60, 6-7.
Shuttleworth, R. 2010. Copper Rings and Rheumatism. FLS News 60, 7.
Silverman, H. 2002. Touring Ancient Times: The Present and Presented Past in
Contemporary Peru. American Anthropologist 104 (3), 881-902.
Simmel, G. 1900 [1978]. The Philosophy of Money. London, Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Simon, B. 2000. Tree Traditions and Folklore from Northeast Ireland. Arboricultural
Journal 24 (1), 15-40.
Skorupski, J. 1976. Symbol and Theory: A philosophical study of theories of religion
in social anthropology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Skounti, A. 2009. The authentic illusion: Humanity’s intangible cultural heritage, the
Moroccan experience. In Smith, L. and Akagawa, N. (eds.) Intangible Heritage.
London and New York, Routledge: 74-92.
Smith, L. and Akagawa, N. (eds.) 2009. Intangible Heritage. London and New York,
Routledge.
Smith, L. and Akagawa, N. 2009. Introduction. In Smith, L. and Akagawa, N. (eds.)
Intangible Heritage. London and New York, Routledge: 1-9.
Snodgrass, A. 2006. The Economics of Dedication at Greek Sanctuaries. In
Snodgrass, A. (ed.) Archaeology and the Emergence of Greece: Collected Papers on
Early Greece and Related Topics (1965-2002). Edinburgh, Edinburgh University
Press: 258-268.
Soames, S. 2005. Reference and Description: The Case against Two-
Dimensionalism. Princeton and Oxford, Princeton University Press.
Sofaer Derevenski, J. 2000. Material culture shock: Confronting expectations in the
material culture of children. In Sofaer Derevenski, J. (ed.) Children and Material
Culture. London and New York, Routledge: 3-16.
Sofaer, J. 2007. Engendering children, engendering archaeology. In Insoll, T. (ed.)
The Archaeology of Identities: A Reader. Oxon and New York, Routledge: 87-96.
Spence, C. and Gallace, A. 2008. Making Sense of Touch. In Chatterjee, H. J. (ed.)
Touch in Museums: Policy and Practice in Object Handling. Oxford and New York,
Berg: 21-40.
296
Spencer, B. 1978. King Henry of Windsor and the London Pilgrim. In Bird, J.,
Chapman, H., and Clark, J. (eds.) Collectanea Londiniensia: Studies in London
archaeology and history presented to Ralph Merrifield. London and Middlesex
Archaeological Society, Special Paper No. 2: 235-264.
Sperber, I. 2004. ‘Late and not of special distinction’? The misunderstood Life of St
Fintan of Clonenagh. Ossory, Laois and Leinster 1, 28-49.
Spooner, B. 1986. Weavers and dealers: the authenticity of an oriental carpet. In
Apparudai, A. (ed.) The Social Life of Things: Commodities in cultural perspective.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 195-235.
St Nectans Waterfall. nd. St Nectans Glen History. http://www.st-
nectansglen.co.uk/history/ (Accessed 03/02/2012).
Stewart, S. 1988. Ceci Tuera Cela: Graffiti as Crime and Art. In Fekete, J. (ed.) Life
after Postmodernism: Essays on Value and Culture. London, MacMillan Education
Ltd.: 161-180.
Stewart, S. 1993. On Longing: Narratives of the Miniature, the Gigantic, the
Souvenir, the Collection. Durham and London, Duke University Press.
Stieber, M. 2004. The Poetics of Appearance in the Attic Korai. Austin, University
of Texas Press.
Stokes, J. and Rodger, D. 2004. The Heritage Trees of Britain and Northern Ireland.
London, Constable & Robinson Ltd.
Stone, P. 1999. Holiday Geology Guide: Lake District Story. Nottingham, British
Geological Survey.
Stones, J. A. (ed.) 1989. Three Scottish Carmelite Friaries: Excavations at
Aberdeen, Linlithgow and Perth 1980-1986. Edinburgh, Societies of Antiquaries of
Scotland.
Storms, G. 1948. Anglo-Saxon Magic. Nijhoff, the Hagua.
Stromberg, P. 1981. Consensus and Variation in the Interpretation of Religious
Symbolism: A Swedish Example. American Ethnologist 8 (3), 544-559.
Swann, J. 1996. Shoes Concealed in Buildings. Costume 30, 56-69.
Swift, M. J., Healey, I. N., Hibberd, J. K., Sykes, J. M., Bampoe, V., and Nesbitt, M.
E. 1976. The decomposition of branch-wood in the canopy and floor of a mixed
deciduous woodland. Oecologia 26 (2), 139-149.
Taylor, C. 2007. A Secular Age. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press.
Taylor, M. 1981. Wood in Archaeology. Aylesbury, Shire Publications Ltd.
Thiselton-Dyer, T. F. 1889. The Folk-Lore of Plants. London, Chatto & Windus.
297
Thomas, J. 2006. The trouble with material culture. In Thomas, J. and Jorge, V. O.
(eds.) Overcoming the Modern Invention of Material Culture. Journal of Iberian
Archaeology 9/10: 11-23.
Thomas, K. 1983. Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England
1500-1800. Harmondsworth, Penguin Books.
Thomas, N. 1991. Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture, and Colonialism
in the Pacific. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.
Thompson, M. 1979. Rubbish Theory: The creation and destruction of value.
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Thompson, T. 2012. Netizens, Revolutionaries, and the Inalienable Right to the
Internet. In Blank, T. J. (ed.) Folk Culture in the Digital Age: The Emergent
Dynamics of Human Interaction. Logan, Utah State University Press: 46-59.
Thoms, W. 1846. Folk-Lore. The Athenaeum 22 August, 862-863.
Tilley, C. 2004. The Materiality of Stone: Explorations in Landscape
Phenomenology. Oxford and New York, Berg.
Tilley, C., Keane, W., Küchler, S., Rowlands, M. and Spyer, P. (eds.) 2006.
Handbook of Material Culture. London, Sage Publications.
Tilley, C. 2006. Objectification. In Tilley, C., Keane, W., Küchler, S., Rowlands, M.
and Spyer, P. (eds.) Handbook of Material Culture. London, Sage Publications: 60-
73.
Tilley, C. 2007. Materiality in materials. Archaeological Dialogues 14 (1), 16-20.
Timothy, D. J. and Boyd, S. W. 2003. Heritage Tourism. Harlow, Prentice Hall.
Tinniswood, Adrian. 1998. The Polite Tourist: Four Centuries of Country House
Visiting. London, National Trust.
Tourtellot, J. 2006. World Heritage Destinations Ranked: Europe. National
Geographic Traveler, 19.
Tree Council. nd. Green Monuments. http://www.treecouncil.org.uk/community-
action/green-monuments (Accessed 28/08/2012).
Tree Council of Ireland. nd. The Heritage Trees Database.
http://www.treecouncil.ie/heritagetrees/index.html (Accessed 25/02/2012).
Trevor-Roper, H. 1983. The Invention of Tradition: The Highland Tradition of
Scotland. In Hobsbawm, E. and Ranger, T. (eds.) The Invention of Tradition.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 15-41.
Trigg, E. B. 1973. Gypsy Demons and Divinities: The magic and religious of the
gypsies. Secaucus, Citadel Press.
Trombold, C. D. (ed.) 1991. Ancient road networks and settlement hierarchies in the
New World. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
298
Trombold, C. D. 1991. An introduction to the study of ancient New World networks.
In Trombold, C. D. (ed.) Ancient road networks and settlement hierarchies in the
New World. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 1-9.
Trotter, W. 1916. Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War. London, T. Fisher Unwin
Ltd.
Tuan, Y. 1977. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. London, Edward
Arnold Ltd.
Tuleja, T. 1991. The Tooth Fairy: Perspectives on Money and Magic. In Narváez, P.
(ed.) The Good People: New Fairylore Essays. New York, Garland Publishing Inc.:
406-425.
Turnbull, C. M. 1965. Wayward Servants: The Two Worlds of the African Pygmies.
Garden City, Natural History Press.
Turner, V. 1967. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca and
London, Cornell University Press.
UCAS. nd. http://www.ucas.com/ (Accessed 23/01/2013).
Umney, N. 1992. Corrosion of metals associated with wood. Conservation Journal
July, 4.
UNESCO. 2003. Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage. Paris, UNESCO.
Valentine, T., Brennen, T. and Brédart, S. 1996. The Cognitive Psychology of Proper
Names: On the importance of being Ernest. London and New York, Routledge.
Van den Eynden, V. 2010. Plants as Symbols in Scotland Today. In Padro-de-
Santayana, M., Pieroni, A., and Puri, R. K. (eds.) Ethnobotany in the New Europe:
People, Health and Wild Plant Resources. Oxford and New York, Berghahn Books:
239-245.
Vansina, J. 1985. Oral Tradition as History. Madison, University of Wisconsin
Press.
Van Zanten, W. 2004. Constructing New Terminology for Intangible Cultural
Heritage. Museum International 56 (1-2), 36-44.
Varner, G. R. 2002. Sacred Sites: St. Nectan’s Glen. AuthorsDen.
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewArticle.asp?id=4992 (Accessed 03/02/2012).
Velden, H. van der. 2000. The Donor’s Image: Gerard Loyet and the Votive
Portraits of Charles the Bold. Turnhout, Brepols Publishers.
Vickery, R. 1995. A Dictionary of Plant-Lore. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Voss, J. A. 1987. Antiquity Imagined: Cultural Values in Archaeological Folklore.
Folklore 98 (1), 80-90.
Vyse, S. A. 1997. Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition. Oxford and
New York, Oxford University Press.
299
Waddle, C. W. 1909. Miracles of Healing. The American Journal of Psychology 20
(2), 219-268.
Waldenburg, H. 1990. The Berlin Wall Book. London, Thames and Hudson.
Walhouse, J. 1880. Rag-Bushes and Kindred Observances. The Journal of
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 9, 97-106.
Walker, A. 1976. Worn and Corroded Coins: Their Importance for the
Archaeologist. Journal of Field Archaeology 3 (3), 329-334.
Walker, R. 1883. “Holy Wells” in Scotland. Proceedings of the Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland 17, 152-210.
Wallis, R. J. and Blain, J. 2003. Sites. Sacredness, and Stories: Interactions of
Archaeology and Contemporary Paganism. Folklore 114 (3), 307-321.
Wallis, R. J. and Lymer, K. (eds.) 2001. A Permeability of Boundaries? New
Approaches to the Archaeology of Art, Religion and Folklore. BAR International
Series 936.
Wallis, R. J. and Lymer, K. 2001. Introduction: A permeability of boundaries? In
Wallis, R. J. and Lymer, K. (eds.) A Permeability of Boundaries? New Approaches
to the Archaeology of Art, Religion and Folklore. BAR International Series 936: xiii-
xviii.
Walsham, A. 2008. Recording Superstition in Early Modern Britain: The Origins of
Folklore. Past and Present 199 (3), 178-206.
Walsham, A. 2011. The Reformation of the Landscape: Religion, Identity, and
Memory in Early Modern Britain and Ireland. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Waring, P. 1978. A Dictionary of Omens and Superstitions. London, Souvenir Press.
Warren, D. H. 1982. The Development of Haptic Perception. In Schiff, W. and
Foulke, E. (eds.) Tactual Perception: A Sourcebook. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press: 82-129.
Warren, G. 2003. Life in the Trees: Mesolithic People and the Woods of Ireland.
Archaeology Ireland 17 (3), 20-23.
Watkins, J. 2011. Treasured Treescapes. National Trust, 30-34.
Watkinson, D. (ed.) 1987. First Aid for Finds. Hertford, British Archaeological
Trust.
Watts, C. (ed.) 2013. Relational Archaeologies: Humans, animals, things. London
and New York, Routledge.
Watts, C. 2013. Relational archaeologies: roots and routes. In Watts, C. (ed.)
Relational Archaeologies: Humans, animals, things. London and New York,
Routledge: 1-20.
Weber, M. 1948. Science as a Vocation. In Gerth, H. H. and Wright Mills, C. (eds.)
From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. London, Routledge: 129-156.
300
Weber, R. Philosophical Perspective. 1990. In Barnard, K. E. and Brazelton, T. B.
(eds.) Touch: The Foundation of Experience. Madison, International Universities
Press, Inc.: 11-43.
Weiner, A. B. 1992. Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-While-
Giving. Berkeley, University of California Press.
Wells, R. 1991. The Making of an Icon: The Tooth Fairy in North American
Folklore and Popular Culture. In Narváez, P. (ed.) The Good People: New Fairylore
Essays. New York, Garland Publishing Inc.: 426-453.
Wernimont, P. F. and Fitzpatrick, S. 1972. The Meaning of Money. Journal of
Applied Psychology 56 (3), 218-226.
Whately, R. D. D. 1860. Bacon’s Essays, with Annotations. London, John W. Parker
and Son.
Whitridge, P. 2013. The imbrication of human and animal paths: an Arctic case
study. In Watts, C. (ed.) Relational Archaeologies: Humans, animals, things.
London and New York, Routledge: 228-244.
Wilks, J. H. 1972. Trees in the British Isles in History and Legend. London,
Frederick Muller Ltd.
Wille, M., Hooghiemstra, H., Hofstede, R., Fehse, J. and Sevink, J. 2002. Upper
Forest Line Reconstruction in a Deforested Area in Northern Ecuador Based on
Pollen and Vegetarian Analysis. Journal of Tropical Ecology 18 (3), 409-440.
Williams, J. 2003. The Coins and the Helmet. Current Archaeology 188, 361-362.
Williams, N. 1991. The Semantics of the Word Fairy: Making Meaning out of Thin
Air. In Narváez, P. (ed.) The Good People: New Fairylore Essays. New York,
Garland Publishing Inc.: 457-478.
Williams, N. J. A. 1996/1997. A Dictionary of Plant Lore: Review of A Dictionary
of Plant Lore by Roy Vickery. Béaloideas 64/65, 400-406.
Willsher, K. 2014. Oh l’amour: Paris bridge rail collapses under weight of too much
love. Guardian.co.uk Monday 9 June.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/09/paris-bridge-railing-collapses-
weight-love-locks?CMP=fb_gu (Accessed 10/06/2014).
Wilson, D. R. 1982. Air Photo Interpretation. London, B. T. Batsford Ltd.
Wolman, D. 2012. The End of Money: Counterfeiters, Preachers, Techies, Dreamers
– and the Coming Cashless Society. Boston, Da Capo Press.
Woodall, C. W. and Nagel, L. M. 2006. Coarse woody type: A new method for
analyzing coarse woody debris and forest change. Forest Ecology and Management
227, 115-121.
Woodward, A. 1992. English Heritage Book of Shrines and Sacrifice. London, B. T.
Batsford.
301
Woodward, A. 2000. British Barrows: A Matter of Life and Death. Stroud, Tempus
Publishing Ltd.
Wuthnow, R. 1989. Meaning and Moral Order: Explorations in Cultural Analysis.
Berkeley, University of California Press.
Yale, P. 2004. From Tourist Attractions to Heritage Tourism. Huntingdon, Elm
Publications.
Yin, X. 1999. The decay of forest woody debris: Numerical modelling and
implications based on some 300 data cases from North America. Oecologia 121 (1),
81-98.
Yorkshire Dales National Park. 2011. Wood yew be-leave it! The Visitor, 10-11.
Young, C. W. T. and Lonsdale, D. 1977. The External Signs of Decay in Trees.
Arboricultural Leaflet 1. Prepared for the Department of the Environment by the
Forestry Commission. London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Young, D. 2006. The Colours of Things. In Tilley, C., Keane, W., Küchler, S.,
Rowlands, M. and Spyer, P. (eds.) Handbook of Material Culture. London, Sage
Publications: 173-185.
Zedeño, M. N. 2013. Methodological and analytical challenges in relational
archaeologies: a view from the hunting ground. In Watts, C. (ed.) Relational
Archaeologies: Humans, animals, things. London and New York, Routledge: 117-
134.
Zelizer, V. A. 1985. Pricing the Priceless Child: The Changing Social Value of
Children. New York, Basic Books, Inc.
Zelter, A. 1998. Grassroots Campaigning for the World’s Forests. In Rival, L. (ed.)
The Social Life of Trees: Anthropological Perspectives on Tree Symbolism. Oxford,
Berg: 221-232.
Zipes, J. 1997. Happily Ever After: Fairy Tales, Children, and the Culture Industry.
New York and London, Routledge.
302
APPENDIX 1 – FIGURES & MAPS
1.1 – FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
An example of a
coin-tree log,
Bolton Abbey,
Yorkshire, BA5.
(Photograph by
author)
An example of a
coin-tree stump,
Portmeirion,
Gwynedd, PM6.
(Photograph by
author)
303
Figure 3
Figure 4
An example of a
coin-tree living
tree, Loxley,
Yorkshire, LX1.
(Photograph by
author)
An example of a
coin-tree post,
Snowdon,
Gwynedd, SN1.
(Photograph by
author)
304
Figure 5
Figure 6
An example of a coin-
tree sculpture,
Ingleton, Yorkshire,
IG28.
(Photograph by
author)
Possibly the original
Isle Maree coin-tree,
Northwest Highlands,
IM1.
(Photograph by
author)
305
Figure 7
Figure 8
The primary Isle Maree
coin-tree in the 1890s.
(Godden 1893: Figure 2)
The primary Isle Maree
coin-tree, IM1, in the
1970s.
(Coxe 1973: 174)
306
Figure 9
Figure 10
The primary
Ardmaddy coin-
tree, AM1.
(Photograph by
author)
The stringed-grid
arranged on PG1.
(Photograph by
author)
307
Figure 11
Figure 12
HC6 on my first visit (left) contrasted against HC6 on my second visit (right).
(Photographs by author)
HC6 on my first visit (left) contrasted against HC6 on my second visit (right), with the
original coins highlighted red and the added coins highlighted blue.
(Photographs by author)
308
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
A 2 pence piece bearing the
word ‘NEW’ in its design,
inserted into BF1 ,
indicating that it was issued
between 1971 and 1982.
(Photograph by author)
From left to right: the Mary Gillick portrait of Queen Elizabeth II introduced in 1953; the
Arnold Machin RA portrait, introduced in 1968; the Raphael Maklouf portrait,
introduced in 1985; and the Ian Rank-Broadley FRBS portrait, introduced in 1998.
(Adapted from The Royal Mint, online resource)
The original Christopher Ironside designs, printed on British coinage until 2008.
(Photograph by author)
309
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
The Royal Arms designs, printed on British coinage from 2008 until the present.
(Photograph by author)
The 50 pence piece issued in
1998 to commemorate the 50th
anniversary of the NHS, inserted
into BA5.
(Photograph by author)
A cluster of
coins inserted
into BB1,
labelled 1-9.
(Photograph by
author)
310
Figure 19
Figure 20
The longitudinal distribution of coins in IM4.
(Photograph by author)
The radial distribution of coins in PM12.
(Photograph by author)
311
Figure 21
Figure 22
The wave-like distribution of coins in AF1.
(Photograph by author)
The diagonal distribution of coins in
MH5.
(Photograph by author)
312
Figure 23
Figure 24
The annular distribution of coins in IG26.
(Photograph by author)
The loose distribution of coins on BF1.
(Photograph by author)
313
Figure 25
Figure 26
The random distribution of coins in PM4.
(Photograph by author)
The primary coin-tree of Ingleton, IG3.
(Photograph by author)
314
Figure 27
Figure 28
Figure 29
GZ2, a coin-tree stump at
Grizedale, Cumbria; so
unobtrusive and indistinct that
most people walked over it.
(Photograph by author)
PM3, a coin-tree stump at
Portmeirion, Gweynedd;
situated at eye-level, few
people walked past who did
not notice it.
(Photograph by author)
PM4, a coin-tree stump at
Portmeirion, Gwynedd; like
GZ2, it is in the centre of a
path, but its extra height and
higher quantity of coins
made it far more noticeable.
(Photograph by author)
315
Figure 30
Figure 31
Photograph of offerings – pebbles, keys, rags,
ribbons, and rosary beads – deposited on
Clonenagh’s ‘St Fintan’s Tree’, taken by Father
Francis Browne, April 1933.
(Courtesy of Davison & Associates Ltd.)
Photograph of Clonenagh’s ‘St Fintan’s
Tree’, taken by Father Francis Browne,
April 1933.
(Courtesy of Davison & Associates Ltd.)
316
Figure 32
Figure 33
A priest examines the offerings
deposited on Clonenagh’s ‘St
Fintan’s Tree’, photograph taken
by Father Francis Browne, April
1933.
(Courtesy of Davison &
Associates Ltd.)
The coin-encrusted fallen trunk of the original St Fintan’s Tree, 1990s.
(Morton 1998: 196)
317
Figure 34
Figure 35
The coin-less
fragment, possibly
all that remains of
the original St.
Fintan’s Tree, 2012.
(Photograph by
author)
The young offshoot of the original
St. Fintan’s Tree, 2012.
(Photograph by author)
318
Figure 36
Figure 37
Coins inserted
into the
branches of
the young
offshoot of the
original St.
Fintan’s Tree,
2012.
(Photographs
by author)
A child hammers an
object into the Ardboe
‘wishing-tree’, 1980s.
(Sketch by Ian Newsham,
reproduced in Simon
2000: Figure 5)
319
Figure 38
Figure 39
Local resident and take-carer,
Francis Quinn, with the
original Ardboe ‘wishing-
tree’, 1973.
(Courtesy of Pat Grimes)
The second Ardboe ‘wishing-
tree’, 1990.
(Photograph by Pat Grimes)
320
Figure 40
Figure 41
The second Ardboe wishing-tree after its fall, 1998.
(Photograph by Pat Grimes)
Sawing the fallen Ardboe wishing-tree into section, 1998.
(Photograph by Pat Grimes)
321
Figure 42
Figure 43
The replacement tree at Ardboe, not yet
employed as a ‘wishing-tree’, 2012.
(Photograph by author)
Anonymous painting of Gougane Barra, 1809, with the wooden pole on the left.
(Courtesy of Kieran McCarthy)
322
Figure 44
Figure 45
Detail of anonymous painting of Gougane Barra,
1809, depicting people attaching offerings to the
wooden pole supporting the cross.
(Courtesy of Kieran McCarthy)
The fallen, coin-encrusted wooden cross, leaning
against a tree, posted in Bugbitten.com
(Accessed 23/10/2012)
323
Figure 46
Figure 47
Make-shift rag-trees: the mass of crutches lodged into the ground at
Doon Well, c.1900.
(Reproduced with kind permission from the Wellcome Trust)
Heavily worn and bent silver sixpence of William III, (1694-
1702). Re-used as a love token.
(Reproduced with kind permission from the Portable
Antiquities Scheme)
324
Figure 48
Figure 49
Complete, but bent in two,
silver short cross penny, dated
AD 1207-1222.
(Reproduced with kind
permission from the Portable
Antiquities Scheme)
Dr Johnson’s touch-piece. This example is said to be the medal with which Queen
Anne 'touched' Samuel Johnson (1709-84) in 1711, when he was a two-year old
child.
(Reproduced with kind permission from the British Museum)
325
Figure 50
Figure 51
Figure 52
A woman knocks her coin into
the primary coin-tree at Dovedale
using a small limestone rock.
(Photograph by author)
A man utilises a rock as a tool
of percussion at Ingleton.
(Photograph by author)
An engraved metal plate
screwed onto AF1: a pre-
meditated deposit?
(Photograph by author)
326
Figure 53
Figure 54
A red candle deposited at Isle
Maree: another pre-meditated
deposit?
(Photograph by author)
Likely pre-meditated deposits at St. Nectan’s Glen: a candle on a painted piece of
slate; a piece of green aventurine; a rubber duck; and a memorial of a deceased pet
(Ollie).
(Photographs by author)
327
Figures 55 & 56
Several different groups congregating around the primary Ingleton coin-tree.
(Photographs by author)
328
Figure 57
Examples of imitative longitudinal placement in coin-trees: TH3, SN1, TS3, and SNG1.
(Photographs by author)
329
Figure 58
Figure 59
A man takes a close-up
shot of the coins of IG3.
(Photograph by author)
A woman
photographs her
companion
standing beside
IG3.
(Photograph by
author)
330
Figures 60 & 61
Figure 62
Left: A woman takes a close-up photograph of SN1 with her camera
phone. Right: A couple take a photograph of PG1 with their camera
phone.
(Photographs by author)
A man photographs his companion
as he hammers a coin into IG3 with
a rock.
(Photograph by author)
331
Figure 63
Figure 64
The luminosity of the coins emphasised by sunlight in PM6.
(Photograph by author)
The coins are less distinguishable from the shiny, wet wood of DD11.
(Photograph by author)
332
Figure 65
Figure 66
A young child walks along the top of
CC1.
(Photograph by author)
Children climb along
IG3.
(Photograph by
author)
333
Figure 67
Figure 68
A boy climbs the arch of IG3 and
claims that he cannot get down.
(Photograph by author)
The post of SN2 is used for support
for climbers on Snowdon.
(Photograph by author)
334
Figures 69 & 70
Figure 71
A love-lock ‘tree’ near Luzhkov
Bridge, Moscow.
(Photograph by author)
A love-lock street sign in St.
Petersburg.
(Photograph by author)
The first love-locks to adorn Tower Bridge, London.
(Photograph by author)
335
Figure 72
Highly personalised love-locks on Luzhkov Bridge, Moscow. While some have been
adorned with fabric and paint, others have been professionally engraved with names
and dates (such as the two padlocks in the bottom right image, which are
impractically large).
(Photographs by author)
336
Figure 73
Figure 74
Graffiti on two trees on Isle Maree: ‘Mick 1906’; ‘LFH’; ‘PETE LAIRD’.
(Photographs by author)
Graffiti on a tree at Bolton Abbey: ‘1957’, ‘MT 2000’, ‘1996’, A. H. 1968’,
‘C. G. 19??’, ‘SL’, ‘E.C. <love-heart> CG’, ‘RS’, ‘TJ’, ‘MSO’.
(Photograph by author)
337
Figure 75
Figure 76
Figure 77
Graffiti on a tree at
Claife Station:
‘VIM’, ‘D+K’,
‘KEVIN’, ‘Ellie +
Laura 08’, amongst
others.
(Photograph by
author)
What does it say??
What does it say??
Graffiti and coins in
AF3: ‘JEM’.
(Photograph by
author)
Graffiti and coins in
DD1 : ‘NIR’, ‘A4T’,
‘BMG’.
(Photograph by
author)
338
Figure 78
Figures 79 & 80
Figure 81
Graffiti and coins in
BB1: ‘LOTTIE’;
‘AKIRA’.
(Photograph by
author)
Graffiti and coins in BB1: ‘DC 4 ZW
4EVA’.
(Photograph by author)
Graffiti and coins in FG5: ‘SR’.
(Photograph by author)
Names scratched onto
granite cliffs at High
Force.
(Photograph by author)
339
Figure 82
Figure 83
Names scratched onto pieces of slate and propped up against the rock face in St.
Nectan’s Glen. (Photograph by author)
Names scratched onto pieces of slate and propped up against the rock face in
St. Nectan’s Glen. (Photograph by author)
340
Figure 84
Figure 85
Clay faces on a tree
at Hardcastle Crags.
(Photograph by
author)
The red coin in FG1 stands out from
the crowd.
(Photograph by author)
341
Figure 86
Figure 87
Non-coin objects inserted into coin-trees, for the sake of individuation? A screw in
AF1, a drawing pin in SG1; a bolt and screw in GZ3; and 34 nails hammered into HC6.
(Photographs by author)
A Hobgoblin beer bottle cap affixed to
SNG1.
(Photograph by author)
342
Figure 88
Figure 89
Left: Two black hair
bobbles, one metal
hairclip, one pink rag, one
piece of string, and one
leather bootlace, IM7.
Right: Golden eagle
badge, silver chain, and
crystal earring attached to
IM1.
(Photographs by author)
A 20p piece attached with ribbons to
SNG1, as a method of personalising
the coin?
(Photograph by author)
343
Figure 90
Coins accompanied by initials in coin-trees: an‘R’ written on a coin inserted into
DD14; a coin labelled ‘E’ in BB1; ‘MB’ scratched onto SN2; a coin labelled ‘E’
in HF3; a coin imprinted with ‘R&L’ in IG19; and 36 coins distributed to form
‘A.B’ or ‘B.B’ in IG19.
(Photographs by author)
344
Figure 91
Figure 92
Graffiti (identification marks?)
scratched onto deposited twelfth-
century coins from Corinth
(Harris 1939: Fig. 3)
Four of the seven coins nailed to IG3 – to prevent their removal?
(Photographs by author)
345
Figure 93
Figure 94
2013 Ordnance Survey map pinpointing the location of AM1 as ‘Wishing Tree’
A signpost directing
walkers to the
Ardmaddy ‘Wishing
Tree’
(Photograph by author)
346
Figure 95
Figure 96
The interpretation panel
accompanying the Clonenagh
coin-tree
(Photograph by author)
The interpretation panel
accompanying the Ingleton coin-
trees
(Photograph by author)
347
Figure 97
Figure 98
The interpretation panel
accompanying the Becky Falls
coin-trees
(Photograph by author)
The waterfall falling into St.
Nectan’s Kieve
(Photograph by author)
348
Figure 99
Figure 100
The primary coin-tree at St. Nectan’s Glen
(Photograph by author)
Rags and ribbons affixed to the branches of a tree at St.
Nectan’s Glen, with the coin-trees in the background
(Photograph by author)
349
Figure 101
Figure 102
A lock of hair and a ribbon
attached to a branch at St.
Nectan’s Glen
(Photograph by author)
A ‘fairy stack’ at St. Nectan’s
Glen
(Photograph by author)
350
Figures 103 & 104
Above: Figure 103 – The primary St. Nectan’s Glen coin-tree in 2006, with
a fairy stack in the background and ribbons attached to a tree in the
foreground (Photograph by S. Daffarn)
Below: Figure 104 – The primary St. Nectan’s Glen coin-tree in 2013, with
a fairy stack in the background and ribbons attached to a tree in the
foreground (Photograph by author)
351
Figure 105
Figure 106
The key of the
map at Aira Force,
which pinpoints
the ‘Money Tree’
(Photograph by
author)
The map of Becky Falls included in their visitor leaflets, pinpointing the location of
‘Money Trees’
352
Figures 107 & 108
Figure 109
Left: Fig. 107 – A photograph of a young girl examining the primary
Bolton Abbey coin-tree, in a leaflet distributed to visitors by the Bolton
Abbey Estate
Right: Figure. 108 – A photograph and description of the ‘Money Tree’ on
the High Force Waterfall Facebook page
A pre-decimalisation
one penny inserted into
the primary Ingleton
coin-tree
(Photograph by author)
353
Figure 110
Figure 111
A 1933 three
penny piece,
deposited on the
cliff-face behind
the primary St.
Nectan’s Glen
coin-tree
(Photograph by
author)
Coins issued in the 2000s/2010s showing signs of heavy weathering: a 201?
coin in AF1; 2004 one penny piece in FG1; a 2006 coin in AF1; and a 2005
coin in LG9.
(Photographs by author)
354
Figure 112
Figure 113
Coins issued in 2008 or later exhibiting signs of verdigris: A 2008
two pence piece in MP1; a one penny piece with the coat-of-arms
design (post-2008) in IG3; and a two pence piece with the coat-of-
arms design in SN1.
(Photographs by author)
The rag-trees of
Munlochy, the
Black Isle, 2013.
(Photograph by
author)
355
Figure 114
Figure 115
Coins deposited in
Saint Boniface’s
well, surrounded by
rag-trees, at
Munlochy, the
Black Isle, 2013
(Photograph by
author)
FR2; a living ash
tree in Fore, Co.
Westmeath,
adorned with rags
and coins.
(Photograph by
author)
356
Figure 116
Figure 117
St. Brendan’s Tree,
Clonfert, adorned with
coins and numerous
other deposits.
(Photograph by author)
St. Feichin’s vat,
Fore, in which
children were (are
still?) bathed in
healing rituals.
Situated beside
coin-tree FG3
(Photograph by C.
Houlbrook)
357
Figure 118
Figure 119
Tin-foil attached to the
branch of FG2, Fore.
(Photograph by author)
St. Bridget’s Well, Liscannor; the passageway lined with deposits.
(Photograph by author)
358
Figure 120
Figure 121
Memorial messages
at St. Bridget’s Well,
Liscannor
(Photograph by
author)
A memorial message
written on a piece of
cloth and attached to a
tree at Munlochy, the
Black Isle
(Photograph by author)
359
Figure 122
Figure 123
Figure 124
The heavily
decayed log
of BA3. The
mesh has been
applied for
safety.
(Photograph
by author)
The heavily
decayed BA1 and
BA2, which
fragment on
touch, losing
coins.
(Photograph by
author)
(Photograph by C.
Houlbrook)
The log-end of
HF3, a large
fragment of it
having already
fallen away.
(Photograph by
author)
360
Figure 125
Figure 126
Figure 127
The original High Force
coin-tree in September 2009.
(Photograph by Joanna
Hubbard)
The original High Force
coin-tree in early 2012.
(Photograph by Steve
Gillard)
All that remains of the
original High Force coin-
tree, September 2012.
(Photograph by author)
361
Figure 128
Figure 129
The trophy awarded to Charles Struthers,
custodian of the Ardmaddy coin-tree.
(Photograph by author)
An Ardboe coin-tree fragment stored
behind Coyle’s Cottage.
(Photograph by author)
362
Figure 130
Figure 131
Two limbs from the Ardmaddy coin-tree, stored at Ardmaddy Castle
(Photograph by author)
An Ardboe coin-tree fragment (ACNR 346-1998) stored at Ulster
Folk and Transport Museum
(Photograph by author)
363
Figure 132
Figures 133 & 134
A limb from the
Ardmaddy coin-
tree, stored at the
entrance to
Ardmaddy Castle.
(Photograph by
author)
The young sapling, another offshoot of the
original Thorn, its enclosure also adorned
with ribbons. Note the Glastonbury Tor in
the background.
(Photograph by author)
John Coles, former mayor of
Glastonbury, stands beside the vandalised
‘Holy Thorn’. The tree is protected
within an enclosure, which has been
adorned with ribbons.
(Photograph by author)
364
Figure 135
Figure 136
Figure 137
PM2 on the ground.
(Photograph by author)
PM1 propped up against an
oak tree.
(Photograph by author)
SNG1 propped up
against a rock face.
(Photograph by author)
365
Figure 138
Figure 139
Figure 140
MH1 resting on
the riverbed of
Gordale Beck
(Photograph by
author)
FG1-FG4 resting
across the pool
beneath the Fairy
Glen waterfall.
(Photograph by
author)
SNG2 on the
ground.
(Photograph by
author)
366
Figure 141
Figure 142
Figure 143
Coins resting loosely atop the
Ardmaddy coin-tree.
(Photograph by author)
Coins distributed
on the ground
within the cluster
of coin-tree on
Isle Maree
(Photograph by
author)
The heavily decayed stump of PM8,
which has already begun to lose its
coins.
(Photograph by author)
367
Figure 144
Figure 145
Figure 146
The heavily verdigrised
coins of Isle Maree.
(Photograph by author)
Heavily flaked (post-
1992?) coins in IG3.
(Photograph by
author)
A split American cent, DD14.
(Photograph by author)
368
Figure 147
Figure 148
Coins excavated at Ardmaddy which are either
bent/crooked or show signs of percussion on their edges.
(Photographs by author)
OS Map 1978, pinpointing the location of the Ardmaddy ‘Wishing Tree’.
(National Grid Tile NM71NE, National Grid 1:10000, OS Grid NM71, 1978.)
369
Figure 149
Figure 150
The rocks within close proximity to AF1, which – judging by
the signs of abrasion, highlighted – have been previously used
as tools of percussion.
(Photographs by author)
Top left: he edges of the
coin inserted into AF1;
top right: the damaged
edge of a 1 penny, DD14;
bottom: the coins of FG1,
damaged through
percussion.
(Photographs by author)
370
Figure 151
Figure 152
Some coins still embedded in woody debris from the Ardmaddy excavation.
(Photographs by author)
The pliable small-finds recovered during the Ardmaddy excavation: two pieces
of knotted string, a blue plastic-coated wire, and a knotted boot lace.
(Photographs by author)
371
Figure 153
Figure 154
Coin-trees’ proximities to footpaths. Top left: Dovedale; top right: Lydford Gorge;
bottom left: Tarn Hows; bottom right: Leigh Woods.
(Photographs by author)
The bent, hand-cut nail uncovered
during the Ardmaddy excavation.
(Photograph by author)
372
Figure 155
Figure 156
A wooden sculpture embedded with coins, Mendocino Headlands, California,
USA, 2013.
(Photographs by Barbara L. Voss)
A wooden torii gate embedded with coins close to the summit of Mt. Fuji, Japan,
2012.
(Photographs by author)
377
APPENDIX 2 – COIN-TREE DATA
2.1 – Coin-Tree Site Abbreviations and Quantities
Coin-Tree Site Abbreviation Quantity of Coin-
Trees
Aira Force AF 7
Ardboe AB n/a
Ardmaddy AM 1
Arnside Knott AK 1
Becky Falls BF 16
Bolton Abbey BA 12
Brock Bottom BB 1
Claife Station CS 1
Clonenagh CL 1
Corfe Castle CC 1
Cragside CR 1
Dovedale DD 13
Fairy Glen FG 5
Fore FR n/a
Freeholders Wood FW n/a
Gougane Barra GB 8
Grizedale GZ 5
Hardcastle Crags HC 6
High Force HF 9
Ingleton IG 29
Isle Maree IM 15
Leigh Woods LW 1
Loxley LX 1
Lydford Gorge LG 12
Malham MH 23
Marbury MB 2
Padley Gorge PG 3
Portmeirion PM 13
Rydal RD 3
Snowdon SN 2
St Nectan’s Glen SNG 5
Stock Ghyll SG 8
Tarn Hows TH 22
Tarr Steps TS 14
378
2.2 – Conditions of Coin-Trees
Condition Description Quantity %
Living A standing and living tree 42 17%
Log An uprooted bole of diameter greater than
7.62cm and length greater than 91cm (as
recommended by Woodall & Nagel 2006: 117)
98 40%
Stump Either a rooted or uprooted stump 79 32%
Fragment An uprooted bole of diameter less than 7.62cm
and length less than 91cm (as recommended by
Woodall & Nagel 2006: 117)
3 1%
Wooden
Post
A piece of timber set upright as a support, as part
of a fence, as a place for displaying notices, etc.
21 7%
Artwork A piece of timber crafted for artificial purposes 1 0.4%
2.3 – Decay classes based on guidelines given by the British Columbian
Ministry of Natural Resource Operations
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5
Wood
Texture
Intact, hard Intact, hard
to partly
decaying
Hard, large
pieces, partly
decaying
Small,
blocky pieces
Many small
pieces, soft
portions
Portion on
Ground
Elevated on
support
points
Elevated but
sagging
slightly
Sagging near
ground, or
broken
All of log on
ground,
sinking
All of log on
ground,
partly sunken
Twigs <3cm
Present Absent Absent Absent Absent
Bark
Intact Intact or
partly
missing
Trace Absent Absent
2.4 – Creation Dates of English and Welsh Coin-trees based on
custodian testimonies
0
2 1
5
9
Pre-1991 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 2006-2010
379
2.5 – Identifiable coin-tree tree species
Species Quantity
Alder (Alnus) 3
Ash (Fraxinus) 12
Beech (Fagus) 13
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga) 1
Hawthorn (Crataegus) 1
Holly (Ilex) 1
Larch (Larix) 1
Lime (Tilia) 2
Oak (Quercus) 14
Pine (Pinus) 12
Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) 1
2.6 - The life-expectancy of trees according to species
Tree Species Life Expectancy
(years)
Coin-Tree Case-Studies
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga) 300+ CR1
Oak (Quercus) 200-300 BF4, IM1, IM2, IM3, IM4,
IM6, IM9, LW1, MB1, TS2,
TS3, TS4, TS8, TS9, TS10
Sycamore (Acer
pseudoplatanus)
200-300 CL1
Holly (Ilex) 200-300 GB2, GB3, GB4, GB6
Scot’s pine (Pinus sylvestris) 200-300 AF3, CC1, IG26, IG27,
IG29, IM12, IM13, IM15,
LX1, MB2, PM5, TH18
Lime (Tilia) 200-300 HF4, HF6
Beech (Fagus) 150-200 AF1, AF2, AB1, AB2, BF8,
BA7, GB1, HC4, HC5, IG6,
IG7, IG8, IG10, IG11, IG12,
MH11, MH23, TH6
Ash (Fraxinus) 100-150 BB1, DD3, DD4, DD6,
DD8, DD9, DD10, DD11,
FR1, GB7, GB8, HF5,
MH12
Hawthorn (Crataegus) 100-150 AM1
Alder (Alnus) 50-70 IG1, IG15, IG25
Birch (Betula) 50-70 AM2
Table produced from data provided by the British Hardwood Tree Nursery 2012.
380
2.7 – Aira Force Case-Study
Case-study name: Aira Force (AF)
Date of fieldwork: 02/06/2012
Case-study location: Along one of the two main paths leading to Aira Force Waterfall,
Cumbria, England
Case-study date (i.e. when did it become a ‘coin-tree?): 10 years (pers. comm. Stephen
Dowson, Area Ranger Ullswater, 02/04/2012: ‘The tree was felled for safety reasons beside a
path and visitors started knocking coins in more or less straight away’)
Case-study environment: Woodland
Land ownership: National Trust
Attractions nearby: Aira Force Waterfall
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 7 (and one tree with a brass plaque and three
wooden posts with coins)
382
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-tree:
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Cairns,
Glencoyne
Farm
1 Monument Matterdale,
Eden,
Cumbria
NY 389 198
Depositor
ID: 39866
Three Cairns originally identified by
C Whitfield, following the Glasgow
survey has been expanded to include a
further eighteen cairns, stone circle
and a raised platform, these are
distributed to the northwest and
southeast of the site.
Source: Lake District National Park
HER
Cairnfield,
Glencoyne
Farm
2 Monument Matterdale,
Eden,
Cumbria
NY 391 199
Depositor
ID: 39870
A linear distribution of at least 11
single earthfast cairns. Their size
ranged from small circular ones with a
2m diameter to larger more
rectangular examples, up to 8m by
2m, all with protruding rounded stone
boulders, situated on a southeast
facing slope in poorly drained ground.
Source: Lake District National Park
HER
Roman
Road
3 Monument Gowbarrow
Park Head,
Matterdale,
Eden,
Cumbria
Depositor
ID: 4675
A road of Roman date.
Source: Lake District National Park
HER
Broad Ridge
and Furrow
4 Monument Matterdale,
Eden,
Cumbria
NY 403 203
Depositor
ID: 15202
Site of broad ridge and furrow and
earthworks of Medieval date.
Source: Lake District National Park
HER
Aira Beck
Packhorse
Bridge
5 Monument Matterdale,
Eden,
Cumbria
NY 401 201
Depositor
ID: 15203
Post-medieval packhorse bridge,
1540-1901.
Source: Lake District National Park
HER
Gowbarrow
Park Quarry
6 Monument Matterdale,
Eden,
Cumbria
NY 400 200
Depositor
ID: 11675
Site of a disused quarry of unknown
date.
Source: Lake District National Park
HER
Source: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/advanced_search.aspx (Accessed 30/03/2012)
384
CLUSTER 1
AF1
Condition: Log
Species: Beech (Fagus)
Associated tools: Five possible tools of percussion: square slate ‘hammer rock’, 1.5 x 10 x
10cm, slight abraded; square limestone rock, 6 x 13 x 15cm, slightly abraded; rounded
sandstone, 10 x 10 x 11cm, slight abraded; rectangular granite rock, 5 x 12 x 20cm, slightly
abraded; and one small, jagged piece of slate, 1 x 3 x 3cm, slightly abraded and located on
top of AF1.
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, west of path
Proximity to river: 36m west of river
Proximity to AF2: 1.03m east of AF2
Proximity to AF3: 1.28m south-east of AF3
Proximity to AF4: 5.54m east of AF4
Proximity to AF5: 10.14m south-east of AF5
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Directly beside one of the two main paths leading to Aira Force Waterfall.
385
Grid reference: NY 40021 29353 (± 13ft)
Latitude: 54.57484 Longitude: 2.92939 (± 13ft)
Elevation: 583ft
Length: 9.5m Girth: 2.92m
Orientation: East to West
Coins: 26,577
Discernible patterning of coins: Primarily running longitudinally along the bark. Roughly ¼
are bent over
Other notable features: One screw, two metal plates engraved with names, one silver and
red token, two nails. Graffiti – ‘Harry’ inscribed on the bark.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 15,923 1971, 1971, 1971, 1974, 1974, 1975,
1975, 1976, 1976, 1979, 1980, 1980,
1984, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988,
1991, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1997, 1997,
1997, 200-, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2001, 2002,
2003, 2003, 2004, 2004, 2005, 2006,
2006, 2007, 2007, 24 x post-2008 (coat-
of-arms design), 2008, 2008, 2009, 2009,
2009, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2011, 2011
2p 8,692 1971, 1971, 1977, 1978, 1978, 1978,
1978, 1978, 1978, 1979, 1979, 1979, 198-,
1980, 1980, 1981, 1981, 1981, 1981,
1985, 1986, 1986, 1987, 1987, 1987,
1987, 1988, 1988, 1988, 1989, 1989,
1989, 1989, 1990, 1990, 1990, 1991,
1994, 1996, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1998,
1998, 1998, 200-, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2001,
2001, 2002, 2002, 2003, 2003, 2003,
2003, 2004, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2006,
2006, 2006, 2006, 2007, 2007, 2007, 26 x
post-2008 (coat-of-arms design), 2008,
2009, 2009, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2011,
2011, 2011
5p 987 1991, 20--, 2004, 2008
10p 555 1981, 1992, 1992, 1997, 1997, 1997, 20--,
200-, 2000, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2002, 2002,
2003, 2006, 2007, 6 x post-2008 (coat-of-
arms design), 2008, 2008, 2009, 2010,
2010, 2010
20p 237 1982, 1982, 2003, 2004
50p 57 Unknown
£1 1 Unknown
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 16 5 euro cents, 5 euro cents, Danish 50 øre
386
coin, Australian coin 1988, 1 Canadian
cent 1983, 1 American dollar, 1 Russian
rouble 1998, 2 Japanese 10 yen coins, 3
unknown foreign coins, 4 unknown gold
foreign coins
Unknown 126 Unknown
AF2
Condition: Stump
Species: Beech (Fagus)
Associated tools: c.f. AF1
Proximity to path: 10.8m east of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Very close to one of the two main paths leading to Aira Force Waterfall.
Grid reference: NY 40021 29353 (± 13ft)
Latitude: 54.57484 Longitude: 2.92939 (± 13ft)
Elevation: 585ft
Height: 73cm Girth: 4.14m
Coins: 1133
Discernible patterning of coins: 1090 coins on top of stump and 43 on side of stump, both
random distribution. C.1/3 of coins are bent over.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 608 1979, 200-, 2000, 2003, 2007, 2009
2p 413 1971, 1989, 1998, 20--, 200-, 2001,
2001, 2001, 2004, 2005, 2005, 2009
5p 52 1992, 1996, 2010
10p 38 1980, 200-
20p 15 1982, 2003
50p 1 199-
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 7 Unknown
AF3
Condition: Living tree
Species: Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris)
387
Associated tools: c.f. AF1
Proximity to path: 10.7m east of path
Ease of access: Very close to one of the two main paths leading to Aira Force Waterfall.
Grid reference: NY 40021 29353 (± 13ft)
Latitude: 54.57484 Longitude: 2.92939 (± 13ft)
Elevation: 585ft
Height of highest coin: 1.78m
Girth: 91cm
Coins: 15
Discernible patterning of coins: Mainly longitudinal distribution. One bent over
Other notable features: Graffiti – an engraving of the name ‘JEM’
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 7 1994
2p 2 Unknown
5p 4 Unknown
10p 2 2000
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
AF4
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: c.f. AF1
Proximity to path: 15m east of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Close to one of the two main paths leading to Aira Force Waterfall, but up a
slight incline and not particularly visible.
Grid reference: NY 40021 29353 (± 13ft)
Latitude: 54.57484 Longitude: 2.92939 (± 13ft)
Elevation: 586ft
Height: 96cm Girth: 55cm
Coins: 2
388
Discernible patterning of coins: On top of stump. Slightly chipped.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 2 1999
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
Also in Cluster 1 was a living tree (Girth 2.55m; elevation 596ft) with a brass plaque screwed
to its bark, reading “keep the kitchen clean, eat out”. It was screwed in at a height of 2m, so
the person probably had to stand on something – and obviously come prepared with a
screwdriver and the plaque itself. Noteworthy: the plaque is facing away from the path
(facing north), so is not visible from the path. It is 8.23m north of AF4.
CLUSTER 2
This cluster consists of three wooden gate/fence posts along the same path as Cluster 1, but
closer to Aira Force Waterfall. Because these are essentially logs, I will include them in my
coin-tree catalogue.
AF5
Condition: Wooden post
Species: n/a
Associated tools: c.f. AF6
Proximity to path: Directly beside path
Ease of access: The gate post to a gate leading from one path to another, so very easily
accessible.
Grid reference: NY 39883 20467 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.57584 Longitude: 2.93152 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 681ft
Height: 1.67m Girth: 32cm
Coins: 9
Discernible patterning of coins: All on top of post, random distribution.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 3 2010
2p 3 Unknown
Aira Force 4
Cluster 1, Aira Force
389
5p 2 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 Unknown
AF6
Condition: Wooden post
Species: n/a
Associated tools: One tool of percussion: rectangular limestone ‘hammer rock’, 4 x 9 x
18cm, slightly abraded, on wall beside posts
Proximity to AF7: 1.11m
Proximity to path: Directly beside path
Ease of access: The gate post to a gate leading from one path to another, so very easily
accessible.
Grid reference: NY 39883 20467 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.57584 Longitude: 2.93152 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 681ft
Height: 1.27m Girth: 50cm
Coins: 12
Discernible patterning of coins: All on top of post, random distribution.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 4 1983, 1989
2p 3 1989, 2003
5p 3 Unknown
10p 2 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
AF7
Condition: Wooden post
390
Species: n/a
Associated tools: c.f. AF6
Proximity to path: Directly beside path.
Ease of access: Easily accessible.
Grid reference: NY 39883 20467 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.57584 Longitude: 2.93152 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 681ft
Height: 1.67m Girth: 32cm
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: n/a
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
29 16%
37 20%
39 21%
75 41%
5 3%
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-Present
Dates of Coins at Aira Force
Mode = 2003/2010
Median = 1998
Mean = 1995
391
2.8 – Ardboe Case-Study
Case-study name: Ardboe (AB)
Date of fieldwork: 07/04/2012
Case-study location: Ardboe, Co. Tyrone, Northern Ireland
Case-study date: late 19th
/early 20th
century – 1973
Case-study environment: Rural cemetery
Land ownership: Northern Ireland Environment Agency
Attractions nearby: Ardboe High Cross, purportedly the first High Cross to have been built
in Ulster
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: Currently 0. There have been 2 in the past.
16547 59.6%
9114 32.8%
1048 3.8%
597 2.2%
253 0.9%
58 0.2%
1 0.04% 0
16 0.06%
133 0.5%
1p 2p 5p 10p 20p 50P £1 £2 Foreign currency
Unknown
Denominations of Coins at Aira Force
Total = 27767
392
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-tree:
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
High
Cross
1 Monument Ardboe,
Co.
Tyrone
SMR TYR
040:003
“On a promontory on the shores of Lough
Neagh. The cross marks the site of a
monastery associated with St. Colman,
founded perhaps in C6th. Arboe was burnt
in 1166, but later became a medieval
church site [TYR 040:004]. The cross is
the finest in Ulster, with 6 panels on each
side showing scenes from the bible,
including Adam & Eve, the Sacrifice of
Isaac, the Visit of the Magi, Christ in
glory, the Miracle at Cana, Cane & Abel,
David & Goliath & several others - some
too badly weathered to identify.”
Source: Northern Ireland Environment
Agency
Ardboe
Abbey
2 Monument Ardboe,
Co.
Tyrone
SMR TYR
040:004
“This ruined medieval parish church
stands on the site of a pre-Norman
Monastery, founded by St. Colman &
beside the Ardboe high cross, TYR
040:003. It is a rectangular building, 63ft x
19ft, standing in a old, irregular-shaped
graveyard. The walls are 3ft thick. W of
the church in the graveyard are traces of a
small rectangular building. In the NW
corner is a wishing tree, stuck with pins to
record wishes. There is a local story of a
bullaun stone resting on the shoreline. It
could not be located.”
Source: Northern Ireland Environment
Agency
Abbey
Cellar
3 Monument Ardboe,
Co.
Tyrone
SMR TYR
040:005
“In the field above the shore of Lough
Neagh, 200 yards NE of Ardboe High
Cross [TYR 040:003]. The site consists of
the remains of a small rectangular
building, 38'6" x 24ft,of rough stones. The
door was on the W, but the building is too
ruined to give any further information. A
short way to N are 3 sides of a very
substantially built rectangular structure,
partly backing against the bluff, known as
the cellar; it probably formed part of the
monastic establishment.”
Source: Northern Ireland Environment
Agency
Source: http://apps.ehsni.gov.uk/ambit/Default.aspx (Accessed 10/04/2012)
393
ARDBOE 1
Condition (at time of use): Living tree
Species: Beech (Fagus)
Associated tools: Rocks were apparently used for hammering the coins and pins in (Rose
Ryan, Muintirevlin Historical Society, pers. comm. 07/04/2012)
Ease of access: Very easy. In the corner of the cemetery, easy to reach.
Grid reference: NW 09283 34263 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.61956 Longitude: -6.50520 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 85ft
Remaining fragments: Pat Grimes, local resident and author, salvaged a fragment in 1974.
All that remains, however, are 79 coins, which he keeps in a cup by his front door.
Damaged edges of coins: 26 of the 79 coins were bent/crooked. 3 coins bore neat holes,
suggesting that they were worn as charms.
Denomination Quantity Dates
Halfpenny 25 1920, 1939, 1940, 1940,
1941, 1941, 1943, 1943,
1943, 1945, 1949, 1952,
1958, 1958, 1958, 1959,
1960, 1960, 1963, 1963,
1965, 1965, 1967, 1967
One Penny
(pre-decimalisation)
44 1899, 1901, 1903, 1906,
1907, 1909, 1910, 1911,
1911, 1913, 1915, 1916,
1917, 1917, 1917, 1918,
1919, 1919, 1919, 1919,
1920, 1920, 1920, 1921,
394
1921, 1921, 1921, 1927,
1929, 1935, 1936, 1937,
1938, 1938, 1939, 1944,
1945, 1947, 1967, 1967,
1967, 1967
Shilling 1 1948
2p (post-decimalisation) 1 1971
Eire 1p 5 1941, 1942, 1963, 1963
Eire 2p 2 1942, 1943
Foreign coinage 1 American cent 1964
Unknown 0 -
1 1%
6 8%
16 22%
6 8%
9 11%
15 20%
7 10%
13 18%
1 1%
Dates of Coins from Ardboe 1 Mode = 1967
Median = 1940
Mean = 1937
25 32%
44 56%
1 1%
1 1%
5 6% 2
3% 1
1%
Halfpenny One Penny (pre-dec.)
Shilling 2p (post-dec.)
Eire 1p Eire 2p Foreign coinage
Denominations of Coins from Ardboe 1
Total = 79
395
ARDBOE 2
Case-study date: 1974 - 1997
Condition: Living tree
Species: Beech (Fagus)
Associated tools: Rocks were apparently used for hammering the coins and pins in (Rose
Ryan, Muintirevlin Historical Society, pers. comm. 07/04/2012)
Ease of access: Originally very easy. In the corner of the graveyard, easy to reach.
Grid reference: NW 09283 34263 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.61956
Longitude: -6.50520 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 85ft
REMAINING SECTIONS OF ARDBOE 2:
SECTION 1
A section was salvaged by the Muintirevlin Historical Society and stored at Coyle’s Cottage.
Height: 21cm
Girth: 252cm
Diameter: 73cm
Coins: 330
Other objects inserted: 3 nails, 1 screw, 2 unidentifiable metal objects
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinal. Roughly 1/3 are bowed
Denomination Quantity Dates
Halfpenny 3 1956, 1962, 1966
One penny
(pre-decimalisation)
4 1912, 1922, 1964, 1970
Eire 1p 2 1945, 1947
1p (post-decimalisation) 213 1975, 1990
2p 222 1981, 1986, 1986, 1990,
1991
5p 8 Unknown
10p 5 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 4 Unknown
Unknown 59 Unknown
396
SECTION 2
A section was salvaged by the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum.
Length: 45cm
Girth: 82cm
Coins: 69
Other objects inserted: None
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinal
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 27 1990
2p 30 1987, 1989, 1994
5p 7 Unknown
10p 1 Unknown
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 3 Unknown
1 5%
1 5%
0
2 10%
1 5%
4 20%
1 5%
8 40%
2 10%
Dates of Coins from Ardboe 2
Mode = 1990
Median = 1975
Mean = 1970
397
2.9 – Ardmaddy Case-Study
Case-study name: Ardmaddy (AM)
Date of fieldwork: 06/09/2012 and 02/09/2013-05/09/2013
Case-study location: Situated on a path up the Bealach Gaoithe above Ardmaddy Castle,
Argyll, Scotland
Case-study date (i.e. when did it become a ‘coin-tree?): Charles Struthers: ‘We have no real
idea how old the tree is – but Hawthorns live for about 80 years and therefore I would
presume that the tree is not much older than that. When I was a boy here in the 50’s the tree
was prolific and could well have been 20-30 years old then.’ (pers. comm. 21/12/2011). A
historical map shows ‘The Wishing Tree’ in the 1970s. It fell during the 1990s, and Charles
Struthers erected an enclosure around it shortly afterwards.
The track itself was probably established between 1830s-1880s – it does not appear on an
1832 map but does appear on an 1883 map
Case-study environment: Situated beside a rough track on a hillside, known as the ‘Windy
Pass’
Land ownership: Ardmaddy Estate
3 0.5%
4 0.7%
2 0.3%
240 41%
252 43%
15 2.5%
6 1%
1 0.2%
4 0.7%
62 11%
Denominations of Coins from Ardboe 2
Total = 589
398
Attractions nearby: Ardmaddy Castle
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 2.
4 fragments have broken away from the primary coin-tree, AM1, measuring: 1.54m in length
(Girth: 75cm); 60cm in length (too decayed to ascertain a Girth); 1.6m in length (Girth:
50cm); and 87cm in length (Girth: 30cm). Together with the main body of the tree (data
below), these fragments shall be considered as one whole coin-tree.
Additionally, a young offshoot, which stands directly over AM1, has become a rag-tree, its
branches affixed with 21 white ribbons, 1 red ribbon, 1 piece of blue string. There is a pink
ribbon on the ground.
There are 3 branches stored at Ardmaddy Castle.
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-trees(s): According to Canmore, the
Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, there are no
historical sites or monuments within 500 metres of the coin-tree (Accessed 16/09/2012)
400
AM1
Condition: Log
Species: Hawthorn, Crataegus
Associated tools: Three possible tools of percussion: 8x7x21cm; 13x15x8cm; 16x7x7cm
Proximity to path: 1.2m east of path
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Easily accessible from the path, requiring only a climb over a stile
Orientation: North to south
Grid reference: NM 78880 15191 (±12ft)
Latitude: 56.27758 Longitude: -5.57349 (±12ft)
Elevation: 528ft
Length: 4.3m Girth: 1.08m
Coins: 1592
Discernible patterning of coins: Predominantly longitudinally distributed. However, many
are simply resting loosely on top of bole. Many damaged through percussion, as well as
several having been deliberately bent over.
Other notable features: A white shell has been left atop the main bole. Many coins showing
signs of verdigrease, making them appear older than they actually are. Two horseshoes – one
modern, the other older – have been inserted into the main fork of the tree, and the older one
appears to have been swallowed slightly by the bark (indicating how long it has been there).
Beneath the modern horseshoe, a chewing-gum wrapper has been embedded. Also a note
written on the reverse of a Czech Republic pharmacy receipt, dated to 13.12.12, is neatly
folded and held in place on the coin-tree via some coins: opening with ‘Dear Wishing Tree’,
the depositor wishes for romance (a long list of the desired qualities of a partner are given).
Denomination Quantity Dates
Pre-decimalisation one
penny
90 196-, 1962, 1962, 1962, 1965, 1965, 1966,
1967, 1967
Shilling 2 1958
1p 688 1971, 1971, 1979, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1994,
1994, 1995, 1998, 1998, 1998, 1998, 1999,
20--, 2000, 2001, 2001, 2002, 2002, 2003,
2003, 2004, 2004, 2005, 2006, 8 x post-2008
(coat-of-arms design), 2009, 2011, 2011
2p 640 1971, 1971, 1979, 1979, 1980, 1980, 1981,
1986, 1986, 1987, 1987, 1987, 1988, 1989,
1989, 1989, 1989, 1990, 1990, 1992, 1993,
1994, 1996, 1997, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2001, 2001,
2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2002, 2002, 2002,
2002, 2004, 2004, 2004, 2004, 2005, 2005,
2005, 2007, 2007, 2007, 6 x post-2008
401
(coat-of-arms design), 2008, 2008
5p 44 1990, 1990, 1992, 1995, 1999, 2001, 2002,
2003, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2006, 2013
10p 53 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1995, 1997, 1997,
1997, 1999, 1999, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002,
2002, 2003, 2005, 2005, post-2008 (coat-of-
arms design)
20p 26 198-, 1982, 1982, 1990, 1993, 1998, 2002,
2006
50p 5 1997, 1998
£1 1 1983
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 5 1 euro cent, 1 euro cent, 5 euro cents 2006,
20 euro cent 2002, 2 South African rand
199-, 1 French franc (pre-2002)
Unknown 39 Unknown
AM2
Condition: Living
Species: Beech, Betula
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 436cm south-east of track
Class of decay: na
Ease of access: Easily accessible from the track
Visibility: Not obvious as a coin-tree from the track
Grid reference: NM 79095 15712 (±19ft)
Latitude: 56.28232 Longitude: -5.57046 (±16ft)
Elevation: 515ft
Girth: 224cm
Coins: 103
Discernible patterning of coins: Predominantly on north-west side of tree, facing the track.
Many damaged through percussion, as well as several having been deliberately bent over.
Highest coin: 273cm, 1p
Lowest coin: 12cm, 10p 2001
Other notable features: Some appear to have been there for so long that the bark has
swallowed them, leaving only slivers of blue-green metal visible.
Denomination Quantity Dates
Pre-decimalisation 1 2 Unknown
402
penny
Pre-1990 5p 1 Pre-1990
1p 40 1987, 1990, 1990, post-2008
2p 30 1981
5p 10 2009
10p 12 2001
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 1 French franc
Unknown 6 Unknown
AM Branch 1
Location: Propped up on a shelf above a sink in the Games Room of Ardmaddy Castle,
touching Branch 2
Length: 139cm Girth: 43cm
Coins: 45
Denomination Quantity Dates
Pre-decimalisation 1
penny
4 Unknown
1p 19 Unknown
2p 18 1979, 1981
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 4 Unknown
AM Branch 2
Location: Propped up on a shelf above a sink in the Games Room of Ardmaddy Castle,
touching Branch 1
Length: 80cm Girth: 29cm
Coins: 42
Denomination Quantity Dates
Pre-decimalisation 1
penny
3 Unknown
1p 20 Unknown
403
2p 16 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 1 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 2 Unknown
Box in front of AM Branches 1 and 2
Coins: 83
Denomination Quantity Dates
Pre-decimalisation 1
penny
0 -
1p 31 1971, 1971, 1980, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1989,
1989, 1990, 1993, 1996, 1996, 1999, 2000,
2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2004, 2004, 2005,
2006, 2007, 2008, 2008, 2009, 2009, 2009,
2010, 2010, 2010
2p 32 1971, 1971, 1977, 1980, 1980, 1986, 1989,
1989, 1989, 1989, 1990, 1994, 1994, 1998,
1998, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2001, 2002,
2004, 2004, 2004, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2007,
2010
5p 6 1990, 1991, 1991, 1992, 1994, 2005
10p 8 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 2005,
2006
20p 2 1982, 2007
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 4 5 euro cents 2006, 5 Canadian cents, Jersey
1p 1986, United Arab Emirates
Unknown 0 -
AM Branch 3
Location: Outside the front door of Ardmaddy Castle amidst other decorative ‘curiosities’
Length: 48cm Girth: 54cm
Coins: 23
404
Denomination Quantity Dates
Pre-decimalisation 1
penny
18 1932
Halfpenny 1 Unknown
1p 1 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 3 Unknown
1 0.5% 0
1 0.5%
7 3%
15 7%
39 18%
69 32%
86 39%
1 0.5%
Dates of Coins at Ardmaddy
117 6% 1
0.05% 2
0.1%
799 42% 736
39%
61 3%
74 4%
29 2%
5 0.3%
1 0.05% 0
10 0.5%
54 3%
Denominations of Coins at Ardmaddy
Total = 1889
Mode = 2001
Median = 1998
Mean = 1995
405
2.10 – Arnside Knott Case-Study
Case-study name: Arnside Knott (AK)
Date of fieldwork: 20/05/2012
Case-study location: Arnside, Cumbria, England
Case-study date: 2000s (pers. comm. Stephen Bradley, Ranger of South & East Cumbria
and Morecombe Bay, 04/05/2012).
Case-study environment: It is at an elevation of 607ft, close to the 655ft summit of Arnside
Knott, Britain’s smallest ‘Marilyn’ (a hill within the British Isles with a relative height of at
least 492ft)
Land ownership: The National Trust
Attractions nearby: The summit of Arnside Knott
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 1 coin-tree, consisting of 2 trees knotted together
The history of the Knotted Trees: These two larches (Lariz) are both branchless and dead,
but they are still rooted in place and are still firmly knotted together, with one tree curving
towards the other, forming a ‘h’ shape. They are known locally as the ‘Knotted Trees’, and it
is believed that the hill, Arnside Knott, derives its name from them. They have stood close to
the summit of Arnside Knott for roughly 150 years (pers. comm. Stephen Bradley,
04/05/2012). They were knotted together at some point during Victorian times (Evans 1986:
100), but why and by whom is unknown.
406
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-tree:
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Arnside Tower 1 Monument Arnside,
Cumbria Monument No.
(SD 47 NE 12)
Medieval/post-medieval tower
house, probably built in the 15th
century, visible as a ruined
building on aerial photographs.
Source: PastScape
Boundary
Stone
2 Monument Arnside,
Cumbria Monument No.
1002470
Post-medieval boundary stone
incorporated in the field wall
adjacent to the road.
Source: PastScape
Quarry 3 Monument Arnside,
Cumbria Monument No.
1002527
Post-medieval quarry, possible
mineral workings.
Source: PastScape
Ironstone
workings
4 Monument Arnside,
Cumbria Monument No.
1002531
Possible post-medieval
ironstone extraction site.
Source: PastScape
Charcoal 5 Monument Arnside,
Cumbria Monument No.
1002553
Four post-medieval charcoal
burning platforms.
Source: PastScape
Terraced
platform
6 Monument Arnside,
Cumbria Monument No.
1002600
Very large terraced platform.
Source: PastScape
Limestone
quarry
7 Monument Arnside,
Cumbria Monument No.
1002607
A circular depression,
measuring 6m across and 0.5m
deep, with an associated bank,
probably a post-medieval
quarry and spoil heap.
Source: PastScape
Ridge and
furrow
8 Monument Arnside,
Cumbria Monument No.
1487365
Post-medieval ridge and furrow,
visible as earthworks on aerial
photography.
Source: PastScape
Quarries 9 Monument Arnside,
Cumbria Monument No.
1487379
Two post-medieval quarries,
visible as earthworks on aerial
photography.
Source: PastScape
Source: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/advanced_search.aspx (Accessed 11/05/2012)
407
AK1
Condition: Dead but still standing
Species: Larch (Larix)
Associated tools: It is beside a scree path and so there are many rocks nearby. Four,
however, were in very close proximity to the tree and were large enough to have been used as
percussion tools: a jagged and minimally abraded limestone ‘hammer rock’, 6 x 5 x 3cm; a
rectangular and minimally abraded limestone ‘hammer rock’, 7 x 4 x 2cm; a rectangular and
minimally abraded limestone ‘hammer rock’, 7 x 5 x 1cm; and a square limestone ‘hammer
rock’ with no visible damage, 8 x 6 x 2cm.
Proximity to path: 747cm north-north-west of a main path leading to the summit of Arnside
Knott
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible from the path and highly visible, although the coins
themselves are not visible from the path.
Latitude: 54.18982 Longitude: 2.83687
Elevation: 607ft
Height: 365cm Girth of bole 1: 70cm Girth of bole 2: 50cm
Highest coin: A 1p inserted into the arch of the two twisted boles at a height of 201cm, just
reachable.
408
Grid reference: SD 45491 77439 ±11ft
Coins: 79
Discernible patterning of coins: The majority of them were inserted into longitudinal pre-
existing cracks in the boles. One 10p was found on the ground beside the coin-tree, obviously
having been dislodged.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 32 1984, 199?, 1996, 1997, 2000, 2003, 2003,
2006, 2006, 2007, post-2008 (coat of arms
design), 2010, 2011
2p 24 1981, 1990, 1992, 1992, 2000, 2001, 2006,
2009
5p 9 2004, post-2008 x 2 (coat of arms design)
10p 11 2000, 2000, post-2008 (coat of arms design)
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 United Arab Emirates (denomination
unknown)
Unknown 2 Unknown
0
3 14%
8 38%
9 43%
1 5%
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-Present
The Dates of the Coins at Arnside Knott
Mode: 2000
Median: 2000
Mean: 2000
32 40% 24
30%
9 11%
11 14% 1
1% 0 0 0
1 1%
2 2%
The Denominations of the Coins at Arnside Knott
Left: The Knotted Trees
of Arnside Knott. Mode: 2000
Median: 2000
Mean: 2000
Total = 80
409
2.11 – Becky Falls Case-Study
Case-study name: Becky Falls (BF)
Date of fieldwork: 31/03/2013
Case-study location: Becky Falls, Dartmoor, Devon, England
Case-study date (i.e. when did it become a ‘coin-tree?): Prior to 2008 (pers. comm. Jeremy
Harte, 11/09/2012)
Case-study environment: Riverside woodland
Land ownership: Dartmoor National Park
Attractions nearby: Becky Falls
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 16
410
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-trees(s):
Title Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Monument
No. 444978
Monument Manaton,
Teignbridge,
Devon
Monument
No. 444978
Site of alleged stone row and cairn of
uncertain date
Source: PastScape
Monument
No. 445619
Monument Manaton,
Teignbridge,
Devon
Monument
No. 445619
Deserted Medieval site, with building and
enclosure, known as West Beckham
Source: PastScape
Source: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/advanced_search.aspx (Accessed 16/05/2013)
412
CLUSTER 1
BF1
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: No obvious hammer rocks
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south of path
Proximity to BF2: Touching
Proximity to BF3: 68cm
Proximity to BF4: 208cm
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: E-W
Grid reference: SX 76374 79968 (±16ft)
Latitude: 50.60611 Longitude: -3.74862 (±16ft)
Elevation: 662ft
Length: 420cm Girth BF1a: 64cm Girth BF1b: 73cm
Coins: 3208
Discernible patterning of coins: Many are longitudinal but many are just placed on top of
log rather than inserted. Some signs of percussion.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1598 1971, 1971, 1971, 1971, 1971, 1973, 1973, 1973, 1974, 1979,
1979, 1979, 1979, 1981, 1981, 1981, 1981, 1981, 1983, 1985,
1985, 1986, 1986, 1986, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1989, 1989, 1989,
1990, 1990, 1990, 1991, 1991, 1991, 1993, 1993, 1993, 1994,
1996, 1996, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1997,
1997, 1998, 1998, 1999, 1999, 1999, 1999, 200-, 200-, 200-,
2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2001, 2001, 2001,
2001, 2002, 2002, 2002, 2002, 2002, 2002, 2003, 2003, 2003,
2003, 2004, 2004, 2004, 2004, 2004, 2005, 2005, 2006, 2006,
2006, 2007, 2007, 2007, 2007, 2007, 2007, 2007, 2008, 2008,
2008, 2008, 2008, 45xpost-2008, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2009,
2009, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2010,
2010, 201-, 2011, 2011, 2011, 2011, 2011, 2012, 2012, 2012
2p 1169 1971, 1971, 1971, 1971, 1971, 1971, 1971, 1975, 1977, 1977,
1978, 1979, 1979, 1979, 1981, 1981, 1981, 1985, 1985, 1986,
1986, 1986, 1986, 1988, 1988, 1988, 1989, 1989, 1989, 1990,
1990, 1990, 1990, 1990, 1991, 1991, 1991, 1992, 1992, 1993,
1994, 1995, 1995, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1997,
1997, 1998, 1998, 1998, 1999, 1999, 1999, 1999, 20--, 200-,
2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2002,
413
2002, 2002, 2002, 2002, 2003, 2003, 2003, 2004, 2004, 2004,
2004, 2004, 2005, 2005, 2005, 2005, 2006, 2006, 2006, 2006,
2007, 2007, 2007, 2007, 2007, 2007, 2008, 2008, 2008, 2008,
39xpost-2008, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2009,
2010, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2010, 201-, 2011, 2011, 2011,
2011, 2012, 2012
5p 222 1989, 1990, 1990, 1990, 1992, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1998,
1999, 1999, 20--, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2002,
2004, 2007, 2007, 2008, 2008, 12xpost-2008, 2009, 2010,
2010, 2010, 2012, 2012
10p 163 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1996, 1996, 1997, 2000,
2000, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2002, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2006, 2007,
2008, 5xpost-2008, 2010, 2010, 2011, 2011, 2011
20p 42 1985, 1988, 1988, 1992, 2006, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2010,
2011, 2011
50p 2 Post-2008
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign
currency
3 1 euro, 1 euro cent, 1 American cent
Unknown 9 Unknown
Coins on floor around BF1: 143
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 63 1974, 1979, 1979, 1981, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1990, 1990,
1991, 1991, 1991, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1997,
1998, 1999, 1999, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2001, 2001, 2002, 2002,
2002, 2004, 2004, 2005, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2007, 2007, 2007,
2008, 2008, 2008, 2008, 2008, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2009,
2009, 2009, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2011,
2011
2p 58 1971, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1986, 1986, 1989, 1990, 1990, 1990,
1991, 1991, 1995, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1998, 1998,
1998, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2001, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2003, 2004,
2004, 2006, 2007, 2007, 2007, 2007, 2008, 2008, 2008, 2008,
2009, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2010, 2010, 2010,
2010, 2010, 2010, 2011, 2012
5p 12 1992, 1992, 1995, 1997, 1997, 2001, 2001, 2002, 2006, 2009,
2010, 2012
10p 8 1992, 1997, 1997, 2000, 2001, 2008, 2010, 2012
20p 2 1982, 2000
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign
currency
0 -
Unknown 0 -
414
BF2
Condition: Living
Species: Birch (Betula)
Associated tools: No
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south of path
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SX 76374 79968 (±16ft)
Latitude: 50.60611 Longitude: -3.74862 (±16ft)
Elevation: 662ft
Girth BF2a: 24cm Girth BF2b: 11cm
Coins: 7
Highest coin: 183cm
Discernible patterning of coins: Random.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 4 1 x post-2008
2p 1 1992
5p 2 1 x post-2008
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
BF3
Condition: Wooden information post
Species: n/a
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south of path
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: n/a
Grid Reference: SX 76374 79968 (±16ft)
Latitude: 50.60611 Longitude: -3.74862 (±16ft)
415
Elevation: 662ft
Height: 120cm
Coins: 5
Discernible patterning of coins: Inserted longitudinally up the post in one line.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 4 200-, 2003
2p 0 -
5p 1 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
BF4
Condition: Living
Species: Oak (Quercus)
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, north of path
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SX 76374 79968 (±16ft)
Latitude: 50.60611 Longitude: -3.74862 (±16ft)
Elevation: 662ft
Girth: 197cm
Coins: 37
Highest coin: 190cm
Discernible patterning of coins: Random.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 16 2001, 2005, 4 x post-2008, 2011
2p 14 1981, 1993, 1994, 1994, 2000, 2007, post-
2008
5p 4 Unknown
10p 3 1992, 2008
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
416
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
BF5
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south of path
Proximity to BF4: 627cm
Proximity to BF6: 156cm
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: SE-NW
Grid reference: SX 76374 79968 (±16ft)
Latitude: 50.60611 Longitude: -3.74862 (±16ft)
Elevation: 662ft
Length: 86cm Girth: 128cm
Coins: 6
Discernible patterning of coins: Random.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 3 2000, 2006
2p 2 1979
5p 1 2007
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
BF6
Condition: Stump (carved like a chair)
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: One likely hammer rock: 6.5x6x4.5cm, with signs of abrasion
417
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, north of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: n/a
Grid reference: SX 76374 79968 (±16ft)
Latitude: 50.60611 Longitude: -3.74862 (±16ft)
Elevation: 662ft
Height: 80cm Girth: 152cm
Coins: 402
Discernible patterning of coins: Random
Other notable features: Many coins placed on top loosely.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 222 1971, 1971, 1974, 1975, 1975, 1980, 1980,
1981, 1986, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1990, 1991,
1992, 1993, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998,
1998, 1999, 1999, 1999, 1999, 200-, 200-,
2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2001,
2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2002, 2002, 2002,
2002, 2003, 2004, 2004, 2004, 2004, 2004,
2006, 2006, 2007, 2007, 2007, 2007, 2008,
2008, 2008, 2008, 2008, 19xpost-2008,
2009, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2010, 2010, 2010,
2010, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2011, 2011,
2011, 2011, 2011, 2011
2p 118 1971, 1971, 1971, 1971, 1975, 1975, 1980,
1980, 1981, 1981, 1987, 1987, 1988, 1988,
1989, 1990, 1990, 1994, 1994, 1995, 1996,
1996, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1998,
1998, 1999, 1999, 1999, 1999, 2000, 2000,
2000, 2000, 2000, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001,
2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2002, 2003,
2003, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2005, 2006, 2007,
18xpost-2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2012
5p 36 1990, 1995, 1998, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000,
2000, 2000, 2001, 2001, 2004, 2005, 2006,
1xpost-2008, 2010, 2012, 2012, 2012
10p 16 1992, 1992, 1997, 2000, 2005, 2005, 2 x
post-2008, 2009, 2009
20p 6 2007
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 4 1 euro cent, 5 euro cents, American cent
418
1978, unknown foreign coin
Unknown 0 -
Coins on ground around BF6: 19
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 12 1981, 1990, 1992, 1992, 1995, 1997, 2000,
2003, 2004, 2005, 2005, 2007
2p 7 1979, 1997, 2001, 2002, 2007, 2007, 2010
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
BF7
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly south of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: N-S
Grid reference: SX 76374 79968 (±16ft)
Latitude: 50.60611 Longitude: -3.74862 (±16ft)
Elevation: 662ft
Length: 537cm Girth: 72cm
Height from path: 37cm
Coins: 21
Discernible patterning of coins: In log end.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 11 2003, 2008, 2012
2p 4 1997, 2012
5p 4 1991, 2003
10p 2 2000
419
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
BF8
Condition: Living tree
Species: Beech (Fagus)
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly south of path
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SX 76374 79968 (±21ft)
Latitude: 50.60626 Longitude: -3.74881 (±23ft)
Elevation: 666ft
Girth: 74cm
Coins: 8
Discernible patterning of coins: Random
Other notable features: Graffiti: ‘V’, ‘F’, ‘NI’, ‘BC 4 HS’
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 5 1986
2p 3 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
BF9
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly north of path
420
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SX 76333 80001 (±18ft)
Latitude: 50.60651 Longitude: -3.74911 (±24ft)
Elevation: 664ft
Height: 106cm Girth: 118cm
Coins: 4
Discernible patterning of coins: Random.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 2 1998
2p 2 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
CLUSTER 2
BF10
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly north of path
Proximity to BF11: 306cm
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: N-S
Grid reference: SX 76290 80006 (±17ft)
Latitude: 50.60651 Longitude: -3.74963 (±17ft)
Elevation: 677ft
Length: 720cm Girth: 40cm
Coins: 3
421
Discernible patterning of coins: Random
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 1 Unknown
5p 1 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
CLUSTER 2
BF11
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly north-east of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: W-E
Grid reference: SX 76290 80006 (±17ft)
Latitude: 50.60651 Longitude: -3.74963 (±17ft)
Elevation: 677ft
Length: 1560cm Girth: 121cm
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: In log end
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 1 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
422
STAND-ALONE
BF12
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly north-east of path
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: E-W
Grid reference: SX 76278 80012 (±22ft)
Latitude: 50.60660 Longitude: -3.74991 (±22ft)
Elevation: 680ft
Length: 78cm Girth: 39cm
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: Placed on top of log on west end
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 1 1989
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
STAND-ALONE
BF13
Condition: Uprooted stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly north of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
423
Orientation: NE-SW
Grid reference: SX 76278 80012 (±22ft)
Latitude: 50.60660 Longitude: -3.74991 (±22ft)
Elevation: 680ft
Height from path: 123cm
Length: 496cm
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: Lodged loosely in the roots
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 2 1977, 1994
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
CLUSTER 3
BF14
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 140cm south-east of path
Proximity to river: 486cm north-west of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SX 76186 80401 (±22ft)
Latitude: 50.60686 Longitude: -3.75114 (±22ft)
Elevation: 683ft
Height: 58cm Girth: 135cm
Coins: 4
Discernible patterning of coins: On top of stump
424
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 3 1998, post-2008
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
CLUSTER 3
BF15
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly north-west of path
Proximity to river: Directly south-east of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SX 76186 80401 (±22ft)
Latitude: 50.60686 Longitude: -3.75114 (±22ft)
Elevation: 683ft
Height: 127cm Girth: 276cm
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: On top of stump
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 2 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
425
STAND-ALONE
BF16
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 56cm south-west of path
Proximity to river: 540cm north-east of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: E-W
Grid reference: SX 76155 80051 (±19ft)
Latitude: 50.60691 Longitude: -3.75160 (±19ft)
Elevation: 697ft
Length: 130cm Girth: 228cm
Coins: 10
Discernible patterning of coins: On top of stump
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 6 2008, 2 x post-2008
2p 3 2001
5p 1 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
426
2.12 – Bolton Abbey Case-Study
Case-study name: Bolton Abbey
Date of fieldwork: 26/02/2012
Case-study location: Bolton Abbey Estate, Yorkshire, England
Case-study date (i.e. when did it become a ‘coin-tree?): c.1991-1996 (pers. comm. Moira
Smith, Visitor’s Manager, 11/11/2011)
Case-study environment: Woodland
Land ownership: Bolton Abbey Estate
53 8%
82 13%
174 27%
289 45%
42 7%
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-Present
Dates of Coins at Becky Falls
1949 50%
1389 36%
285 7%
192 5%
51 1.3%
2 0.05% 0 0
7 0.18%
9 0.23%
Denominations of Coins at Becky Falls
Mode = 2000
Median = 2001
Mean = 1999
Total = 3884
428
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-trees(s):
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Monument
No. 558355
1 Monument Bolton Abbey,
Craven, North
Yorkshire
Monument No.
558355
Medieval fishpond/tanning
pit.
Source: PastScape
Monument
No.
1166612
2 Monument Bolton Abbey,
Craven, North
Yorkshire
Monument No.
1166612
The remains of the guest
house to Bolton Priory, 1400-
1499. The guest house was
located to the south west of
the cloister and only a
fireplace and chimney stack
remain as standing ruins.
Scheduled and Listed Grade
II.
Source: PastScape
Monument
No.
1168076
3 Monument Bolton Abbey,
Craven, North
Yorkshire
Monument No.
1168076
The remains of a medieval
reservoir on the hillside to the
west of Bolton Priory, 1155-
1539.
Source: PastScape
Monument
No.
1367083
4 Monument Bolton Abbey,
Craven, North
Yorkshire
Monument No.
1367083
Numerous Medieval
earthworks within the
precinct of Bolton Priory are
visible on air photographs.
9These features include
boundary banks and ditches,
429
terraced ground, pits and
mounds, and a small area of
Medieval earthwork ridge and
furrow.
Source: PastScape
Bolton
Priory
5 Monument Bolton Abbey,
Craven, North
Yorkshire
Monument No.
(SE 05 SE 1)
Medieval Augustinian
monastery, founded in 1155.
Source: PastScape
Great Barn 6 Monument Bolton Abbey,
Craven, North
Yorkshire
Monument No.
(SE 05 SE
113)
A medieval tithe barn to
Bolton Priory, situated to the
south west of the monastic
precinct in a barnyard
complex.
Source: PastScape
The Old
Rectory
7 Monument Bolton Abbey,
Craven, North
Yorkshire
Monument No.
(SE 95 SE
115)
The extant remains of the
infirmary to Bolton Priory,
dating to the 15th century.
Source: PastScape
Land at
Bolton Hall
8 Site Bolton Abbey,
Craven, North
Yorkshire
Depositor ID:
1593516
Monitoring of groundworks
for new gates recorded a
cobbled surface and medieval
finds in front of Bolton Hall.
Source: NMR Excavation
Index
Housekeep
er’s Flat
9 Site Bolton Abbey,
Craven, North
Yorkshire
Depositor ID:
1331046
Post-medieval site.
Source: NMR Excavation
Index
Bolton
Abbey Hall
10 Monument Bolton Abbey,
Craven, North
Yorkshire
Monument No.
(SE 05 SE 3)
Post medieval country house,
1700-1843, and medieval
gatehouse, 1300-1399.
Source: PastScape
Monument
No. 558439
11 Monument Bolton Abbey,
Craven, North
Yorkshire
Monument No.
558439
Post-medieval fishpond,
1540-1901.
Source: PastScape
Monument
No. 558436
12 Monument Bolton Abbey,
Craven, North
Yorkshire
Monument No.
558436
Post-medieval pound, 1854.
Source: PastScape
Bolton
Abbey
13 Site Bolton Abbey,
Craven, North
Yorkshire
Depositor ID:
1024547
Service trench across
medieval and post medieval
churchyard, observed some
time between 1970 and 1990.
Source: NMR Excavation
Index
Monument
No.
1367099
14 Monument Beamsley,
Craven, North
Yorkshire
Monument No.
1367099
A mound of uncertain date is
visible as an earthwork on air
photographs. This feature is
8.6m in diameter.
Source: PastScape
Source: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/advanced_search.aspx (Accessed 24/01/2012)
431
CLUSTER 1
BA1
Condition: Decayed fragment. Poor condition.
Species: Unknown
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside the main path
Proximity to BA2: 32cm east of it
Proximity to Case-Study BA3: 33cm east of it
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Very easy
Grid reference: SE 07923 54556 (± 10 ft)
Latitude: 53.98705 Longitude: 1.88066
Elevation: 382ft
Length: 63cm Girth: 61cm
Coins: 28
Discernible patterning of coins: Random
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 10 Unknown
432
2p 9 Unknown
5p 1 Unknown
10p 1 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 Canadian coin (denomination
unknown)
Unknown 6 Unknown
BA2
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside the main path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Very easy
Grid reference: SE 07923 54556 (± 10 ft)
Latitude: 53.98705 Longitude: 1.88066
Elevation: 382ft
Length: 50cm Girth: 249cm
Coins: 92
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinal
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 40 1993, 20--, 2004
2p 32 1990, 2000
5p 1 Unknown
10p 2 Unknown
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 1 American cent
Unknown 15 Unknown
433
BA3
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside the main path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Very easy
Proximity to BA1: 33cm (to the west of it)
Proximity to BA3: Touching (to the west of it)
Grid reference: SE 07923 54556 (± 10 ft)
Latitude: 53.98705 Longitude: 1.88066
Elevation: 382ft
Length: 734cm Girth: 331cm
Coins: 1985
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinal. Many show signs of percussion
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 976 1996, 1998, 1999, 1999,
200-, 200-, 2001, 2001, 2004,
2007, 2007, 2011
2p 859 1980, 1981, 1987, 1988,
1989, 1992, 1997, 2000,
2000, 2001, 2007, 2011,
2011
5p 53 Unknown
10p 32 Unknown
20p 4 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 2 1 American dime, unknown
Unknown 59 Unknown
BA4
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside the main path
434
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Difficult to access; had to climb up the side of the stump to reach the coins
Grid reference: SE 07923 545562 (± 10 ft)
Latitude: 53.98705 Longitude: 1.88066
Elevation: 382ft
Height: 192cm Girth: 387cm
Coins: 14
Discernible patterning of coins: Random
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 5 Unknown
2p 7 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 2 Unknown
CLUSTER 2
BA5
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Sandstone ‘hammer rock’, 9x12x8cm, situated on the ground between
case-studies 10.5 and 10.6
Proximity to path: Directly beside the main path
Class of decay: 2
Proximity to BA6: 1.2m
Proximity to BA7: 1.1m
Proximity to BA8: Directly over it
Proximity to BA9: Touching
Proximity to BA10: Touching
Ease of access: The path-facing side, where the coins are denser, is very easy to access; the
opposite side is much more difficult, requiring balancing on a steep slope by holding onto the
tree itself
435
Grid reference: SE 07999 54746 (± 9 ft)
Latitude: 53.98871 Longitude: 1.87941
Elevation: 378 ft
Length: 688cm Girth: 235cm
Coins: 12,603
Discernible patterning of coins: Predominantly longitudinal. Many show signs of
percussion and are bent over
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 5884
1973, 1980, 1981, 1988,
1988, 1990, 1998, 199-,
1999, 20--, 2000, 2000, 2000,
2002, 2009
2p 4325 1977, 1979, 1980, 1980,
1980, 1981, 1981, 1987,
1987, 1988, 1988, 1989, 199-
, 1994, 1994, 1996, 1996,
200-, 200-, 200-, 2000, 2000,
2000, 2002, 2003, 2004,
2007, 2011, 2011
5p 164 2006
10p 116 1997, 2000, 2008
20p 18 2000
50p 5 1998 (NHS fiftieth
anniversary)
£1 1 Unknown
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 4 Canadian coin (denomination
unknown), euro coin, Polish
5 groszy, unknown
Unknown 2086 Unknown
BA6
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Sandstone ‘hammer rock’, 9x12x8cm, situated on the ground between
case-studies BA5 and BA6
Proximity to path: Directly beside the main path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Very easy
Grid reference: SE 07999 54746 (± 9 ft)
436
Latitude: 53.98871 Longitude: 1.87941
Elevation: 378 ft
Length: 112cm Girth: 52cm
Coins: 1404
Discernible patterning of coins: Predominantly longitudinal
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 669 1988, 1998, 2000
2p 627 1978, 199-, 199-, 1991, 1997,
2000, 2001, 2005
5p 30 Unknown
10p 24 Unknown
20p 2 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 52 Unknown
BA7
Condition: Living tree
Species: Beech (Fagus)
Associated tools: Sandstone ‘hammer rock’, 9x12x8cm, situated on the ground between
case-studies 10.5 and 10.6
Proximity to path: 35cm
Ease of access: Very easy
Grid reference: SE 07999 54746 (± 9 ft)
Latitude: 53.98871 Longitude: 1.87941
Elevation: 378 ft
Girth: 48cm
Coins: 7
Discernible patterning of coins: Random
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 3 Unknown
2p 3 Unknown
5p 1 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
437
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
BA8
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Sandstone ‘hammer rock’, 9x12x8cm, situated on the ground between
case-studies 10.5 and 10.6
Proximity to path: 1.5m
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Difficult; it is situated down a steep slope.
Grid Reference: SE 07999 54746 (± 9 ft)
Latitude: 53.98871 Longitude: 1.87941
Elevation: 378 ft
Length: 361cm Girth: 44cm
Coins: 5
Discernible patterning of coins: On log end
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 3 Unknown
2p 2 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
BA9
Condition: Log (stump)
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Sandstone ‘hammer rock’, 9x12x8cm, situated on the ground between
case-studies 10.5 and 10.6
438
Proximity to path: Directly beside it
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easy, although because some of it is hidden beneath 10.5, not all of it is
accessible or visible
Grid reference: SE 07999 54746 (± 9 ft)
Latitude: 53.98871 Longitude: 1.87941
Elevation: 378 ft
Length: 48cm Girth: 150cm
Coins: 81
Discernible patterning of coins: Radial on top of stump
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 42 1990, 2003
2p 32 1985, 1992, 1992
5p 0
10p 1 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 6 Unknown
BA10
Condition: Log (half buried)
Species: Unknown
Associated tools: Sandstone ‘hammer rock’, 9x12x8cm, situated on the ground between
case-studies 10.5 and 10.6
Proximity to path: Directly beside the main path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easy, although because half of it is buried (being used as a path boundary),
not all of it is accessible or visible
Grid reference: SE 07999 54746 (± 9 ft)
Latitude: 53.98871 Longitude: 1.87941
Elevation: 378 ft
Length: 404cm
Coins: 4
439
Discernible patterning of coins: Random
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 3 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 1 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
CLUSTER 3
BA11
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 2.4m from the main path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: It is easy to reach from the path, although not particularly visible
Grid reference: SE 08004 54757 (± 9 ft)
Latitude: 53.98880 Longitude: 1.87942
Elevation: 384 ft
Length: 701cm Girth: 114cm
Coins: 10
Discernible patterning of coins: On log end
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 4 Unknown
2p 4 200-
5p 1 2009
10p 0 -
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
440
CLUSTER 4
BA12
Condition: Log (fallen stump)
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 2.4m from the main path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: It is easy to reach from the path, although not particularly visible
Grid reference: SE 08011 54786 (± 10 ft)
Latitude: 53.98906 Longitude: 1.87931
Elevation: 387 ft
Length: 152cm Girth: 82cm
Coins: 4
Discernible patterning of coins: All coins on log end, using natural cracks
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 1 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 1 Unknown
9 11%
18 21%
33 39%
20 24%
5 6%
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-Present
Dates of Coins at Bolton Abbey
Mode = 2000
Median = 1998
Mean = 1996
Key
441
2.13 – Brock Bottom Case-Study
Case-study name: Brock Bottom (BB)
Date of fieldwork: 27/06/2012
Case-study location: Brock Valley, Forest of Bowland, Lancashire, England
Case-study date: The tree was brought down by winds in 2007. It was cleared from the path
and left as an informal bench; shortly after, people began knocking coins into it (pers. comm.
Greg Robinson, Countryside Ranger, Wyre Council, 19/04/2012)
Case-study environment: Woodland and river
Land ownership: Managed by Wyre Council
Attractions nearby: Brock Bottom Mill
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 1
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-tree: According to Heritage Gateway,
there are no sites or monuments within 500 metres of BB1
7640 47%
5901 36%
252 1.6%
177 1.09%
26 0.16%
5 0.03%
1 0.006%
8 0.05%
2227 14%
1p 2p 5p 10p 20p 50p £1 Foreign currency
Unknown
Denominations of Coins at Bolton Abbey
Total = 16237
442
BB1
Condition: Log
Species: Ash (Fraxinus)
Associated tools: Many small, rounded stones on the ground around the log, but no obvious
tools of percussion
Proximity to path: Directly beside the path, south-west of path
Proximity to river: 318cm south-west of the River Brock
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible, directly beside main path
Grid reference: SD 54694 42389 ±16ft
Latitude: 53.87572 Longitude: 2.69060 ±18ft
Elevation: 259ft
Orientation: Laid out north-south
Length: 10m Girth: 181cm
Coins: 896
Discernible patterning of coins: The majority of coins on top of log, following the grain and
pre-existing cracks, longitudinal distribution. 6 coins on log-end, random distribution. Only
443
13 coins were inserted into the southern-end (root-end) of the log, where the bark is still
intact. The rest are inserted into the top of the log where the bark has fallen away. 60-70% of
coins are bent over.
Other notable features: Much graffiti has been inscribed into the bark. Examples include:
‘DAZ’; ‘RNLR’; ‘DC 4 ZW 4EVA’; ‘2011 LOMAS’; ‘LOTTIE’; ‘AKIRA’; ‘HAN 23.4.12’.
In some cases, coins have been incorporated into the graffiti – although it is unclear whether
the coins were inserted before the graffiti, after, or at the same time. There are two arrows
pointing to two different coins; one arrow has ‘E’ next to it, indicating a preoccupation with
identifying the coins as theirs?
Additionally, it is interesting to note that even though there is still plenty of space on this log,
people have still chosen to insert their coins into tight clusters; perhaps groups wanting their
coins to be clustered together?
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 399 1980, 199-, 1998, 1998, 1999, 200-, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2001,
2006, 2007, 2007, 2007, 2007, 2008, 2008, 16 x post-2008
(coat-of-arms design), 2009, 2011
2p 309 1971, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1980, 1981, 1981, 1987, 1988, 1990,
1990, 1990, 1991, 1991, 1995, 1996, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000,
2000, 2001, 2007, 2008, 2008, 14 x post-2008 (coat-of-arms
design)
5p 75 1991, 1998, 2001, 2006, 2007, 2009
10p 61 1991, 1992, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001,
2006, 2 x post-2008 (coat-of-arms design), 2009, 2009
20p 36 200-
50p 1 Unknown
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign
currency
1 5 euro cents
Unknown 14 Unknown
6 10%
7 11%
22 26%
25 41%
1 2%
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-Present
Dates of Coins at Brock Bottom
Mode = 2001
Median = 2000
444
2.14 – Claife Station Case-Study
Case-study name: Claife Station (CS)
Date of fieldwork: 04/06/2012
Case-study location: Claife Heights, western shore of Lake Windermere, Cumbria, England
Case-study date: 1-2 years (‘The one on the west shore of Windermere only started last year
I think, so it’s not really known about”, pers. comm. Sam Stalker, National Trust Ranger,
13/02/2012)
Case-study environment: Woodland
Land ownership: The National Trust
Attractions nearby: Claife Station, a Victorian viewing platform, now closed to visitors due
to safety
Observation: There are several trees along the main path up to and beyond Claife Station
which have been engraved with graffiti ; another form of ‘leaving your mark’?
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 1
399 45%
309 34%
75 8%
61 7% 36
4% 1 0.1% 0 0
1 0.1%
14 1.6%
1p 2p 5p 10p 20p 50p £1 £2 Foreign currency
Unknown
Denominations of Coins at Brock Bottom
Mean = 1997
Mode = 2001
Median = 2000
Total = 896
445
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-tree:
Title Map
No.
Location Type Reference
Number
Description
Ash
Landing
Wood
1 Ash Landing
Wood, Claife,
Hawkshead,
Cumbria
Site (SD 39 NE
32)
Woodland containing post-
medieval charcoal burning
platforms.
Source: PastScape
Monument
No.
1149331
2 Station Scar
Wood,
Hawkshead,
Cumbria
Site Monument
No.
1149331
Station Scar Wood contains at
least one post-medieval charcoal
burning platform.
Source: PastScape
Monument
No.
1149335
3 Tanner Brow,
Hawkshead,
Cumbria
Site Monument
No.
1149335
Tanner Brow, an area of woodland
containing the remains of at least
three post-medieval charcoal
burning platforms.
Source: PastScape
Bowyer’s
Fold
4 Claife,
Hawkshead,
Cumbria
Monument Monument
Number
(SD 39 NE
41)
The site of a Second World War
concrete and brick structure which
was used as a Home Guard
Observation Post with aperture at
the front overlooking Lake
Windermere and Ferry at Boywers
Fold, Far Sawrey
Source: PastScape
Claife
Station
5 Claife,
Hawkshead,
Cumbria
Monument NT
HBSMR
No: 20508
A late 18th
– late 19th
century
prospect tower.
Source: National Trust HBSMR
Domestic
waste
rubbish
6 Station Wood,
Claife Woods,
Cumbria
Monument Depositor
ID: 37180
This feature is a dump of broken
pottery and glass wares which
appear to date from the 19th
century. It is widely believed that
446
dump this refuse accumulated as a result
of events held at Claife Station and
Belle Isle House.
Source: Lake District National
Park HER
Quarry near
The Station
7 Claife,
Hawkshead,
Cumbria
Monument NT
HBSMR
No: 24633
Post-medieval quarry.
Source: National Trust HBSMR
Quarry in
Ash
Landing
Wood
8 Ash Landing
Wood, Claife
Woods,
Hawkshead,
Cumbria
Monument NT
HBSMR
No: 24818
Post-medieval slate quarry
Source: National Trust HBSMR
Stone
Bridge
9 Claife Woods,
Hawkshead,
Cumbria
Monument NT
HBSMR
No: 25244
Post-medieval stone bridge built
over a small beck.
Source: National Trust HBSMR
Source: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/advanced_search.aspx (Accessed 24/01/2012)
CS1
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Many potential hammer rocks, near an area of scree
Proximity to path: 165cm south-west of main path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible, directly beside main path
Coin-tree
with 1-100
coins
Key
447
Grid reference: SD 38691 95666 ±10ft
Latitude: 54.35284 Longitude: 2.94481 ±13ft
Height: 59cm Girth: 234cm
Elevation: 551ft
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: Both coins on top of stump, inserted a pre-existing crack
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 2 Post-2008 (coat-of-arms design)
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
2.15 – Clonenagh Case-Study
Case-study name: Clonenagh (CL)
Date of fieldwork: 04/10/2012
Case-study location: Clonenagh, Co. Laios, Republic of Ireland
Case-study date (i.e. when did it become a ‘coin-tree?): Possibly 19th
/early 20th
century
Case-study environment: Roadside of the R445, beside a graveyard
Land ownership: Public land managed by Laois County Council
Attractions nearby: The graveyard
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 1
Additional information: 2.9m to the west of the coin-tree is an information plaque, set up by
Laois County Council, who manages the land. It offers the following information about the
coin-tree, which it dubs ‘St Fintan’s Tree’:
‘This tree was planted 200 to 250 years ago, within the area of the ancient Monastery
of Clonenagh.
A well which also venerated the Saint was nearby. When the well was closed, a spring
appeared in the fork of the tree and became the focal point for “patterns” (celebrations
on the Saint’s feast day) for many years.
448
A custom developed of inserting coins into the bark of the tree, and it became known
as the “Money Tree”. Because of metallic poisoning and damage to the bark due to
this custom, the tree has now gone into decay. But a number of shoots have been
salvaged and it is hoped that these might prolong the life of the tree.
Please refrain from inserting any metal into the tree or damaging it in any way.
Saint Fintan pray for us.’
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-trees(s):
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Cross-slab 1 Cross-slab Clonenagh,
County
Westmeath
SMR No.
LA017-
003005- &
LA017-
003010 to
LA017-
003022
In an elevated area. In 1988 ten
early Christian cross-slabs,
rectangular in shape were
uncovered during the digging of
a pathway through the graveyard
(LA017-003007-) at Clonenagh.
Three are in false relief, the
remainder are simple incised
crosses. These cross-slabs have
been attached to the inner east
face of the graveyard wall in the
west quadrant of the graveyard.
Source: National Monuments
Service
Ecclesiastical
enclosure
2 Ecclesiastical
enclosure
Clonenagh,
County
SMR No.
LA017-
Hachured on the 1838 ed OS 6-
inch map. In undulating
449
Westmeath 004002- countryside. Appears as a low
mound. Enclosure depicted on
OS 6-inch map as enclosing
church site (LA017-004001-).
Source: National Monuments
Service
Graveyard 3 Graveyard Clonenagh,
County
Westmeath
SMR No.
LA017-
003008-
A number of randomly placed,
uninscribed grave-markers are
visible on top of a natural hill,
the summit of which appears to
be artificially raised as a result of
burials. This burial ground was
dedicated to St Brigit as
illustrated on Molloy's sketch of
Clonenagh from c. 1813
(Manning 1998, 186)
Source: National Monuments
Service
Cross-slab 4 Cross-slab Clonenagh,
County
Westmeath
SMR No.
LA017-
003005- &
LA017-
003010 to
LA017-
003022
In an elevated area. In 1988 ten
early Christian cross-slabs,
rectangular in shape were
uncovered during the digging of
a pathway through the graveyard
(LA017-003007-) at Clonenagh.
Three are in false relief, the
remainder are simple incised
crosses. These cross-slabs have
been attached to the inner east
face of the graveyard wall in the
west quadrant of the graveyard.
Source: National Monuments
Service
Cross-slab 5 Cross-slab Clonenagh,
County
Westmeath
SMR No.
LA017-
003005- &
LA017-
003010 to
LA017-
003022
In an elevated area. In 1988 ten
early Christian cross-slabs,
rectangular in shape were
uncovered during the digging of
a pathway through the graveyard
(LA017-003007-) at Clonenagh.
Three are in false relief, the
remainder are simple incised
crosses. These cross-slabs have
been attached to the inner east
face of the graveyard wall in the
west quadrant of the graveyard.
Source: National Monuments
Service
Graveyard 6 Graveyard Clonenagh,
County
Westmeath
SMR No.
LA017-
003007-
Graveyard contains fourteen
inscribed early Christian cross-
slabs and numerous uninscribed
grave markers, placed against the
inner face of the west wall of the
graveyard. Roughly rectangular
shaped graveyard (int. dims. 51m
N-S; 46m E-W) enclosed by a
stone wall containing post 1700
AD memorials.
450
Source: National Monuments
Service
Castle 7 Castle Clonenagh,
County
Westmeath
SMR No.
LA017-
003009-
A circular platform (diam c.
23m, H c. 2.5m) with evidence of
a surrounding fosse. No other
visible surface remains.
Source: National Monuments
Service
Church 8 Church Clonenagh,
County
Westmeath
SMR No.
LA017-
003001-
A sixteenth-century nave and
chancel church built of roughly
coursed sandstone and limestone
rubble.
Source: National Monuments
Service
Holy Tree 9 Ritual site –
a holy
tree/bush
Clonenagh,
County
Westmeath
SMR No.
LA017-
003004-
In an elevated area beside the
road. A Holy Tree, an ash,
containing water said to have
healing powers, connected with
Saint Fintan’s Well (LA017-
003003-)
Source: National Monuments
Service
Holy well 10 Ritual site Clonenagh,
County
Westmeath
SMR No.
LA017-
003003-
In an elevated area. No visible
surface remains. Now dried up.
Reference to a sacred tree
(LA017-003004-) opposite the
well (O'Hanlon and O'Leary
1907, vol. 1, 209).
Source: National Monuments
Service Source: http://webgis.archaeology.ie/NationalMonuments/FlexViewer/ (Accessed 24/01/2012)
451
CL1
Condition: Living
Species: Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus)
Associated tools: Many potential tools of percussion
Proximity to road: 4.6m north-north-west of road
Proximity to information plaque: 2.9m
Proximity to large fragment of tree (containing no coins): 4m
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SF 36598 59716 (±9ft)
Latitude: 53.01097 Longitude: -7.42003 (±9ft)
Elevation: 388
Girth: 2.74m
Coins: 92
Highest coin: 2.2m, American dollar
Discernible patterning of coins: Random distribution. 4 coins on floor close to the tree; 1
coin on the floor 5.9m from the tree.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1 Euro cent 7 Unknown
2 Euro cents 8 Unknown
5 Euro cents 19 2003, 2004
10 Euro cents 19 2003
452
20 Euro cents 9 2002
50 Euro cents 9 Unknown
1 Euro 7 1999
2 Euros 1 Unknown
Irish 1p (pre-Euro; pre-
2002)
4 1993
English 1p 2 Unknown
English 2p 2 Unknown
English 5p 0 -
English 10p 0 -
English 20p 1 Unknown
Other Foreign currency 2 1 American dollar, unknown
Unknown 2 Unknown
0 0
2 33%
4 66%
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010
Dates of Coins at Clonenagh
Mode = 2003
Median = 2002/2003
Mean = 2001
7 8%
8 9%
19 21%
19 21%
9 10%
9 10%
6 7%
1 1%
4 4% 2
2% 2
2% 0 0
1 1%
3 3%
2 2%
Denominations of Coins at Clonenagh
Total = 92
453
2.16 – Corfe Castle Case-Study
Case-study name: Corfe Castle (CC)
Date of fieldwork: 30/03/2013
Case-study location: Corfe Castle, Swanage, Dorset, England
Case-study date (i.e. when did it become a ‘coin-tree?): Approx. 2 years (pers. comm. Phil
Stuckey, Area Ranger, 16/04/2012)
Case-study environment: Streamside woodland and fields
Land ownership: The National Trust
Attractions nearby: The castle of Corfe Castle
Further information: Phil Stuckey: “Strictly speaking this isn’t a coin tree, more of a coin
bench. A couple of years ago we felled several pines that were in a dangerous condition,
placing the trunks, roughly 20’ in length, alongside the main visitor route from the car park to
the castle at Corfe Castle.” (pers. comm. Phil Stuckey, Area Ranger, 16/04/2012)
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 1
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-trees(s):
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Monument
No. 456875
1 Find spot Corfe Castle,
Purbeck, Dorset Monument No.
456875
An early Bronze Age
barbed and tanged flint
454
arrowhead, found west
of the Wareham road.
Source: PastScape
West Hill 2 Monument Corfe Castle,
Purbeck, Dorset Monument No.
(SY 98 SE 25)
A Bronze Age barrow
on West Hill, extant as
an earthwork mound 63
feet in diameter and 3.5
feet high.
Source: PastScape
Monument
No. 456833
3 Find spot Corfe Castle,
Purbeck, Dorset Monument No.
456833
Romano-British shale
plaques
Source: PastScape
Monument
No. 456840
4 Find spot Corfe Castle,
Purbeck, Dorset Monument No.
456840
Romano-British
occupation debris with
finds of pottery, coins
and a shale armlet. The
site dates from the 2nd to
the 4th century.
Source: PastScape
Monument
No. 456847
5 Find spot Corfe Castle,
Purbeck, Dorset Monument No.
456847
Roman pottery sherds
and flue tile.
Source: PastScape
Vineyard
Bridge
6 Monument Corfe Castle,
Purbeck, Dorset Monument No.
(SY 98 SE 66)
Medieval to post-
Medieval bridge, c. 15th
century.
Source: PastScape
House Corfe
Castle
7 Monument Corfe Castle,
Purbeck, Dorset Monument No.
(SY 98 SE 85)
Medieval house, late
15th century.
Source: PastScape
The Rings 8 Monument Corfe Castle,
Purbeck, Dorset Monument No.
(SY 98 SE 27)
Medieval ‘ring and
bailey’ earthworks
situated 320 yards
south-south-west of
Corfe Castle, thought to
be a siege castle of 1139
built by Stphen in an
unsuccessful attempt to
take Corfe Castle.
Source: PastScape
St Edward the
Martyr’s
Church
9 Monument Corfe Castle,
Purbeck, Dorset Monument No.
(SY 98 SE 80)
Medieval church tower
(15th century) and post-
medieval church (1860).
Source: PastScape
Monument
No. 456825
10 Monument Corfe Castle,
Purbeck, Dorset Monument No.
456825
Possible Medieval or
later fishponds and
watercourse.
Source: PastScape
Corfe Castle 11 Monument Corfe Castle,
Purbeck, Dorset Monument No.
4
Medieval castle,
consisting of keep,
angle tower, curtain
wall, gatehouse, house,
interval tower, and post-
medieval bastion
outwork.
455
Source: PastScape
Moreton’s
House Hotel
12 Monument Corfe Castle,
Purbeck, Dorset Monument No.
(SY 98 SE 28)
Post-medieval manor
house, dating to the late
16th to early 17th
century, now used as a
hotel.
Source: PastScape
West Street 13 Monument Corfe Castle,
Purbeck, Dorset Monument No.
(SY 98 SE
100)
Post-Medieval
congregational chapel,
used from 1774.
Source: PastScape
East Street 14 Monument Corfe Castle,
Purbeck, Dorset Monument No.
(SY 98 SE
101)
Post-Medieval
congregational chapel,
used from 1835.
Source: PastScape
Skew Bridge 15 Monument Corfe Castle,
Purbeck, Dorset Monument No.
(SY 98 SE
103)
Post-Medieval tramway
bridge, built in 1885 for
horse drawn ropeway
and later altered for
tramway use in early
1900s.
Source: PastScape
Boar Mill 16 Monument Corfe Castle,
Purbeck, Dorset Monument No.
(SY 98 SE
104)
Post-Medieval house
with attached former
watermill, 18th century.
Source: PastScape
Source: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/advanced_search.aspx (Accessed 16/05/2013)
456
CC1
Condition: Log
Species: Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris)
Associated tools: None – which may explain the high quantity of small coins (1p, 5p) rather
than 2ps, as they are easier to insert
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, north-north-west of path
Proximity to Corfe River: 20m north-north-west of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: SWW-NEE
Grid reference: SY 95765 82367 (±21ft)
Latitude: 50.64087 Longitude: -2.06130 (±21ft)
Elevation: 78ft
Length: 546cm Girth: 140cm
Coins: 558
Discernible patterning of coins: 15 are on log-ends but the majority are on the top of the
log, longitudinal, in pre-existing cracks. They are most densely distributed on the NEE end of
the log. Two are bent over and some show signs of percussion, but the majority do not
Other notable features: A few examples of graffiti – initials and illegible scratches
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 365 1986, 2001, 2006, 2007, 3xpost-2008, 2012
2p 33 2000, 3xpost-2008
5p 136 1997, 2004, 3xpost-2008
10p 14 Unknown
20p 6 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 2 Unknown
Unknown 2 Unknown
457
2.17 – Cragside Case-Study
Case-study name: Cragside (CR)
Date of fieldwork: 08/09/2012
Case-study location: Cragside Estate, Northumberland, England
Case-study date (i.e. when did it become a ‘coin-tree?): No older than ten years (pers.
comm. Sue Turnbull, National Trust Ranger, 27/03/2012)
Case-study environment: On a strip of grass separating a minor Cragside Estate car park
(the Dunkirk car park) from a one-way road which circles the estate.
Land ownership: The National Trust
Attractions nearby: The Victorian house and estate of Cragside
0
1 12.5%
1 12.5%
5 62.5%
1 12.5%
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-Present
Dates of Coins at Corfe Castle
365 65%
33 6%
136 24%
14 2.5%
6 1% 0 0 0
2 0.4%
2 0.4%
Denominations of Coins at Corfe Castle
Mode = n/a
Median = 2001, 2004
Mean = 2002
Total = 558
458
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 1
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-trees(s):
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Cairn,
Cragside
1 Monument Cartington,
Northumberland
NT
HBSMR
No: 10018
An undated cairn and
mound. A tumulus
marked on the OS
1:2500 (1863). Hidden
by forestry until
recently. Now in use
as a viewing platform.
An oval mound with
possible revetment of
stones.
Source: National Trust
HBSMR
Cragside
round barrow
2 Monument Cartington,
Northumberland
Monument
Number:
(NU 00 SE
45)
A Bronze Age round
barrow situated in a
prominent position on
a gentle southwest
slope on the top of a
ridge, which falls
away very steeply to
the south and west.
Field investigations
carried out in 1957 and
1971 failed to locate
459
the barrow due to
dense forest and
undergrowth.
Source: PastScape
Little Mill 3 Monument Rothbury,
Northumberland
Monument
Number:
(NU 00 SE
81)
Site of a small, post-
medieval water-
powered corn mill,
which was recorded
as derelict in 1964.
Source: PastScape
Shepherd’s
Hut
4 Monument Cartington,
Northumberland
NT
HBSMR
No: 10055
A ruined, post-
medieval building,
known as the
'Shepherd's Hut'.
Coursed sandstone
blocks, no roof.
Restored by the Trust.
Source: National Trust
HBSMR Source: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/advanced_search.aspx (Accessed 16/09/2012)
CR1
Condition: Living
Species: Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga)
Associated tools: None (coins easily inserted into cracks in bark)
460
Proximity to road: 3m south-west of road
Proximity to car park: Directly beside car park, north-east of it
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid Reference: NU 07477 01095 (±14ft)
Latitude: 55.30393 Longitude: -1.88377 (±14ft)
Elevation: 345ft
Girth: 4.35m
Coins: 6
Discernible patterning of coins: Random. Inserted into cracks in the bark.
Highest coin: 1.3m, 1p
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 4 1994, 2003, 2003
2p 0 -
5p 1 Unknown
10p 1 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
2.18 – Dovedale Case-Study
Case-study name: Dovedale (DD)
Date of fieldwork: 08/06/2012 and 01/07/2012
Case-study location: Dovedale, Derbyshire, England
Case-study date: Roughly ten years (pers. comm. Simon Nicholas, National Trust Ranger,
30/03/2012)
Case-study environment: All coin-trees beside the main path running alongside the River
Dove, through a limestone ravine
Land ownership: The National Trust
Attractions nearby: Dovedale is a popular walk
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 14
462
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-tree:
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Reynard’s
Cave
1 Site Tissington,
Derbyshire
(SK 15 SW
69)
A large cave featuring a single
chamber and a rear passage. Test
excavation in 1959 recovered
evidence of Neolithic, Roman
and Medieval activity. Finds
listed in the excavation report
include potsherds identified as
possible Peterborough Ware,
two flint scrapers which might
also be Neolithic; Romano-
British potsherds and a bronze
brooch. Some possible Iron Age
sherds have also been noted
subsequently. A number of
bone, lead and iron objects are
likely to be Medieval, although a
Romano-British date cannot be
ruled out for some of them.
Medieval potsherds were also
present. A faunal assemblage
which included cow, sheep, pig,
horse, bear and other species is
likely to be of various dates. A
Romano-British coin hoard is
reputed to have been found at
the site prior to 1926, but no
details are known.
Source: PastScape.
Newton
Grange
2 Newton
Grange,
Derbyshire
Depositor ID
631754
Bronze Age Barrow.
Source: NMR Excavation Index
Monument
No. 308269
3 Find
spot
Ilam,
Staffordshire
Monument
No. 308269
(SK 15 SW
33)
Roman coins.
Source: PastScape.
Monument
No. 605789
4 Find
spot
Thorpe,
Derbyshire
Monument
No. 605789
(SK 15 SE 42)
Roman coins.
Source: PastScape
Source: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/advanced_search.aspx (Accessed 24/01/2012)
465
CLUSTER 1
DD1
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 116cm east of path
Proximity to River Dove: 410cm east of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible, directly beside main path
Orientation: north-south
Grid reference: SK 14431 52496 ±20ft
Latitude: 53.07062 Longitude: 1.78606 ±15ft
Elevation: 565ft
Length: 12.2m Girth: 104cm
Coins: 200
Discernible patterning of coins: Most running longitudinally along the top of the log.
Roughly 10% are bent over.
Other notable features: One small silver nail, and covered in engraved graffiti
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 114 1994, 2001, 2001, 2002, 2007, 2 x post-2008
(coat-of-arms design), 2009
2p 61 1981, 1991, 2002, 2006, 2006, 2 x post-2008
(coat-of-arms design)
5p 14 Unknown
10p 6 Post-2008 (coat-of-arms design)
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 4 Unknown
DD2
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
466
Proximity to DD1: 295cm east of DD1
Proximity to path: 411cm east of path
Proximity to River Dove: 821cm east of river
Class of decay: 2
Ease of access: A slight climb from the path
Orientation: east-west
Grid reference: SK 14431 52496 ±20ft
Latitude: 53.07062 Longitude: 1.78606 ±15ft
Elevation: 565ft
Length: 356cm Girth: 152cm
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: n/a
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
DD3
Condition: Log
Species: Ash (Fraxinus)
Associated tools: None
Proximity to DD1: 550cm south of DD1
Proximity to path: 48cm east of path
Proximity to River Dove: 413cm east of river
Class of decay: 2
Ease of access: Easily accessible, directly beside main path
Orientation: east-west
Grid reference: SK 14431 52496 ±20ft
467
Latitude: 53.07062 Longitude: 1.78606 ±15ft
Elevation: 565ft
Length: 602cm Girth: 107cm
Coins: 33
Discernible patterning of coins: Primarily running longitudinally along the bark. Two bent
coins.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 16 1999, 1999
2p 11 2003, 2008
5p 5 Unknown
10p 1 1992
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
CLUSTER 2
DD4
Condition: Stump
Species: Ash (Flaxinus)
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: In middle of path
Proximity to River Dove: 556cm east of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible, in the middle of main path
Grid reference: SK 14454 52463 ±20ft
Latitude: 53.06919 Longitude: 1.78569 ±21ft
Elevation: 551ft
Height: 67cm Girth: 144cm
Coins: 14
Discernible patterning of coins: All coins on top of stump, radial distribution
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 5 Unknown
Dovedale 3 Cluster 1
468
2p 4 Unknown
5p 2 Unknown
10p 1 Unknown
20p 1 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 1 Unknown
DD5
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to DD4: 20.6m south of DD4
Proximity to path: Directly on the path
Proximity to River Dove: 430cm east of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible, on the main path
Grid reference: SK 14454 52463 ±20ft
Latitude: 53.06919 Longitude: 1.78569 ±21ft
Elevation: 551ft
Height: 62cm Girth: 172cm
Coins: 48
Discernible patterning of coins: All coins on top of stump, random distribution. 5 coins
bent
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 31 200-, post-2008 (coat-of-arms design)
2p 13 2009
5p 2 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 1 Unknown
469
DD6
Condition: Stump
Species: Ash (Fraxinus)
Associated tools: None
Proximity to DD5: `128cm south-south-west of DD5
Proximity to path: Directly beside the main path
Proximity to River Dove: 171cm east of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible, directly beside the main path
Grid reference: SK 14454 52463 ±20ft
Latitude: 53.06919 Longitude: 1.78569 ±21ft
Elevation: 551ft
Height: 68cm Girth: 163cm
Coins: 35
Discernible patterning of coins: All coins on top of stump, random distribution. 7 coins
bent
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 19 Unknown
2p 12 2008
5p 1 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 3 Unknown
STAND-ALONE
DD7
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 56cm south-east-east of main path
Proximity to River Dove: 388cm south-east-east of river
Cluster 2
470
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible, directly beside the main path
Grid reference: SK 14459 52390 ±20ft
Latitude: 53.06859 Longitude: 1.78566 ±17ft
Elevation: 541ft
Length: 425cm Girth: 119cm
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: One on the log-end, in a pre-existing crack; the other on top
of the log
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 1 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
STAND-ALONE
DD8
Condition: Stump
Species: Ash (Fraxinus)
Associated tools: Jagged limestone rock, 9 x 7 x 4cm, with minimal abrasion on edges
Proximity to path: Directly east of path
Proximity to River Dove: 452cm east of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible, directly beside the main path
Grid reference: SK 14455 52360 ±20ft
Latitude: 53.06837 Longitude: 1.78534 ±20ft
Elevation: 539ft
Height: 135cm Girth: 225cm
Coins: 497
471
Discernible patterning of coins: 309 coins on top of stump, radial distribuyion; 188 coins on
side of stump, random distribution. Roughly 60 coins bent
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 286 1976, 199-, 1998, 1998, 1999, 200-, 2000,
2000, 2001, 2001, 2002, 2002, 2003, 2004,
2006, 2007, 8 x post-2008 (coat-of-arms
design), 2009, 2010, 2011
2p 137 1971, 1978, 1986, 1991, 1998, 2004, 2006, 4
x post-2008 (coat-of-arms design)
5p 41 1990, post-2008 (coat-of-arms design)
10p 21 200-
20p 8 Unknown
50p 1 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 Unknown
Unknown 2 Unknown
CLUSTER 3
DD9
Condition: Living
Species: Ash (Fraxinus)
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly to the east of main path
Proximity to River Dove: 16m east of river
Ease of access: Easily accessible, directly beside the main path
Grid reference: SK 14488 52326 ±20ft
Latitude: 53.06797 Longitude: 1.78522 ±21ft
Elevation: 590ft
Highest coin: 212cm
Girth: 279cm
Coins: 69
Discernible patterning of coins: Primarily on the path-facing side, following the grain
longitudinally, many inserted into pre-existing fissures in the bark. 2 are twisted
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 33 2001, 2 x post-2008 (coat-of-arms design),
2010, 2011
2p 25 Unknown
472
5p 8 Unknown
10p 1 Unknown
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 1 Unknown
DD10
Condition: Stump
Species: Ash (Fraxinus)
Associated tools: Jagged limestone hammer rock, 7 x 4 x 3cm, abraded at edges
Proximity to DD9: 252cm south of DD9
Proximity to path: Directly east of main path
Proximity to River Dove: 16m east of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible, directly beside the main path
Grid reference: SK 14488 52326 ±20ft
Latitude: 53.06797 Longitude: 1.78522 ±21ft
Elevation: 590ft
Height: 105cm Girth: 208cm
Coins: 970
Discernible patterning of coins: Radial on top of stump. Roughly half are bent over.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 482 1971, 1973, 1980, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988,
1988, 1989, 199-, 1990, 1990, 1993, 1997,
1997, 1997, 1998, 1998, 1999, 20--, 200-,
2000, 2000, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2003,
2003, 2005, 2006, 2006, 2006, 10 x post-2008
(coat-of-arms design), 2008, 2008, 2010,
2010, 2011
2p 362 1979, 1980, 1981, 1981, 1986, 199-, 199-,
1990, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1997, 1997, 1999,
1999, 200-, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2001, 2003,
2003, 2006, 2007, 8 x post-2008 (coat-of-
arms design), 2008, 2009, 2009, 2011, 2011
5p 43 1990, 1992, 1992, 1999, 2003, 2009
10p 36 1995, 1995, 2000, 2002, 2002, 2004, 2 x post-
Dovedale 9
473
2008 (coat-of-arms design)
20p 19 Unknown
50p 7 Unknown
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 4 1 American cent, 5 euro cents, unknown x 2
Unknown 17 Unknown
DD11
Condition: Log
Species: Ash (Fraxinus)
Associated tools: Jagged limestone hammer rock, 7 x 4 x 3cm, abraded at edges
Proximity to DD10: 26cm south of DD9
Proximity to path: Directly east of main path
Proximity to River Dove: 606cm east of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible, directly beside the main path
Orientation: north-south
Grid reference: SK 14488 52326 ±20ft
Latitude: 53.06797 Longitude: 1.78522 ±21ft
Elevation: 590ft
Length: 15.3m Girth: 130cm
Coins: 3260
Discernible patterning of coins: Primarily following the grain longitudinally. One 1p loose
on the ground.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1637 1971, 1971, 1975, 1977, 1979, 1979, 198-,
1981, 1981, 1984, 1986, 1986, 1990, 1990,
1991, 1992, 1997, 1997, 1997, 20--, 20--,
200-, 2000, 2001, 2001, 2002, 2002, 2002,
2004, 2007, 7 x post-2008 (coat-of-arms
design), 2009, 2009, 2009, 2010, 2010, 2011
2p 1387 1980, 1980, 1981, 1985, 1989, 1989, 199-,
199-, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1992, 1996, 1997,
1997, 1998, 1999, 1999, 2000, 2000, 2000,
2002, 2003, 2003, 12 x post-2008 (coat-of-
arms design), 2008, 2008, 2008, 2009, 2009,
2010, 2011, 2011
474
5p 88 1987, 1989, 1989, 200-, 2007, 2010
10p 63 1992, 1999, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 4 x post-
2008 (coat-of-arms design)
20p 37 Unknown
50p 7 Unknown
£1 1 Unknown
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 8 5 euro cent 2008, 5 euro cent, euro cent,
American cent, 2 Polish zloty 2005, unknown
gold-coloured foreign coin, unknown foreign
coin, unknown foreign coin
Unknown 32 Unknown
STAND-ALONE
DD12
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 64cm east of main path
Proximity to River Dove: 389cm east of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible, directly beside the main path
Orientation: north-south
Grid reference: SK 14560 52076 ±12ft
Latitude: 53.06572 Longitude: 1.78416 ±12ft
Elevation: 630ft
Length: 565cm Girth: 89cm
Coins: 7
Discernible patterning of coins: Following the grain longitudinally
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 2 Unknown
5p 1 Unknown
10p 3 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
475
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
STAND-ALONE
DD13
Condition: Wooden post
Species: n/a
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: In the middle of main path
Proximity to River Dove: 294cm north-north-east of river
Ease of access: Easily accessible, in the middle of main path
Grid reference: SK 14895 51524 ±12ft
Latitude: 53.06075 Longitude: 1.77920 ±12ft
Elevation: 478ft
Height: 135cm Girth: 47cm
Coins: 7
Discernible patterning of coins: All in side of post, following a pre-existing longitudinal
crack
Other notable features: Two nails, but they possibly had a practical function
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 2 Unknown
2p 2 Unknown
5p 1 Unknown
10p 2 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
STAND-ALONE
DD14
476
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Beside area of scree, so many potential hammer rocks
Proximity to path: 87cm north-east of main path
Proximity to River Dove: 592cm north-east of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible, directly beside the main path
Orientation: south-west – north-east
Grid reference: SK 14936 51525 ±9ft
Latitude: 53.06076 Longitude: 1.77860 ±12ft
Elevation: 475ft
Length: 795cm Girth: 109cm
Coins: 296
Discernible patterning of coins: Following the grain longitudinally, many following one
long crack. One American cent is broken where it was bent. Many edges damaged through
percussion, and about one third bent over
Other notable features: One two pence piece had ‘R’ written on it in silver pen; a way of
marking the coin as theirs? To recognise their coin on a return visit?
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 165 1979, 1988, 1990, 1998, 200-, 2000, 2002,
2005, 2005, 2005, 2006, 2006, 2006, 2007,
2008, 2008, 6 x post-2008 (coat-of-arms
design), 2009, 2010, 2010
2p 98 1971, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996,
1998, 200-, 2000, 2005, 2007, 2007, 2008, 6
x post-2008 (coat-of-arms design), 2010,
2011
5p 20 200-, 2000, 2001, 2009
10p 10 1996, 2002, post-2008 (coat-of-arms design)
20p 1 Unknown
50p 1 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 American cent (broken)
Unknown 1 Unknown
477
2.19 – Fairy Glen Case-Study
Case-study name: Fairy Glen (FG)
Date of fieldwork: 04/09/2012
Case-study location: Fairy Glen, Black Isle, Scotland
Case-study date (i.e. when did it become a ‘coin-tree?): c.2005 – “The tree fell over in a
storm about 6-7 years ago (it is definitely not older than 10 years) and after that had coins put
in it” (Pers. comm. Kate Horsfall, RSPB, 11/11/2011).
Case-study environment: Woodland, by a waterfall
Land ownership: Privately owned by Ms. Warbrick, Rosemarkie
Attractions nearby: The waterfalls of Fairy Glen
19 8%
35 15%
67 29%
101 44%
9 4%
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-Present
Dates of Coins at Dovedale
2793 51%
2114 39%
227 4.2%
144 2.6%
68 1.3%
15 0.28%
1 0.02% 0
14 0.26%
62 1.1%
1p 2p 5p 10p 20p 50p £1 £2 Foreign currency
Unknown
Denominations of Coins at Dovedale
Dovedale 14
Mode = 2000
Median = 2000
Mean = 1998
Total = 5438
478
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 5
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-trees(s): According to Canmore, the
Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, there are no
historical sites or monuments within 500 metres of the coin-trees (Accessed 16/09/2012)
480
FG1
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Abraded, rounded limestone rock, 6x5x3.5cm, used as tool of percussion
Proximity to path: 3.8m north of path
Proximity to pool: Directly on pool, south-south-west of waterfall
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Relatively easy to access, although some sections require going ankle-deep
into the pool
Orientation: East to west
Grid reference: NH 72626 58575 (±26ft)
Latitude: 57.59932 Longitude: -4.13310 (±26ft)
Elevation: 150ft
Length: 3.15m Girth: 1.32m
Coins: 4578
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinal placement
Damage to edges of coins: Some coins deliberately bent over
Other notable features: One 2p painted red
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 2306 1980, 1990, 200-, 2000,
2001, 2003, 2004, 5 x post-
2008 (coat-of-arms design),
2010, 2010
2p 1745 1978, 1978, 1980, 1980,
1981, 1986, 1987, 1987,
1988, 1988, 199-, 199-, 1992,
1998, 1999, 1999, 200-,
2000, 2001, 2003, 2006,
post-2008 (coat-of-arms
design)
5p 218 Unknown
10p 192 1992, 2 x post-2008 (coat-of-
arms design), 2008
20p 32 1982, 1982, 2 x post-2008
(coat-of-arms design)
50p 3 Unknown
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 3 1 euro, 1 euro, unknown
Unknown 79 Unknown
481
FG2
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: see FG1
Proximity to FG1: Touching
Proximity to FG3: Touching
Proximity to FG4: 40cm
Proximity to path: 3.8m north of path
Proximity to pool: Directly on pool, south-south-west of waterfall
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Relatively easy to access, although some sections require going ankle-deep
into the pool
Orientation: East to west
Grid reference: NH 72626 58575 (±26ft)
Latitude: 57.59932 Longitude: -4.13310 (±26ft)
Elevation: 150ft
Length: 4.2m Girth: 75cm
Coins: 328
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinal placement. Some damage through percussion,
heavily inserted (only rims visible)
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 140 1994
2p 107 2012
5p 33 Unknown
10p 38 1999, 2000
20p 4 2000
50p 1 Unknown
£1 1 2004
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 2 euro, unknown
Unknown 2 Unknown
FG3
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: see FG1
482
Proximity to path: 3.8m north of path
Proximity to pool: Directly on pool, south-south-west of waterfall
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Quite difficult to access, requiring reaching out over the water
Orientation: East to west
Grid reference: NH 72626 58575 (±26ft)
Latitude: 57.59932 Longitude: -4.13310 (±26ft)
Elevation: 150ft
Length: 4.8m Girth: 49cm
Coins: 6
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinal placement
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 2 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 1 Unknown
10p 2 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 1 euro cent
Unknown 0 -
FG4
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: see FG1
Proximity to path: 3.8m north of path
Proximity to pool: Directly on pool, south-south-west of waterfall
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Quite difficult to access, requiring reaching out over the water
Orientation: East to west
Grid reference: NH 72626 58575 (±26ft)
Latitude: 57.59932 Longitude: -4.13310 (±26ft)
Elevation: 150ft
483
Length: 4.3m Girth: 39cm
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: Inserted into log-end
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
FG5
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly on path, south of path
Proximity to pool: 6m south of pool, south-south-west of waterfall
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easy to access
Orientation: South-south-east to north-north-west
Grid reference: NH 72626 58575 (±26ft)
Latitude: 57.59932 Longitude: -4.13310 (±26ft)
Elevation: 150ft
Length: 14.7m Girth: 1.44m
Coins: 10
Discernible patterning of coins: Random
Other notable features: The log is covered with graffiti
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 4 Unknown
2p 4 Unknown
5p 2 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
484
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
Coins in water: 5
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 2 2001, 2010
2p 1 2004
5p 1 2010
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 Denmark 25 ōre 2006
Unknown 0 -
4 15%
8 30%
9 33%
15 56%
1 4%
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-Present
Dates of Coins at Fairy Glen
2454 50%
1858 38%
255 5.2%
232 4.7%
36 0.73%
4 0.08%
1 0.02% 0
7 0.75%
81 1.6%
1p 2p 5p 10p 20p 50p £1 £2 Foreign currency
Unknown
Denominations of Coins at Fairy Glen
Mode = 2000, 2010
Median = 2000
Mean = 1997
The Fairy Glen
cluster
Total = 4928
485
2.20 – Fore Case-Study
Case-study name: Fore (FR)
Date of fieldwork: 03/10/2012
Case-study location: Fore, Co. Westmeath, Republic of Ireland
Case-study date (i.e. when did it become a ‘coin-tree?): Unknown, but pre-1980s
Case-study environment: Marshland
Land ownership: Co. Westmeath County Council
Attractions nearby: Fore Abbey and the ‘Seven Wonders of Fore’
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 3
486
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-trees(s):
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Church 1 Monument Fore,
Westmeath
WM004-
035003-
Monastery of St. Feichin, the exact
date of which is unknown, but the 7th
487
century seems likely. The deaths of
its abbots are recorded in the Annals
from 705 until 1163.
Source: National Monuments Service Historic
town, Fore
2 Monument Fore,
Westmeath
WM004-
035-
Fore is situated on the Kells-
Castlepollard road in north-east
Westmeath in a secluded marshy
valley flanked by high ground on the
north, east and south. The placename
is derived from Fobhair, meaning a
spring or well. This spring emerges
from a rock known as Carraig Bhaile
Fhobhair (the "Ben of Fore") on the
south side of the town (Bradley et. al.
1985, 73). The precise date of
Feichin's foundation is unknown but a
date in the second quarter of the 7th
century seems likely.
Source: National Monuments Service
High cross 3 Monument Fore,
Westmeath
WM004-
035022-
Pre-12th century. Large undecorated
pierced ringed cross set on a concrete
shaft E of St. Feichin's church
(WM004-035003-). It is deeply buried
but is decorated with an incised cross
within a border. Dims. H 118cm, W
98cm, T 22cm. (Bradley, J., Urban
Archaeological Survey - Co.
Westmeath, Office of Public Works,
Dublin, p. 79).
Source: National Monuments Service
Religious
house –
Benedictine
monks
4 Monument Fore,
Westmeath
WM004-
035010-
12th/13th-century priory, north of Fore.
The remains consist of the priory
complex and a series of outbuildings,
including a dovecot, and earthworks
on Knocknamonaster. The buildings
are grouped around a rectangular
cloister. The church lies to the north,
the refectory and kitchen on the south,
apartments and other domestic
buildings on the east and west.
Source: National Monuments Service
Gatehouse 5 Monument Fore,
Westmeath
WM004-
035029-
13th-century gatehouse located 40m E
of Fore Abbey (WM004-035010-).
Depicted on the 1837 ed. OS 6-inch
map as a small rectangular building
guarding the causewayed entrance
over the enclosing moat which
protected Fore Abbey.
Source: National Monuments Service
Graveslab 6 Monument Fore,
Westmeath
WM004-
035028-
Weathered coffin-shaped granite
graveslab (dims. H 1.68m; Wth 0.3-
0.48m; T 0.18m) of 13th or 14th
century date with an incised fleur-de-
lis cross.
Source: National Monuments Service
Dovecote 7 Monument Fore,
Westmeath
WM004-
035016-
Located above the scarp, 35m NE of
the 13th century abbey (WM004-
035010-). About half of the building
survives to a height of 1.2m. The
dovecote has an internal diameter of
488
3.35m and the walls are 1.15m thick.
The lower dressed jambs of an E door
are present.
Source: National Monuments Service
Graveslab 8 Monument Fore,
Westmeath
WM004-
035023-
Coffin-shaped grey sandstone slab
(dims. H 0.78m; Wth 0.42-0.5m; T
0.11m) of 13th or 14th century date.
Source: National Monuments Service Town
defences
9 Monument Fore,
Westmeath
WM004-
035008-
Anglo-Norman town defences of Fore,
dating from the 14th or 15th century.
Source: National Monuments Service
Gateway 10 Monument Fore,
Westmeath
WM004-
035002-
North gateway which appears to from
part of the 15th-century fortification of
Fore. The present remains of the
North gate consists of a rectangular
structure with rounded corners on the
north-west and south-east angles. It is
built of fairly evenly coursed
limestone and is entered through a
round arched gate, 2.6m wide, which
is blocked by a modern cross wall.
The passage is flat-arched and short.
Only the ground floor survives and
there are no indications of internal
chambers.
Source: National Monuments Service
Earthwork 11 Monument Fore,
Westmeath
WM004-
035011-
This low hill or knoll (dims. 160m E-
W; 140m N-S) north of the
Benedictine priory buildings
(WM004-035010-) formed part of the
monastery precinct and was enclosed
by a defensive moat as depicted on the
1837 ed. OS 6-inch map. A medieval
dovecote (WM004-035016-) is located
in the S quadrant of the hill known as
'Knocknamonaster'.
Source: National Monuments Service
Mill 12 Monument Fore,
Westmeath
WM004-
035012-
Mill building depicted at this location
on the 1837 ed. OS 6-inch map. A
small rectangular building north of St.
Feichin's church (WM004-035003-) is
pointed out as St. Feichin's mill.
Source: National Monuments Service
Wall
monument
13 Monument Fore,
Westmeath
WM004-
035031-
A rectangular sandstone plaque above
the Nugent mausoleum door in the
Anchorite's Cell (WM004-035004-)
notes that the tower of a church was
rebuilt in 1680. The plaque bears the
Nugent arms and a relief inscription in
Roman capitals: THE RIGHT
HONORABLE/ RICHARD NVGENT
EARLE/ OF WESTMEATHE AT
HIS OWN/ EXPENCES
REBVILDED THIS/ CHAPLE AND
CASTLE FOR/ THE BVRYINGE
PLACE AND/ PIOVS VSE OF
HIMSELFE AND/ HIS SVCESSORS
ANNO/ DOMINI 1680.
Source: National Monuments Service
489
Memorial
stone
14 Monument Fore,
Westmeath
WM008-
097013-
1616 slab. Missing.
Source: National Monuments Service
Font 15 Monument Fore,
Westmeath
WM008-
097013-
1616 slab. Missing.
Source: National Monuments Service
Church 16 Monument Fore,
Westmeath
WM008-
097007-
Listed by Bradley (1985, 83) as a
Penal Chapel of possible 17th century
date. The ruins of this T-shaped
church stand at the W end of the
graveyard (WM008-097014-) of St.
Mary's parish church (WM008-
097002-).
Graveyard 17 Monument Fore,
Westmeath
WM004-
035032-
Roughly square-shaped graveyard
(dims. 58m N-S; 57m E-W) located to
the south of St Feichin's Church
(WM004-035003-) and to the east of
the Anchorite's Church (WM004-
035004-).
Depicted as a 'Burying Ground' on the
1837 ed. OS 6-inch map and as a
Grave Yard on the revised editions.
Source: National Monuments Service Prison 18 Monument Fore,
Westmeath
WM004-
035005-
An 'Old Gaol' is depicted standing
opposite to the N of the village green
on the 1837 ed. of the OS 6-inch map.
Source: National Monuments Service
Graveyard 19 Monument Fore,
Westmeath
WM008-
097014-
Roughly rectangular-shaped graveyard
(dims. 74m NW-SE x 43m N-S)
defined by a boundary wall of post-
medieval date with the remains of a
medieval church (WM008-097002-)
standing in the N quadrant. The
graveyard contains inscribed
memorials dating from the 18th
century onwards.
Cross 20 Monument Fore,
Westmeath
WM004-
012-
Described in 1980 as 'The cross is in 4
fragments : (1) the base (L 0.69m; H
0.5m) and the lower part of the shaft
(T 0.13m; Wth 0.23m; H 0.26m)
which is cemented into it; (2) and (3)
two fragments of the shaft ( H 0.36m;
Wth 0.21m) with a panel of
decoration, these two fragments fit
together; (4) the upper part of the shaft
(H 0.38m) and part of the head. The
base is a carefully shaped block of
stone the upper part of which has been
shaped to give the base sloping
surfaces.’ (SMR file).
Source: National Monuments Service
Church 21 Monument Fore,
Westmeath
WM004-
035001-
Levelled church site depicted as 'Site
of Templefeenan' on the 1837 ed. OS
6-inch map. No surface remains
visible. Originally known as
Teampall Fionain [Church of Fionain]
which was then anglicised as
Templefeenan. Nothing is known of
the church apart from its name and
location.
Source: National Monuments Service
Well 22 Monument Fore, WM004- Possible holy well depicted as
490
Westmeath 035007- 'Tobernacogany' on the 1837 ed. OS
6-inch map. In the field north of the
road from St. Feichin's church
(WM004-035003-). A holed stone of
conglomerate is deeply buried in the
ground beside this well. The "wishing
tree", known locally as the tree that
will not burn, is in the same field.
Source: National Monuments Service
Ritual site –
holy well
23 Monument Fore,
Westmeath
WM004-
035009-
Holy well depicted as 'Doaghfeighin'
on the 1837 ed. OS 6-inch map.
Delimited by a quadrangular setting of
upright stones about 1m square and
1m high. The west side is formed
from dry stone walling.
Source: National Monuments Service Souterrain 24 Monument Fore,
Westmeath
WM004-
035006-
A souterrain was discovered in 1962
about 60m south-east of St. Feichin's
church (WM004-035003-), running in
a north-south direction, consisting of a
short passage 6m long.
Source: National Monuments Service
Market cross 25 Monument Fore,
Westmeath
WM008-
097001-
According to the OS Name Books
dating from 1875 this monument was
recorded as 'An ancient stone cross,
which is now in a dilapidated state,
only a portion of it remaining. The
cross was formerly in the centre of the
market place when this was a borough
town having a weekly market and
faires?' (OS Name Book 1875, 1).
Source: National Monuments Service
Source: http://webgis.archaeology.ie/NationalMonuments/FlexViewer/ (Accessed 20/01/2014)
492
FR1 (Stump of original coin-tree)
Condition: Stump
Species: Ash (Fraxinus)
Associated tools: None
Rate of decay: 4
Proximity to path: In the well in the middle of the path
Ease of access: Barely visible, it is hidden beneath FR2, and you have to lean across the
muddy well to reach it.
Grid reference: SA 54975 33379 (±9ft)
Latitude: 53.68256 Longitude: -7.22751 (±9ft)
Elevation: 243ft
Height: 12cm Girth: 35cm
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: Inserted together on the edge of the stump
FR2 (Replacement of original coin-tree)
Condition: Living
Species: Ash (Fraxinus)
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: In the centre of a path
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SA 54975 33379 (±9ft)
Latitude: 53.68256 Longitude: -7.22751 (±9ft)
Elevation: 243ft
Denomination Quantity Dates
1 Euro cent 0 -
2 Euro cents 0 -
5 Euro cents 1 2006
10 Euro cents 0 -
20 Euro cents 0 -
50 Euro cents 0 -
1 Euro 0 -
2 Euros 0 -
Foreign currency 1 20 euro cents 1999 (Ireland took on the
euro in 2002)
Unknown 0 -
493
Girth: 32cm
Coins: 7
Discernible patterning of coins: Only one tree is inserted into the bark (2 cents). One is tied
to the tree by a rag (1 cent 2006), another is inserted into the knot of a blue sock affixed to a
branch (5 cents 2007), and four more are in plastic bags (sandwich bags?) which are tied to
branches (1 cent 2012, 1 cent 2012, 2 cents 2005, 5 cents 2005).
Other notable features: This is predominantly a rag-tree with strips of fabric, socks, gloves,
hair bobbles and clips, a toothbrush, bra straps, key rings, shoes, scarves, earrings, shoelaces,
belts, pieces of twine, baby’s bibs, stockings, sweet and crisp wrappers, handkerchiefs, etc.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1 Euro cent 3 2008, 2012, 2012
2 Euro cents 1 2005
5 Euro cents 2 2005, 2007
10 Euro cents 0 -
20 Euro cents 0 -
50 Euro cents 0 -
1 Euro 0 -
2 Euros 0 -
Foreign currency 1 Unknown 2007
Unknown 0 -
FR3
Condition: Living
Species: Ash (Fraxinus)
Associated tools: Several potential tools of percussion
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, north of path
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SA 54975 33379 (±9ft)
Latitude: 53.68256 Longitude: -7.22751 (±9ft)
Elevation: 243ft
Girth: 1.83m
Coins: 121
Discernible patterning of coins: Inserted into the bark in random distribution
Highest coin: 2.26m, 1 Euro cent
Other notable features: This is predominantly a rag-tree with strips of fabric, socks, gloves,
hair bobbles and clips, key rings, teddy bears, shoes, scarves, earrings, bracelets, a watch, a
lighter, shoelaces, belts, rosary beads, pieces of twine, a coat hanger, baby’s bibs, stockings,
sweet and crisp wrappers, bra straps, handkerchiefs, trainers, a broken umbrella, a Primark
494
clothes label, a bridal veil – even insurance documents and a boarding pass from Latvia
attached to the tree in a plastic wallet.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1 Euro cent 35 2003, 2005
2 Euro cents 27 2003, 2003
5 Euro cents 27 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008
10 Euro cents 4 Unknown
20 Euro cents 5 200-, 2007
50 Euro cents 4 Unknown
1 Euro 0 -
2 Euros 1 Unknown
Irish 1p (pre-Euro; pre-
2002)
6 1971, 1993
1p 1 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 2 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 4 1 Polish grosz 1992, 1 Polish grosz,
unknown 2007, unknown
Unknown 5 Unknown
1 4%
0
4 17%
17 71%
2 8%
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-Present
Dates of Coins at Fore
Mode = 2007
Median = 2005
Mean = 2003
495
2.21 – Gougane Barra Case-Study
Case-study name: Gougane Barra (GB)
Date of fieldwork: 07/10/2012
Case-study location: Gougane Barra, Co. Cork, Republic of Ireland
Case-study date (i.e. when did it become a ‘coin-tree?): Unknown, during 20th
century
Case-study environment: A small wooded island reachable by a narrow causeway
Land ownership: Privately owned
Attractions nearby: The ossuary of St. Finbarr and the island of Gougane Barra itself are
popular tourist destinations
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 8
Other notable features: Many coins in lake surrounding the island
35 30%
27 23%
27 23%
4 3.4%
5 4.3%
4 3.4%
0
1 0.9%
6 5.1%
1 0.9% 0
2 1.7%
4 3.4%
5 4.3%
Denominations of Coins at Fore
Total = 117
497
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-trees(s):
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Hermitage 1 Hermitage Doire Ne
Coise,
Ballingeary,
County Cork
SMR No.
CO080-
012001-
Remains of hermitage established
here in late 17th century by
Carmelite priest Denis O'Mahony.
Source: National Monuments
Service
Holy well 2 Ritual site Doire Ne
Coise,
Ballingeary,
County Cork
SMR No.
CO080-
012002-
Rectangular drystone structure
retains lake water; approached from
west side by flight of steps; covered
by stone flag. Still in use as part of
pilgrimage to site; devotions at well
on St John's day (June 24th) in early
19th century are colourfully
described by Croker (1824, 279-80).
St Finbar's day (September 25th) is
also celebrated at the well.
Source: National Monuments
Service
Graveyard 3 Graveyard Doire Ne
Coise,
Ballingeary,
County Cork
SMR No.
CO080-
012003-
On south shore of Gougane Barra,
immediately adjacent to Holy Island
(CO080-012001-).Small rectangular
graveyard enclosed to the east and
south by stone wall and to north and
west by stone-faced scarp. In west
half are rows of low uninscribed
gravemarkers, otherwise inscribed
headstones all 20th-century in date.
498
Along roadside to north-west is
large vault, which marks the burial
place of Fr. D. O'Mahony, who
founded the nearby hermitage
(CO080-012001-)
Source: National Monuments
Service
Source: http://webgis.archaeology.ie/NationalMonuments/FlexViewer/ (Accessed 24/01/2012)
GB1
Condition: Living
Species: Beech (Fagus)
Associated tools: One probably tool of percussion: triangular piece of slate, abraded,
8x6x3cm
Proximity to path: Directly beside path
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Latitude: 51.83990 Longitude: -9.31873 (±10ft)
Elevation: 516ft
Girth: 1.8m
Coins: 36
Discernible patterning of coins: Random distribution
Highest coin: 2.15m, 1 Euro cent
Other notable features: Two nails
499
Denomination Quantity Dates
1 Euro cent 8 2003
2 Euro cents 10 2004
5 Euro cents 3 Unknown
10 Euro cents 5 Unknown
20 Euro cents 7 Unknown
50 Euro cents 2 Unknown
1 Euro 1 Unknown
2 Euros 0 -
Irish 1p (pre-Euro; pre-2002) 0 -
English 1p 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
GB2
Condition: Living
Species: Holly (Ilex)
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside path
Proximity to GB1: 9.7m
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Latitude: 51.83990 Longitude: -9.31873 (±10ft)
Elevation: 516ft
Girth: 1.7m
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: Random distribution. Some coins damaged through
percussion.
Highest coin: 1.22m
Other notable features: Graffiti on tree
Denomination Quantity Dates
1 Euro cent 0 -
2 Euro cents 0 -
5 Euro cents 0 -
10 Euro cents 0 -
20 Euro cents 0 -
50 Euro cents 0 -
1 Euro 0 -
2 Euros 0 -
Irish 1p (pre-Euro; pre-2002) 0 -
500
English 1p 1 Unknown
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 1 Unknown
GB3
Condition: Living
Species: Holly (Ilex)
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside path
Proximity to GB1: 7m
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Latitude: 51.83990 Longitude: -9.31873 (±10ft)
Elevation: 516ft
Girth of GB3a: 1.15m Girth of GB3b: 1.12m
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: Random distribution – one on each of the two main limbs
Height of coin on limb GB3a (1 Euro cent): 1.24m
Height of coin on limb GB3b (5 Euro cents): 99cm
Other notable features: Graffiti
Denomination Quantity Dates
1 Euro cent 1 Unknown
2 Euro cents 0 -
5 Euro cents 1 Unknown
10 Euro cents 0 -
20 Euro cents 0 -
50 Euro cents 0 -
1 Euro 0 -
2 Euros 0 -
Irish 1p (pre-Euro; pre-2002) 0 -
English 1p 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
GB4
Condition: Living
Species: Holly (Ilex)
501
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside path
Proximity to GB1: 4.24m
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Latitude: 51.83990 Longitude: -9.31873 (±10ft)
Elevation: 516ft
Girth: 90cm
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: n/a. Damage through percussion. Showing signs of
verdigrease.
Height of coin: 1.7m
Denomination Quantity Dates
1 Euro cent 0 -
2 Euro cents 0 -
5 Euro cents 0 -
10 Euro cents 0 -
20 Euro cents 0 -
50 Euro cents 0 -
1 Euro 0 -
2 Euros 0 -
Irish 1p (pre-Euro; pre-2002) 1 Pre-2002
English 1p 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
GB5
Condition: Wooden post
Species: n/a
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside path
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Latitude: 51.83990 Longitude: -9.31873 (±10ft)
Elevation: 516ft
Height: 93cm
Girth: 36cm
Coins: 1
502
Discernible patterning of coins: On top of post
Denomination Quantity Dates
1 Euro cent 0 -
2 Euro cents 0 -
5 Euro cents 1 Unknown
10 Euro cents 0 -
20 Euro cents 0 -
50 Euro cents 0 -
1 Euro 0 -
2 Euros 0 -
Irish 1p (pre-Euro; pre-2002) 0 -
English 1p 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
GB6
Condition: Living
Species: Holly (Ilex)
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside path
Proximity to GB1: 7.34m
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Latitude: 51.83990 Longitude: -9.31873 (±10ft)
Elevation: 516ft
Girth: 1.28m
Coins: 6
Discernible patterning of coins: None
Highest coin: 1.66m, 2 Euro cents
Other notable features: Many slits from where coins have obviously been removed (by
management?)
Denomination Quantity Dates
1 Euro cent 2 Unknown
2 Euro cents 4 Unknown
5 Euro cents 0 -
10 Euro cents 0 -
20 Euro cents 0 -
50 Euro cents 0 -
1 Euro 0 -
2 Euros 0 -
Irish 1p (pre-Euro; pre-2002) 0 -
503
English 1p 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
GB7
Condition: Living
Species: Ash (Fraxinus)
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside path
Proximity to GB1: 14.49m
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Latitude: 51.83990 Longitude: -9.31873 (±10ft)
Elevation: 516ft
Girth: 57cm
Coins: 3
Discernible patterning of coins: None
Highest coin: 1.85m, 5 Euro cents
Denomination Quantity Dates
1 Euro cent 0 -
2 Euro cents 0 -
5 Euro cents 3 Unknown
10 Euro cents 0 -
20 Euro cents 0 -
50 Euro cents 0 -
1 Euro 0 -
2 Euros 0 -
Irish 1p (pre-Euro; pre-2002) 0 -
English 1p 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
GB8
Condition: Living
Species: Ash (Fraxinus)
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside path
504
Proximity to GB1: 13.59m
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Latitude: 51.83990 Longitude: -9.31873 (±10ft)
Elevation: 516ft
Girth: 1.13mm
Coins: 5
Discernible patterning of coins: All coins in ‘hole’ in bark
Highest coin: 1.3m, 5 Euro cents
Other notable features: Many slits from where coins have been removed
Denomination Quantity Dates
1 Euro cent 0 -
2 Euro cents 0 -
5 Euro cents 1 Unknown
10 Euro cents 2 Unknown
20 Euro cents 0 -
50 Euro cents 0 -
1 Euro 0 -
2 Euros 0 -
Irish 1p (pre-Euro; pre-2002) 1 Pre-2002
English 1p 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 1 Unknown
11 19%
14 24%
9 16%
7 12%
7 12%
2 3% 1
2% 0
2 3% 1
2%
2 3%
Denominations of coins at Gougane Barra
Total = 58
505
2.22 – Grizedale Case-Study
Case-study name: Grizedale (GZ)
Date of fieldwork: 04/06/2012
Case-study location: Grizedale, Cumbria, England
Case-study environment: Beneath the Go Ape course on a forest path.
Land ownership: Forestry Commission
Attractions nearby: Grizedale Forest itself, and the Go Ape course
Additional information: There are many nature-themed sculptures and art works on display
along the forest trails (the website http://visitlakelandforests.co.uk/ (Accessed 11/06/2012)
claims there are over 60 sculptures in the forest).
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 5
506
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-trees(s):
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Grizedale 1 Monument Hawkshead,
Cumbria Monument No. A post-medieval country house,
built in c.1905, on the site of a
507
Hall (SD 39 SW 4) previous 16th century house.
Source: PastScape
Grizedale
Corn Mill
2 Monument Satterthwaite,
Cumbria Depositor ID:
18314
Site of a water powered corn mill or
fulling mill of probably post-
medieval date.
Source: Lake District National Park
HER
Grizedale
Summer
House
3 Monument Satterthwaite,
Cumbria Depositor ID:
17429
Site of a summer house of unknown
date.
Source: Lake District National Park
HER
Iron Ore
Dump
4 Monument Mires Wood,
Grizedale,
Cumbria
Depositor ID:
30180
Site of an iron ore disposal site of
unknown date.
Source: Lake District National Park
HER
Saw Mill 5 Monument Grizedale,
Cumbria Depositor ID:
30179
Site of a saw mill of unknown date.
Source: Lake District National Park
HER
Old Hall 6 Monument Grizedale,
Cumbria Depositor ID:
32588
Site of a hall house of post-
medieval (Victorian) date.
Source: Lake District National Park
HER
Source: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/advanced_search.aspx (Accessed 11/06/2012)
508
STAND-ALONE
GZ1
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: One possible tool of percussion: Square, slate ‘hammer rock’, 9 x 6 x 1cm,
abraded at edges. Located beside coin-tree.
Proximity to path: Directly west of path
Proximity to river: 9m west of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible, directly beside path near entrance to the Millwood Trail,
beneath the Go Ape course.
Grid reference: SD 33571 94503 ±10ft
Latitude: 54.34174 Longitude: 3.02332 ±10ft
Elevation: 376ft
Height: 22cm Girth: 304cm
509
Coins: 13
Discernible patterning of coins: All coins on top of stump, random distribution.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 9 2008
2p 3 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 3 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
CLUSTER 1
GZ2
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Many potential tools of percussion; many rocks on the floor.
Proximity to GZ3: 705cm west of GZ3
Proximity to path: In the middle of the path
Proximity to river: 438cm south-south-west of river
Ease of access: Easily accessible, in the middle of the path. However, not particularly visible
as it is very low to the ground; many people stepped over/on it without noticing.
Class of decay: 4
Grid reference: SD 33566 94572 12ft
Latitude: 54.34236 Longitude: 3.02342 ±12ft
Elevation: 451ft
Height: 15cm Girth: 147cm
Coins: 17
Discernible patterning of coins: All coins on top of stump, radial distribution. Two coins
were resting loosely on top.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 10 1996, 2010
2p 3 Unknown
5p 2 Unknown
10p 1 Unknown
510
20p 1 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
GZ3
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Two possible tools of percussion: A rounded limestone ‘hammer rock’, 17
x 12 x 8cm, with moss growing on one side and some abrasion, located in front of coin-tree;
and a rectangular granite ‘hammer rock’, 13 x 10 x 8cm, with no visible abrasion, situated on
top of coin-tree.
Proximity to GZ4: 668cm
Proximity to path: Directly to the south-south-west of path
Proximity to river: 478cm south-south-west of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible, directly beside main path
Grid reference: SD 33566 94572 12ft
Latitude: 54.34236 Longitude: 3.02342 ±12ft
Elevation: 451ft
Height: 39cm Girth: 170cm
Coins: 1590
Other features/objects: One metal bolt resting on top, one nail
Discernible patterning of coins: 862 coins on top of stump, random distribution, and 728 on
side of stump, longitudinal distribution. 46 coins bent over.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 871 1999, 2003, 2006, 2007, post-2008 (coat-of-
arms design), 2008, 201-, 2010, 2010
2p 605 1971, 1979, 1988, 1988, 200-, 200-, 2000,
2003, 2006, 2007, 3 x post-2008 (coat-of-
arms design)
5p 51 1992, 20--, 200-, 2005, 2006, 2006, 2 x post-
2008 (coat-of-arms design), 2008
10p 25 2007
20p 13 Unknown
50p 0 -
511
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 7 Tanzanian coin, 1 euro cent, 5 unknown
foreign coins
Unknown 18 Unknown
GZ4
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 355cm south-south-west of path
Proximity to river: 855cm south-south-west of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Quite a steep climb from the path.
Grid reference: SD 33566 94572 12ft
Latitude: 54.34236 Longitude: 3.02342 ±12ft
Elevation: 451ft
Height: 71cm Girth: 181cm
Coins: 7
Discernible patterning of coins: All coins on top of stump. 3 are inserted in cracks with a
radial distribution; the remaining 4 are randomly distributed.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 3 Post-2008 (coat-of-arms design)
2p 1 -
5p 2 2008
10p 0 -
20p 1 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
STAND-ALONE
GZ5
Condition: Stump
Grizedale 1
512
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly south-west of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible, directly beside path
Grid reference: SD 33424 94807 21ft
Latitude: 54.34439 Longitude: 3.02562 ±21ft
Elevation: 428ft
Height: 84cm Girth: 182cm
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: All coins on top of stump. 3 are inserted in cracks with a
radial distribution; the remaining 4 are randomly distributed.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 2009
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
0 0
3 17%
15 83%
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010
Dates of Coins at Grizedale
Mode = 2008
Median = 2007
Mean = 2005
513
2.23 – Hardcastle Crags Case-Study
Case-study name: Hardcastle Crags (HC)
Date of fieldwork: 31/03/2012 and 09/04/2012
Case-study location: Hardcastle Crags, Yorkshire, England
Case-study date (i.e. when did it become a ‘coin-tree?): Prior to 2004, (pers. comm. Andrew
Marsh, National Trust Warden, personal correspondence 27/09/2011)
Case-study environment: Woodland
Land ownership: The National Trust
Attractions nearby: Gibson Mill, National Trust
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: On 31/03/2012, 5 (originally 6; the main one had
been stolen). On 09/04/2012, 6 (HC5 had been added in that space of time).
Additional information: First visit: 31/03/2012. Second visit: 09/04/2012. During the time
between visits, a new coin-tree (HC5) had developed, and new coins had been added. The
tree and coins absent on first visit, but present on second visit, will be underlined and
italicised.
894 55%
612 38%
54 3.3%
26 1.6%
17 1% 0 0 0
7 0.4%
18 1.1%
1p 2p 5p 10p 20p 50p £1 £2 Foreign currency
Unknown
Denominations of Coins at Grizedale
Total = 1628
515
Sites and monuments within 500metres of coin-tree:
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Charcoal
Burning
Platform
1 Monument Hardcastle
Crags,
Calderdale,
Yorkshore
NT HBSMR
Number:
31185*0
An unusual charcoal burning
platform, post-medieval, at the
junction of Shackleton Wood
and Hardcastle Crags.
Source: National Trust HBSMR
Charcoal
Burning
Platform
2 Monument Hardcastle
Crags,
Calderdale,
Yorkshore
NT HBSMR
Number:
31180*0
Post-medieval charcoal burning
platform, below Black Scout.
Source: National Trust HBSMR
Charcoal
Burning
Platform
3 Monument Hardcastle
Crags,
Calderdale,
Yorkshore
NT HBSMR
Number:
31183*0
Post-medieval charcoal
burning platform, Black
Scout.
Source: National Trust
HBSMR
Charcoal
Burning
Platform
4 Monument Hardcastle
Crags,
Calderdale,
Yorkshore
NT HBSMR
Number:
31181*0
Post-medieval charcoal
burning platform, to the east
of Black Scout.
Source: National Trust
HBSMR
Charcoal
Burning
Platform
5 Monument Hardcastle
Crags,
Calderdale,
Yorkshore
NT HBSMR
Number:
31182*0
Post-medieval charcoal
burning platform, Black
Scout.
Source: National Trust
HBSMR
Charcoal 6 Monument Hardcastle NT HBSMR Post-medieval charcoal
516
Burning
Platform
Crags,
Calderdale,
Yorkshore
Number:
31186*0
burning platform.
Source: National Trust
HBSMR
Charcoal
Burning
Platform
7 Monument Hardcastle
Crags,
Calderdale,
Yorkshore
NT HBSMR
Number:
31177*0
Post-medieval charcoal
burning platform, below
Willow Gate Rock.
Source: National Trust
HBSMR
Charcoal
Burning
Platform
8 Monument Hardcastle
Crags,
Calderdale,
Yorkshore
NT HBSMR
Number:
31179*0
Post-medieval charcoal
burning platform, south-east
of Black Scout.
Source: National Trust
HBSMR
Charcoal
Burning
Platform
9 Monument Hardcastle
Crags,
Calderdale,
Yorkshore
NT HBSMR
Number:
31176*0
Post-medieval charcoal
burning platform, Foul Scout
Wood.
Source: National Trust
HBSMR
Charcoal
Burning
Platform
10 Monument Hardcastle
Crags,
Calderdale,
Yorkshore
NT HBSMR
Number:
31175*0
Post-medieval charcoal
burning platform, Foul Scout
Wood.
Source: National Trust
HBSMR
Charcoal
burning
platform
11 Monument Harcastle Crags,
Calderdale,
Yorkshire
NT HBSMR
Number:
31178*0
Post-medieval charcoal
burning platform, south of
Rabbit Hole.
Source: National Trust
HBSMR
Gibson Mill 12 Monument Harcastle Crags,
Calderdale,
Yorkshire
NT HBSMR
Number:
31164*0
A nineteenth-century water
powered cotton mill, disused
c.1895. Includes weaving
shed, workers’ cottages,
engine house, stable, privy,
access road.
Source: National Trust
HBSMR
The Gothic
Lodge
13 Monument Harcastle Crags,
Calderdale,
Yorkshire
NT HBSMR
Number:
31884*0
A small nineteenth-century
gate lodge at the Midhole
Lane entrance to Hardcastle
Crags.
Source: National Trust
HBSMR
Tom Bell’s
Cave
14 Find Spot Harcastle Crags,
Calderdale,
Yorkshire
Monument
Number: (SD
92 NE 27)
A cave at Hardcastle Crags
in which a human skull was
found in 1899. Date of skull
and current location
517
unknown.
Source: PastScape Source: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/advanced_search.aspx (Accessed 01/04/2012)
518
HC1
Condition: Log
Species: Softwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside two paths, north-east and south-west of paths
Proximity to river: 4.5m north of river
Proximity to HC2: 88cm
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Directly beside one path and directly overhanging another, although it
required a little climbing on a muddy slope to reach all of the coins.
Orientation: North-east
Grid reference: SD 97975 29204 (± 14ft)
Latitude: 53.75919 Longitude: 2.03221 (± 14ft)
Elevation: 580ft
Length: 420cm Girth: 148cm
Coins: 46
Discernible patterning of coins: On the log end, they appear to follow pre-existing
transverse and radial cracks. On the trunk, they follow longitudinally along the grain.
519
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 18 2001, 2008, 2010
2p 12 1987, 2001
5p 9 200-, 2007
10p 3 2003
20p 2 1984
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 2 Unknown
HC2
Condition: Log
Species: Softwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside one of the main paths, north-east of path
Proximity to river: 9.6m north of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Very easy. Directly beside one of the paths.
Orientation: north-east
Grid reference: SD 97975 29204 (± 14ft)
Latitude: 53.75919 Longitude: 2.03221 (± 14ft)
Elevation: 580ft
Length: 196cm Girth: 187cm
Coins: 55
Discernible patterning of coins: Predominantly longitudinally following the grain. One coin
has been folded over
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 25 2000, 2001
2p 16 1994, 2004
5p 3 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 10 Unknown
520
HC3
Condition: Log
Species: Softwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside the main path, south-west of path
Proximity to river: Directly beside the river, east of river
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Very easy. Directly beside the main path.
Orientation: south-east
Grid reference: SD 97717 29311 (± 11ft)
Latitude: 53.76015 Longitude: 2.03612 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 560ft
Length: 10.2m Girth: 98cm
Coins: 11 (+ 1 recent addition)
Discernible patterning of coins: The majority have been inserted on branch stumps, less
decayed than the trunk. A few coins have been folded over.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 8, 1 1999
2p 3 Post-2008
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
HC4
Condition: Log
Species: Beech (Fagus)
Associated tools: A rounded and abraded sandstone rock at the base of HC5, 16x4x11cm
Proximity to path: 4.2m north-east of the main path
Proximity to river: 9m north-east of the main path
Proximity to HC5: Touching, south-east-east
521
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: A little off the main path, but easy to access.
Orientation: south-east-east
Grid reference: SD 97676 29343 (± 16ft)
Latitude: 53.76039 Longitude: 2.03670 (± 16ft)
Elevation: 491ft
Length: 12.2m Girth: 150cm
Coins: 3
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinally following the grain.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 0 -
5p 2 20--
10p 1 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
HC5 (recent addition)
Condition: Living tree
Species: Beech (Fagus)
Associated tools: A rounded and abraded sandstone rock at the base of HC5, 16x4x11cm
Proximity to path: 4.2m north-east of the main path
Proximity to river: 9m north-east of the main path
Class of decay: n/a
Ease of access: Easy. A little off the path but easy to access.
Grid reference: SD 97676 29343 (± 16ft)
Latitude: 53.76039 Longitude: 2.03670 (± 16ft)
Elevation: 491ft
Girth: 274cm
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: Random
522
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 1 2005 - Design celebrating the
250th Anniversary of Samuel
Johnson's Dictionary of the
English Language.
£1 1 Unknown
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
HC6
Condition: Stump
Species: Unknown
Associated tools: A rectangular and minimally abraded sandstone rock 97cm from its base,
11x6x5cm
Proximity to path: 1.7m north of main path
Proximity to river: 8m north of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easy. Beside main path.
Grid reference: SD 97452 29487 (±14ft)
Latitude: 53.76173 Longitude: 2.04014 (±17ft)
Elevation: 550ft
Height: 118cm Girth: 169cm
Diameter: 48cm
Coins: 19 (+ 5 recent additions)
Discernible patterning of coins: Radial patterning, most having been inserted into pre-
existing cracks
Other notable features: 35 nails and the markings of 3 other nails
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 7, 5 199-, post-2008
2p 2 Unknown
5p 6 Unknown
10p 1 Unknown
523
20p 2 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 Unknown 2011
Unknown 0 -
0
2 14%
3 21%
8 57%
1 7%
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-Present
Dates of Coins at Hardcastle Crags
Mode = 2001
Median = 2001
Mean = 2001
64 45%
33 23%
20 14%
5 4%
5 4% 1
0.7% 1
0.7% 1
0.7%
12 8%
1p 2p 5p 10p 20p 50p £1 Foreign currency
Unknown
Denominations of Coins at Hardcastle Crags
Total = 142
524
2.24 – High Force Case-Study
Case-study name: High Force (HF)
Date of fieldwork: 09/09/2012
Case-study location: High Force Waterfall, County Durham, England
Case-study date (i.e. when did it become a ‘coin-tree?):
Case-study environment: Small wooded area beside High Force waterfall
Land ownership: Raby Estate
Attractions nearby: The waterfall makes this a popular tourist/walkers destination
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 9 (originally 10 but one was destroyed, pers.
comm. Steve Gillard, Visitor Attraction Manager, Raby Estate, 16/07/2012)
525
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-trees(s):
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Monument
Numner:
1 Find Spot Forest and
Frith,
Monument
Number:
A Bronze Age bronze palstave
and a flint scraper were found in
526
(NY 82 NE
18)
County
Durham
(NY 82
NE 18)
1957. They are now stored at
Bowes Museum.
Source: PastScape
High Force 2 Find Spot Forest and
Frith,
County
Durham
Monument
Number:
(NY 82
NE 5)
Twelve 4th century brass Roman
coins were found at High Force in
1844.
Source: PastScape
Foregarth
Pasture
South
3 Monument Forest and
Frith,
County
Durham
Monument
Number:
(NY 82
NE 8)
A Romano period native
settlement situated at Force Garth,
in Upper Teesdale. The settlement
occupies a large artificial scoop in
the hillside, enclosed by a rubble
bank. Inside this enclosure are
five small scoops, each about 7
metres in diameter. Excavation
has shown that they are the sites
of hut circles. Finds from the
excavations include spindle
whorls, saddle and rotary querns,
and pottery, including some
Roman Samian ware.
Source: PastScape
Force Garth 4 Monument Forest and
Frith,
County
Durham
Monument
Number:
(NY 82
NE 87)
A Roman period field system
which lies south and east of East
Force Garth, extending from
Force Garth Quarry to Hag Sike.
Source: PastScape
Force Garth 5 Monument Forest and
Frith,
County
Durham
Monument
Number:
(NY 82
NE 6)
Three medieval bloomer iron
smelting sites, a lead smelting
site, and at least four charcoal
pits, situated at Force Garth.
Source: PastScape
Sun Wood 6 Monument Forest and
Frith,
County
Durham
Monument
Number:
(NY 82
NE 94)
A small medieval iron bloomery
slag heap situated 350m south
east of East Force Garth on the
west bank of Smithy Sike.
Source: PastScape
Source: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/advanced_search.aspx (Accessed 16/09/2012)
528
CLUSTER 1
HF1
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Slightly abraded, squared piece of (possibly) Whin Sill dolerite, 10x8x6cm
Proximity to path: 1.5m north of path
Proximity to river: 6m north of river
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Relatively easy to access, although it requires climbing over rocks
Orientation: East to west
Grid reference: NY 88068 28422 (±14ft)
Latitude: 54.65077 Longitude: -2.18644 (±13ft)
Elevation: 944ft
529
Length: 7.4m Girth: 148cm
Coins: 235
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinal distribution, following the grain. Many
exhibiting damage through percussion, with several deliberately bent over
Other notable features: Covered with a lot of graffiti
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 103 1987, 2001
2p 68 1980, 1980, 1997
5p 21 2010
10p 27 Unknown
20p 14 2008
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 2 Unknown
HF2
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: see HF1
Proximity to HF1: Leaning on HF1, 2 metres from western end of HF1
Proximity to path: 1.5m north of path
Proximity to river: 6m north of river
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Quite difficult to access, requires climbing over rocks
Orientation: South-west to north-east
Grid reference: NY 88068 28422 (±14ft)
Latitude: 54.65077 Longitude: -2.18644 (±13ft)
Elevation: 944ft
Length: 3.18m Girth: 50.5cm
Coins: 6
Discernible patterning of coins: All inserted into log-end. Some damage through percussion
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 3 2010
2p 2 Unknown
530
5p 0 -
10p 1 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
HF3
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Many potential tools of percussion
Proximity to path: 1.5m north of path
Proximity to river: 10m north of river
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Quite difficult to access, requires climbing, the lowest point is 1.5m above
ground
Orientation: North to south
Grid reference: NY 88068 28422 (±14ft)
Latitude: 54.65077 Longitude: -2.18644 (±13ft)
Elevation: 944ft
Length: 5.5m Girth: 59cm
Coins: 54
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinal distribution, following the grain. Some
damage through percussion
Other notable features: Some graffiti on tree, e.g. ‘RCA’. One coin is labelled ‘E’. Close to
a young tree with a sock draped over its branch; a possible imitation of the rag-tree custom?
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 37 1995, 2007
2p 10 1988, 2000, 2003, 2006
5p 4 2003
10p 1 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 Unknown
Unknown 1 Unknown
531
HF4
Condition: Living tree
Species: Lime (Tilia)
Associated tools: Many potential tools of percussion
Proximity to HF1: 8.3m
Proximity to HF3: 6.7m
Proximity to path: Directly south-east of path
Proximity to river: 10m north-west of river
Ease of access: Easy to access, directly beside path
Grid reference: NY 88068 28422 (±14ft)
Latitude: 54.65077 Longitude: -2.18644 (±13ft)
Elevation: 944ft
Girth: 80cm
Coins: 48
Discernible patterning of coins: Following the grain. Some damage through percussion
Highest coin: 1.97m
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 11 1976
2p 26 1988, 1994, 200-, 2001, 2001
5p 3 Unknown
10p 5 200-
20p 3 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
HF5
Condition: Living tree
Species: Ash (Fraxinus)
Associated tools: None, inserted into gaps in bark
Proximity to HF4: 2.1m
Proximity to path: 1.1m south-west of path
Proximity to river: 6m south-east of river
The coin-
clustered bark
of HF4
532
Ease of access: Easy to access
Grid reference: NY 88068 28422 (±14ft)
Latitude: 54.65077 Longitude: -2.18644 (±13ft)
Elevation: 944ft
Girth: 168cm
Highest coin: 1.04m
Coins: 3
Discernible patterning of coins: Random
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 2 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
HF6
Condition: Log
Species: Lime (Tilia)
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 1.7m north-east of path
Proximity to river: 12m north-east of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easy to access
Orientation: North-east to south-west
Grid reference: NY 88068 28422 (±14ft)
Latitude: 54.65077 Longitude: -2.18644 (±13ft)
Elevation: 944ft
Length: 1.1m Girth: 28cm
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: 11cm from log end, inserted longitudinally. Some damage
through percussion
HF5
533
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 1 2001
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
STAND-ALONE
HF7
Condition: Fence post
Species: n/a
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly on path, north-north-west of path
Ease of access: Easily accessed
Grid reference: NY 88101 28455 (±13ft)
Latitude: 54.65105 Longitude: -2.18593 (±13ft)
Elevation: 1002ft
Height: 92cm Girth: 29cm
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: Inserted into the top of fence post
Other notable features: A nail is also inserted into the top, but possible for practical
purposes
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
The single coin in
HF6
HF1-HF5 of Cluster 1
534
STAND-ALONE
HF8
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 70cm north-north-west of path
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Easily accessed
Grid reference: NY 88242 28537 (±10ft)
Latitude: 54.65181 Longitude: -2.18375 (±11ft)
Elevation: 994ft
Height: 1.31m Girth: 71cm
Coins: 4
Discernible patterning of coins: Inserted into stump end, in pre-existing cracks
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 3 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 1 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
STAND-ALONE
HF9
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 1.3m south of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Quite difficult to access; surrounded by nettles and requires climbing down
from the path
Grid reference: NY 88387 28651 (±9ft)
535
Latitude: 54.65284 Longitude: -2.18150 (±9ft)
Elevation: 1030ft
Height: 94cm Girth: 2.2m
Coins: 1
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
3 14%
3 14%
4 19%
11 52%
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010
Dates of Coins at High Force
160 45%
108 31%
29 8%
34 10% 18
5% 0 0 0
1 0.3%
3 0.8%
1p 2p 5p 10p 20p 50p £1 £2 Foreign currency
Unknown
Denominations of Coins at High Force
Mode = 2001
Median = 2001
Mean = 1997
Total = 353
536
2.25 – Ingleton Case-Study
Case-study name: Ingleton
Date of fieldwork: 22/09/2012
Case-study location: Ingleton Waterfalls Trail, Yorkshire, England
Case-study date (i.e. when did it become a ‘coin-tree?): Between 10-20 years according to
many of my interviewees
Case-study environment: Riverside forest
Land ownership: Privately owned (estate managed by David Hill Managing Agents)
Attractions nearby: The Ingleton Waterfalls Trail is a popular walk
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 30
539
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-trees(s):
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Monument
No.
589192
1 Monument Ingleton,
Craven, North
Yorkshire
Monument
No. 589192
Uncertain weir, probably
associated with Ingleton
Cotton Mill.
Source: PastScape
Thornton
Hall
2 Monument Thornton-in-
Lonsdale,
Craven, North
Yorkshire
Monument
No. 44022
Medieval and post-medieval
(1600-1700) house.
Source: PastScape
Monument
No.
1037892
3 Monument Thornton-in-
Lonsdale,
Craven, North
Yorkshire
Monument
No.
1037892
Earthworks of possible
medieval or later quarries.
Source: PastScape
Monument
No.
1037895
4 Monument Thornton-in-
Lonsdale,
Craven, North
Yorkshire
Monument
No.
1037895
Probably medieval or later
field system (ridge and
furrow) seen as earthworks.
Source: PastScape
Twistleton
Manor
House
5 Monument Ingleton,
Craven, North
Yorkshire
Monument
No. 44023
Post-medieval manor house,
1717-present.
Source: PastScape
Monument
No.
589181
6 Monument Ingleton,
Craven, North
Yorkshire
Monument
No. 589181
Post-medieval lime kiln,
1540-1901.
Source: PastScape
Monument
No.
589182
7 Monument Ingleton,
Craven, North
Yorkshire
Monument
No. 589182
Post-medieval limestone
quarry, 1540-1901.
Source: PastScape
Meal Bank
Quarry
8 Monument Ingleton,
Craven, North
Yorkshire
Monument
No. SD 67
SE 20
19th century limestone quarry
and associated works – lime
kiln, lime works, mineral
railway, tramway, and
Hoffman kiln – at Mealbank.
Source: PastScape
Monument
No.
590431
9 Monument Ingleton,
Craven, North
Yorkshire
Monument
No. 590431
Post-medieval slate quarry.
Source: PastScape
Source: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/advanced_search.aspx (Accessed 24/09/2012)
544
IG1
Condition: Living
Species: Alder (Alnus)
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 35cm north-north-west of path
Proximity to river: several metres above the river, north-north-west of river
Ease of access: Easily accessible, directly beside path
Grid reference: SD 69482 73836 (±16ft)
Latitude: 54.15940 Longitude: -2.46884 (±16ft)
Elevation: 479ft
Girth: 1.12m
Coins: 1
Height of coin: 1.6m
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
IG2
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south-west of path
Proximity to river: 2m south-west of river
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SD 69512 73846 (±25ft)
Latitude: 54.15953 Longitude: -2.46838 (±25ft)
545
Elevation: 542ft
Height: 1.5m Girth: 1.5m
Coins: 4
Discernible patterning of coins: Inserted longitudinally up the stump in a gap in the moss.
Slight damage through percussion
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 4 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
IG3
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: 3 jagged, rectangular limestone rocks I witnessed being used as tools of
percussion: 12x11x5cm; 15x9x4cm; 13x7x2cm
Proximity to path: Directly beside path; many people walked under the arch of the tree
Proximity to river: 7m west of river
Class of decay: 2
Ease of access: Easily accessible, although the top of the arch of the coin-tree is too high for
most people to reach at 1.9m
Orientation: west to south
Grid reference: SD 69565 73969 (±13ft)
Latitude: 54.16063 Longitude: -2.46759 (±11ft)
Elevation: 459ft
Height of arch: 1.3m
Length: 11.3m Girth: 185cm
Coins: at least 48,830
Discernible patterning of coins: Distributed longitudinally, following the curve of the log in
a wave-like pattern. The vast majority of coins have been bent over.
546
Other notable features: 6 coins with nails hammered through their centres (2p, 2000; 2p,
2000, 20p). A cluster of 6 long, rusty nails bent over. A 2p with a hole in it. Two coins which
appear to be pre-decimalisation one pennies, due to their size (31mm in diameter) and
patterning, although the dates are worn away. However, as many participants could not
remember the coin-tree being there 20+ years ago, it is likely that these coins were inserted
post-1971, either by employees of the Ingleton Scenery Company (for tourism, possibly?) or
simply by someone who had old coins.
Denomination Quantity Dates
Pre-decimalisation 1
penny
Possibly 2 Pre-1971
1p 24,490 1971, 1971, 1971, 1974, 1974, 1986, 1986,
1987, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1990, 1990, 1991,
1991, 1991, 1991, 1992, 1992, 1993, 1994,
1994, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1998,
1998, 1999, 1999, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000,
2000, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2002,
2002, 2003, 2003, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2005,
2005, 2005, 2006, 2006, 2007, 45 x post-2008
(coat-of-arms design), 2008, 2008, 2008,
2010, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2011, 2011,
2011, 2011, 2011
2p 20,967 1971, 1975, 1975, 1978, 1978, 1978, 1979,
1979, 1979, 1979, 1980, 1980, 1980, 1980,
1980, 1980, 1980, 1980, 1980, 1980, 1980,
1980, 1981, 1981, 1981, 1981, 1981, 1986,
1987, 1987, 1987, 1987, 1987, 1987, 1988,
1988, 1988, 1988, 1988, 1988, 1988, 1988,
1988, 1988, 1988, 1988, 1989, 1989, 1989,
1989, 1989, 1989, 1991, 1991, 1991, 1992,
1992, 1993, 1993, 1993, 1996, 1996, 1997,
1997, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1998,
1998, 1998, 1998, 1999, 1999, 1999, 1999,
1999, 20--, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000,
2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000,
2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2001,
2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001,
2001, 2001, 2002, 2002, 2002, 2002, 2002,
2002, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2004, 2004, 2005,
2005, 2005, 2005, 2006, 2006, 2006, 2007,
2007, 2007, 2007, 2007, 2007, 2007, 2007, 56
x post-2008 (coat-of-arms design), 2008,
2008, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2011, 2011,
2011
5p 1083 1998, 17 x post-2008 (coat-of-arms design),
2008, 2012
10p 682 1992, 1992, 1992, 20--, 2000, 2001, 2003,
2007, 32 x post-2008 (coat-of-arms design),
2008
20p 51 2001
547
50p 3 Unknown
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 14 2 Polish groszy, 2 Polish groszy, 5 Polish
groszy, 1 American cent, 5 euro cents, 5 euro
cents, 20 euro cents, 20 euro cents, 20 euro
cents, 1 Greek drachma, 4 unknown foreign
coins
Unknown 1538 Unknown
IG4
Condition: A wooden post containing information about the ‘Money Tree’: “The Money
Tree: Does money really grow on trees? Most of the coins in this tree are 2p pieces. Can you
find any very old coins in the tree? Some people say pushing a coin into the tree trunk will
bring you good luck.”
Species: n/a
Associated tools: See IG3
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, west of path
Proximity to river: 9m west of river
Proximity to IG3: 3m
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SD 69565 73969 (±13ft)
Latitude: 54.16063 Longitude: -2.46759 (±11ft)
Elevation: 459ft
Height: 1.06m Girth: 59cm
Coins: 52
Discernible patterning of coins: Some coins on side of post, inserted longitudinally; the
others on top of post, distributed around the sign. A few coins bent over.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 28 1979, 1994, 1999, 1999,
2008, 2010
2p 14 1986, 1988, 2003
5p 4 2005
10p 3 Unknown
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 1 Unknown
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 1 Polish grosz
Unknown 0 -
548
IG5
Condition: Fragment
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: See IG3
Proximity to path: Directly in path
Proximity to river: 9m west of path
Proximity to IG3: 160cm
Proximity to IG4: 66cm
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Easily accessible, although decaying badly
Grid reference: SD 69565 73969 (±13ft)
Latitude: 54.16063 Longitude: -2.46759 (±11ft)
Elevation: 459ft
Dimensions: 52x60x36cm
Coins: 28
Discernible patterning of coins: Inserted longitudinally. One coin bent over
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 13 Unknown
2p 11 Post-2008 (coat-of-arms
design)
5p 3 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
IG6
Condition: Living
Species: Beech (Fagus)
Associated tools: See IG3
Proximity to path: 1.2m west of path
Proximity to river: 10m west of river
Proximity to IG3: 3.2m
549
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SD 69565 73969 (±13ft)
Latitude: 54.16063 Longitude: -2.46759 (±11ft)
Elevation: 459ft
Girth: 41cm
Coins: 4
Highest coin: 115cm
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinal
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 2 Unknown
2p 1 Unknown
5p 1 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
IG7
Condition: Living
Species: Beech (Fagus)
Associated tools: See IG3
Proximity to path: 1.3m west of path
Proximity to river: 10m west of river
Proximity to IG3: 3.3m
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SD 69565 73969 (±13ft)
Latitude: 54.16063 Longitude: -2.46759 (±11ft)
Elevation: 459ft
Girth: 60cm
Coins: 3
Highest coin: 141cm
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 3 Unknown
550
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
IG8
Condition: Living
Species: Beech (Fagus)
Associated tools: See IG3
Proximity to path: 3m west of path
Proximity to river: 12m west of river
Proximity to IG3: 2.06m
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SD 69565 73969 (±13ft)
Latitude: 54.16063 Longitude: -2.46759 (±11ft)
Elevation: 459ft
Girth: 19cm
Coins: 2
Highest coin: 192cm
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinal
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 2 1999, 2001
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
551
IG9
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: See IG3
Proximity to path: 3m west of path
Proximity to river: 12m west of river
Proximity to IG3: Touching
Class of decay: 2
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: north-east to south-west
Grid reference: SD 69565 73969 (±13ft)
Latitude: 54.16063 Longitude: -2.46759 (±11ft)
Elevation: 459ft
Length: 2.28m Girth: 22cm
Coins: 4
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinal
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 4 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
IG10
Condition: Living
Species: Beech (Fagus)
Associated tools: See IG3
Proximity to path: 3m west of path
552
Proximity to river: 12m west of river
Proximity to IG8: 10cm
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SD 69565 73969 (±13ft)
Latitude: 54.16063 Longitude: -2.46759 (±11ft)
Elevation: 459ft
Girth: 22cm
Coins: 2
Highest coin: 130cm
Discernible patterning of coins: Random
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
IG11
Condition: Living
Species: Beech (Fagus)
Associated tools: See IG3
Proximity to path: 2m west of path
Proximity to river: 11m west of river
Proximity to IG3: 165cm
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SD 69565 73969 (±13ft)
Latitude: 54.16063 Longitude: -2.46759 (±11ft)
Elevation: 459ft
Girth: 70cm
Coins: 8
553
Highest coin: 143cm
Discernible patterning of coins: Random distribution
Other notable features: Graffiti engraved into the bark: a love-heart with ‘K + A’ in centre.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 4 2006
2p 4 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
IG12
Condition: Living
Species: Beech (Fagus)
Associated tools: See IG3
Proximity to path: 1.9m west of path
Proximity to river: 11m west of river
Proximity to IG3: 1.7m
Proximity to IG12: 10cm
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SD 69565 73969 (±13ft)
Latitude: 54.16063 Longitude: -2.46759 (±11ft)
Elevation: 459ft
Girth: 17cm
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: n/a
Height of coin: 134cm
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 1 Unknown
20p 0 -
554
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
IG13
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: See IG3
Proximity to path: directly beside path, east of path
Proximity to river: 1.2m west of river
Proximity to IG3: Opposite side of path the primary coin-tree: 3.55m away
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: north-west to south-east
Grid reference: SD 69565 73969 (±13ft)
Latitude: 54.16063 Longitude: -2.46759 (±11ft)
Elevation: 459ft
Length: 2.4m Girth: 1.43m
Coins: 39
Discernible patterning of coins: longitudinal distribution. Some damage caused by
percussion
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 22 Unknown
2p 13 200-, 2010
5p 1 Unknown
10p 2 Unknown
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
IG14
Condition: Log
555
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: See IG3
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, east of path
Proximity to river: 2.6m west of river
Proximity to IG3: 3m
Proximity to IG13: 2.9m
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: north-west to south-east
Grid reference: SD 69565 73969 (±13ft)
Latitude: 54.16063 Longitude: -2.46759 (±11ft)
Elevation: 459ft
Length: 6m Girth: 106cm
Coins: 3
Discernible patterning of coins: Coins on log end
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 2 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 1 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
IG15
Condition: Living
Species: Alder (Alnus)
Associated tools: See IG3
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, east of path
Proximity to river: 3m west of river
Proximity to IG3: 3m
Ease of access: Easily accessible
556
Grid reference: SD 69565 73969 (±13ft)
Latitude: 54.16063 Longitude: -2.46759 (±11ft)
Elevation: 459ft
Girth: 1.3m
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: n/a
Height of coin: 148cm
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
IG16
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: See IG3
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, east of path
Proximity to river: eastern end in river, west of river
Proximity to IG3: 3m
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: west to east
Grid reference: SD 69565 73969 (±13ft)
Latitude: 54.16063 Longitude: -2.46759 (±11ft)
Elevation: 459ft
Length: 7m Girth: 131cm
Coins: 12
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinal
557
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 6 1998, 2002
2p 4 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 2 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
STAND-ALONE
IG17
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south-east of path
Proximity to river: 10m north-west of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SD 69597 74031 (±11ft)
Latitude: 54.16118 Longitude: -2.46710 (±11ft)
Elevation: 552ft
Length: 4.2m Girth: 64cm
Coins: 8
Discernible patterning of coins: Coins longitudinally distributed along top of log. Some
damage through percussion
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 3 Unknown
2p 4 Unknown
5p 1 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
558
CLUSTER 2
IG18
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south-east-east of path
Proximity to river: 10m north-west-west of river
Proximity to IG18: Directly below
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: north-west to south-east
Grid reference: SD 69583 74056 (±17ft)
Latitude: 54.16140 Longitude: -2.46732 (±16ft)
Elevation: 545ft
Length: 7m Girth: 107cm
Coins: 258
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinal distribution. Some coins bent over.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 142 2011
2p 103 1990, 1999, 2000
5p 7 Unknown
10p 6 1997
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
IG19
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south-east-east of path
Proximity to river: 10m north-west-west of river
559
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: north to south
Grid reference: SD 69583 74056 (±17ft)
Latitude: 54.16140 Longitude: -2.46732 (±16ft)
Elevation: 545ft
Length: 14m Girth: 164cm
Coins: 6608
Discernible patterning of coins: Primarily longitudinal. Some coins are bent over.
Other notable features: Coins patterned to form either ‘BB’ or ‘AB’ within a square of
coins. A 2p pence inscribed with ‘R & L’ dated 197-, and nailed to the tree. 1 screw inserted.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 3992 1980, 1988, 1990, 1998, 1998, 2000, 2004,
2007, 2008
2p 2456 197-, 1971, 1980, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990,
1991, 1997, 1998, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2000,
2000, 2001, 2001, 2002, 2002, 2004, 2006,
2007, 2007, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010
5p 68 1991, 1992, 1995
10p 52
20p 15
50p 1
£1 0
£2 0
Foreign currency 1 Hungarian forint
Unknown 23
IG20
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south-east-east of path
Proximity to river: 10m north-west-west of river
Proximity to IG18: 87cm
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SD 69583 74056 (±17ft)
560
Latitude: 54.16140 Longitude: -2.46732 (±16ft)
Elevation: 545ft
Height: 83cm Girth: 41cm
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: n/a
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 1 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
IG21
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, north-west-west of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: north-west-west to south-east-east
Grid reference: SD 69599 74047 (±10ft)
Latitude: 54.16157 Longitude: -2.46709 (±10ft)
Elevation: 539ft
Length: 193cm Girth: 119cm
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinal
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 2 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
561
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
IG22
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, on opposite side to IG21: south-east-east of path
Proximity to IG21: 2.6m
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: north-west-west to south-east-east
Grid reference: SD 69599 74047 (±10ft)
Latitude: 54.16157 Longitude: -2.46709 (±10ft)
Elevation: 539ft
Length: 3m Girth: 117cm
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: Coin on top of log. Damaged through percussion.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
CLUSTER 4
IG23
Condition: Stump
562
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, east of path
Proximity to river: 20m west of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SD 69616 74130 (±15ft)
Latitude: 54.16219 Longitude: -2.46667 (±15ft)
Elevation: 532ft
Height: 103cm Girth: 60cm
Coins: 13
Discernible patterning of coins: Coins on top of stump. Some damage through percussion.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 9 Unknown
2p 4 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
IG24
Condition: Wooden post, bearing information about the oak tree
Species: n/a
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, east of path
Proximity to river: 20m west of river
Proximity to IG23: 3m
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SD 69616 74130 (±15ft)
Latitude: 54.16219 Longitude: -2.46667 (±15ft)
Elevation: 532ft
563
Height: 103cm Girth: 60cm
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: Coin on side of post, near the top
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
STAND-ALONE
IG25
Condition: Living
Species: Alder (Alnus)
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Two paths wrap around it
Proximity to river: 8m south-west of river
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SD 69583 74478 (±14ft)
Latitude: 54.16520 Longitude: -2.46737 (±14ft)
Elevation: 356ft
Girth: 88cm
Height of coined limb: 1m
Coins: 24
Discernible patterning of coins: Primarily longitudinal. Many coins bent over.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 16 2002, 2003, 2006, 2006,
2007, 2007, 2008
2p 5 2000
5p 2 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
564
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 1 Unknown
CLUSTER 5
IG26
Condition: Stump
Species: Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris)
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south-east of path
Proximity to river: 13m south-east of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SD 69457 74717 (±15ft)
Latitude: 54.16734 Longitude: -2.46933 (±15ft)
Elevation: 572ft
Height: 51cm Girth: 167cm
Coins: 86
Discernible patterning of coins: Annular. Roughly one third are bent over.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 33 2000, 2001, 2003, post-2008
(coat-of-arms design)
2p 27 1994, 1997, 1997, 1999,
2006
5p 11 200-, 2 x post-2008 (coat-of-
arms design)
10p 10 Unknown
20p 2 2008
50p 1 199-
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 Unknown
Unknown 1 Unknown
565
CLUSTER 5
IG27
Condition: Log
Species: Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris)
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 60cm south-east of path
Proximity to river: 13m south-east of river
Proximity to IG26: 11cm
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: south-east to north-west
Grid reference: SD 69457 74717 (±15ft)
Latitude: 54.16734 Longitude: -2.46933 (±15ft)
Elevation: 572ft
Length: 3.6m Girth: 1.09m
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: Coin on log end.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
STAND-ALONE
IG28
Condition: Wooden sculpture in the shape of three toadstools (IG28a, IG28b, IG28c)
Species: n/a
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 88cm north-west of path
566
Proximity to river: 7m south-east of river
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SD 69468 74732 (±15ft)
Latitude: 54.16751 Longitude: -2.46923 (±15ft)
Elevation: 581ft
Height: IG28a: 95cm; IG28b: 100cm; IG28c: 120cm
Girth: IG28a: 56cm; IG28b: 78cm; IG28c: 106cm
Coins: 675
Discernible patterning of coins: The majority of coins on the head of the toadstools, radial
distribution. Some coins bent over.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 367 1976, 1987, 1988, 199-, 1995, 2000, 2001,
2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2005, 2005,
2007, 2008, 2008, 2008, 2009, 2009,
2010, 2010
2p 233 1971, 1976, 1980, 1988, 1988, 1988, 199-,
1994, 1994, 1994, 1997, 1998, 1998,
1998, 200-, 200-, 2000, 2000, 2002, 2003,
2003, 2004, 2004, 2005, 2005, 2005,
2007, 2008, 2010, 2010, 2011, 2011
5p 32 1999, 2004, 2008
10p 30 199-, 1992, 2006, 2006
20p 4 1991
50p 0 -
£1 1 Unknown
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 5 10 euro cent, Polish groszy, 3 unknown
Unknown 3 Unknown
CLUSTER 6
IG29
Condition: Log
Species: Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris)
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 60cm south-east of path
Proximity to river: 4m south-east of river
Proximity to IG30: 61cm
Class of decay: 3
567
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: south-east to north-west
Grid reference: SD 69494 74773 (±19ft)
Latitude: 54.16784 Longitude: -2.46878 (±19ft)
Elevation: 590ft
Length: 6.8m Girth: 1.4m
Height of log-end: 127cm above path
Coins: 14
Discernible patterning of coins: Coins on log end, random distribution.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 6 3 x post-2008 (coat-of-arms design)
2p 3 Unknown
5p 3 Unknown
10p 2 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
IG30
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 86cm south-east of path
Proximity to river: 4m south-east of river
Proximity to IG29: 61cm
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Fairly easily accessible, but concealed behind foliage
Grid reference: SD 69494 74773 (±19ft)
Latitude: 54.16784 Longitude: -2.46878 (±19ft)
Elevation: 590ft
Length: 1.37m Girth: 92cm
Coins: 223
568
Discernible patterning of coins: On log end, coins are in a neat linear pattern, all folded. On
top, coins are longitudinally distributed. All coins on log end are bent over.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 91 Unknown
2p 117 2007
5p 8 Unknown
10p 7 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
34 9%
66 18%
114 31%
140 38%
13 4%
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-Present
Dates of Coins at Ingleton
2 0.004%
29244 51%
23971 42%
1224 2.2%
797 1.4%
77 0.14%
5 0.009%
2 0.004% 0
22 0.4%
1566 2.8%
Denominations of Coins at Ingleton
Mode = 2000
Median = 2000
Mean = 1997
Total = 56910
569
2.26 – Isle Maree Case-Study
Case-study name: Isle Maree (IM)
Date of fieldwork: 14/04/2012
Case-study location: Isle Maree, Loch Maree, Wester Ross, Scotland
Case-study date (i.e. when did it become a ‘coin-tree?): 18th
/19th
centuries
Case-study environment: A small island of oak, sweet chestnut, and Scots pine, close to the
northern shore of Loch Maree
Land ownership: Privately owned by Duncan Mackenzie. Managed by Scottish Natural
Heritage.
Attractions nearby: Maelrubha’s cell (or chapel), now a ruin. A sacred well, no longer there.
A ‘druid circle’, dated to c.100 BC
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 15
571
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-tree:
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Mound,
possible
tower
house
1 Monument Isle Maree,
Gairloch,
Highlands
Site No.
NG97SW2
Canmore
ID: 12050
A mount located on the island,
approximately 4.0m high and composed of
rock. It shows no evidence of antiquity, but
is the only mound which may refer to
Dixon’s (1886) description of a tower built
on Isle Maree by a Norse prince.
Source: Canmore
Well
Burial
ground
Chapel
Cross
slabs
2
3
4
5
Monument Isle Maree,
Gairloch,
Highlands
Site No.
NG97SW1
Canmore
ID: 12049
Burial ground, enclosed by a rubble wall. In
1861 it contained 50-60 graves. Workmen
from the 17th c. iron-furnaces at Poolewe are
said to have been buried here. The last burial
took place in 1925.
The site of a chapel founded by St
Maelrubha, as an oratory, between 671 and
722. There were some remains on the spot in
1861 which were too fragmentary to
determine a date of construction, but no
surveyable traces now remain.
A small, built well with a cover slab.
Source: Canmore
Source: http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/12049/details/isle+maree/ (Accessed 24/01/2012)
572
IM1
Condition: Log, propped upright
Species: Oak (Quercus)
Associated tools: Applies to all coin-trees at Isle Maree. Three rocks possibly used as
percussion tools within the cluster of coin-trees. Jagged and minimally abraded Lewisian
gneiss (common in north-western Scotland): 14x10.5x8cm. Rounded and slightly rectangular
Torridonian sandstone with no visible damage (also common in the area): 11x10x3.5cm
and15x8x6cm.
Proximity to path: Applies to all coin-trees at Isle Maree. The path, small and neither
officially created or maintained, leads directly to the cluster of coin-trees – those visiting the
island no doubt go immediately to the trees, and so the path was probably created because of
this – Muddock wrote in the 1890s: “A track, worn by the feet of visitors, leads to the centre of the
island” (1898: 437)
Proximity to loch: The closest loch-shore is 22.6 metres south
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Applies to all coin-trees at Isle Maree. Not easily accessible. It is on an
island which, up until two years ago, was accessible only to those who arranged a boat-trip
via the Loch Maree Hotel. Now, following the closure of this hotel, it is very rarely visited.
Once on the island, however, the tree is easily accessible.
573
Proximity to IM2: 12cm
Proximity to IM3: 15cm
Proximity to IM4: Touching
Proximity to IM5: Touching
Proximity to IM6: 15cm
Proximity to IM7: Touching
Proximity to IM8: 14cm
Proximity to IM9: 3m
Proximity to IM10: 3.6m
Proximity to IM11: 4.9m
Proximity to IM12: 5.1m
Proximity to IM13: 5.4m
Proximity to IM14: 7.5m
Proximity to IM15: 5.6m
Grid reference: NG 93101 72341 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 57.69323 (± 9ft) Longitude: -5.47316 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 36ft
Length: 488cm Girth: 47cm
Orientation: Leaning north-south (southern end on ground)
Coins: 613
Discernible patterning of coins: The vast majority are inserted with the grain, running
longitudinally up the trunk. Several coins are bowed, and one appears to have been broken
cleanly in half.
Other notable features: In addition to coins there was 1 golden eagle badge, 1 silver chain,
1 crystal love-heart earring, 1 nail.
Denomination Quantity Dates
Halfpenny 12 1929
One Penny (pre-
decimalisation)
485 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900, 1904, 1905, 1905,
1905, 1913, 1914, 1914, 1915, 1915, 1915,
1915, 1915, 1915, 1916, 1918, 1919, 192?,
1920, 1920, 1921, 1930, 1934, 1937
Two Shillings 3
1p (post-
decimalisation)
28 2000, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2009, post-
2008 (coat of arms)
2p 28 1978, 1992, 1997, 2001, 2007, 2007
5p 4 200?
10p 10 1992, 2002
20p 3 Unknown
574
50p 1 2001
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 5 5 Dutch guilder coin 1985, 10 Dutch cents, 1
euro cent, 1 US cent, unknown foreign coin
Unknown 34 Unknown
IM2
Condition: Log on the ground
Species: Oak (Quercus)
Class of decay: 4
Proximity to loch: The closest loch-shore is 22.6 metres south
Orientation: laid on ground east-west
Grid reference: NG 93101 72341 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 57.69323 (± 9ft) Longitude: -5.47316 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 36ft
Length: 91cm Girth: 51cm
Coins in/on tree: 209
Discernible patterning of coins: Those that are inserted are arranged longitudinally along
one long single crack. Many of them, however, are simply resting loosely on the top. 5 coins
are crooked
Other notable features: 1 red candle
Denomination Quantity Dates
Halfpenny 1 1911
One Penny (pre-
decimalisation)
51 1875, 1889, 1897, 1899, 1902, 1906, 1906, 1912, 1912, 1914,
1915, 1916, 1916, 1916, 1917, 1917, 1917, 1917, 1918, 1918,
1918, 1919, 1919, 1919, 1919, 1919, 1920, 1920, 1921, 1921,
1921, 1921, 1927, 1929, 1938, 1945, 1948
Two Shillings 1 1956
1p (post-
decimalisation)
25 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2000, 2003, 2004,
2008, 2008
2p 55 1978, 1978, 1980, 1980, 1980, 1980, 1980, 1980, 1987, 1988,
1988, 1990, 1991, 1991, 1991, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992,
1994, 1997, 1997, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2001, 2001, 2002, 2002,
2005, 2009
5p 13 1990, 1990, 1997, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004
10p 22 1971, 1975, 1980, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992,
1992, 1996, 2000
20p 10 1982, 1995
50p 4 1997, 1997
575
£1 3 1993
£2 0 -
Foreign
currency
4 1 Dutch guilders 2005, 5 US cents 1977, 5 euro cents, unknown
foreign coin
Unknown 30 Unknown
Coins on ground around ISLE MAREE 2: 390
Denomination Quantity Dates
Halfpenny 13 1903, 1910, 1916, 1919, 1930, 1931, 1931, 1940, 1941, 1944,
1952, 1957
One Penny
(pre-
decimalisation)
64 1897, 19--, 1904, 1905, 1905, 1907, 1910, 1912, 1912, 1913,
1914, 1915, 1916, 1916, 1916, 1916, 1916, 1916, 1916, 1916,
1917, 1917, 1917, 1917, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1920, 1920,
1921, 1921, 1921, 1921, 1921, 1923, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930,
1936, 1936, 1936, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1944, 1945, 1945, 1948,
1949, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1967, 1967
Two Shillings 5 1956, 1958, 1966, 1966
1p (post-
decimalisation)
6 1985, 1996
2p 214 1971, 1971, 1971, 1971, 1971, 1971, 1971, 1971, 1971, 1971,
1971, 1971, 1971, 1971, 1971, 1971, 1971, 1971, 1971, 1971,
1971, 1971, 1971, 1971, 1971, 1975, 1975, 1975, 1976, 1976,
1977, 1977, 1977, 1977, 1977, 1977, 1977, 1977, 1977, 1977,
1977, 1977, 1978, 1978, 1978, 1979, 1979, 1979, 1979, 1979,
1979, 198?, 1980, 1980, 1980, 1980, 1980, 1980, 1980, 1980,
1981, 1981, 1981, 1981, 1981, 1981, 1981, 1985, 1985, 1985,
1986, 1986, 1986, 1986, 1987, 1987, 1987, 1987, 1987, 1987,
1987, 1987, 1987, 1987, 1987, 1988, 1988, 1988, 1988, 1988,
1988, 1988, 1988, 1988, 1989, 1989, 1989, 1989, 1989, 1989,
1989, 1989, 1989, 1990, 1990, 1990, 1990, 1990, 1990, 1990,
1991, 1991, 1991, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1993, 1994, 1994, 1994,
1994, 1994, 1994, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1996, 1996, 1996, 1997,
1997, 1997, 1997, 1997, 1998, 1998, 1998, 1998, 1999, 1999,
1999, 200-, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2001, 2001, 2001,
2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001,
2001, 2001, 2001, 2002, 2002, 2002, 2002, 2003, 2003, 2003,
2004, 2004, 2004, 2004, 2005, 2005, 2005, 2006, 2006, 2007,
2008, 2009
5p 9 1980, 2001, 2001, 2004
10p 58 1968, 1969, 1969, 1970, 1970, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1980,
1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992,
1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992,
1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1995, 1995, 1996, 1996, 1997, 1997,
2000, 2000, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2002, 2002, 2003, 2003, 2003,
2003, 2004, 2004, 2006
20p 3 1983, 2001, 2010
50p 6 1969, 1997, 1997, 1999, 1999, 2006
£1 3 1983, 1996, 2001
576
£2 0 -
Foreign
currency
7 5 Canadian cents 1978, 20 euro cents 2001, 2 euro cents 2007, 5
Dutch guilder 1990, Eire 20p 1996, Australian 10 cents 1975,
Isle of Man 10p 1992
Unknown 2 Unknown
IM3
Condition: Fragment
Species: Oak (Quercus)
Proximity to loch: The closest loch-shore is 22.9 metres south
Class of decay: 5
Orientation: laid on ground east-west
Grid reference: NG 93101 72341 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 57.69323 (± 9ft) Longitude: -5.47316 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 36ft
Length: 26cm Girth: 9cm
Coins: 7
Discernible patterning of coins: Most appear longitudinal
Denomination Quantity Dates
Halfpenny 1 Unknown
One Penny (pre-
decimalisation)
5 1949
Two Shillings 0 -
1p (post-decimalisation) 1 1999
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
IM4
Condition: Log, propped up
Species: Oak (Quercus)
577
Proximity to loch: The closest loch-shore is 22.7 metres south
Class of decay: 3
Orientation: leaning up east-west (western end on ground)
Grid reference: NG 93101 72341 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 57.69323 (± 9ft) Longitude: -5.47316 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 36ft
Length: 145cm Girth: 52cm
Coins: 216
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinally following the grain. Some are loose in a
gap. 10+ coins are crooked and bowed.
Other notable features: 1 nail
Denomination Quantity Dates
Halfpenny 6 Unknown
One Penny (pre-
decimalisation)
138 1898, 1904, 1908, 1909, 1909, 1912, 1915,
1920, 1920, 1929, 1929, 1934, 1935, 1936,
1937
Two Shillings 0 -
1p (post-
decimalisation)
14 1988, 1990, 1999, 2002
2p 20 1971, 1975, 1975, 1981, 1986, 1991, 1992,
1998, 2007
5p 4 1990, 1990, 1995
10p 7 Old ten pence, 1970, 1975
20p 6 1997
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 1 euro cent 2001
Unknown 0 -
IM5
Condition: Log, propped up
Species: Hardwood
Proximity to loch: The closest loch-shore is 22.7 metres south
Class of decay: 3
Orientation: leaning up east-west (western end on ground)
Grid reference: NG 93101 72341 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 57.69323 (± 9ft) Longitude: -5.47316 (± 9ft)
578
Elevation: 36ft
Length: 309cm Girth: 25cm
Coins: 40 (The highest, a £1 coin, at a height of 273cm from the bottom of the tree – too high
to reach. It is possible that these were inserted before it was propped up)
Discernible patterning of coins: The majority are longitudinally following the grain
Denomination Quantity Dates
Halfpenny 0 -
One Penny (pre-
decimalisation)
0 -
Two Shillings 0 -
1p (post-
decimalisation)
6 1979, 1997, 1999, 2001
2p 17 198-, 1990, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2007
5p 3 1992, Coat of arms (post-2008)
10p 4 1992
20p 0 -
50p 1 1997
£1 1 Unknown
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 3 50 euro cents 2002, South Korean 500 Won
1999, 1 US cent
Unknown 5 Unknown
IM6
Condition: Log, propped up
Species: Oak (Quercus)
Proximity to loch: The closest loch-shore is 22.9 metres south
Class of decay: 3
Orientation: leaning north-south (northern end on ground)
Grid reference: NG 93101 72341 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 57.69323 (± 9ft) Longitude: -5.47316 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 36ft
Length: 104cm Girth: 46cm
Coins: 17
Discernible patterning of coins: Many are on the top log-end, most facing the same
direction
Denomination Quantity Dates
Halfpenny 0 -
One Penny (pre- 0 -
579
decimalisation)
Two Shillings 0 -
1p (post-decimalisation) 4 2000, 2002, 2006
2p 5 2001
5p 2 2006
10p 0 -
20p 1 2003
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 3 50 euro cents, 1 US cent
1991, unknown foreign coin
Unknown 0 -
IM7
Condition: Log, propped up
Species: Hardwood
Proximity to loch: The closest loch-shore is 22.7 metres south
Class of decay: 3
Orientation: leaning up north-south (northern end on ground)
Grid reference: NG 93101 72341 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 57.69323 (± 9ft) Longitude: -5.47316 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 36ft
Length: 212cm Girth: 23cm
Coins: 0
Discernible patterning of coins: n/a
Other notable features: Instead of coins, there are 2 black hair bobbles, 1 metal hairclip, 1
pink rag, 1 piece of string, 1 leather bootlace, 1 metal badge clip
IM8
Condition: Log, propped up
Species: Hardwood
Proximity to loch: The closest loch-shore is 22.7 metres south
Class of decay: 3
Orientation: leaning up north-south (northern end on ground)
580
Grid reference: NG 93101 72341 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 57.69323 (± 9ft) Longitude: -5.47316 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 36ft
Length: 137cm Girth: 26cm
Coins: 27
Discernible patterning of coins: Many following one longitudinal crack. Some coins are
bowed.
Denomination Quantity Dates
Halfpenny 0 -
One Penny (pre-
decimalisation)
7 1909, 1921, 1921, 1930
Two Shillings 0 -
1p (post-decimalisation) 1 Unknown
2p 2 1997
5p 1 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 5 euro cents
Unknown 14 Unknown
IM9
Condition: Log
Species: Oak (Quercus)
Proximity to loch: The closest loch-shore is 22.7 metres south
Class of decay: 3
Orientation: leaning up north-south (southern end on ground)
Grid reference: NG 93101 72341 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 57.69323 (± 9ft) Longitude: -5.47316 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 36ft
Length: 951cm Girth: 55cm
Coins: 331
Discernible patterning of coins: Several following longitudinal cracks, but majority resting
loosely on top. 30+ coins are crooked.
Other notable features: 1 screw
581
Denomination Quantity Dates
Halfpenny 2 1927
One Penny (pre-
decimalisation)
94 1895, 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900, 1903, 1903,
1904, 1906, 1907, 1907, 1907, 1908, 1912,
1912, 1915, 1915, 1916, 1916, 1916, 1916,
1917, 1917, 1917, 1917, 1917, 1918, 1919,
1921, 1922, 1927, 1929, 1930, 1930, 1934,
1935, 1936, 1937, 1944, 1945, 1945, 1958,
1963, 1964, 1965, 1966
Two Shillings 5 1948, 1954
1p (post-
decimalisation)
62 1971, 1979, 1979, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1989,
1997, 1998, 2000, 2000, 2001, 2001, 2004,
2004, 2005, 2005, 2006, 2008
2p 78 1971, 1971, 1971, 1971, 1971, 1975, 1976,
1978, 1978, 1979, 1979, 1979, 1980, 1980,
1981, 1981, 1988, 1989, 1989, 1990, 1992,
1994, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1997, 2000, 2001,
2001, 2001, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2006
5p 22 1968, 1989, 1990, 1990, 1992, 1992, 1999,
2004, 2004, 2006, 2006, 2007
10p 23 1968, 1975, 1976, 1976, 1980, 1992, 1992,
1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992,
1992, 1992, 1996, 1997
20p 9 1988, 1993
50p 7 1969, 1980, 2002
£1 4 Unknown
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 4 2 euro cents, 5 Dutch guilders, American dime
1965, South African coin
Unknown 21 Unknown
Coins on ground around ISLE MAREE 9: 47
Denomination Quantity Dates
Halfpenny 3 1944, 1944
One Penny (pre-
decimalisation)
5 189-, 1897, 190?, 1902, 1916
Two Shillings 1 Unknown
1p (post-
decimalisation)
11 1986, 1988, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2005
2p 16 1971, 1975, 1978, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1989,
2000
5p 4 1970, 1990, 1997
10p 3 1976
20p 3 1982, 1999
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 5 South African cents 1994
582
Unknown 0 Unknown
IM10
Condition: Stump
Species: Unknown
Proximity to loch: The closest loch-shore is 22.7 metres south
Class of decay: 4
Grid reference: NG 93101 72341 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 57.69323 (± 9ft) Longitude: -5.47316 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 36ft
Height: 20cm Girth: 94cm
Coins: 9
Discernible patterning of coins: The majority resting loosely on top. One coin slightly
crooked.
Denomination Quantity Dates
Halfpenny 0 -
One Penny (pre-
decimalisation)
2 1918, 1938
Two Shillings 0 -
1p (post-decimalisation) 1 2002
2p 5 1975, 1975, 1979, 1988,
1997
5p 1 2002
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
IM11
Condition: Log, propped up
Species: Hardwood
Proximity to loch: The closest loch-shore is 23.1 metres south
Class of decay: 3
Orientation: leaning up east-west (western end on ground)
583
Grid reference: NG 93101 72341 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 57.69323 (± 9ft) Longitude: -5.47316 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 36ft
Length: 484cm Girth: 38cm
Coins: 40
Discernible patterning of coins: Many of them in longitudinal pre-existing cracks
Denomination Quantity Dates
Halfpenny 0 -
One Penny (pre-
decimalisation)
2 Unknown
Two Shillings 0 -
1p (post-decimalisation) 7 Unknown
2p 17 1995, 2001
5p 4 1990, 1994, 2009
10p 5 2000, 2005, 2006
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 1 Dutch guilders
Unknown 3 Unknown
IM12
Condition: Living tree
Species: Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris)
Proximity to loch: The closest loch-shore is 23 metres south
Grid reference: NG 93101 72341 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 57.69323 (± 9ft) Longitude: -5.47316 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 36ft
Girth: 115cm
Coins: 4
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinally following the grain
Denomination Quantity Dates
Halfpenny 0 -
One Penny (pre-
decimalisation)
0 -
Two Shillings 0 -
1p (post-decimalisation) 0 -
584
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 3 Unknown
IM13
Condition: Living
Species: Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris)
Proximity to loch: The loch-shore is 18 metres south
Grid reference: NG 93101 72341 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 57.69323 (± 9ft) Longitude: -5.47316 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 36ft
Girth: 206cm
Coins: 11
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinally following the grain.
Denomination Quantity Dates
Halfpenny 1 1934
One Penny (pre-
decimalisation)
2 1906
Two Shillings 0 -
1p (post-decimalisation) 0 -
2p 3 1989, 1996
5p 1 Unknown
10p 2 Unknown
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 1 Unknown
IM14
Condition: Log, propped up
Species: Hardwood
585
Proximity to loch: The closest loch-shore is 15 metres south
Class of decay: 3
Grid reference: NG 93101 72341 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 57.69323 (± 9ft) Longitude: -5.47316 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 36ft
Length: 902cm Girth: 49cm
Coins: 3
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinally following the grain and pre-existing cracks.
Denomination Quantity Dates
Halfpenny 0 -
One Penny (pre-
decimalisation)
0 -
Two Shillings 0 -
1p (post-decimalisation) 0 -
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 1 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 1 Unknown
£1 0 -
£2 1 Unknown
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
IM15
Condition: Living
Species: Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris)
Proximity to loch: The closest loch-shore is 17.5 metres south
Grid reference: NG 93101 72341 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 57.69323 (± 9ft) Longitude: -5.47316 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 36ft
Girth: 187cm
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinally following the grain. One coin twisted.
Denomination Quantity Dates
Halfpenny 0 -
One Penny (pre- 1 Unknown
586
decimalisation)
Two Shillings 0 -
1p (post-decimalisation) 0 -
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 1 Unknown
1 0.1%
1 0.1%
13 1.8%
29 4%
82 11.3%
32 4.4%
22 3%
16 2.2%
7 1%
22 3%
119 16.3%
94 12.9%
179 24.6%
111 15.2%
Dates of Coins at Isle Maree
39 2%
856 43%
15 0.8%
166 8%
461 23%
68 3%
135 7% 38
2% 19 1%
11 0.6%
1 0.05%
30 1.5%
136 7%
Denominations of Coins at Isle Maree
Mode = 1992/1997
Median = 1986
Mean = 1964
Total = 1975
587
2.27 – Leigh Woods Case-Study
Case-study name: Leigh Woods (LW)
Date of fieldwork: 29/03/2013
Case-study location: Leigh Woods, Bristol, England
Case-study date (i.e. when did it become a ‘coin-tree?): c. 2010 (Pers. comm. Bill Morris,
Head Ranger, 17/03/2012)
Case-Study environment: Woodland
Land ownership: The National Trust
Attractions Nearby: View of the Clifton Suspension Bridge
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 1
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-trees(s):
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Stokeleigh
Camp
1 Monument Long Ashton,
North Somerset Monument
No. (ST
57 SE 35)
Earthwork remains of an Iron Age
multivallate promontory fort or
hillfort with occupation dating
from the late pre-Roman Iron Age
to the mid to late 2nd century AD.
Source: PastScape
Burgh
Walls
Camp
2 Monument Long Ashton,
North Somerset Monument
No. (ST
57 SE 37)
Earthwork remains of an Iron Age
multivallate promontory fort or
hillfort.
Source: PastScape
Bracken 3 Monument Long Ashton, Monument Post-Medieval coach house and
gate lodge.
588
Hill House North Somerset No. (ST
57 SE
720)
Source: PastScape
Source: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/advanced_search.aspx (Accessed 24/03/2013)
LW1
Condition: Log
Species: Oak (Quercus)
Associated tools: One limestone, ‘l’ shaped hammer rock: 15x10x5cm, with signs of
abrasion, on the ground 73cm north of the tree
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south of the park
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: East to west
Grid reference: ST 553 740 (± 25ft)
Latitude: 51.45700 Longitude: -2.637255 (± 13ft)
Elevation: 423ft
Length: 273cm Girth: 240cm
Coins: 38
Discernible patterning of coins: Predominantly longitudinal, inserted into pre-existing
cracks. Most coins show signs of percussion; only one bent over.
Other notable features: A nail, but probably with practical function
589
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 19 1971, 2 x post-2008
2p 10 1988, 1992, 4 x post-2008
5p 6 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 3 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
2.28 – Loxley Case-Study
Case-study name: Loxley (LX)
Date of fieldwork: 24/11/2011
Case-study location: Wadsley and Loxley Common, Yorkshire, England
Case-study date (i.e. when did it become a ‘coin-tree?): Unknown
Case-study environment: Woodland
Land ownership: Sheffield County Council
Attractions nearby: Popular local walk
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 1
590
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-tree:
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Flint blade 1 Find spot Bradfield,
Sheffield,
South
Yorkshire
SK 311 906
HER
Number:
03234/01
One well utilised flint blade of
unknown date found by A.
Henderson. Located in Sheffield
City Museum
Source: South Yorkshire SMR
Loxley and
Wadsley
Common
Quarry
2 Monument Bradfield,
Sheffield,
South
Yorkshire
SK 312 906
HER
Number:
04534/01
Post-medieval to industrial
quarry, 1720-1914.
Source: South Yorkshire SMR
Source: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/advanced_search.aspx (Accessed 24/01/2012)
LX1
Condition: Living
Species: Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris)
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside a path, but it is not particularly visible – as there are not
many coins, and most of them are facing away from the path, on the south and south-east
facing sides of the tree.
Ease of access: Easily accessible but not particularly visible.
Grid reference: SK 31195 90510
591
Latitude: 53.41051 Longitude: -1.53216
Girth: 125cm
Coins: 91
Discernible patterning of coins: Random
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 26 Unknown
2p 31 200-
5p 5 Unknown
10p 3 20--
20p 2 199-, 2000
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 24 Unknown
2.29 – Lydford Gorge
Case-study name: Lydford Gorge (LG)
Date of fieldwork: 02/04/2013
Case-study location: Lydford Gorge, Devon, England
26 29%
31 34%
5 5% 3
3% 2
2% 0 0 0 0
24 26%
1p 2p 5p 10p 20p 50p £1 £2 Foreign currency
Unknown
Denominations of Coins at Loxley
Total = 91
592
Case-study date (i.e. when did it become a ‘coin-tree?): Pre-1997 (pers. comm. Adrian
Shaw, Senior Ranger, 03/04/2012)
Case-study environment: Woodland gorge
Land ownership: The National Trust
Attractions nearby: Lydford Gorge and the waterfalls.
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 12
Additional information: Several examples of woodland art and sculptures throughout the
forest
594
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-trees(s):
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Lydford
Castle
1 Monument Lydford, West
Devon, Devon Monument
No. (SX
58 SW 2)
Medieval castle and keep, built in 1195,
as a purpose built prison for detaining
royal prisoners, and took the form of a
square stone tower or keep.
Source: PastScape
Lydford
Norman
Earthwork
s
2 Monument Lydford, West
Devon, Devon Monument
No. (SX
58 SW 13)
Medieval fort. Lydford Norman
Earthworks are thought to be the remains
of a Norman castle or fort, consisting of a
half ringwork, believed to have been
erected in 1066.
Source: PastScape
Hlidan 3 Monument Lydford, West
Devon, Devon Monument
No. (SX
58 SW 3)
Early Medieval settlement and burh of
Hlidan. Finds uncovered during
excavation include imported
Mediterranean ware, possibly indicating
an earlier post-Roman settlement.
Source: PastScape
Monumen
t No.
901361
4 Monument Lydford, West
Devon, Devon Monument
No.
901361
Medieval strut and undated gullies.
Source: PastScape
The Lich
Way
5 Monument Lydford, West
Devon, Devon Monument
No.
(LINEAR
119)
Possible Medieval trackway running
across Dartmoor.
Source: PastScape
Monumen
t No.
1081170
6 Monument Lydford, West
Devon, Devon Monument
No.
1081170
Early Medieval mint at Lydford, which
struck coins from 975 until 1066.
Source: PastScape
Lydford
Bridge
7 Monument Lydford, West
Devon, Devon Monument
No. (SX
58 SW 12)
Medieval bridge, crossing a deep ravine
over the River Lyd.
Source: PastScape
Source: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/advanced_search.aspx (Accessed 25/06/2012)
596
CLUSTER 1
LG1
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Many potential hammer rocks
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south-south-east of path
Proximity to river: 154cm north-north-west of river
Proximity to LG2: 20cm north-north-west of LG2
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SX 50731 84350 (±19ft)
Latitude: 50.63961 Longitude: -4.11243 (±22ft)
Elevation: 503ft
Height: 62cm Girth: 130cm
597
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: n/a
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
LG2
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Many potential hammer rocks
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south-south-east of path
Proximity to river: 134cm north-north-west of river
Proximity to LG3: 442cm west of LG3
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SX 50731 84350 (±19ft)
Latitude: 50.63961 Longitude: -4.11243 (±22ft)
Elevation: 503ft
Length: 198cm Girth: 165cm
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: n/a
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
598
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
LG3
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Many potential hammer rocks
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south-south-east of path
Proximity to river: Directly beside river, north-north-west of river
Proximity to LG1: 260cm south-south-east of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: SEE-NWW
Grid reference: SX 50731 84350 (±19ft)
Latitude: 50.63961 Longitude: -4.11243 (±22ft)
Elevation: 503ft
Length: 610cm Width: 23cm
Coins: 106
Discernible patterning of coins: Predominantly longitudinal.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 62 1989, 1991, 2000, 2xpost-2008, 2009
2p 25 1994, post-2008
5p 6 Unknown
10p 8 2000
20p 3 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 20 euro cents
Unknown 1 Unknown
LG4
Condition: Post (holding up LG3)
Species: n/a
Associated tools: Many potential hammer rocks
599
Proximity to path: 23cm south-south-east of path
Proximity to river: Directly beside river, north-north-west
Proximity to LG3: Touching
Proximity to LG3b: 136cm south-south-west of LG3b
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SX 50731 84350 (±19ft)
Latitude: 50.63961 Longitude: -4.11243 (±22ft)
Elevation: 503ft
Girth: 24cm
Coins: 4
Discernible patterning of coins: On top of post.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 3 Unknown
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
LG5
Condition: Post (holding up LG3)
Species: n/a
Associated tools: Many potential hammer rocks
Proximity to path: 23cm south-south-east of path
Proximity to river: Directly beside river, north-north-west
Proximity to LG3: Touching
Proximity to LG3c: 207cm
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SX 50731 84350 (±19ft)
Latitude: 50.63961 Longitude: -4.11243 (±22ft)
Elevation: 503ft
600
Girth: 37cm
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: On top of post.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
LG6
Condition: Post (holding up LG3)
Species: n/a
Associated tools: Many potential hammer rocks
Proximity to path: 23cm south-south-east of path
Proximity to river: Directly beside river, north-north-west
Proximity to LG3: Touching
Proximity to LG3d: 153cm
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SX 50731 84350 (±19ft)
Latitude: 50.63961 Longitude: -4.11243 (±22ft)
Elevation: 503ft
Girth: 32cm
Coins: 5
Discernible patterning of coins: On top of post.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 4 Unknown
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
601
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
LG7
Condition: Post (holding up LG3)
Species: n/a
Associated tools: Many potential hammer rocks
Proximity to path: 23cm south-south-east of path
Proximity to river: Directly beside river, north-north-west
Proximity to LG3: Touching
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SX 50731 84350 (±19ft)
Latitude: 50.63961 Longitude: -4.11243 (±22ft)
Elevation: 503ft
Girth: 32cm
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: On top of post.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
LG8
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Many potential hammer rocks
Proximity to path: south-south-east of path
Proximity to river: Directly beside river, north-north-west
602
Proximity to LG3: 164cm
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: SEE-NWW
Grid reference: SX 50731 84350 (±19ft)
Latitude: 50.63961 Longitude: -4.11243 (±22ft)
Elevation: 503ft
Length: 320cm Width: 20cm
Coins: 5
Discernible patterning of coins: Predominantly longitudinal.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 3 Unknown
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 1 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
LG9
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Two obvious tools of percussion: 7.5x4x1cm and 5x4x2cm
Proximity to path: north-north-west of path
Proximity to river: Directly beside river, north-north-west
Proximity to LG3: 260cm north-north-west of LG3
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: SEE-NWW
Grid reference: SX 50731 84350 (±19ft)
Latitude: 50.63961 Longitude: -4.11243 (±22ft)
Elevation: 503ft
603
Length: 432cm
Girth: 92cm
Coins: 4359
Discernible patterning of coins: Primarily longitudinal. Most coins bent over.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 2066 1973, 1977, 1981, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989,
1990, 1990, 1990, 1998, 1998, 1998, 1999,
1999, 200-, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2001,
2001, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2005, 2006,
2008, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2011,
2012
2p 1570 1971, 1971, 1971, 1975, 1975, 1977, 1977,
1979, 1979, 1979, 1980, 1980, 1980, 1980,
1980, 1980, 1981, 1981, 1985, 1985, 1986,
1987, 1988, 1988, 1988, 1988, 1989, 1989,
1989, 1989, 1989, 199-, 1990, 1992, 1994,
1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1997, 1998, 1999,
200-, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000,
2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2004, 2005,
2005, 2005, 2005, 2005, 2005, 2006, 2006,
2007, 2007, 2007, 2007, 2008, 2008, 2008,
2009, 2009, 2010
5p 273 1990, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2009, 2011
10p 289 1979, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1996, 2001,
2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2006, 2007,
2008
20p 103 1982, 200-, 200-, 2000, 2002, 2003
50p 2 Unknown
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 20 1 euro, 2 x 20 euro cents, 10 euro cents, 5
euro cents, 1 euro cent 2002, 2 x euro cent,
Spanish 1 euro cent, Lithuanian coin
(denomination unknown) 1991, 2 x
Australian 10 cent, Netherlands coin, Eire
coin, Hungarian forint (denomination
unknown) 1995, Danish 5 kroner 2008,
Danish øre (denomination unknown), 2 x
unknown
Unknown 36 Unknown J jm St
LG10
Condition: Stump
Species: Unknown
604
Associated tools: Many potential hammer rocks
Proximity to path: 263cm north-west-west of path
Proximity to river: 570cm north-west-west of river
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SX 50740 84386 (±19ft)
Latitude: 50.63998 Longitude: -4.11222 (±17ft)
Elevation: 500ft
Height: 35cm Girth: 107cm
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: n/a
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 1 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
CLUSTER 2
LG11
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Many potential hammer rocks
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, north-west-west of path
Proximity to river: 333cm north-west-west of river
Proximity to LG8: Touching, north-west-west of LG8
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: SEE-NWW
Grid reference: SX 50775 84560 (±21ft)
605
Latitude: 50.64156 Longitude: -4.11190 (±21ft)
Elevation: 510ft
Length: 545cm Girth: 106cm
Coins: 40
Discernible patterning of coins: Primarily longitudinal.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 26 200-, 2000, 2008, 2xpost-2008, 2009, 2010
2p 6 1971, 1975, 1977, 2009
5p 2 2003
10p 3 1992
20p 3 200-
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
LG12
Condition: Wooden post (supporting LG7)
Species: n/a
Associated tools: Many potential hammer rocks
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, north-west-west of path
Proximity to river: 333cm north-west-west of river
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SX 50775 84560 (±21ft)
Latitude: 50.64156 Longitude: -4.11190 (±21ft)
Elevation: 510ft
Height: 77cm Width: 28cm
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: n/a
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 0 -
5p 1 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
606
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
22 15%
26 17%
39 26%
58 39%
4 3%
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-Present
Dates of Coins at Lydford Gorge
2168 48%
1607 35%
283 6%
301 7% 110
2% 2
0.04% 0 0
21 0.5%
37 0.8%
Denominations of Coins at Lydford Gorge
Mode = 2000
Median = 2000
Mean = 1996
Total = 4529
607
2.30 – Malham Case-Study
Case-study name: Malham (MH)
Date of fieldwork: 03/03/2012 and 22/09/2012
Case-study location: Malham, Yorkshire, England
Case-study date (i.e. when did it become a coin-tree?): c.2000 (pers. comm. Catriona Kilner,
Area Ranger for Malhamdale and Lower Ribblesdale, 20/10/2011).
Case-study environment: Woodland
Land ownership: The National Trust
Attractions nearby: The waterfall of Janet’s Foss is a popular walkers’ destination
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 22, with a 23rd
at Malham Beck
Note: Between the second visit (03/03/2012) and the third visit (23/09/2012), 6 wooden posts
at the entrance to Little Gordale Wood have been embedded with coins. These are labelled
MH13-MH18, and are underlined and italicised.
609
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-tree(s):
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Monument
No. 47004
2 Monument Malham,
Craven,
North
Yorkshire
Monument No.
47004 (SD 96
SW 10)
The earthworks remains of an
Iron Age field system.
Source: PastScape
Monument
No. 594359
3 Monument Malham,
Craven,
North
Yorkshire
Monument No.
594359
(SD 96 SW
78)
An Early Medieval to Post
Medieval settlement at Malham,
known from documentary sources
including the Domesday Book.
Source: PastScape
610
Monument
No. 594303
1 Monument Malham,
Craven,
North
Yorkshire
Monument No.
594303 (SD 96
SW 22)
A possible Prehistoric or Roman
settlement consisting of Celtic
fields and hut circles.
Source: PastScape
Monument
No. 594364
4 Monument Malham,
Craven,
North
Yorkshire
Monument No.
594364 (SD 96
SW 83)
Post-medieval settlement,
Gordale House or Gordale Farm.
Source: PastScape
Source: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/advanced_search.aspx (Accessed 24/01/2012)
613
STAND-ALONE TREE
MH1
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 5.9m south-east of path
Proximity to river: Directly beside river, north of the river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Beside path, but some limbs require balancing over water to reach
Grid reference: SD 91091 63258 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.06519 (±9 ft) Longitude: 2.13762 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 645ft
Length: 17m Girth: 160cm
Coins: 78
Discernible patterning of coins: Primarily longitudinal
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 28 2008
2p 22 2001, 2007, 2010
5p 1 Unknown
10p 1 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 26 Unknown
MH2
Condition: Stump
Species: Unknown
Associated tools: Limestone ‘hammer rock’, 13cm x 7cm x 6cm
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, north of path
Proximity to river: 670cm north of river
Proximity to MH3: 1m
614
Proximity to MH4: 7.1m
Proximity to MH5: 7.1m
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Easy, directly beside path
Grid reference: SD 91025 63251 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.06521 (±9 ft) Longitude: 2.13863 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 714ft
Height: 2.1m Girth: 289cm
Coins: 75
Discernible patterning of coins: Random
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 26 1997, 1999, 2007
2p 29 1977, 2004, 2004, 2007
5p 2 Unknown
10p 1 Unknown
20p 2 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 15 Unknown
MH3
Condition: Log
Species: Unknown
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south of path
Proximity to river: Directly beside river, north of river
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Easy, directly beside path
Grid reference: SD 91025 63251 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.06521 (±9 ft) Longitude: 2.13863 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 714ft
615
Length: 9m Girth: 130cm
Coins: 5
Discernible patterning of coins: Random
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 3 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
MH4
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south of path
Proximity to river: 4.6m north of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easy, directly beside path
Grid reference: SD 91024 63256 (± 10ft)
Latitude: 54.06513 (±10 ft) Longitude: 2.13855 (± 10ft)
Elevation: 746ft
Length: 566cm Girth: 156cm
Coins: 1574
Discernible patterning of coins: Diagonal, but random on log end
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 695 1999, 2001, 2002
2p 503 1988, 199-, 1991, 1993,
1997, 20--, 200-, 2000, 2001,
2006
5p 36 Unknown
10p 25 200-
616
20p 3 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 2 Unknown
Unknown 310 Unknown
MH5
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, north of path
Proximity to river: 6.8m north of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easy, directly beside path
Grid reference: SD 91024 63256 (± 10ft)
Latitude: 54.06513 (±10 ft) Longitude: 2.13855 (± 10ft)
Elevation: 746ft
Length: 388cm Girth: 180cm
Coins: 1304
Discernible patterning of coins: Diagonal
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 546 1988, 200-, 2003
2p 502 1980, 1988, 1989, 1997, 200-
, 2005
5p 26 Unknown
10p 20 200-
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 Unknown
Unknown 208 Unknown
CLUSTER 2
MH6
Condition: Stump
617
Species: Unknown
Proximity to path: 1.9m south-east of path
Proximity to river: 7m north-west of river
Proximity to MH7: 1.2m
Proximity to MH8: 246cm
Proximity to MH9: 248cm
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Easy, close to path
Grid reference: SD 90979 63201 (± 10ft)
Latitude: 54.06486 (±10 ft) Longitude: 2.13933 (± 10ft)
Elevation: 734ft
Height: 31cm Girth: 165cm
Coins: 8
Discernible patterning of coins: On top of stump
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 5 Unknown
2p 3 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
MH7
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Rock: Limestone ‘hammer rock’, 10cm x 7.5cm x 4cm
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south-east of path
Proximity to river: Directly beside river, north-west of river
Class of decay: 2
618
Ease of access: Easy, directly beside path
Grid reference: SD 90979 63201 (± 10ft)
Latitude: 54.06486 (±10 ft) Longitude: 2.13933 (± 10ft)
Elevation: 734ft
Length: 8.5m Girth: 143cm
Coins: 2860
Discernible patterning of coins: Primarily longitudinal
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1389 1999, 200-, 200-, 2005, 2007,
2007, 2009, 2009, 2009,
2010, 2010
2p 837 1980, 1993, 1993, 1994, 200-
, 200-, 2000, 2001, 2005,
2005, 2007, 2008
5p 48 2004
10p 42 2008
20p 5 Unknown
50p 1 1997
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 2 Unknown
Unknown 536 Unknown
MH8
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Proximity to path: 2.2m south-east of path
Proximity to river: 6.2m north-west of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easy, close to path
Grid reference: SD 90979 63201 (± 10ft)
Latitude: 54.06486 (±10 ft) Longitude: 2.13933 (± 10ft)
Elevation: 734ft
Length: 150cm Girth: 164cm
Coins: 1299
619
Discernible patterning of coins: Primarily longitudinal
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 612 199-, 1990, 200-, 2005, 2005,
2009
2p 430 1980, 1988, 1990, 1996,
1997, 2000, 2000, 2004,
2008, 2009
5p 32 Unknown
10p 23 Unknown
20p 3 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 Unknown
Unknown 198 Unknown
MH9
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Proximity to path: 2.5m south-east of path
Proximity to river: 5.9m north-west of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easy, close to path
Grid reference: SD 90979 63201 (± 10ft)
Latitude: 54.06486 (±10 ft) Longitude: 2.13933 (± 10ft)
Elevation: 734ft
Length: 52cm Girth: 150cm
Coins: 53
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinal
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 21 Unknown
2p 18 2000, 2004, 2005
5p 0 -
10p 1 Unknown
20p 2 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
620
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 11 Unknown
STAND-ALONE
MH10
Condition: Living tree
Species: Hardwood
Proximity to path: Directly on path, south-east of path
Proximity to river: 7.8m north-west of river
Ease of access: Easy, directly beside path
Grid reference: SD 90955 63165 (± 12ft)
Latitude: 54.06435 (±12 ft) Longitude: 2.13970 (± 12ft)
Elevation: 772ft
Girth: 155cm
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: n/a
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
CLUSTER 3
MH11
Condition: Living tree
Species: Beech (Fagus)
Proximity to path: 2.2m east of path
Proximity to river: Directly beside river, west of river
621
Proximity to MH12: 2.5m
Proximity to MH13: 9.3m
Ease of access: Easy, close to path
Grid reference: SD 90933 63104 (± 14ft)
Latitude: 54.06380 (±14 ft) Longitude: 2.14000 (± 14ft)
Elevation: 665ft
Girth: 148cm
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: n/a
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 0 -
5p 1 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
MH12
Condition: Living tree
Species: Ash (Fraxinus)
Proximity to path: 2.8m east of path
Proximity to river: Directly beside river, west of river
Ease of access: Easy, close to path
Grid reference: SD 90930 63095 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.06378 (±10 ft) Longitude: 2.14001 (± 10ft)
Elevation: 665ft
Girth: 280cm
Coins: 14
Discernible patterning of coins: Coins on top of stumped limb
622
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 9 Unknown
2p 4 2001
5p 1 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
MH13
Condition: Wooden post
Species: n/a
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, as part of the gate leading into Little Gordale Wood
Proximity to river: West of river
Ease of access: Easy, directly on path
Grid reference: SD 90930 63095 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.06372 (±9ft) Longitude: 2.14007 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 660ft
Height: 117cm Girth: 35cm
Coins: 8
Discernible patterning of coins: Coins on top of post, random distribution
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 7 Unknown
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
623
MH14
Condition: Wooden post
Species: n/a
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, as part of the gate leading into Little Gordale Wood
Proximity to river: West of river
Easy of access: Easy, directly on path
Grid reference: SD 90930 63095 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.06372 (±9ft) Longitude: 2.14007 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 660ft
Height: 112cm Girth: 26cm
Coins: 3
Discernible patterning of coins: Coins on top of post, random distribution
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 3 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
MH15
Condition: Wooden post
Species: n/a
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, as part of the gate leading into Little Gordale Wood
Proximity to river: West of river
Ease of access: Easy, directly on path
Grid reference: SD 90930 63095 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.06372 (±9ft) Longitude: 2.14007 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 660ft
624
Height: 111cm Girth: 25cm
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: Coins on top of post
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 1 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
MH16
Condition: Wooden post
Species: n/a
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, as part of the gate leading into Little Gordale Wood
Proximity to river: West of river
Ease of access: Easy, directly on path
Grid reference: SD 90930 63095 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.06372 (±9ft) Longitude: 2.14007 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 660ft
Height: 106cm Girth: 28cm
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: Coin on top of post
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
625
MH17
Condition: Wooden post
Species: n/a
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, as part of the gate leading into Little Gordale Wood
Proximity to river: West of river
Ease of access: Easy, directly on path
Grid reference: SD 90930 63095 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.06372 (±9ft) Longitude: 2.14007 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 660ft
Height: 110cm Girth: 34cm
Coins: 8
Discernible patterning of coins: Coins on top of post, random distribution
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 2 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
MH18
Condition: Wooden post
Species: n/a
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, as part of the gate leading into Little Gordale Wood
Proximity to river: West of river
Ease of access: Easy, directly on path
Grid reference: SD 90930 63095 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.06372 (±9ft) Longitude: 2.14007 (± 9ft)
626
Elevation: 660ft
Height: 111cm Girth: 39cm
Coins: 5
Discernible patterning of coins: Coins on top of post, random distribution
Other notable features: 1 nail at top, but it possibly had a practical purpose
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 5 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
MH19
Condition: Stump
Species: Unknown
Proximity to path: 220cm east of path
Proximity to river: Directly beside river, west of river
Proximity to MH11: 9.3m
Proximity to MH12: 6.8m
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Easy
Grid reference: SD 90930 63095 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.06372 (±9ft) Longitude: 2.14007 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 660ft
Height: 65cm Girth: 430cm
Coins: 111
Discernible patterning of coins: Coins on top of stump, radial
Denomination Quantity Dates
627
1p 58 -
2p 37 1995
5p 2 Unknown
10p 1 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 13 -
STAND-ALONE
MH20
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Proximity to path: 1.3m south-east-east of path
Proximity to river: 2.7m north-west-west of river
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Easy, directly beside path
Grid reference: SD 90922 63033 (± 10ft)
Latitude: 54.06316 (±10 ft) Longitude: 2.14019 (± 10ft)
Elevation: 649ft
Length: 272cm Girth: 120cm
Coins: 3
Discernible patterning of coins: Random
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 3 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
628
CLUSTER 4
MH21
Condition: Stump
Species: Unknown
Proximity to path: 1.6m south-east-east of path
Proximity to river: 9m north-west of river
Proximity to MH22: 1.1m
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easy, directly beside path
Grid reference: SD 90859 62695 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.06013 (± 9ft) Longitude: 2.14129 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 634ft
Height: 145cm Girth: 193cm
Coins: 5
Discernible patterning of coins: Random
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 4 2001, 2001
5p 1 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
MH22
Condition: Log
Species: Unknown
Proximity to path: 2m south-east-east of path
Proximity to river: 9m north-west of river
Class of decay: 3
629
Ease of access: Easy, directly beside path
Grid reference: SD 90859 62695 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.06013 (± 9ft) Longitude: 2.14129 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 634ft
Length: 393cm Girth: 182cm
Coins: 7
Discernible patterning of coins: Random
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 3 2000
2p 2 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 2 2001, 2010
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
STAND-ALONE AT MALHAM TARN, 3 MILES NORTH OF OTHER CLUSTERS
MH23
Condition: Log
Species: Beech (Fagus)
Rock: Limestone ‘hammer rock’, 21cm x 15cm x 6cm
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south of path
Proximity to river: Approx. 50m north of Malham Tarn
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easy, directly beside path
Grid reference: SD 89525 67209 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.10067 (± 9ft) Longitude: 2.16168 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 1284ft
Length: 390cm Girth: 190cm
Coins: 14
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinal
630
Other notable features: 1 nail, possibly initially serving a practical purpose
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 8 Unknown
2p 6 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
3 5%
7 11%
17 27%
37 58%
0
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-Present
Dates of Coins at Malham
3420 47%
2403 33%
131 1.8%
96 1.3%
17 0.2%
1 0.01% 0 0
6 0.08%
1246 17%
1p 2p 5p 10p 20p 50p £1 £2 Foreign currency
Unknown
Denominations of Coins at Malham
Mode = 2001
Median = 2001
Mean = 2000
Mode = 2001
Median = 2001
Mean = 2000
Total = 7320
631
2.31 – Marbury Case-Study
Case-study name: Marbury (MB)
Date of fieldwork: 16/08/2012
Case-study location: Marbury Country Park, Northwich, Cheshire, England
Case-study date: c.2009 (pers. comm. Chris Moseley, park warden, 16/08/2012)
Case-study environment: Wooded parkland
Land ownership: Cheshire West and Chester Council
Attractions nearby: Marbury is a popular park
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 2
632
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-tree:
Title Map
No.
Location Type Reference
Number
Description
Monument
No. 72944
1 Great Budworth,
Vale Royal,
Findspot Monument
No. 72944
A Neolithic polished axe of dark
green slate was found at Great
633
Cheshire Budworth in 1921.
Source: PastScape
Piscaria de
Bodeworhe
2 Great Budworth,
Vale Royal,
Cheshire
Monument SMR No.
678
Medieval fishery. There was a
possible medieval fishery in the
Great Budworth area. Budworth
Mere is presumably the location of
the 'piscaria de Bodeworhe'- the
'fishery of Budworth' which was held
by the de Lacy family in 1295.
Source: Cheshire HER
Source: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/advanced_search.aspx (Accessed 17/08/2012)
MB1
Condition: Living double-trunked tree (although the coins are inserted into the stump of the
felled trunk)
Species: Oak (Quercus)
Associated tools: None visible
Proximity to path: Directly in centre of path
Ease of access: Easily accessible, directly in the middle of the path at a three-way crossing
Grid reference: SJ 65533 76555 ±18ft
Latitude: 53.28482 Longitude: -2.5184 ±18ft
Elevation: 140ft
634
Height (of stump): 82cm Girth: 305cm
Coins: 57
Discernible patterning of coins: On stump-end, they follow a radial distribution. Only 8
coins were not inserted into the stump-end. Several coins are visibly damaged through
percussion, but there is no obvious tool of percussion. Three coins appear to have been
deliberately bent over.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 33 1997, 2001, 2006, 2008, 2008, 5 x post-2008
(coat of arms design), 2012
2p 16 199-, 1991, 2007
5p 5 Unknown
10p 3 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
MB2
Condition: Log
Species: Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris)
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south-west-west of path
Proximity to Budworth Mere: 625cm south-east-east of Budworth Mere
Class of Decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible, directly beside a path
Orientation: laid out in a south-easterly direction
Grid reference: SJ 65607 76609 ±26ft
Latitude: 53.28532 Longitude: -2.51721 ±18ft
Elevation: 139ft
Length: 810cm Girth: 78cm
Coins: 16
Discernible patterning of coins: The majority following a longitudinal pattern along the log.
Only one coin is in the log-end. It is interesting to note that only one coin (1p) was inserted in
the bark; the rest were inserted into the north-western end of the log, where the bark has
fallen away. However, the majority of the south-eastern end of the log is also without bark,
and yet there are no coins present there.
635
One coin (2p) was on the floor, just below the north-western end of the log.
10 coins appeared to have been deliberately bent over.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 6 1981, 1987
2p 9 197-, 1979, post 2008 (coat of arms design)
5p 1 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
1 9%
2 18%
2 18%
5 45%
1 9%
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-Present
Dates of Coins at Marbury
39 53%
25 34%
6 8% 3
4% 0 0 0 0 0 0
1p 2p 5p 10p 20p 50p £1 £2 Foreign currency
Unknown
Denominations of Coins at Marbury
Mode = 2008
Median = 2001
Mean = 1998
Total = 73
636
2.32 – Padley Gorge Case-Study
Case-study name: Padley Gorge (PG)
Date of fieldwork: 27/12/2011
Case-study location: Padley Gorge, Derbyshire, England
Case-study date: Unknown. Chris Millner, Longshaw Senior Warden, National Trust,
estimates that it began late 1970s, early 1980s. Tom Lewis, Area Ranger, however, does not
remember the tree being there when he worked there in the 1990s.
Case-study environment: Woodland gorge
Land ownership: The National Trust
Attractions nearby: Longshaw Estate
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 3
637
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-tree(s):
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Alleged stone
circle,
Lawrence
Field
1 Monument Grindleford,
Hathersage,
Derbyshire
HER No.
7426
Small circle of 7 stones,
maximum height 0.3m, adjoining
the north side of the settlement on
Lawrence Field.
Source: Derbyshire HER
Flint,
Lawrence
Field
2 Find spot Grindleford,
Hathersage,
Derbyshire
HER No.
7401
Neolithic flint waste flake utilised
as a knife.
Source: Derbyshire HER
Curry Comb,
Lawrence
3 Find spot Grindleford,
Hathersage,
HER No.
7404
Trident-shaped iron curry comb
with rivets on the 3 forks.
638
Field Derbyshire Thought to be Romano-British.
Found in 1963, now located in
Sheffield City Museum.
Source: Derbyshire HER
Settlement at
Lawrence
Field
4 Monument Grindleford,
Hathersage,
Derbyshire
HER No.
7402
Late Saxon or Early Medieval
settlement on Lawrence Field,
escavated in 1958-60.
Source: Derbyshire HER
Yarncliffe
Quarry
5 Monument Hathersage,
Derbyshire
HER No.
7432
Site of a medieval quarry.
Source: Derbyshire HER
Township
boundary
stone
6 Monument Grindleford,
Hathersage,
Derbyshire
HER No.
7433
Boundary stone between Froggatt
and Nether Padley, not in situ and
now in use as part of the cover to
a stream culvert running under the
road.
Source: Derbyshire HER Source: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/advanced_search.aspx (Accessed 24/01/2012)
639
PG1
Condition: Log, leaning against an oak
Species: Larch (larix)
Associated tools: An abraded sandstone rock, 16cm x 12cm, was located beneath PG1
Proximity to path: Directly on the path
Proximity to river: 32 metres north-west of river
Proximity to PG2: 12.5 metres to the south-west
Proximity to PG3: 18.5 metres to the south-west
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easy, directly over path
Grid reference: SK 25510 79503 (± 10 ft)
Latitude: 53.311877 Longitude: 1.61854
Elevation: 931 ft
Length: 760cm Girth: 68cm
Coins: 1675
640
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinal, many bent over.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 954 1975, 1976, 1990, 1990, 1990,
1998, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2000,
2001, 2002, 2002, 2003, 2008,
2008, 2010, 2010, 20??
2p 570 1977, 1978, 1989, 1992, 1992,
1992, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001,
2002, 2007, 2007, 2010, 2011
5p 55 Unknown
10p 32 Unknown
20p 2 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 3 Unknown
Unknown 59 Unknown
PG2
Condition: Log
Species: Larch (larix)
Associated tools: See PG1
Proximity to path: Directly over path
Proximity to river: 30 metres north-west of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easy, directly on path
Grid reference: SK 25506 79489 (± 10 ft)
Latitude: 53.31172 Longitude: 001.61865
Elevation: 850 feet
Length: 12 metres, 26cm Girth: 35cm
Coins: 91
Discernible patterning of coins: Primarily longitudinal
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 47 1977, 2000, 2009, 200?
2p 37 1971, 1986, 2000, 2000,
2006, 2007, 200?
5p 5 Unknown
10p 1 Unknown
20p 0 -
641
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 Unknown
Unknown 0 -
PG3
Condition: Uprooted stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: See PG1
Proximity to path: 9 metres
Proximity to river: 41 metres north-west of river
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Easy, close to path, but not very visible
Grid reference: SK 25502 79490 (± 9 ft)
Latitude: 53.31173 Longitude: 001.61871
Elevation: 933 ft
Length: 58cm Girth: 20 x 48cm
Coins: 13
Discernible patterning of coins: On log end, primarily latitudinal
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 4 Unknown
2p 5 Unknown
5p 1 Unknown
10p 3 2002
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
642
2.33 – Portmeirion Case-Study
Case-study name: Portmeirion (PM)
Date of fieldwork: 14/07/2012
Case-study location: Portmeirion, Gwynedd, Wales
Case-study date: 2006 (pers. comm. Meurig Jones, Estates Manager, Portmeirion Village,
21/12/2011)
Case-study environment: Woodland
Land ownership: Owned by the registered charity Ymddiriedolaeth Clough Williams-Ellis
Foundation. Managed by Portmeirion Limited.
Attractions nearby: Close to Portmeirion, a well-known tourist destination
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 13
6 14%
5 12%
14 33%
17 40%
1 2%
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-Present
Dates of Coins at Padley Gorge
1005 57%
612 34%
61 3.4%
36 2%
2 0.1% 0 0 0
1 0.06%
59 3.3%
1p 2p 5p 10p 20p 50p £1 £2 Foreign currency
Unknown
Denominations of Coins at Padley Gorge
Mode = 2000
Median = 2000
Mean = 1997
Total = 1776
644
Sites and Monuments within 500m of coin-trees:
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Castell
Gwain
Goch
1 Castle Montogomery,
Portmeirion,
Gwynedd
HER No.
10863
PRN: 2297
Castell Aber Ia or Castell Gwain Goch
occupies a level platform at the end of a
short rocky ridge, across the neck of which
a ditch has been cut. A short length of
masonry revetment still remains on this
side. The top of the motte, 25m in diameter,
is now overgrown and its height from the
bottom of the ditch varies from 3.3m to
6.6m. The ditch is 8m to 10m wide and
bounded by a rock ridge of the same width.
There is no sign of a bailey. The stone
tower on the summit still stood 3.3m high
in 1867 but was demolished to discourage
visitors. A 19th century painting of the
tower is preserved at Portmeirion.
Source: Historic Environment Records
Source: http://www.cofiadurcahcymru.org.uk/arch/gat/english/gat_interface.html (Accessed 31/01/2012)
647
STAND-ALONE
PM1
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south-east of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible, directly beside path
Grid reference: SH 58818 36814 (± 12ft)
Latitude: 52.91014 Longitude: -4.10095 (± 10ft)
Elevation: 37ft
Height: 29cm Girth: 96cm
Coins: 20
Discernible patterning of coins: All on top of stump, radial distribution. 4 coins are bent
over.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 16 2007, post-2008 (coat-of-arms design)
2p 2 2001
5p 1 200-
10p 1 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
STAND-ALONE
PM2
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 68cm south of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
648
Grid reference: SH 58793 36803 (± 10ft)
Latitude: 52.91011 Longitude: -4.10131 (± 10ft)
Elevation: 35ft
Height: 26cm Girth: 98cm
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: On top of stump
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
PM3
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Tool of percussion, rectangular piece of slate with slight abrasions on
edges, 11 x 4 x 0.5cm
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, north of path
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Easily accessible, directly beside path
Grid reference: SH 58763 36791 (± 15ft)
Latitude: 52.90987 Longitude: -4.10172 (± 12ft)
Elevation: 33ft
Height: 25cm Girth: 151cm
Coins: 688
Discernible patterning of coins: Majority of coins on top following a radial pattern. Some
coins exhibit signs of percussion damage.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 382 1995, 1998, 1999, 200-, 2000, 2000, 2000,
2002, 2003, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2008, 3
649
x post-2008 (coat-of-arms design), 2009,
2010, 2010
2p 202 1971, 1971, 1991, 1994, 1998, 200-, 2000,
2001, 2 x post-2008 (coat-of-arms design)
5p 48 2007, 2007
10p 33 1992, 2006
20p 4 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 Guernsey coin
Unknown 18 Unknown
PM4
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: See PM3
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south-south-east of path
Proximity to PM3: 307cm, on opposite side of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible, directly beside path
Grid reference: SH 58763 36791 (± 15ft)
Latitude: 52.90987 Longitude: -4.10172 (± 12ft)
Elevation: 33ft
Height: 33cm Girth: 173cm
Coins: 2044
Discernible patterning of coins: Random distribution on top of stump, longitudinal along
the roots.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 886 1984, 200-, 200-, 2000, 2000, 2002, 2005,
2005, 2006, 2007, 3 x post-2008 (coat-of-
arms), 2009, 2009, 2010, 2010, 2010
2p 642 1976, 1979, 1988, 1988, 1988, 1988, 1990,
1993, 2000, 2001, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2004,
2004, 2007, 2008, post-2008 (coat-of-arms),
2009, 2010
5p 257 1995, 200-, 2010, 2010, 2010
10p 196 1992
20p 33 Unknown
650
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 3 Eire coin 1971, 1 euro cent, 1 euro cent
Unknown 27 Unknown
PM5
Condition: Living
Species: Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris)
Associated tools: See PM3
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south-south-east of path
Proximity to PM6: 9m east of PM6
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SH 58761 36795 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 52.90995 Longitude: -4.10177 (± 10ft)
Elevation: 59ft
Girth: 185cm
Coins: 16
Highest coin: 1.7m, 2p
Discernible patterning of coins: 12 coins on a stumped end at base of tree; 4 on the main
trunk of the tree
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 7 2004
2p 6 1990, post-2008 (coat-of-arms design)
5p 1 Unknown
10p 2 Post-2008 (coat-of-arms design), 2009
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
PM6
Condition: Stump
Species: Softwood
651
Associated tools: Large rounded sandstone rock, 21 x 12 x 11cm
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, west of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SH 58748 36777 (± 11ft)
Latitude: 52.90979 Longitude: -4.10195 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 55ft
Height: 32cm Girth: 116cm
Coins: 987
Discernible patterning of coins: Coins on sides of stumps: longitudinal distribution. Coins
on top of stump: radial distribution. Roughly 1/4 of coins bent over on top of stump.
Other notable features: Several of the coins showing signs of verdigris
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 443 1996, 1997, 1998, 1998, 20--, 2000, 2000,
2000, 2000, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2006, 2007,
2007, 2008, 2008, 2008, 2009
2p 337 1977, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1989, 1994, 1995,
1998, 1999, 1999, 1999, 200-, 2000, 2000,
2000, 2001, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2004, 2005,
2005, 2006, 2006, 2006
5p 96 1990, 1995, 2002
10p 79 Unknown
20p 8 2001
50p 0
£1 0
£2 0
Foreign currency 5 1 Polish grosz, 5 Polish groszy, 5 euro cents,
1 euro cent, unknown
Unknown 19
STAND-ALONE
PM7
Condition: Stump (double-stump: PM7a and PM7b)
Species: Unknown
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 68cm south-east-east of path
652
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SH 58736 36818 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 52.91014 Longitude: -4.10221 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 85ft
Height: 63cm Girth of PM7a: 93cm Girth of PM7b: 117cm
Coins: 75
Discernible patterning of coins: All on top of stumps. PM7a: random distribution. PM7b: a
circular distribution.10 coins bent over.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 40 1998, 2005, 2008, 5 x post-2008 (coat-of-
arms design), 2009, 2010
2p 23 2000, 2005, 2 x post-2008 (coat-of-arms
design), 2009
5p 8 Unknown
10p 1 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 3 Unknown
STAND-ALONE
PM8
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly to the east of the path
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SH 58652 36851 (± 10ft)
Latitude: 52.91042 Longitude: -4.10342 (± 10ft)
Elevation: 104ft
Height: 82cm Girth: 210cm
653
Coins: 412
Discernible patterning of coins: Random distribution. Several coins bent over on top of
stump.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 162 Post-2008 (coat-of-arms design)
2p 119 1971, 1988, 2004, 2005, post-2008 (coat-of-
arms design)
5p 86 Unknown
10p 32 Unknown
20p 2 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 1 euro cent
Unknown 10 Unknown
CLUSTER 2
PM9
Condition: Stump
Species: Softwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 160cm south-east of path
Proximity to PM10: 238cm south-west of PM10
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: A slight climb from the path
Grid reference: SH 58689 36886 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 52.91075 Longitude: -4.10288 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 146ft
Height: 34cm Girth: 103cm
Coins: 6
Discernible patterning of coins: All on top of stump - 3 inserted in pre-existing cracks in
outer rim; 3 in the middle
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 5 1993, 2000, post-2008 (coat-of-arms design)
2p 1 2010
5p 0 -
654
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
PM10
Condition: Stump
Species: Softwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 166cm south-east of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: A slight climb from the path and not visible; concealed beneath shrubbery
Grid reference: SH 58689 36886 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 52.91075 Longitude: -4.10288 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 146ft
Height: 14cm Girth: 118cm
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: On top of stump, bent over.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
PM11
Condition: Stump
Species: Softwood
PM9
655
Associated tools: Two possible tools of percussion: a rectangular piece of slate, 16 x 4.5 x
4cm; a rectangular piece of slate, 11 x 5.5. x 2cm
Proximity to path: 420cm south-east of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: A slight climb from the path
Grid reference: SH 58698 36897 (± 10ft)
Latitude: 52.91084 Longitude: -4.10275 (± 10ft)
Elevation: 150ft
Height: 26cm Girth: 104cm
Coins: 7
Discernible patterning of coins: All on top of stump, radial distribution. All coins showing
percussion damage.
Other notable features: One small sprig of pink blossoms had been placed on top of stump,
and a feather was leaning against the edge of the stump – it is not certain whether they had
been left there as deposits or had naturally found themselves there.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 5 1999, 2004, 2009, 2009
2p 1 Unknown
5p 1 2000
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
CLUSTER 3
PM12
Condition: Stump
Species: Softwood
Associated tools: Rectangular piece of slate, 23 x 9 x 4cm
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, west of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SH 58830 37249 (± 13ft)
656
Latitude: 52.91405 Longitude: -4.10094 (± 13ft)
Elevation: 84ft
Height: 62cm Girth: 283cm
Coins: 914
Discernible patterning of coins: Radial distribution. Several coins are bent over.
Other notable features: Some coins showing signs of verdigris.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 422 1998, 1998, 1998, 1999, 200-, 200-, 2000,
2001, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008, 4 x post-
2008 (coat-of-arms design), 2010
2p 334 1980, 1980, 1981, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001,
2003, 2005, 2007, 2007, 2007, post-2008
(coat-of-arms design), 2010
5p 78 1991, 1991, 1992, 1999, 2000, 2008, 2010
10p 55 200-, 2000
20p 8 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 4 2 euro cents, 2 euro cents, 1 French franc (pre
2002, when the euro was introduced), 1
unknown
Unknown 13 Unknown
PM13
Condition: Stump
Species: Softwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 9.8m south of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible although not particularly visible
Grid reference: SH 58829 37261 (± 12ft)
Latitude: 52.91417 Longitude: -4.10095 (± 11ft)
Elevation: 79ft
Height: 35cm Girth: 246cm
Coins: 1
657
Discernible patterning of coins: On top of stump
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 1 2007
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
9 5%
14 8%
56 33%
91 54%
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010
Dates of Coins at Portmeirion
2370 46%
1668 32%
546 11%
399 8% 56
1% 0 0 0
14 0.3%
90 2%
1p 2p 5p 10p 20p 50p £1 £2 Foreign currency
Unknown
Denominations of Coins at Portmeirion
Mode = 2000
Median = 2001
Mean = 2000
Total = 5143
658
2.34 – Rydal Case-Study
Case-study name: Rydal (RD)
Date of fieldwork: 02/06/2012
Case-study location: Old coffin trail above Nab Cottage, between Grasmere and Rydal,
Cumbria, England
Case-study date (i.e. when did it become a ‘coin-tree?): Unknown
Case-study environment: Woodland path
Land ownership: The National Trust
Attractions nearby: Rydal Mount, home of William Wordsworth, in Rydal
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 3
659
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-tree:
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Monument
No. 10147
1 Monument South
Lakeland,
Cumbria
Monument
No: 10147
(NY 30
NE 3)
Medieval boundary of Rydal visible as a
dyke or ditch.
Source: PastScape
Rydal &
Loughrigg
Dyke
2 Monument South
Lakeland,
Cumbria
Lake
District
HER
Sources
Ref: 1361
Boundary ditch of medieval date with the
name Rydal and Loughrigg Dykes, that
also serves as part of parish boundaries
Source: Lake District National Park HER
660
Bee Bole at
Nab
Cottage
3 Monument White Moss,
Grasmere,
Cumbria
Lake
District
HER
Sources
Ref: 1007
Site of a bee bole of medieval date.
Source: Lake District National Park HER
Nab Wood
Quarry
4 Monument South
Lakeland,
Cumbria
Lake
District
HER
Sources
Ref: 2811
Site of a quarry of post-medieval date.
Source: Lake District National Park HER
Nab Scar
Quarry
5 Monument Nab Scar,
Grasmere, Lake
District
HER
Sources
Ref: 5066
Site of a post-medieval quarry.
Source: Lake District National Park HER
The Nab 6 Monument South
Lakeland,
Cumbria
Monument
No. (NY
30 NE 6)
A post-medieval two-storey house, dated
1702, of white-washed rubble.
Source: PastScape
Rydal Park 7 Monument South
Lakeland,
Cumbria
Monument
No. (NY
30 NE 26)
Barns, stables and outbuildings to the
north and east of Rydal Hall, mostly built
in the late 17th century.
Source: PastScape
Nab Scar
Platforms
8 Monument South
Lakeland,
Cumbria
Lake
District
HER
Sources
Ref: 2522
Site of platforms of unknown date.
Source: Lake District National Park HER
Source: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/advanced_search.aspx (Accessed 11/06/2012)
661
RD1
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Square slate ‘hammer rock’, 5 x 4.5 x 2cm, with only minimal abrasion
Proximity to path: 50cm south of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible, directly beside main path. However, not particularly
visible, as it is just one log amongst many piled against a brick wall.
Orientation: north-west
Grid reference: NY 35613 06603 ±9ft
Latitude: 54.45073 Longitude: 2.99454 ±9ft
Elevation: 412ft
Length: 97cm Girth: 133cm
Coins: 117
Discernible patterning of coins: 74 coins on top of log, longitudinal distribution, and 43 on
log end, radial distribution
Other notable features: There are twelve ‘coin-fossils’ (imprints where coins obviously
once were, but due to decay or somebody removing them, they are no longer there)
662
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 69 2006, 2007, 2007, 3 x post-2008 (coat-of-
arms design)
2p 18 2003
5p 19 Unknown
10p 6 1999
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 5 Unknown
RD2
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Many potential tools of percussion with numerous pieces of slate on
ground
Proximity to path: 95cm south of path
Proximity to RD1: Touching R1
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Easily accessible, beside main path. However, not particularly visible, as it is
covered by other logs.
Orientation: north-west
Grid reference: NY 35613 06603 ±9ft
Latitude: 54.45073 Longitude: 2.99454 ±9ft
Elevation: 412ft
Length: 100cm Girth: 71cm
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: Coin in log end, inserted in a crack.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
Rydal 1
663
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
RD3
Condition: Uprooted stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 305cm north of path
Proximity to R1 and R2: 7.8m north-west of R1 and R2, on opposite side of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Fairly accessible, requiring a small climb from the path.
Orientation: north-west to south-east
Grid reference: NY 35613 06603 ±9ft
Latitude: 54.45073 Longitude: 2.99454 ±9ft
Elevation: 412ft
Length: 420cm Girth: 302cm
Coins: 1 (possibly too covered in moss to accommodate more)
Discernible patterning of coins: Coin in stump end, inserted in a radial crack
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 2010
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
Rydal 2
664
2.35 – Snowdon Case-Study
Case-study name: Snowdon (SN)
Date of fieldwork: 21/10/2012
Case-study location: Miner’s/PYG track, Mt. Snowdon, Gwynedd, Wales
Case-study date (i.e. when did it become a ‘coin-tree?): Unknown, although a post on the
forum ‘Live for the Outdoors’ in 2009 claimed that they must have been fairly recent, for the
writer had not seen them there before and he apparently climbed Snowdon regularly
(Accessed 26.01.2012)
Case-study environment: Along one of the most popular tracks up the summit of Snowdon
Land ownership: Snowdonia National Park
Attractions nearby: Snowdon, as the highest mountain in Wales, is a popular walkers/tourist
attraction
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-trees(s): According to Heritage Gateway
(Accessed 22/10/2012) there are no sites or monuments within 500 metres of this site.
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 2
Further Information: Response from Angharad Harris, Education Services, Snowdonia
National Park: “I’m afraid that the history isn’t very exiting, or old. The post is the remnant
of a fence to stop erosion put in place in the last 20 years. The fence was taken down after a
few years, but the post remained so that walkers could have a bit of a hand across a boulder.
No one really knows why people started to put money into the post.” (02/02/2012). SN2 is
still used to assist people while ascending the rocky path.
70 59%
19 16%
19 16%
6 5%
0 0 0 0 0
5 4%
1p 2p 5p 10p 20p 50p £1 £2 Foreign currency
Unknown
Denominations of Coins at Rydal
Total = 119
666
SN1
Condition: Wooden post
Species: n/a
Associated tools: Many potential tools of percussion; it is located on a scree path
Proximity to path: Directly in the path
Proximity to SN2: 18.3m
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SH 60898 54936 (±9ft)
Latitude: 53.07348 Longitude: -4.07784 (±9ft)
Elevation: 3095ft
Height: 1.57m Girth: 59cm
Coins: 1756
Discernible patterning of coins: Many distributed longitudinally along cracks in the wood.
6 coins (4x1p; 2x2p) dispelled onto floor. Some coins exhibit damage through percussion.
Other notable features: 1 nail, although it may initially have had a practical purpose
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 996 1985, 1989, 1990, 1995, 1998, 1999, 1999,
1999, 1999, 200?, 2000, 2000, 2002, 2003,
667
2004, 2004, 2006, 2006, 2007, 2007, 2007,
2008, 2008, 2008, 2009, 2009, 2010, 2011,
2011, 2011, 2011, 2011
2p 674 1986, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1998,
1999, 1999, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2001, 2002,
2002, 2003, 2007, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2010,
2010, 2011, 2011, 2011
5p 39 2000, 2010, 2010
10p 27 2011, 2011
20p 8 199?
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 4 2 euro cents, 20 euro cents, 1 euro, 1
Romanian ban 2012
Unknown 8 Unknown
SN2
Condition: Wooden post
Species: n/a
Associated tools: Many potential tools of percussion, as it is on a scree path; however, one
large, rectangular, abraded slate rock, measuring 29x9x4cm, was seen being utilised as a tool
of percussion
Proximity to path: Directly in path
Ease of access: Easily accessible, although as it stands at the entrance to some rocky steps,
difficult to traverse and often very busy, it is not easy to stay at the post without getting in
people’s way
Grid reference: SH 60898 54936 (±9ft)
Latitude: 53.07348 Longitude: -4.07784 (±9ft)
Elevation: 3120ft
Height: 1.57m Girth: 48cm
Coins: 299
Discernible patterning of coins: Many coins distributed longitudinally along cracks in the
wood. 1 coin (20 Euro cent) dispelled onto the floor. Some coins exhibit damage through
percussion.
Other notable features: Some graffiti in faded marker: ‘ROB + BABS (?) H4H 2012’ and
some scratches, mainly indiscernible except for an ‘MB?’. Some coins suffering from
verdigris.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 183 1977, 1986, 1989, 1995, 1995, 1996, 2000,
2000, 2002, 2002, 2003, 2003, 2004, 2005,
668
2006, 2006, 2006, 2007, 2007, 2008, 2008,
2009, 2009, 2010, 2010, 2011, 2011
2p 84 1979, 1997, 1998, 1999, 1999, 2001, 2001,
2005, 2005, 2005, 2007, 2009, 201?, 2010,
2011, 2011
5p 13 1991, 200-, 2010
10p 6 1992, 2005
20p 6 199-
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 7 1 American cent, 5 euro cents 200-, 5 euro
cents, 5 euro cents, 2 euro cents 2008,
Polish groszy, 20 euro cent (on floor)
Unknown 0 -
2 2%
7 6%
30 28%
55 50%
15 14%
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-Present
Dates of Coins at Snowdon
Mode = 2011
Median = 2004/2005
Mean = 2003
669
2.36 – St Nectan’s Glen Case-Study
Case-study name: St. Nectan’s Glen (SNG)
Date of fieldwork: 01/04/2013
Case-study location: St. Nectan’s Glen, Cornwall, England
Case-study date (i.e. when did it become a ‘coin-tree?): Pre-2006
Case-study environment: A woodland glen
Land ownership: Privately owned
Attractions nearby: The waterfall of St Nectan’s Glen
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 5
Additional information: Lawrence Barker, ‘Loz’, co-manager of the St. Nectan’s Glen coin-
tree: ‘From what I understand the tree fell many years ago in a rather violent storm and as it
lay there and the bark softened people who had no ribbons or other offerings but still had a
wish to make began inserting coins and making their wishes, I believe that there are similar
trees in other sacred sites.’ (pers. comm. 09/11/2012)
Other notable features:
People have inserted some coins into the rock walls by the pool, waterfall, and along
the trail. One coin was a 1933 three pence – very shiny, suggesting that it has only
recently been deposited.
On the rock walls as well were numerous pieces of slate with people’s names written
on them. There are also candles, a rubber duck, painted pieces of slate, jewellery.
1179 57%
758 37%
52 2.5%
33 1.6%
14 0.7% 0 0 0
11 0.5%
8 0.4%
1p 2p 5p 10p 20p 50p £1 £2 Foreign currency
Unknown
Denominations of Coins at Snowdon
Total = 2055
670
On the trees and fences surrounding the pool are ribbons, hair bobbles, small bags
containing folded pieces of paper, jewellery, plastic wallets with photographs in (e.g.
an RIP message for a dog) – even a polo mint and a lock of hair.
On the primary coin-tree, two coins hold ribbons in place – harking back to the
purposes of nails and pins on Isle Maree coin-tree.
In the pool and then along the woodland trail are numerous stacks of rocks known as
‘Fairy Stacks’.
Nearby the glen is a small ‘wishing well’ beside the path, containing 6 coins.
This site demonstrates numerous ways of ‘leaving your mark’ or making mementoes.
671
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-trees(s):
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
St Nectan’s
Chapel
1 Monument Tintagel,
Cornwall Monument
No. (SX
08 NE 20)
The alleged site of the Medieval chapel of
St Nectan.
Source: PastScape
Trevillet 2 Monument Tintagel,
Cornwall Monument
No. (SX
08 NE 27)
Medieval manor house.
Source: PastScape
Trevillett –
Medieval
cross
3 Monument Tintagel,
Cornwall Monument
No. (SX
08 NE)
The former location of a Medieval cross,
now standing outside the Wharncliffe
Arms Hotel in Tintagel.
Source: Cornwall & Scilly HER
Genver –
Early
Medieval
settlement
4 Monument Tintagel,
Cornwall HER No.
23135
Early Medieval settlement, Medieval
manor, Medieval settlement
Source: Cornwall & Scilly HER
Genver –
Medieval
chapel
5 Monument Tintagel,
Cornwall HER No.
23136
A Medieval chapel was situated at
Genver, which is not a deserted
settlement (23135).
Source: Cornwall & Scilly HER
Trevillett –
Medieval
house
6 Monument Tintagel,
Cornwall HER No.
23047
Medieval and Post-Medieval house.
Source: Cornwall & Scilly HER
Trevillett –
Early
Medieval
settlement
7 Monument Tintagel,
Cornwall HER No.
23158
Early Medieval and Medieval settlement,
first recorded in 1337.
Source: Cornwall & Scilly HER
Polpeer –
Medieval
settlement
8 Monument Tintagel,
Cornwall HER No.
23143
Medieval settlement first recorded in
1337.
Source: Cornwall & Scilly HER
Mainscaff –
Medieval
settlement
9 Monument Tintagel,
Cornwall HER No.
23141
Medieval settlement first recorded in
1337.
Source: Cornwall & Scilly HER
Trethevey – 10 Monument Tintagel, HER No. Field boundaries of uncertain Medieval
672
Early
Medieval
field
boundary
Cornwall 56883 date, visible as cropmarks and earthworks
on aerial photographs.
Source: Cornwall & Scilly HER
Trevillett –
Post-
Medieval
building
11 Monument Tintagel,
Cornwall HER No.
56885
A post-Medieval building and undated
enclosure, visible as a complex of 10-12
rectilinear earthworks on aerial
photographs.
Source: Cornwall & Scilly HER
Trevillett –
Post-
Medieval
quarry
12 Monument Tintagel,
Cornwall HER No.
56886
19th and 20th century quarrying, visible as
earthworks on aerial photographs.
Source: Cornwall & Scilly HER
Trevillett –
Post-
Medieval
beekeeping
site
13 Monument Tintagel,
Cornwall HER No.
23051
Possible post-Medieval beekeeping site.
Source: Cornwall & Scilly HER
Trethevey –
C19 quarry
14 Monument Tintagel,
Cornwall HER No.
56868
A post-Medieval quarry, visible on aerial
photographs.
Source: Cornwall & Scilly HER
Source: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/advanced_search.aspx (Accessed 16/05/2013)
674
CLUSTER 1
SNG1
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Many potential hammer rocks
Proximity to shore: 216cm south-west of shore
Proximity to SNG2: 624cm north-east of SNG2
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: You have to walk through the pool to reach it, but the visitors centre provides
wellington boots for visitors to borrow
Orientation: NNW-SSE
Grid reference: SX 08115 88550 (±22ft)
Latitude: 50.66490 Longitude: -4.71666 (±22ft)
Elevation: 451ft
Length: 8.5m Girth: 106cm
Coins: 4365
Discernible patterning of coins: Mainly longitudinal. Some damage through percussion but
most are not bent over.
Other notable features: One rusty nail, one Sealife token, two plastic tokens, a Hobgoblin
beer bottle cap, two ribbons attached to coins, a key-ring, green aventurine (believed to have
healing properties)
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 2021 1974, 1974, 1977, 1979, 1979, 1980, 1980,
1981, 1981, 1982, 1986, 1986, 1989, 1989,
1990, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1992, 1996, 1997,
1997, 1998, 1999, 200-, 200-, 200-, 2000,
2000, 2000, 2000, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001,
2003, 2004, 2004, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2007,
2008, 2008, 2008, 27xpost-2008, 2009,
2009, 2009, 2009, 2009, 201-, 2010, 2010,
2010, 2010, 2010, 2011, 2011, 2011
2p 1639 1971, 1971, 1979, 1980, 1980, 1980, 1981,
1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1989, 1989, 1991,
1992, 1994, 1994, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997,
1997, 1999, 1999, 1999, 20--, 2000, 2000,
2000, 2000, 2000, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001,
2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2002, 2002,
2002, 2002, 2004, 2004, 2005, 2005, 2006,
2007, 2007, 2007, 2007, 2008, 2008, 2008,
2008, 2009, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2011
675
5p 282 1995, 20--, 2000, 2001, 2001, 2005, 2008
10p 263 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2009
20p 124 1982, 1982, 1984, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1995,
1996, 1997, 200-, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005,
2006
50p 4 Unknown
£1 2 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 7 1 euro 2002, 2 euro, 2 euro, 20 euro cents,
20 euro cents, 2 unknown
Unknown 23 Unknown
Coins in water around SNG1: 4
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 3 1999, 2001, 2011
5p 1 2005
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
SNG2
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Many potential hammer rocks
Proximity to pool: Directly beside pool, south-west of pool
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: As above, you have to walk through the pool to reach it
Orientation: NNW-SSE
Grid reference: SX 08115 88550 (±22ft)
Latitude: 50.66490 Longitude: -4.71666 (±22ft)
Elevation: 451ft
Length: 463cm Girth: 73cm
Coins: 15
Discernible patterning of coins: Mainly longitudinal. Some damage through percussion.
676
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 5 1xpost-2008
2p 6 2000
5p 0 -
10p 4 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
STAND-ALONE
SNG3
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Many potential hammer rocks
Proximity to path: 41cm north-east of path
Proximity to river: 360cm north-east of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SX 07937 88578 (±25ft)
Latitude: 50.66500 Longitude: -4.71910 (±25ft)
Elevation: 394ft
Height: 28cm Girth: 139cm
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: On top of stump in pre-existing crack
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
677
CLUSTER 2
SNG4
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Many potential hammer rocks
Proximity to path: Directly south of path
Proximity to river: 511cm south of river
Proximity to SNG5: 615cm east of SNG5
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SX 07937 88578 (±25ft)
Latitude: 50.66500 Longitude: -4.71910 (±25ft)
Elevation: 372ft
Height: 75cm Girth: 132cm
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: n/a
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
SNG5
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Many potential hammer rocks
Proximity to path: Running directly beside path, north of path
Proximity to river: 137cm south of river
Class of decay: 3
678
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: east-west
Grid reference: SX 08115 88550 (±22ft)
Latitude: 50.66490 Longitude: -4.71666 (±22ft)
Elevation: 451ft
Length: 1209cm Girth: 61cm
Coins: 151
Discernible patterning of coins: Mainly longitudinal. Some damage through percussion.
Other notable features: Graffiti scratched into bark: ‘BW’, ‘AI’, and others (illegible)
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 70 1999, 200-, 200-, 2008, 4xpost-2008
2p 44 1xpost-2008
5p 18 Unknown
10p 11 1xpost-2008
20p 7 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 20 euro cents
Unknown - -
13 8%
21 14%
43 28%
72 46%
6 4%
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-Present
Dates of Coins at St Nectan's Glen
Mode = 2001
Median = 2001
Mean = 1998
679
2.37 – Stock Ghyll Case-Study
Case-study name: Stock Ghyll (SG)
Date of fieldwork: 03/06/2012
Case-study location: Stockghyll Lane, Ambleside, Cumbria, England
Case-study date (i.e. when did it become a ‘coin-tree?): Unknown
Case-study environment: On a narrow lane just north of Ambleside town-centre, leading to
the footpath to Stock Ghyll
Land ownership: South Lakeland District Council
Attractions nearby: Ambleside and the waterfall of Stock Ghyll
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 8
2098 46% 1693
37%
301 7%
278 6%
131 3%
4 0.09%
2 0.04% 0
8 0.2%
23 0.5%
Denominations of Coins at St Nectan's Glen
Total = 4528
681
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-tree:
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Cotton Mill,
Stock Ghyll
Park
1 Monument Stock Ghyll
Park,
Ambleside,
Cumbria
Depositor
ID: 30728
Site of a cotton mill of unknown
date.
Source: Lake District National Park
HER
Woundale
Raise Quern
Find
2 Find Spot Ambleside,
Cumbria
Depositor
ID: 1883
A quern found 1.5 miles SW of
Woundale Raise of unknown date.
Source: Lake District National Park
HER
Charcoal
Burning
Platform
3 Monument Ambleside,
Cumbria
Depositor
ID: 4728
Four possible charcoal burning
platforms on a steep hillside near
Stock Ghyll of unknown date.
Source: Lake District National Park
HER
Cultivation
Terraces
4 Monument Ambleside,
Cumbria
Depositor
ID: 5505
Possible cultivation terrace 16m
deep and 35m long at various levels
on a hillside near Stock Ghyll of
unknown date.
Source: Lake District National Park
HER
Source: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/advanced_search.aspx (Accessed 30/03/2012)
683
STAND-ALONE
SG1
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: One tool of percussion: diamond-shaped limestone ‘hammer rock’, 13 x 7
x 4cm, abraded, placed on the top of the stump
Proximity to path: Directly beside road, north-north-west of road (south-south-east of river)
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Directly beside the road leading to the entrance to Stock Ghyll waterfall walk
Grid reference: NY 37922 04512 (± 14ft)
Latitude: 54.43224 Longitude: 2.95850 (± 14ft)
Elevation: 324ft
Height: 1.3m Girth: 2.16m
Coins: 1008
Discernible patterning of coins: 455 coins on top of stump, radial distribution with some
coins following the circle of an inner tree-ring, and 553 coins on side of stump, running
longitudinally up the stump. Squared edges from percussion, and on top of stump 57 coins
bent over.
Other notable features: 1 drawing pin
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 512 1983, 1990, 200-, 2005, post-
2008 (coat-of-arms design),
2008
2p 398 1971, 1980, 1987, 1987,
1994, 1996, 1997, 1999,
2001, 2007, 2007, post 2008
(coat-of-arms design), 2008,
2008
5p 37 2006, 2010
10p 28 1992, 1996, 1996
20p 12 Unknown
50p 3 Unknown
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 7 1 euro cent, 1 euro cent, 5
unknown
Unknown 11 Unknown
SG2
684
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to road: 63cm north-west-west of road
Proximity to SG3: Touching SG3, north-east of SG3
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Directly beside the road leading to the entrance to Stock Ghyll waterfall walk
Grid reference: NY 37808 04561 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.43266 Longitude: 2.96027 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 285ft
Height: 49cm Girth: 1.26m
Coins: 49
Discernible patterning of coins: Coins on top of stump, radial distribution. 2 coins are bent
over.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 21 Unknown
2p 7 1989
5p 6 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 15 Unknown
SG3
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to road: 88cm north-west-west of road
Proximity to SG4: 423cm north-east-east of SG4
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Directly beside the road leading to the entrance to Stock Ghyll waterfall walk
Grid reference: NY 37808 04561 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.43266 Longitude: 2.96027 (± 9ft)
685
Elevation: 285ft
Length: 1.24m Girth: 3.34m
Coins: 9
Discernible patterning of coins: All coins on top of log (log-ends possible too hard or too
overcome with fungus), longitudinal distribution. 1 coin slightly twisted.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 4 Post-2008 (coat-of-arms
design)
2p 2 Unknown
5p 1 Unknown
10p 1 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 1 Unknown
SG4
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to road: 93cm north-west-west of road
Proximity to SG5: 79cm north-east-east of SG5
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Directly beside the road leading to the entrance to Stock Ghyll waterfall walk
Grid reference: NY 37808 04561 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.43266 Longitude: 2.96027 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 285ft
Length: 1.46m Girth: 3.56m
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: Both coins on top of log, left end.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 0 -
5p 1 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
686
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 1 Unknown
SG5
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to road: 164cm north-west-west of road
Proximity to SG6: 38cm north of SG6
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Directly beside the road leading to the entrance to Stock Ghyll waterfall walk
Grid reference: NY 37808 04561 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.43266 Longitude: 2.96027 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 285ft
Height: 24cm Girth: 4.1m
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: On top of stump
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 1 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
SG6
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
687
Proximity to road: 69cm north-west-west of road
Proximity to SG7: 91cm north-east-east of SG7
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Directly beside the road.
Grid reference: NY 37808 04561 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.43266 Longitude: 2.96027 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 285ft
Length: 2.6m Girth: 2.76m
Coins: 32
Discernible patterning of coins: Coins on top of log, on left end, longitudinal distribution.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 20 2001, 2005, 2010
2p 3 Unknown
5p 3 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 6 Unknown
SG7
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to road: 106cm north-west-west of road
Proximity to SG8: 288cm north-east-east of SG8
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Directly beside the road
Grid reference: NY 37808 04561 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.43266 Longitude: 2.96027 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 285ft
Height: 72cm Girth: 3.01m
Coins: 11
688
Discernible patterning of coins: Coins on top of stump, radial distribution
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 2 Unknown
2p 2 Unknown
5p 3 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 4 Unknown
SG8
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to road: 103cm north-west-west of road
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Directly beside the road
Grid reference: NY 37808 04561 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.43266 Longitude: 2.96027 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 285ft
Length: 1.24m Girth: 3.19m
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: Coin on log end
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 Australian (denomination
unknown) 1980
Unknown 0 -
689
2.38 – Tarn Hows Case-Study
Case-study name: Tarn Hows (TH)
Date of fieldwork: 03/06/2012
Case-study location: Tarn Hows, Cumbria, England
Case-study date (i.e. when did it become a ‘coin-tree?): 3 or 4 years: ‘from what I can gather
the tree has not been there for very long, maybe 3 or 4 years. I also know that all of the coins
have been completely removed from the tree on 2 occasions, only to be replaced by others’
(pers. comm. Sam Stalker, National Trust Ranger, 10/02/2012)
Case-study environment: Woodland and lakeshore
Land ownership: The National Trust
Attractions nearby: Tarn Hows is a popular circular walk
Number of coin-trees/stumps/logs at site: 22
3 11%
5 19%
7 26%
12 44%
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010
Dates of Coins at Stock Ghyll
559 50%
413 37%
51 4.6%
30 2.7%
12 1%
3 0.3% 0 0
8 0.7%
38 3.4%
1p 2p 5p 10p 20p 50p £1 £2 Foreign currency
Unknown
Denominations of Coins at Stock Ghyll
Mode = 1996/2008
Median = 1997
Mean = 1997
Total = 1114
692
Sites and monuments within 500metres of coin-tree:
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Rose Castle
Cottahe
1 Monument Rose Castle,
Hawkshead,
Cumbria
NT
HBSMR
No: 27047
Mid-19th
to late-19th
century house.
Source: National Trust HBSMR
Earth closet
and wash
house
2 Monument Rose Castle,
Hawkshead,
Cumbria
Depositor
ID: 38288
Post medieval wash house with
earth closet.
Source: Lake District National Park
HER
Structure in
Lane Head
Coppice
3 Monument Lane Head
Coppice,
Conison,
Cumbria
Depositor
ID: 36520
Post medieval structure, Lane Head
Coppice.
Source: Lake District National Park
HER
Highwood
Quarry
4 Monument Hawkshead,
Cumbria
Depositor
ID: 18522
Site of Highwood slate quarry,
unknown date.
Source: Lake District National Park
HER
Rose Castle
Quarries
5 Monument Hawkshead,
Cumbria
Depositor
ID: 18523
Site of two post-medieval slate
quarries.
Source: Lake District National Park
HER
Howgraves
Quarry
6 Monument Hawkshead,
Cumbria
Depositor
ID: 18524
Site of a post medieval slate quarry.
Source: Lake District National Park
HER
Tannery,
Rose Castle
7 Monument Rose Castle,
Hawkshead,
Cumbria
Depositor
ID: 30182
Site of a tannery of unknown date.
Source: Lake District National Park
HER
Source: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/advanced_search.aspx (Accessed 30/03/2012)
695
CLUSTER 1
TH1
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 1.47m north-north-east of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Relatively accessible; it is beside the main path around Tarn Hows, but it
quite difficult to reach; it is on a slope, 1.48m from the ground.
Grid reference: NY 32939 00102 (± 11ft)
Latitude: 54.39198 Longitude: 3.03431 (± 11ft)
Elevation: 610ft
Height: 3.05m Girth: 1.15m
Coins: 4
Discernible patterning of coins: Primarily running longitudinally along the bark. Highest
coin is 1.58m from the roots.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 2 Unknown
2p 2 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
TH2
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 1.72m west of path
Proximity to TH1: 18m from TH1
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
696
Grid reference: NY 32967 00069 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.39166 Longitude: 3.03386 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 662ft
Height: 66cm Girth: 1.41m
Coins: 5
Discernible patterning of coins: Coins on top of stump, radial distribution
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 4 2001
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
STAND-ALONE
TH3
Condition: Uprooted stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Many potential tools of percussion, but two stones are abraded: A jagged
limestone ‘hammer rock’, 8 x 7 x 3cm, slightly abraded; and a limestone ‘hammer rock’, 18 x
11 x 8cm, heavily abraded
Proximity to path: Directly west of the path and Tarn Hows
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Relatively accessible. The stump end is directly beside the path at a
convenient height. However, it is positioned up a steep incline, and many people must have
climbed up to insert coins at higher points.
Grid reference: NY 33024 00130 (± 12ft)
Latitude: 54.39223 Longitude: 3.03299 (± 12ft)
Elevation: 689ft
Length: 4.6m Girth: 2.73m
Coins: 3834
Discernible patterning of coins: 3487 coins on top of log, primarily running longitudinally
along the bark. Highest coin is 2.46m from the ground (obviously required climbing). 347 Cluster 1
697
coins on log-end, the coins are either of radial or transverse distribution. Roughly 100 coins
are bent.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1990 1971, 1977, 1994, 1994, 1995, 1995, 1996,
1998, 1998, 1999, 1999, 1999, 200-, 2000,
2000, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001,
2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2005, 2005, 2006,
2007, 2007, 2007, 27 x post-2008 (coat-of-
arms design), 2008, 2008, 2008, 2008,
2009, 2009, 2009, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2011,
2011
2p 1117 1971, 1978, 1978, 1978, 1979, 198-, 1980,
1985, 1987, 1988, 1988, 1989, 1989, 199-,
1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1997, 1997,
1998, 20--, 200-, 200-, 200-, 200-, 200-,
2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000,
2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2001, 2001, 2001,
2001, 2001, 2002, 2002, 2002, 2002, 2003,
2003, 2004, 2004, 2005, 2005, 2005, 2005,
2005, 2006, 2006, 2007, 2007, 2007, 2007,
2007, 32 x post-2008 (coat-of-arms
design), 2008, 2008, 2008, 2009, 2011,
2011, 2011
5p 316 1990, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2002, 2004, 2007,
6 x post-2008 (coat-of-arms design), 2010,
2010, 2010
10p 222 20--, 2002, 2005, 2007, 3 x post-2008
(coat-of-arms design), 2008
20p 112 1982, 200-, 2004, post-2008 (coat-of-arms
design)
50p 30 Post-2008 (coat-of-arms design)
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 8 2 euro, 2 euro, 1 euro, 10 euro cents, 1
euro cent, Polish zloty, American 1 cent
1977, 2 unknown gold-coloured coins
Unknown 39 Unknown
STAND-ALONE
TH4
Condition: Uprooted stump
Species: Unknown
Associated tools: One possible tool of percussion: a rectangular sandstone ‘hammer rock’,
24 x 6 x 5cm, slightly abraded
698
Proximity to path: 2.21m north-west-west of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Relatively easy, overhanging path
Grid reference: NY 33048 00207 (± 10ft)
Latitude: 54.39293 Longitude: 3.03265 (± 10ft)
Elevation: 706ft
Length: 2.34m Girth: 1.68m
Coins: 3
Discernible patterning of coins: One in log-end and two on top of log, longitudinal
distribution.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 2 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
STAND-ALONE
TH5
Condition: Stump
Species: Unknown
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 3.92m south-south-west of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Visible from the path but requires climbing to reach it; 3.92m up a steep
incline
Grid reference: NY 33093 00281 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.39360 Longitude: 3.03198 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 678ft
Height: 48cm Girth: 2.05m
Coins: 3
699
Discernible patterning of coins: All coins on top of stump, radial distribution. Slight
damage to edges of coins through percussion. 1 coin showing the effects of verdigrease.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 2003
2p 2 1971, 1994
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
STAND-ALONE
TH6
Condition: Living tree
Species: Beech (Fraxinus)
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 3.11m north of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible from path
Grid reference: NY 33165 00401 (± 12ft)
Latitude: 54.39469 Longitude: 3.03091 (± 12ft)
Elevation: 668ft
Height: 1.33m Girth: 1.78m (girth of overall tree: 3.43m)
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: Coins on the top of a stump where a limb has been
removed, inserted into pre-existing cracks, radial distribution.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 1 1991
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
700
Unknown 0 -
STAND-ALONE
TH7
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: One potential tool of percussion: Jagged limestone ‘hammer rock’, 14 x 6
x 5cm, slightly abraded
Proximity to path: 19m south-east of path
Proximity to lake: Directly north-west of lake
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible although not particularly visible from path
Grid reference: NY 33179 00389 (± 10ft)
Latitude: 54.39458 Longitude: 3.03067 (± 10ft)
Elevation: 659ft
Height: 59cm Girth: 1.88m
Coins: 5
Discernible patterning of coins: All coins on top of stump, inserted into pre-existing cracks,
random distribution.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 1 2004
5p 3 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
STAND-ALONE
TH8
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
701
Associated tools: One potential tool of percussion: Rectangular limestone ‘hammer rock’, 14
x 8 x 3cm, slightly abraded
Proximity to path: 74cm south-south-west of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible from path
Grid reference: NY 33385 00296 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.39377 Longitude: 3.02747 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 659ft
Height: 33cm Girth: 1.15m
Coins: 4
Discernible patterning of coins: Latitudinal distribution across the top of the stump.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 2 Post-2008 (coat-of-arms design)
5p 0 -
10p 1 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
STAND-ALONE
TH9
Condition: Stump
Species: Softwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 3.99m south-south-west of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: NY 33402 00273 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.39357 Longitude: 3.02721 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 661ft
Height: 59cm Girth: 1.87m
Coins: 1
702
Discernible patterning of coins: Coin on top of stump, inserted into a crack.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 0 -
5p 1 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
STAND-ALONE
TH10
Condition: Stump
Species: Unknown
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: In the middle of the path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible, in the middle of path
Grid reference: NY 33466 00230 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.39319 Longitude: 3.02622 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 679ft
Height: 1.02m Girth: 79cm
Coins: 652
Discernible patterning of coins: Primarily running longitudinally along the bark, heavily
clustered on stump top. Roughly 20 coins are bent.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 360 1974, 1974, 1984, 1994, 2000, 2001,
2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2008, 2009, 2010
2p 227 1980, 1980, 1980, 1988, 1988, 1993,
1997, 1998, 200-, 200-, 2001, 2002, 2002,
2002, 2003, 2007, 2008
5p 31 2009
10p 19 1992
20p 6 1998
50p 0 -
703
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 2 1 euro, unknown
Unknown 9 -
STAND-ALONE
TH11
Condition: Stump
Species: Unknown
Associated tools: One possible tool of percussion: jagged slate ‘hammer rock’, 5 x 4 x 1cm,
slightly abraded
Proximity to path: 1.56m
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: NY 33466 00230 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.39319 Longitude: 3.02622 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 679ft
Height: 37cm Girth: 1.32m
Coins: 18
Discernible patterning of coins: All coins on top, random distribution
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 9 1986, 1998, 2009
2p 5 198-
5p 2 Unknown
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 2 Unknown
STAND-ALONE
TH12
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Tarn Hows 10
704
Associated tools: One possible tool of percussion: Square slate ‘hammer rock’, 19 x 12 x
7cm, slightly abraded; and rectangular slate ‘hammer rock’, 15 x 9 x 3xm, slightly abraded on
edges
Proximity to path: Directly north-west-west to the path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: NY 33432 00113 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.39213 Longitude: 3.02672 (± 10ft)
Elevation: 704ft
Height: 20cm Girth: 2.86m
Coins: 196
Discernible patterning of coins: All coins on top, many running longitudinally around the
horse-shoe shape of the stump.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 127 1990, 2000, 2001, 4 x post-2008 (coat-of-
arms design), 2010, 2011
2p 34 2000, 2000, 2001, 2001, 2001, 3 x post-
2008 (coat-of-arms design)
5p 21 Post-2008 (coat-of-arms design)
10p 7 2000
20p 2 -
50p 2 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 3 Unknown
STAND-ALONE
TH13
Condition: Stump
Species: Unknown
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 1.08m west of the path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: NY 33428 00053 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.39159 Longitude: 3.02676 (± 9ft)
705
Elevation: 727ft
Height: 83cm Girth: 1.94m
Coins: 144
Discernible patterning of coins: All coins on top, radial distribution. 9 coins are bent.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 71 1998
2p 14 200-
5p 41 Unknown
10p 9 1992
20p 1 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 8 Unknown
CLUSTER 2
TH14
Condition: Stump
Species: Unknown
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 5.51m south-east of the path
Proximity to TH16: 31m
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: NY 33423 00032 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.39141 Longitude: 3.02683 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 717ft
Height: 51cm Girth: 2.73m
Coins: 3
Discernible patterning of coins: All coins on top, inserted into pre-existing cracks, circular
distribution
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 3 1990
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
706
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
TH15
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: One potential tool of percussion: rounded sandstone ‘hammer rock’, 20 x
20 x 10cm, slightly abraded
Proximity to path: 61cm south-east of the path
Proximity to TH15: 6.04m west of TH15
Proximity to TH16: 25m north of TH16
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: NY 33423 00032 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.39141 Longitude: 3.02683 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 717ft
Height: 47cm Girth: 2.34m
Coins: 123
Discernible patterning of coins: All coins on top, some with a radial distribution, others
circular. Roughly 10 coins are bent.
Other notable features: One AA battery lodged into a fissure at the top
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 73 1979, 1989, post-2008 (coat-of-arms
design)
2p 21 2010
5p 18 Unknown
10p 8 Unknown
20p 1 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 2 Unknown
707
TH16
Condition: Stump
Species: Unknown
Associated tools: One potential tool of percussion: rounded limestone ‘hammer rock’, 16 x
11 x 9cm, slightly abraded
Proximity to path: 1.06m north-west of the path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: NY 33423 00032 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.39141 Longitude: 3.02683 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 712ft
Height: 68cm Girth: 2.29m
Coins: 12
Discernible patterning of coins: All coins on top, random distribution.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 6 Post-2008 (coat-of-arms design)
2p 1 Unknown
5p 3 Unknown
10p 0
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 2 Unknown
CLUSTER 3
TH17
Condition: Stump
Species: Unknown
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly to the north-west of path
Proximity to TH18: 13.58m
Proximity to TH19: 15.9m
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
708
Grid reference: SD 33375 99969 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.39084 Longitude: 3.02757 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 700ft
Height: 23cm Girth: 1.93m
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: Coins on top, random distribution
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
TH18
Condition: Stump
Species: Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris)
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 6.01m north-west of path
Proximity to TH19: 2.27m
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SD 33375 99969 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.39084 Longitude: 3.02757 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 700ft
Height: 1.52m Girth: 1.79m
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: Coins on top, random distribution.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 1 Unknown
709
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
TH19
Condition: Stump
Species: Unknown
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 4.3m north-west of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SD 33375 99969 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.39084 Longitude: 3.02757 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 700ft
Height: 17cm Girth: 1.94m
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: Coins on top, inserted into a circular crack.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 2 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
CLUSTER 4
TH20
Condition: Stump
Species: Unknown
Associated tools: None
710
Proximity to path: 91cm north-west of path
Proximity to TH21: 11.9m
Proximity to TH22: 34.2m
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SD 33341 99930 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.39048 Longitude: 3.02807 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 702ft
Height: 40cm Girth: 1.87m
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: Coin on top of stump.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
TH21
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 1.18m north-west of path
Proximity to TH22: 21.3m
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SD 33341 99930 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.39048 Longitude: 3.02807 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 702ft
Height: 63cm Girth: 1.85m
711
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: Coins on top, inserted into cracks.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
TH22
Condition: Stump
Species: Unknown
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: 1.84m north-west of path
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SD 33341 99930 (± 9ft)
Latitude: 54.39048 Longitude: 3.02807 (± 9ft)
Elevation: 702ft
Height: 34cm Girth: 2.2m
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: Coin on top, bent over.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
712
2.39 – Tarr Steps Case-Study
Case-study name: Tarr Steps (TS)
Date of fieldwork: 05/04/2013
Case-study location: Tarr Steps Woodland, Somerset, England
Case-study date (i.e. when did it become a ‘coin-tree?): Pre-2000 (pers. comm. Graeme
McVittie, Woodland Officer, 16/01/2013)
Case-study environment: Woodland and riverside
Land ownership: Exmoor National Park
16 9%
16 9%
47 26%
94 53%
6 3%
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-Present
Dates of Coins at Tarn Hows
2654 53%
1434 29%
410 8%
267 5%
122 2.4%
32 0.6% 0 0
10 0.2%
65 1.3%
1p 2p 5p 10p 20p 50p £1 £2 Foreign currency
Unknown
Denominations of Coins at Tarn Hows
Mode = 2001
Median = 2001
Mean = 1999
Total = 4994
714
Sites and monuments within 500 metres of coin-trees(s):
Title Map
No.
Type Location Reference
Number
Description
Tarr Steps
Clapper
Bridge
1 Monument Withypool and
Hawkridge,
Somerset
ENPHER
Monument
No.
MSO8673
A probable Medieval clapper
bridge, 55 metres long across the
River Barle.
Source: Exmoor National Park
HER
Monument
No.
1490668
2 Monument Withypool and
Hawkridge,
Somerset
Monument
No.
1490668
A post-Medieval water meadow,
known as catchwork or field-
gutter system, of probable 19th
century date is visible on aerial
photographs as earthworks on the
western slopes of the Barle
valley, in an area enclosed by
North Barton Wood.
Source: PastScape
Monument
No.
1497905
3 Monument Withypool and
Hawkridge,
Somerset
Monument
No.
1497905
The earthwork remains of two
field boundaries and narrow ridge
and furror of probable post-
Medieval date, visible on aerial
photographs.
Source: PastScape
Source: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/advanced_search.aspx (Accessed 16/05/2013)
716
TS1
Condition: Log
Species: Unknown
Associated tools: Many potential hammer rocks
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south-west-west of path
Proximity to river: 709cm south-west-west of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: SW-NE
Grid reference: SS 85936 32708 (±28ft)
Latitude: 51.08220 Longitude: -3.62971 (±27ft)
Elevation: 606ft
Length: 1115cm Girth: 97cm
Coins: 1
Discernible patterning of coins: n/a
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
TS2
Condition: Log
Species: Oak (Quercus)
Associated tools: 5 hammer rocks: 13x11x3cm; 11x8x5cm; 9.5x9x2cm; 15x12x6cm;
11x8x4cm, all showing signs of abrasion and witnessed being used as tools of percussion
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south of path
Proximity to river: 330cm north of river
Proximity to TS3: 372cm south-east of TS3
Proximity to TS4: Directly east of TS4, touching
717
Proximity to TS5: 836cm north-west of TS5
Proximity to TS6: 9cm north-east-east of TS6
Proximity to TS7: 342cm north of TS7
Proximity to TS8: 398cm south of TS8
Proximity to TS9: 831cm north-north-west of TS9
Proximity to TS10: 829cm north-north-west TS10
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: NE-SW
Grid reference: SS 86277 32297 (±16ft)
Latitude: 51.07954 Longitude: -3.62480 (±18ft)
Elevation: 585ft
Length: 902cm Girth: 150cm
Coins: 8758
Discernible patterning of coins: Primarily longitudinal, many folded over.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 4330 1978, 1979, 1979, 1982, 1984, 1988, 1989,
1989, 1989, 1989, 1990, 1990, 1991, 1999,
1999, 200-, 2000, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001,
2002, 2003, 2004, 2004, 2006, 2008,
33xpost-2008, 2009, 2009, 2010, 2010,
2012, 2012
2p 3661 1971, 1971, 1975, 1976, 1976, 1976, 1977,
1978, 1978, 1979, 1979, 1980, 1980, 1981,
1981, 1981, 1981, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1988,
1988, 1989, 199-, 1990, 1991, 1991, 1992,
1992, 1995, 1995, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1998,
1998, 1998, 200-, 200-, 2000, 2000, 2001,
2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2001, 2003, 2003,
2004, 2004, 2004, 2004, 2005, 2005, 2006,
2007, 2007, 2007, 2007, 2008, 2008, 2008,
2008, 42xpost-2008, 2009, 2009, 2010, 2011
5p 322 1990, 1991, 1997, 1998, 2003, 2005, 201-,
2011, 2011, 2012
10p 264 1992, 1992, 1992, 2000, 2000, 2004, 2008,
2008, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2010
20p 96 1982, 1985, 199-, 1991, 1998, 2003, 2009,
2010
50p 3 Post-2008
£1 1 Unknown
£2 0 -
718
Foreign currency 9 4 x 1 euro, 2 euro cents, Spanish euro,
French euro, Danish øre, American coin
(denomination unknown)
Unknown 72 Unknown
TS3
Condition: Log
Species: Oak (Quercus)
Associated tools: See TS2
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south of path
Proximity to river: 620cm north of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: NE-SW
Grid reference: SS 86277 32297 (±16ft)
Latitude: 51.07954 Longitude: -3.62480 (±18ft)
Elevation: 585ft
Length: 720cm Girth: 98cm
Coins: 1237
Discernible patterning of coins: Longitudinal, many folded over.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 618 1981, 1983, 1986, 1993, 1997, 2000, 2000,
2004, 2005, 2007, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011,
2011, 2012
2p 482 1978, 1979, 1980, 1980, 1987, 1993, 1998,
1999, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2004,
2004, 2008, 2008, 2009, 2011
5p 56 200-, 2000
10p 49 2005, 2011
20p 12 2002, 2xpost-2008
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 4 Polish groszy, 1 euro, 1 euro, 10 euro cents
Unknown 16 Unknown
TS4
Condition: Log
719
Species: Oak (Quercus)
Associated tools: See TS2
Proximity to path: Directly by path, south of path
Proximity to river: 1067cm north of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: E-W
Grid reference: SS 86277 32297 (±16ft)
Latitude: 51.07954 Longitude: -3.62480 (±18ft)
Elevation: 585ft:
Length: 358cm Girth: 75cm
Coins: 118
Discernible patterning of coins: Primarily longitudinal, many inserted very deeply.
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 50 2000
2p 37 1990, 1998, 1998
5p 14 Unknown
10p 12 Unknown
20p 3 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 1 Unknown
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 1 Unknown
TS5
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: See TS2
Proximity to path: 836cm south of path
Proximity to river: 900cm of river
Class of decay: 4
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: NE-SW
Grid reference: SS 86277 32297 (±16ft)
720
Latitude: 51.07954 Longitude: -3.62480 (±18ft)
Elevation: 585ft
Length: 504cm Girth: 66cm
Coins: 6
Discernible patterning of coins: None
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 1 Unknown
5p 2 1992, post-2008
10p 1 Unknown
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
TS6
Condition: Stump
Species: Unknown
Associated tools: See TS2
Proximity to path: 360cm south of path
Proximity to river: 1017cm north of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SS 86277 32297 (±16ft)
Latitude: 51.07954 Longitude: -3.62480 (±18ft)
Elevation: 585ft
Height: 10cm Girth: 24cm
Coins: 10
Discernible patterning of coins: Random
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 6 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 3 Unknown
10p 0 -
721
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
TS7
Condition: Stump
Species: Unknown
Associated tools: See TS2
Proximity to path: 680cm south of path
Proximity to river: 710cm north of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SS 86277 32297 (±16ft)
Latitude: 51.07954 Longitude: -3.62480 (±18ft)
Elevation: 585ft
Height: 12cm Girth: 48cm
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: On top of stump
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 Unknown
2p 0 -
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 1 euro
Unknown 0 -
TS8
Condition: Living tree
Species: Oak (Quercus)
Associated tools: See TS2
722
Proximity to path: In middle of path
Proximity to river: 1792cm north of river
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SS 86277 32297 (±16ft)
Latitude: 51.07954 Longitude: -3.62480 (±18ft)
Elevation: 585ft
Girth: 123cm
Highest coin: 159cm
Coins: 13
Discernible patterning of coins: Random
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 10 2009
2p 2 2001
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
TS9
Condition: Living
Species: Oak (Quercus)
Associated tools: See TS2
Proximity to path: 831cm south of path
Proximity to river: 852cm north of river
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SS 86277 32297 (±16ft)
Latitude: 51.07954 Longitude: -3.62480 (±18ft)
Elevation: 585ft
Girth: 233cm
Highest coin: 164cm
Coins: 17
723
Discernible patterning of coins: Random
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 7 1977, 1997, 2005
2p 4 2005
5p 2 1999
10p 2 2007
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 1 2 euro cents
Unknown 0 -
TS10
Condition: Living
Species: Oak (Quercus)
Associated tools: See TS2
Proximity to path: 410cm south of path
Proximity to river: 911cm north of river
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SS 86277 32297 (±16ft)
Latitude: 51.07954 Longitude: -3.62480 (±18ft)
Elevation: 585ft
Girth: 179cm
Highest coin: 148cm
Coins: 7
Discernible patterning of coins: Random
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 3 200-, post-2008
2p 2 Unknown
5p 1 2010
10p 0 -
20p 1 Unknown
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
724
STAND-ALONE
TS11
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Many potential hammer rocks
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, south of path
Proximity to river: 860cm north of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SS 86313 32376 (±14ft)
Latitude: 51.07936 Longitude: -3.62442 (±14ft)
Elevation: 579ft
Height: 34cm Girth: 163cm
Coins: 5
Discernible patterning of coins: Random
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 3 Post-2008
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 1 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
STAND-ALONE
TS12
Condition: Log
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Many potential hammer rocks
Proximity to path: Directly beside path, north-north-west of path
Proximity to river: 604cm, south-south-east of river
Class of decay: 3
725
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Orientation: NNW-SSE
Grid reference: SS 86329 32380 (±18ft)
Latitude: 51.07934 Longitude: -3.62415 (±18ft)
Elevation: 580ft
Length: 684cm Girth: 83cm
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: n/a
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 1 200-
2p 1 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
STAND-ALONE
TS13
Condition: Stump
Species: Hardwood
Associated tools: Some potential hammer rocks
Proximity to path: 36cm south-east of path
Proximity to river: 240cm north-west of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Easily accessible
Grid reference: SS 86464 32439 (±17ft)
Latitude: 51.07996 Longitude: -3.62221 (±17ft)
Elevation: 572ft
Height: 33cm Girth: 198cm
Coins: 5
Discernible patterning of coins: 3 inserted into pre-existing cracks
726
Other notable features: Some scratches on surface, possibly graffiti
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 2 Post-2008
2p 2 Unknown
5p 0 -
10p 1 Unknown
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
STAND-ALONE
TS14
Condition: Log
Species: Softwood
Associated tools: None
Proximity to path: Directly overhanging path, north of path
Proximity to river: roughly 8m south of river
Class of decay: 3
Ease of access: Quite high above muddy section of path
Orientation: N-S
Grid reference: SS 86599 32427 (±16ft)
Latitude: 51.07999 Longitude: -3.62029 (±16ft)
Elevation: 588ft
Height from path: 178cm
Girth: 139cm
Coins: 2
Discernible patterning of coins: On log end
Denomination Quantity Dates
1p 0 -
2p 2 1971
5p 0 -
10p 0 -
20p 0 -
50p 0 -
727
£1 0 -
£2 0 -
Foreign currency 0 -
Unknown 0 -
22 12%
28 16%
44 25%
74 41%
11 6%
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-Present
Dates of Coins at Tarr Steps
5032 49%
4196 41%
400 4%
330 3%
116 1%
3 0.03%
2 0.02% 0
15 0.1%
89 0.9%
Denominations of Coins at Tarr Steps
Mode = 2001
Median = 2000
Mean = 1997
Total = 10183
728
APPENDIX 3 – COIN DATA
3.1 – Denominations of all coins catalogued at coin-tree sites
Denominations of coins catalogued in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland
Denominations AF AB AM AK BA BF BB CS CC
Pre-decimal halfpenny 0 28 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pre-decimal 1 penny 0 48 137 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pre-decimal 1 shilling 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pre-decimal 2 shillings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Decimal halfpenny 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
1p 16547 247 1046 32 7640 1949 399 2 365
2p 9114 255 979 24 5901 1389 309 0 33
5p 1048 15 123 9 252 285 75 0 136
10p 597 6 127 11 177 192 61 0 14
20p 253 1 64 1 26 51 36 0 6
50p 58 0 12 0 5 2 1 0 0
£1 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0
£2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Foreign currency 16 5 24 1 8 7 1 0 2
Unknown 133 62 59 2 2227 9 14 0 2
Total 27767 668 2573 80 16237 3884 896 2 558
Denominations CR DD FG GZ HC HF IG IM LW
Pre-decimal halfpenny 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0
Pre-decimal 1 penny 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 856 0
Pre-decimal 1 shilling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pre-decimal 2 shillings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0
Decimal halfpenny 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1p 4 2793 2454 894 64 160 29244 166 19
2p 0 2114 1858 612 33 108 23971 461 10
5p 1 227 255 54 20 29 1224 68 6
10p 1 144 232 26 5 34 797 135 0
20p 0 68 36 17 5 18 77 38 3
50p 0 15 4 0 1 0 5 19 0
£1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 11 0
£2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Foreign currency 0 14 7 7 1 1 22 30 0
Unknown 0 62 81 18 12 3 1566 136 0
Total 6 5438 4928 1628 142 353 56910 1975 38
Denominations LX LG MH MB PG PM RD SG SN
Pre-decimal halfpenny 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pre-decimal 1 penny 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
729
Pre-decimal 1 shilling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pre-decimal 2 shillings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Decimal halfpenny 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1p 26 2168 3420 39 1005 2370 70 559 1179
2p 31 1607 2403 25 612 1668 19 413 758
5p 5 283 131 6 61 546 19 51 52
10p 3 301 96 3 36 399 6 30 33
20p 2 110 17 0 2 56 0 12 14
50p 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 0
£1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
£2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Foreign currency 0 21 6 0 1 14 0 8 11
Unknown 24 37 1246 0 59 90 5 38 8
Total 91 4529 7320 73 1776 5143 119 1114 2055
Denominations SNG TH TS Total
Pre-decimal halfpenny 0 0 0 72
Pre-decimal 1 penny 0 0 0 1043
Pre-decimal 1 shilling 0 0 0 3
Pre-decimal 2 shillings 0 0 0 15
Decimal halfpenny 0 0 0 2
1p 2098 2654 5032 84645
2p 1693 1434 4196 62030
5p 301 410 400 6092
10p 278 267 330 4341
20p 131 122 116 1282
50p 4 32 3 167
£1 2 0 2 25
£2 0 0 0 1
Foreign currency 8 10 15 240
Unknown 23 65 89 6070
Total 4528 4994 10183 166028
730
Denominations of coins catalogued in the Republic of Ireland
Denominations CL FR GB Total
1 Euro cent 7 35 11 53
2 Euro cents 8 27 14 49
5 Euro cents 19 27 9 55
10 Euro cents 19 4 7 30
20 Euro cents 9 5 7 21
50 Euro cents 9 4 2 15
1 Euro 6 0 1 7
2 Euros 1 1 0 2
Northern Ireland 1p 4 6 2 12
British 1p 2 1 1 4
British 2p 2 0 2 4
British 5p 0 2 0 2
British 10p 0 0 0 0
British 20p 1 0 0 1
Foreign currency 3 4 0 7
Unknown 2 5 2 9
Total 92 117 58 267
72 .04%
1043 0.6%
3 .002%
15 .009%
2 .001%
84645 51%
62030 37%
6092 3.7%
4341 2.6%
1282 0.8%
167 0.1%
25 .02%
1 .001%
240 0.1%
6070 3.7%
Denominations of Coins in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland
731
53 20% 49
18%
55 21%
30 11%
21 8% 15
6% 7 3% 2
0.7%
12 4% 4
1%
4 1%
2 0.7% 0
1 0.4%
7 3%
9 3%
Denominations of Coins in the Republic of Ireland
732
3.2 – Dates of all coins catalogued at coin-tree sites
Dates AF AB AM AK BA BF BB CS CL
1871-1880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1881-1890 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1891-1990 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1901-1910 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1911-1920 0 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
1921-1930 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
1931-1940 0 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
1941-1950 0 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
1951-1960 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
1961-1970 0 17 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
1971-1980 29 2 119 0 9 53 6 0 0
1981-1990 37 8 161 3 18 82 7 0 0
1991-2000 39 2 255 8 33 174 22 0 2
2001-2010 75 0 219 9 20 289 25 0 4
2011-Present 5 0 2 1 5 42 1 0 0
Mode date 2003/
2010
1967 1971 2000 2000 2000 2001 - 2003
Median date 1998 1943 1992 2000 1998 2001 2000 - 2002/
2003
Mean date 1995 1954 1990 2000 1996 1999 1997 - 2001
Dates CC CR DD FG FR GB GZ HC HF
1871-1880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1881-1890 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1891-1990 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1901-1910 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1911-1920 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1921-1930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1931-1940 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1941-1950 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1951-1960 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1961-1970 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1971-1980 0 0 19 4 1 0 0 0 3
1981-1990 1 0 35 8 0 0 0 2 3
1991-2000 1 1 67 9 4 0 3 3 4
2001-2010 5 2 101 15 17 0 15 8 11
2011-Present 1 0 9 1 2 2 0 1 0
Mode date - 2003 2000 2000,
2010
2007 - 2008 2001 2001
Median date 2001,
2004
2003 2000 2000 2005 - 2007 2001 2001
Mean date 2002 2000 1998 1997 2003 - 2005 2001 1997
Dates IG IM LW LX LG MH MB PG PM
1871-1880 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1881-1890 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
733
1891-1990 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1901-1910 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1911-1920 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1921-1930 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1931-1940 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1941-1950 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1951-1960 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1961-1970 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1971-1980 34 119 1 0 22 3 1 6 9
1981-1990 66 94 1 0 26 7 2 5 14
1991-2000 114 179 1 0 39 17 2 14 56
2001-2010 140 111 0 1 58 37 5 17 91
2011-Present 13 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 0
Mode date 2000 1992,
1997
- 2000 2000 2001 2008 2000 2000
Median date 2000 1986 1988 2000 2000 2001 2001 2000 2001
Mean date 1997 1964 1984 2000 1996 2000 1998 1997 2000
Dates RD SG SN SNG TH TS Total
1871-1880 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
1881-1890 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
1891-1990 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
1901-1910 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
1911-1920 0 0 0 0 0 0 83
1921-1930 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
1931-1940 0 0 0 0 0 0 27
1941-1950 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
1951-1960 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
1961-1970 0 0 0 0 0 0 32
1971-1980 0 3 2 13 16 22 494
1981-1990 0 5 7 21 16 28 649
1991-2000 1 7 30 43 47 44 1221
2001-2010 5 12 55 72 94 74 1587
2011-Present 0 0 15 6 6 11 129
Mode date 2007 1996,
2008
2011 2001 2001 2001
Median date 2006,
2007
1997 2004,
2005
2001 2001 2000
Mean date 2005 1997 2003 1998 1999 1997
734
3.3 – Catalogue of foreign coins
Below is a catalogue of all non-UK coins catalogued in/on coin-trees. This also includes
coins from Guernsey, Jersey, the Isle of Man, and Eire.
Country/
Continent
Coin Quantity Coin-Trees
Australia 10 cents 3 IM2, LG9, LG9
Denomination
unknown
2 AF1, SG8
Canada 1 cent 2 AF1, AM1
5 cents 2 AM1, IM2
Denomination
unknown
2 BA1, BA5
Czech
Republic
20 haleru 1 AM1
Denmark 25 øre 2 AM1, FG(water)
50 øre 1 AF1
5 kroner 1 LG9
Denomination
unknown
2 LG9, TS3
Eire 1 penny 1 AM1
20 pence 1 IM2
Denomination
unknown
2 LG9, PM4
Europe 1 euro cent 20 AM1, AM1, BF1, BF6, DD11, FG3, GZ3, IM1, IM4,
LG9, LG9, LG9, PM4, PM4, PM6, PM8, SG1, SG1,
TH3
2 euro cents 9 AM1, IM2, IM9, PM12, PM12, SN1, SN2, TS2, TS3
5 euro cents 18 AF1, AF1, AM1, AM1, BF6, BB1, DD10, DD11,
DD11, IG3, IG3, IM2, IM8, LG9, PM6, SN2, SN2,
1 0.02%
1 0.02%
14 0.3%
35 0.8%
100 2.3%
42 0.9%
36 0.8%
36 0.8%
16 0.4%
49 1.1%
496 11%
657 15%
1223 28%
1587 36%
129 2.9%
Dates of Coins
735
SN2
10 euro cents 4 IG28, LG9, TH3, TS3
20 euro cents 14 AM1, FR1, IG3, IG3, IG3, IM2, LG3, LG9, LG9, SN1,
SN2, SNG1, SNG1, SNG5
50 Euro cents 2 IM5, IM6
1 euro 16 BF1, FG1, FG1, FG2, LG9, SN1, SNG1, TH3, TH10,
TS2, TS2, TS2, TS2, TS3, TS3, TS3
2 euros 4 SNG1, SNG1, TH3, TH3
Denomination
unknown
1 BA5
France 5 centime 1 AM1
1 franc 3 AM1, AM2, PM12
1 euro 1 TS2
Germany 2 pfennig 1 AM1
Greece 1 drachma 1 IG3
5 drachma 1 AM1
Guernsey Denomination
unknown
1 PM3
Hungary Forint
(denomination
unknown)
2 IG19, LG9
Isle of Man 10 pence 1 IM2
Japan 10 yen 2 AF1, AF1
Jersey 1 pence 1 AM1
Lithuania Denomination
unknown
1 LG9
Netherlands 10 cents 1 IM1
1 guilders 2 IM2, IM11
5 guilders 4 AM1, IM1, IM2, IM9
Denomination
unknown
1 LG9
Poland 1 grosz 4 FR3, FR3, IG4, PM6
2 groszy 2 IG3, IG3
5 groszy 3 BA5, IG3, PM6
Groszy
(denomination
unknown)
3 IG28, SN2, TS3
1 zloty 2 DD11, TH3
Romania 1 ban 1 SN1
Russia 1 rouble 1 AF1
Spain 1 euro cent 1 LG9
1 euro 1 TS2
South
Africa
5 cents 1 IM9
2 rand 1 AM1
Denomination
unknown
1 IM9
South
Korea
500 won 1 IM5
Switzerland 10 rappen 1 AM1
736
Tanzania Denomination
unknown
1 GZ3
Trinidad
and Tobago
25 cents 1 AM1
United
Arab
Emirates
Denomination
unknown
2 AM1, AK1
United
States of
America
1 cent 15 AB1, AM1, AM1, BF1, BF6, BA2, DD10, DD11,
DD14, IG3, IM1, IM5, IM6, SN2, TH3
5 cents 1 IM2
1 dime 4 AM1, AM1, BA3, IM9
1 dollar 2 AF1, CL1
Denomination
unknown
1 TS2
Unknown Unknown 70 AF1, AF1, AF1, AF1, AF1, AF1, AF1, AB2, AB2,
AB2, AB2, AM1, BF6, BA3, BA5, CL1, CC1, CC1,
DD8, DD10, DD10, DD11, DD11, DD11, FG1, FG2,
FR2, FR3, FR3, GZ3, GZ3, GZ3, GZ3, GZ3, HC6,
HF3, IG3, IG3, IG3, IG3, IG26, IG28, IG28, IG28,
IM1, IM2, IM6, LG9, LG9, MH4, MH4, MH5, MH7,
MH7, MH8, PG1, PG1, PG1, PG2, PM6, PM12,
SNG1, SG1, SG1, SG1, SG1, SG1, TH3, TH3, TH10
86
22
12 11 6 6 5 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
53
Euro
USA
Po
lan
d
Net
her
lan
ds
Can
ada
Den
mar
k
Au
stra
lia
Fran
ce
Rep
ub
lic o
f Ir
elan
d
Sou
th A
fric
a
Un
ited
Ara
b E
mir
ates
Gre
ece
Hu
nga
ry
Spai
n
Ru
ssia
Jap
an
Trin
idad
an
d T
ob
ago
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Swit
zerl
and
Ger
man
y
Tan
zan
ia
Lith
uan
ia
Ro
man
ia
Sou
th K
ore
a
Un
kno
wn
Foreign Currency in Coin-Trees
737
3.4 – Terms employed to describe the conditions of coins
Term Description
Good condition No damage to edges and coin’s faces are unworn and
easily decipherable.
Chipped Edges are chipped, suggesting that some percussion tool
was used to hammer the coin into the tree.
Bowed The coin has been deliberately bent over at roughly a 90
angle.
Crooked Both edges of the coin have been bent over, often
producing a curved effect.
Worn Through weathering, rather than deliberate damage, the
coin faces (dates, etc) are no longer decipherable.
Twisted The coin has been twisted, probably prior to insertion into
the tree.
Broken The coin is fractured, or some section of it has been
severed.
Verdigris The coin shows effects of verdigris, rust which causes
copper to turn blue or green.
3.5 – All deposits in/on the coin-trees catalogued into three groups: casual,
ambiguous, and planned
Casual Deposits Ambiguous Deposits Planned Deposits
Deposit Quantity Deposit Quantity Deposit Quantity
Coin 166,028 Nail 65 Metal plaque 3
Plastic token 3 Ribbon 25 Candle 1
Hair bobble 2 Screw 11 Semi-precious
stone
1
Hair clip 1 String 4 Total 5
Necklace 1 Bolt 1
Strips of
clothing
1 Beer bottle
cap
1
Headband 1 Drawing pin 1
Badge 1 AA battery 1
Earring 1 Total 106
Shoelace 2
Keyring 1
Sock 1
Feather 1
Flower 1
Receipt 1
Total 166,046
738
3.6 – The total number of coins issued in Britain each year, based on figures published by the Royal Mint
43
50
11
50
0
62
26
78
00
0
37
89
81
02
5
31
21
51
09
75
0
52
21
45
00
0
42
36
33
00
0
69
02
47
00
1
75
35
05
50
0
52
78
78
00
0
61
55
27
50
0 1
04
87
93
00
0
12
23
13
30
00
73
24
80
10
0
89
24
19
00
0
90
73
43
41
4
36
63
67
09
1
61
11
04
79
6
54
93
66
13
1 94
30
15
25
2 1
37
92
82
77
9
13
21
36
83
91
25
53
89
00
07
10
92
40
66
75
22
90
37
71
57
10
76
13
22
50
15
72
65
32
95
79
09
47
50
1
16
14
80
78
10
18
45
67
89
25
14
03
35
78
75
15
77
73
37
50
24
36
85
67
50
22
37
33
08
15
12
80
80
09
99
14
81
40
25
00
16
79
24
80
00
10
84
15
15
00
13
42
14
25
00
13
02
65
71
60
14
46
09
13
00
10
57
61
55
00
10
67
72
95
00
44
87
00
70
0
0
500,000,000
1,000,000,000
1,500,000,000
2,000,000,000
2,500,000,000
3,000,000,000
3,500,000,000
19
68
19
69
19
70
19
71
19
72
19
73
19
74
19
75
19
76
19
77
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
739
APPENDIX 4 – ETHNOGRAPHIC DATA
4.1 – Interview strategy
The primary method for ethnographic data collection from members of the public was
qualitative interviewing. This involved the use of semi-structured interview designs (see
below) aimed at determining certain factual information about the participant whilst
simultaneously encouraging the participant to expand their answers, to offer accounts of their
experiences, and to focus on the factors they consider most significant.
Audio equipment was considered intrusive and inappropriate to the settings, and so their
responses were noted down on paper instead, either quoted verbatim or paraphrased, along
with my personal observations. Whilst these engagements were later typed up, they are not
included in this thesis as transcribed interviews because of their nature as informal
ethnographic field-notes. However, these field-notes are drawn upon extensively throughout
the thesis, and the interview design is presented below.
Note: the below questions acted as guidelines only. Some interview participants answered all
questions; others, only some, whilst some spoke on topics not outlined in the design below.
Interview design
1. How many people are in the group?
2. What are the genders and estimated ages of those in the group?
3. Name of interview participant (if willing to give)
4. Ethnicity of interview participant (if willing to give)
5. Are you a local resident or a tourist?
i. If the latter, where have you travelled from?
ii. How long are you in the area?
6. Have you inserted a coin into this tree?
If yes:
i. Why did you insert a coin into the tree?
ii. Do you believe that inserting a coin will benefit you in some way?
iii. Do you think there is a reason people use coins in this way?
iv. What coin did you put into the tree – i.e. can you point it out?
v. Why did you choose that particular coin?
vi. How did you insert the coin?
- If with a rock, can you point out the rock you used?
vii. Why did you choose to insert it in that particular place?
viii. Did you bend the coin over during insertion?
- If so, why?
ix. How would you feel if somebody removed your coin?
740
If no:
i. Why do you think other people have inserted coins into this tree?
ii. Do you think there is a reason people use coins in this way?
7. Why do you think this specific tree was chosen for this custom?
8. Do you know the species of this tree?
i. If yes, do you believe the species is relevant to the custom?
9. What do/would you call this particular tree?
10. Have you ever read anything about coin-trees/money-trees/wishing-trees?
i. If so, where?
11. Have you ever heard anything about coin-trees/money-trees/wishing-trees?
i. If so, from whom?
12. Have you ever seen this tree before? If yes:
i. When?
- If more than once, when was your earliest visit?
ii. How different did it look?
iii. Did you insert a coin that time? If yes, repeat Q6
13. Do you know of any other coin-trees in A) the local area; B) the British Isles; C)
elsewhere in the world? If yes:
i. Where?
ii. Have you visited it/them?
- If yes, repeat Q6
- If no, where did you read/hear about them?
14. Do you know of any historic or cultural sites in the local area?
i. If so, what do you know about them?
ii. Do you believe they are relevant to the coin-tree?
15. Do you believe that this tree should be protected?
If yes:
i. Why?
ii. How could it be protected?
iii. Would there be any downsides to these methods of protection?
If no:
i. Why not?
ii. Would there be any downsides to not protecting it?
4.2 – One hour observations
Below are the statistics of the one-hour observations at each coin-tree site for which
fieldwork was conducted. The total number of visitors who walked past the primary coin-tree
741
clusters are detailed and divided into 3 groups: those who walked past without appearing to
notice the coin-tree(s); those who commented on or stopped to examine/photograph the coin-
tree(s); and those who inserted a coin into the coin-tree(s).
Visitors actions AF AB AM AK BA BF BB CS CL
Walked past 103 n/a 0 22 20 8 6 0 0
Commented on/examined 137 n/a 0 4 96 55 30 0 0
Inserted a coin 22 n/a 0 0 49 15 0 37 0
Total 262 n/a 0 26 165 78 36 37 0
Visitors actions IG IM LW LX LG MH MB PG PM
Walked past 18 0 322 0 30 42 8 42 52
Commented on/examined 203 0 0 0 23 40 0 98 155
Inserted a coin 77 0 0 0 10 13 0 10 46
Total 298 0 322 0 63 95 8 150 253
Visitors actions RD SG SN SNG TH TS Total
Walked past 102 63 142 0 108 43 1994
Commented on/examined 0 59 128 88 188 31 1444
Inserted a coin 0 8 33 14 34 23 416
Total 102 130 303 102 330 97 3854
Visitors actions CC CR DD FG FR GB GZ HC HF
Walked past 264 0 135 12 0 26 113 36 277
Commented on/examined 23 0 42 4 0 0 26 3 11
Inserted a coin 0 0 8 3 0 2 6 2 4
Total 287 0 185 19 0 28 145 41 292
742
4.3 – Number of interviews conducted at each site
Coin-Tree Site Number of
Interviews
Coin-Tree Site Number of
Interviews
Aira Force 20 Hardcastle Crags 2
Ardboe 3 High Force 5
Ardmaddy 0 Ingleton 22
Arnside Knott 0 Isle Maree 3
Becky Falls 9 Leigh Woods 0
Bolton Abbey 10 Loxley 0
Brock Bottom 0 Lydford Gorge 6
Claife Station 0 Malham 10
Clonenagh 0 Marbury 0
Corfe Castle 4 Padley Gorge 8
Cragside 0 Portmeirion 20
Dovedale 20 Rydal 0
Fairy Glen 5 Snowdon 15
Fore 0 St Nectan’s Glen 10
Freeholders Wood n/a Stock Ghyll 5
Gougane Barra 2 Tarn Hows 21
Grizedale 4 Tarr Steps 15
4.4 – Age ranges of interview participants
Below are the age group quantities of every member of each group I interviewed on site.
Custodians and heritage professionals are not included in this survey.
Age
Range
AF BA BF CC DD FG GB GZ HC HF
Up to 18 14 12 7 6 22 2 1 5 4 3
18-30 7 0 7 2 3 1 0 2 0 2
31-40 6 6 10 6 13 2 0 2 2 3
41-50 6 6 4 2 7 0 2 0 2 2
51-60 8 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0
60+ 5 1 4 0 5 3 2 2 0 2
Age
Range
IG LG MH PG PM SG SN SNG TH TS Total
Up to 18 22 4 5 5 6 2 11 5 14 15 165
18-30 5 0 2 6 10 2 31 4 4 3 91
31-40 22 4 3 4 6 4 11 4 19 8 135
41-50 6 5 2 4 7 0 6 2 5 4 72
51-60 4 0 5 2 6 0 4 6 9 8 62
60+ 6 5 6 2 11 1 1 0 2 4 62
743
4.5 – Ethnicities of interview participants
Below are the ethnicities of every member of each group I interviewed on site. Custodians
and heritage professionals are not included in this survey.
Ethnicity AF BA BF CC DD FG GB GZ HC HF
White British 31 27 26 16 50 10 3 11 8 12
African British 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chinese British 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pakistani British 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Irish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chinese 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
French 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Australian 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
American 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dutch 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
German 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Indian 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0
Spanish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Canadian 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
165 28%
91 16%
135 23%
72 12%
62 11%
62 11%
Up to 18 18-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 60+
Ages of Interview Participants
Ethnicity IG LG MH PG PM SG SN SNG TH TS
White British 62 18 23 21 40 9 40 19 35 40
African British 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 3 0
Chinese British 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 3
Pakistani British 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
Irish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Chinese 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0
French 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 1 0
Australian 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
American 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
Dutch 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
German 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Indian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spanish 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0
744
4.6 – Places of residence of interview participants
Below are the places of residence of every member of each group I interviewed on site. They
are divided into 3 groups: local resident (living within 20 miles of coin-tree site), domestic
tourist, and foreign tourist. Custodians and heritage professionals are not included in this
survey.
Place of Residence AF BA BF CC DD FG GB GZ HC HF
Southern England 19 2 13 14 4 3 0 0 0 0
Midlands England 5 0 8 2 15 0 0 3 0 0
Northern England 10 25 3 0 32 2 0 4 8 12
Scotland 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 4 0 0
Wales 2 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
Ireland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Abroad (Europe) 7 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Abroad (Worldwide) 3 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 0
Place of Residence IG LG MH PG PM SG SN SNG TH TS
Southern England 6 15 4 0 14 0 31 15 17 23
Midlands England 2 0 4 2 7 0 8 3 5 9
Northern England 56 3 12 21 13 9 11 1 24 4
Scotland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wales 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0
Ireland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Abroad (Europe) 7 0 0 0 3 0 10 2 0 2
Abroad (Worldwide) 0 0 0 0 8 0 2 0 4 0
501 85.3%
14 2.4%
12 2%
11 1.9%
10 1.7%
7 1.2%
5 0.9%
5 0.9%
5 0.9%
4 0.7%
4 0.7%
4 0.7%
3 0.5%
2 0.3%
Ethnicities of Interview Participants
745
Type of Visitor AF BA BF CC DD FG GB GZ HC HF
Local resident 0 11 0 2 7 1 0 0 4 0
Domestic tourist 36 16 28 14 46 9 3 11 4 12
Foreign tourist 10 0 4 0 5 0 2 0 0 0
Type of Visitor IG LG MH PG PM SG SN SNG TH TS
Local resident 2 7 4 5 0 2 0 0 0 4
Domestic tourist 62 11 19 18 35 7 52 19 46 36
Foreign tourist 7 0 0 0 11 0 12 2 4 2
4.7 – The various names given to the coin-trees by interview participants
Name Quantity
Money tree 74
Coin tree 32
Penny tree 22
Wish/wishing tree 20
Luck/lucky tree 6
Magic tree 3
Tree/log/post with coins in 3
Pixie tree 2
Fairy tree 2
Sacred tree 1
Coined tree 1
Hippy tree 1
Dead tree 1
Local resident 8%
Domestic tourist 82%
Foreign tourist 10%
Types of Visitors to Coin-Tree Sites
746
APPENDIX 5 – THE ARDMADDY EXCAVATION
5.1 – Site Location
The site is pinpointed on the 2013 Ordnance Survey Map as ‘Wishing Tree’ (coordinates
178871 715191). It is located half a mile south of Ardmaddy Castle, Argyll, in a pass known
as Bealach na Gaoithe: the ‘pass of the winds’. The primary Ardmaddy coin-tree is uprooted
and lies prone within a wooden enclosure, 1.2m east of a rough track. The enclosure was
erected during the 1990s, following the tree’s fall, and is designed to deter livestock rather
than people; on the enclosure’s eastern side, there is a stile providing access.
The track, open to pedestrians and authorised vehicles only, cuts across land privately owned
by Ardmaddy Estate, and leads from Ardmaddy Bay to Degnish Peninsula. It is a popular
hiker’s route, detailed for example in MacDonald’s Walking in South Lorn (1983: 9), and
there are several ‘footpath’ signs indicating the route, one of which informs walkers that they
are en-route to the ‘Wishing Tree’.
Figure 1 – Map of the location of the primary Ardmaddy coin-tree
747
The coin-tree is 528ft above sea level, situated between two steep slopes in a high pass
between two valleys. The site offers a good vantage point towards Ardmaddy Bay and
Ardmaddy Castle to the north. Grid reference: NM 78880 15191.
5.2 – Excavation Site Plan
5.3 – Test Pit Dimensions
Test Pit Dimensions
1 0.8m x 0.8m
2 1m x 1m
3 1.5m x 0.5m
4 1m x 0.8m
5 1m x 0.8m
6 1m x 0.8m
Figure 2 – Ardmaddy excavation site plan
748
5.4 – Context Register
Context No. Context
Type.
Trench Recorded by Checked by Date
1 Top Spit 1 EM LB 01/09/2013
2 Top Spit 2 JN LB 01/09/2013
3 Top Spit 3 JP LB 01/09/2013
4 Top Spit 6 CH LB 02/09/2013
5 2nd
Spit 6 CH LB 02/09/2013
6 2nd
Spit 4 JP LB 02/09/2013
7 2nd
Spit 2 JN LB 02/09/2013
8 2nd
Spit 1 EM LB 02/09/2013
9 Top Spit 5 LB LB 02/09/2013
10 3rd
Spit 1 EM LB 03/09/2013
11 3rd
Spit 2 JN LB 03/09/2013
12 3rd
Spit 4 JP LB 03/09/2013
13 4th
Spit 2 JN LB 03/09/2013
14 2nd
Spit 5 EM/LB LB 04/09/2013
15 Top Spit 3 LB LB 04/09/2013
16 3rd
Spit 5 LB LB 04/09/2013
5.5 – Excavation Results
Test Pit 1
Test Pit 1 was 0.8m x 0.8m, and was located within the enclosure, between the two primary
limbs of the coin-tree and the eastern fence of the enclosure. It was also situated directly
beside the stile designed to allow access into the enclosure. The first spit was assigned the
context number 001; it consisted of stone, sand and soil, and was dark, slightly grey brown in
colour, with patches of mid-orange brown. The north-east corner of the spit was dominated
by roots. 1 coin and 1 piece of string were discovered on the surface; 43 coins were recovered
from the turf (and therefore not allocated small-finds numbers or 3D recorded); and 27 were
unearthed within the first spit. The majority of these were located to the south of the pit, at
the edge closest to the main limb of the coin-tree.
The second spit (context number 008) consisted of stone, soil, and sandy silt, and was mid-
orange brown in colour. There were high concentrations of small stones in the north-west and
north-east corners. 2 coins were unearthed, one of which was a pre-decimal 1 penny, both
located at the top of the spit in the south-western corner; the closest corner to the coin-tree’s
primary limb.
Test Pit 1 produced one pre-decimal coin; this was excavated in the south-western corner,
closest to the coin-tree.
The third spit produced no finds or archaeological features. Having reached a depth of 30cm,
Test Pit 1 was backfilled and re-turfed.
749
Figure 3 - Test Pit 1
Figure 4 – Small finds, both coins and non-coin, plotted on a plan of Test Pit 1
750
Figure 5 – Small finds, coins and non-coin, plotted on a plan of Test Pit 1 according to their
context
Figure 6 – Coins plotted on a plan of Test Pit 1 according to their date
751
Test Pit 2
Test Pit 2 measured 1m x 1m and was located immediately south-west of the coin-tree,
between the tree’s root-end and the south-west corner of the enclosure. The first spit (002)
consisted of stone and soil, and was dark brown in colour. 20 coins were recovered from the
turf, and 98 finds (including a section of pipe, an unidentified piece of metal, and a metal
ring-pull as well as coins) were unearthed within the pit. The majority were located along the
northern section, along the edge closest to the coin-tree.
The second spit (007) consisted of soil, stone and gravel, and was dark brown in colour. 76
small finds were recovered, including a large, bent nail in the centre of the pit’s northern
edge. The majority of the coins were found throughout the context along the northern edge,
with high concentrations in the north-west corner, closest to the coin-tree, but diminishing
towards the lower level of the spit.
The third (011) consisted of soil and stone, and was also dark brown in colour. 1 coin was
recovered in the north-west corner at the lowest level of the spit. The fourth spit (013)
consisted of soil, stone and gravel, was also dark brown, and produced no finds or
archaeological features. At a depth of 40cm, Test Pit 2 was backfilled and re-turfed.
There appears to be no significance to the distribution of coins according to their years of
issue.
Figure 7 - Test Pit 2
752
Figure 8 – Small finds, both coins and non-coins, plotted on a plan of Test Pit 2
Figure 9 – Small finds, coins and non-coins, plotted on a plan of Test Pit 2according to
their context
753
Test Pit 3
Test Pit 3 measured 1.5m x 0.5m, filling the narrow space between the coin-tree and the
enclosure’s western edge, running alongside a large loose branch. Due to the restrictive
nature of this test pit’s layout, this was the last to be excavated.
The fill of Test Pit 3 consisted of stone, dark brown soil, and a high concentration of red-
brown fragments of wood. 71 finds were recovered from the turf, and 110 were unearthed
within the first spit (context number 015). The majority of the finds were post-decimalisation
coins, but there 11 were pre-decimal. The high concentration of coins and the large quantity
of wooden fragments within Test Pit 3 are probably due to a branch having fallen into that
area from the coin-tree and subsequently having decayed. The south-east corner of the pit
could not be excavated due to a large section of branch within the turf.
The first spit of Test Pit 3 proved to be the most fruitful but, despite the high quantity of finds
it produced, it was not taken to a sufficient depth due to time constraints. The first spit
(context number 015) was taken to various levels before it required backfilling due to a
shortage in time.
There appears to be no significance to the distribution of coins according to their years of
issue.
Figure 10 – Coins plotted on a plan of Test Pit 3 according to their date
754
Figure 11 - Test Pit 3
Figure 12 – Small finds, both
coins and non-coin, plotted on
a plan of Test Pit 3
755
Test Pit 4
Test Pit 4 measured 1m x 0.8m and was located in the south-east corner of the enclosure.
Overhanging the northern edge of the pit was a raised limb of the coin-tree, on which there
was a high quantity of coins.
The first spit (context number 003) consisted of soil, stone and clay, and was orange brown in
colour. 30 finds were recovered from the turf, and 50 unearthed within the pit; these were
slightly concentrated along the north edge of the pit, beneath the overhanging branch of the
coin-tree; probably a result of many coins having fallen from it.
The second spit (006) also consisted of soil, stone and clay, but was grey-blue in colour. 5
coins were unearthed in this spit, all of which were close to the western edge of the pit, with 3
clustered in the north-west corner beneath the overhanging branch.
The fourth spit (012), which again consisted of soil, stone and clay, produced no finds or
archaeological features. At a depth of 30cm, Test Pit 4 was backfilled and re-turfed.
There appears to be no significance of the distribution of coins according to their years of
issue.
Figure 13 – Coins plotted on a
plan of Test Pit 3 according to
their date
757
Figure 16 – Small finds, only coins, plotted on a plan of Test Pit 4 according to their context
Figure 17 – Coins plotted on a plan of Test Pit 4 according to their date
758
Test Pit 5
Test Pit 5 measured 1m x 0.8m and was located in the northern section of the enclosure,
immediately north of the coin-tree. There was a high level of decayed wood in the turf along
the south edge of the pit.
The first spit (context number 009) consisted of stone, gravel, sand, soil, and roots, and was
mid-brown in colour with pale brown sandy patches around the roots. 52 finds were
recovered from the turf, and 90 were unearthed within the pit. A seashell, a piece of glass,
and plastic coated wire were found amongst the coins. At the level immediately below the
turf, the finds were widely distributed across the pit. However, at the base of the spit they
were concentrated in the south-west corner and south edge, where a high quantity of decaying
wood was also present.
The second spit (014) consisted of stone, gravel, sand and soil, and was mid-brown in colour
with yellow sandy patches. 7 finds were recovered from this spit, clustered in the south-west
corner at the base of a piece of decayed wood, and only in the top levels of the spit.
The third spit (016) also consisted of stone, gravel, sand and soil, but had high levels of grey-
brown silt; the mixed nature of the context was probably due to root activity. This spit
produced no finds or archaeological features, and so at a depth of 30cm was backfilled and
re-turfed.
There appears to be no significance of the distribution of coins according to their years of
issue.
Figure 18 - Test Pit 5
759
Figure 19 – Small finds, both coins and non-coins, plotted on a plan of Test Pit 5
Figure 20 – Small finds, including coins and non-coins, plotted on a plan of Test Pit 5
according to their context
760
Test Pit 6
Test Pit 6 measured 1m x 0.8m and was the only test pit located outside of the enclosure. It
was north-east of the enclosure and the coin-tree, below the stile. This area was selected
because it was one of the few areas outside the enclosure which was identified as a potential
‘hot spot’ by the metal detector.
The first spit (004) consisted of soil and stone, and was dark black-brown in colour. 2 coins
and a shoelace were recovered from the turf, but none were unearthed within the pit. The
second spit (005) consisted of soil and silty sand with gravel patches, the mixed nature of the
context probably due to root activity. It produced no finds or archaeological features, and at a
depth of 20cm, Test Pit 6 was backfilled and re-turfed.
Figure 21 – Coins plotted on a plan of Test Pit 5 according to their date
761
5.6 – The Distribution of the Coins
Test Pit 1 produced a total of 73 coins and one piece of string. Test Pit 2 produced 191 coins,
a fragment of clay pipe, a piece of metal, a ring-pull, and a nail. Test Pit 3, 180 coins and a
piece of metal (possibly a button); Test Pit 4, 81 coins and a piece of string; and Test Pit 5,
146 coins, a seashell, a piece of glass, and blue plastic-coated wire. Test Pit 6, however,
produced only 2 coins and a shoelace, and these were both recovered from the turf. It is likely
that it was Test Pit 6’s location outside the enclosure which resulted in the low quantity of
finds.
The results demonstrate that closer proximity to the coin-tree yields more finds. In Test Pit 1,
the majority of the coins recovered were located to the south of the pit, particularly in the
south-west corner, in the section closest to the main limb of the coin-tree. In Test Pit 2, the
majority of coins were uncovered along the northern section, along the edge closest to the
coin-tree. In Test Pit 4, the coins were concentrated along the north edge of the pit, beneath
an overhanging branch of the coin-tree. Likewise, the coins recovered from Test Pit 5 were
concentrated in the south-west corner and along the south edge, closer to the coin-tree, where
a high quantity of decaying wood was also present.
In deeper contexts, this trend is more pronounced, with a significant majority of coins from
2nd
spits clustered along the edges or within corners closest to the coin-tree.
These results clearly affirm the coin-tree as the focal point of the custom of deposition. Coins
do not appear to have been deposited randomly throughout the enclosure, but specifically
within/on the coin-tree itself. It is notable that context 015 in Test Pit 3 produced the most
finds but also produced the highest concentration of woody debris, as well as 26 coins still
embedded within fragments of wood, suggesting that many of the coins uncovered from this
Figure 22 -
Test Pit 6
762
pit were from a fallen and decayed branch. Indeed, the results suggest that the majority of all
coins uncovered were initially deposited in/on the coin-tree, and were dislodged before
burial, as opposed to having been originally deposited on the ground.
Figure 23 – The distribution of small finds in relation to the fence and the coin-tree
763
Figure 24 – The distribution of small finds without the fence or coin-tree as reference
Figure 25 - Small-
finds from the turf
t215 & t216 still
embedded within
woody debris.
764
5.7 – The Dates of the Coins
Most of the coins were datable, with only 133 coins proving too worn or corroded to reveal
their years of issue.
The earliest datable coin was a 1 penny issued in 1914. 16 more coins were datable as pre-
decimal, ranging from 1921 to 1970, whilst a further 7 were identified as pre-decimal based
on their size and design. The vast majority of the coins (649), however, were decimal; the
most common year of issue was 1971, but as Graph 1 illustrates, the decade which produced
the highest quantity of deposited coins was the 1990s. The large volume issued in the 2000s
also demonstrates that the custom of coin deposition did not cease with the fall of the tree,
whilst the presence of coins from the 2010s – a 2011 1p in the first spit of Test Pit 4, along
with a 2013 5p observed within the coin-tree itself – reveals that the custom is still active.
1 0.2%
3 0.5%
4 0.7%
3 0.5% 0
3 0.5%
104 19%
122 22%
186 33%
133 24%
1 0.2%
1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s
Dates of Coins
Graph 1 – The dates of the coins excavated at Ardmaddy.
Total = 560
765
5.8 – The Denominations of the Coins
Only 8 of the coins recovered were unidentifiable; for the vast majority, their denominations
were easily deducible. As Graph 2 illustrates, the highest denomination group was the
decimal 1p, closely followed by the decimal 2p; following these, the numbers sharply
decline. This demonstrates that a coin’s popularity as a deposit is inversely proportionate to
its economic value.
Although the majority of coins were British, there were 14 examples of foreign currency.
Representative countries were the Netherlands, the United States of America, the Republic of
Trinidad and Tobago, France, the Republic of Ireland, the Czech Republic, Canada,
Switzerland, Greece, Denmark, and Germany. This would suggest that foreign tourists have
been participating in the custom also.
The low denominations of these coins, illustrated in Table 1, are in keeping with those of the
British coins deposited. Likewise, their dates are not dissimilar, ranging from 1968 to post-
2002 (the 2 Euro cent).
Country Denominations Years of Issue
Netherlands 5 guilders 1985
USA 1 cent
1 cent
1 dime
1 dime
Unknown
1980
1996
1986
Trinidad and Tobago 25 cents 1976
The Republic of Ireland 1 penny 1971
4 0.6%
20 3%
0
2 0.3%
247 36%
243 35%
62 9%
53 8% 35
5% 7 1%
2 0.3% 0
14 2%
5 0.7%
Denominations of Coins
Graph 2 – The denominations of the coins excavated at Ardmaddy.
Total = 691
766
The Czech Republic 20 haleru Unknown (1993-2003)
Canada 1 cent 1979
France 5 centime 1973
Switzerland 10 rappen 1968
Greece 5 drachma 1984
Denmark 25 ore 1996
Germany 2 pfennig Unknown
Unknown (Europe) 2 Euro cent Unknown
Unknown Unknown Unknown
5.9 – Depths of Coins
Date of Coins Turf Top Spit 2nd
Spit 3rd
Spit
1914 0 0 1 0
1921 0 0 1 0
1922 1 0 0 0
1927 0 1 0 0
1936 1 0 1 0
1938 1 0 0 0
1939 0 1 0 0
1944 0 1 0 0
1945 0 1 0 0
1946 0 1 0 0
1964 1 0 0 0
1967 0 1 0 0
1968 0 1 0 0
1970 0 1 0 0
1971 16 29 11 0
1973 1 4 1 0
1974 0 2 0 0
1975 1 5 1 0
1976 2 4 1 0
1977 0 3 2 0
1978 2 5 2 0
1979 4 8 2 0
1980 6 8 2 0
1981 4 8 1 0
1982 4 6 0 0
1983 3 2 0 0
1984 0 4 0 0
767
1985 1 2 1 0
1986 2 10 1 0
1987 2 8 2 0
1988 2 15 8 0
1989 6 9 3 0
1990 9 21 4 0
1991 3 5 5 0
1992 11 18 4 0
1993 4 4 0 0
1994 5 6 0 0
1995 2 2 2 0
1996 8 9 3 0
1997 4 22 1 0
1998 4 3 2 0
1999 5 12 1 1
2000 13 19 3 0
2001 11 9 3 0
2002 8 11 0 0
2003 9 5 1 0
2004 7 7 0 0
2005 7 6 0 0
2006 3 5 0 0
2007 1 1 0 0
2008 1 2 0 0
2011 0 1 0 0
Total 175 308 70 1
This table shows little relationship between the age of the coins and the depths they were
buried. The majority of coins, regardless of date, were recovered from the top spits, within
the first 10cm. The only coin to be excavated from the third spit (at a depth of 30cm in pit 2)
was a 1999 5p (x303). The relatively late date of this coin indicates that the depth of the coin
does not necessarily correlate with its age, further evidence suggesting that these coins were
not buried by their depositors but inserted in/on the tree, from which they fell and became
buried via natural processes.
768
5.10 – Levels of Corrosion
Each coin was assigned a corrosion level from 1-4, their descriptions and quantities outlined
in the table below.
Corrosion
Level
Description Example Quantity
1 Coin exhibits no
signs of corrosion.
x43
8
2 Coin exhibits
some
discolouration and
patination.
x6
427
3 Coin exhibits
signs of corrosion
and rust.
x37
180
769
4 Coin is physically
deformed due to
high levels of
corrosion and rust.
x55
76
As these figures demonstrate, only a small minority (8, 1%) of the coins exhibited no signs of
corrosion, but the majority (427, 62%) were assigned a corrosion level of 2, showing only
some signs of discolouration and patination. A smaller portion (180, 26%) were assigned
level 3, exhibiting greater signs of corrosion, whilst 76 (11%) were physically deformed due
to high levels of corrosion and rust. These figures have obvious implications for dating: the
less corroded a coin was, the more likely their year of issue was identifiable.
770
As Graph 3 demonstrates, there is a correlation between the level of corrosion and the year of issue. However, it does not illustrate that older
coins are likely to exhibit greater signs of corrosion, but that newer coins are. This is probably due to more recent coins being made of poorer
quality materials (see Chapter 7).
Graph 3 – The corrosion levels, 1-4, of datable coins excavated in relation to their years of issue
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1914 1927 1938 1944 1946 1964 1968 1971 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Qu
anti
ty o
f C
oin
s
Date of Coins
Corrosion Levels of Datable Coins Excavated
1
2
3
4
771
As Graph 4 demonstrates, there is little correlation between the depths of the coins and their
levels of corrosion.
1 7 0 0
102
219
61
1
59 71
8 0
13 12 1 0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Turf Top Spit 2nd Spit 3rd Spit
Corrosion Level 1 Corrosion Level 2 Corrosion Level 3 Corrosion Level 4
Graph 4 – The levels of corrosion of coins in relation to the depth they were discovered.
x303, 1999 5p
excavated from
3rd
spit, assigned
corrosion level 2.
772
5.11 – Signs of Percussion
There were no obvious tools of percussion at the Ardmaddy site. However, 228 (33%) of the
coins exhibited signs of damage through impact suggesting that they were originally
hammered into the tree. The types of damage are outlined in the table below:
Type of Damage Example Quantity
Coin exhibits no sign
of damage
x193
463
Coin is crooked t189
10
Coin’s edge is
chipped/abraded
x159
151
Coin’s edge is
chipped/abraded and
the coin is crooked
x470
67
773
As Graph 5 demonstrates, there is some correlation between the ages of coins and signs of percussion: a larger proportion of older coins exhibit
signs of percussion than the newer coins. This may suggest that a larger proportion of older coins were hammered into the coin-tree; perhaps as
the coin-tree reached a certain level of decay, fewer participants were inclined to hammer their coins into the fragmented bark, and preferred to
deposit them on top of the tree’s prone limbs.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1914 1927 1938 1944 1946 1964 1968 1971 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Qu
anti
ty o
f C
oin
s
Dates of Coins
No
Yes
Graph 5 – The dates of the coins correlated with whether they showed signs of percussion (‘yes’) or not (‘no’).
774
5.12 – Non-Coin Deposits
Of the 703 small finds recorded, 12 were not coins, and they are detailed in the table below:
Small Finds
Number
Trench Context Object Description Measurements
x2 1 001 String One piece of off-white
string knotted to form a
loop.
Length: 312mm
x5 2 002 Pipe Fragment of dark
brown, glazed clay
pipe.
89mm x 67mm
x33 2 002 Piece of
metal
Heavily corroded
unidentifiable piece of
metal.
10mm x 8mm
x134 2 002 Ring-pull Metal ring-pull
showing some signs of
corrosion.
26mm x 20mm
775
x197 2 007 Nail Rusty, bent nail with
squared head, probably
19th
century.
Length: 77mm.
Head: 16mm x
15mm
x268 5 009 Plastic wire 2 pieces of blue plastic-
coated wire, originally
wound around each
other, showing little
sign of corrosion.
Lengths:
250mm &
346mm
x305 5 009 Glass Jagged, clear glass
fragment.
18mm x 11mm
776
x314 5 009 Seashell Fragment of white dog
cockle (Glycymeris),
common in the British
Isles.
20mm x 16mm
x410 3 015 Possible
button
Heavily corroded piece
of metal, possibly a
button.
11mm x 10mm
t222 4 003 String Piece of frayed, cream-
brown string, knotted
to form a loop.
Length: 250mm
777
t223 6 004 Shoelace Black, mud-coated
shoe/bootlace, with one
knot.
Length: 395mm
t224 2 002 Mussel shell Fragmented blue and
white mussel shell
(Mytilus edulis),
common in the British
Isles.
28mm x 21mm
Of these non-coin small finds, 4 were of pliable material: the two pieces of string, the
shoe/bootlace and the pieces of blue, plastic-coated wire. As there were a high volume of
pieces of cloth – ribbons, string, rags – currently tied to the coin-tree’s branches, it is possible
that these four finds were, likewise, initially affixed to the tree’s branches. Other non-coin
deposits may have been originally inserted into the coin-tree: the large bent nail and the piece
of glass.
The remaining non-coin finds are more ambiguous, and may or may not have been intended
as deposits: the seashells, the possible metal button, the metal ring pull, and the piece of clay
778
pipe. These objects were possibly deposited at the site in lieu of coins; however, viewed out
of context this would be pure speculation, and it is also possible that they were waste
products, accidental losses, or, in the case of the seashells, were deposited via natural
processes.
The locations of these non-coin small finds are illustrated in the plans above (Appendix 5.5).
There appears to be no significance to their distribution.
5.13 – Small Finds Register
S.
F.
No
Tre
nch
Con
tex
t
Des
crip
tio
n
Yea
r o
f
Issu
e
Wei
gh
t
Dia
met
er
Len
gth
of
wood
Sig
n o
f
per
cuss
ion
Lev
el o
f
Corr
osi
on
x1 1 1 Coin: 20p 1988 5.0g 23mm n/a No 2
x2 1 1
1 Piece of
string n/a 1.2g
Length
312mm with
one knot
making it
circular n/a n/a n/a
x3 2 2 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.9g 21mm n/a No 4
x4 2 2 Coin: 1p 1979 3.5g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x5 2 2
Fragment
of clay
pipe n/a 186.4g
Length 89mm,
width 67mm n/a n/a n/a
x6 2 2 Coin: 10p 1992 6.4g 24mm n/a No 2
x7 2 2 Coin: 1p 1990 3.6g 20mm n/a No 2
x8 2 2 Coin: 2p 1980 6.9g 26mm n/a No 2
x9 2 2 Coin: 2p 1987 7.0g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x10 2 2 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.4g 20mm n/a No 4
x11 2 2 Coin: 1p 1996 3.1g 21mm n/a Yes - edge 4
x12 2 2 Coin: 5p 2001 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
x13 2 2 Coin: 10p 1992 6.4g 24mm n/a No 2
x14 2 2 Coin: 2p 1971 7.1g 26mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x15 2 2
Coin: Pre-
dec. 1p 1939 9.0g 31mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x16 1 1 Coin: 50p 1997 7.8g 27mm n/a No 2
x17 1 1 Coin: 10p 1992 6.3g 24mm n/a No 2
x18 1 1 Coin: 5p 2006 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
x19 1 1 Coin: 1p 2000 3.4g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 3
779
x20 1 1 Coin: 20p 1982 5.0g 21mm n/a No 2
x21 1 1 Coin: 2p 1999 7.0g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x22 1 1 Coin: 2p Unknown 7.1g 26mm n/a No 3
x23 1 1 Coin: 50p 1997 8.0g 27mm n/a No 2
x24 2 2 Coin: 1p 1997 3.3g 21mm n/a No 3
x25 2 2 Coin: 10p 1992 6.5g 24mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x26 2 2 Coin: 2p 1971 7.2g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x27 2 2 Coin: 2p 1979 7.1g 26mm n/a No 2
x28 2 2 Coin: 1p 1971 3.5g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x29 2 2 Coin: 2p 2000 6.7g 26mm n/a No 3
x30 2 2 Coin: 5p 1990 3.3g 18mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x31 2 2 Coin: 5p 1990 3.2g 17mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x32 2 2 Coin: 2p Unknown 6.9g 26mm n/a No 4
x33 2 2
Piece of
metal Unknown 0.1g 10mm x 8mm n/a n/a n/a
x34 2 2 Coin: 2p Unknown 6.6g 26mm n/a No 4
x35 2 2 Coin: 1p 1986 3.5g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x36 2 2 Coin: 2p 1994 7.0g 26mm n/a No 4
x37 2 2 Coin: 2p Unknown 6.7g 26mm n/a No 3
x38 2 2 Coin: 1p 1989 3.5g 21mm n/a No 2
x39 2 2 Coin: 20p 2005 4.9g 21mm n/a No 2
x40 2 2 Coin: 1p 1999 3.3g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x41 2 2 Coin: 1p 2000 3.3g 20mm n/a No 3
x42 2 2 Coin: 2p 1971 6.7g 26mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x43 4 3 Coin: 1p 2003 3.6g 20mm n/a No 1
x44 4 3 Coin: 2p 1971 7.3g 26mm n/a No 1
x45 4 3 Coin: 1p 2006 3.6g 20mm n/a No 1
x46 4 3 Coin: 1p 2011 3.6g 20mm n/a No 1
x47 4 3 Coin: 2p 2008 7.0g 26mm n/a No 3
x48 4 3 Coin: 2p 1976 7.2g 26mm n/a No 2
x49 4 3 Coin: 2p 1990 6.9g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x50 4 3
Coin: 2p
in wood 2001 7.9g 26mm n/a No 3
x51 1 1 Coin: 1p 2000 3.5g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x52 1 1 Coin: 10p 2006 6.5g 24mm n/a No 2
x53 1 1 Coin: 2p 1981 7.1g 26mm n/a No 2
x54 1 1 Coin: 1p 2006 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
x55 1 1 Coin: 1p 1993 3.5g 20mm n/a No 4
x56 1 1 Coin: 1p 2000 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
x57 1 1 Coin: 1p 1976 3.4g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x58 1 1 Coin: 5p 2000 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
x59 1 1 Coin: 2p 1981 7.1g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x60 2 2 Coin: 2p 1997 6.8g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 4
780
x61 2 2 Coin: 1p 1980 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
x62 2 2 Coin: 5p 1990 3.2g 17mm n/a No 2
x63 2 2 Coin: 5p 1999 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
x64 2 2 Coin: 2p Unknown 6.4g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x65 2 2 Coin: 1p 1999 3.3g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 4
x66 2 2 Coin: 1p 1974 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
x67 2 2 Coin: 5p 2003 3.3g 17mm n/a No 2
x68 2 2 Coin: 20p 1982 4.9g 22mm n/a No 2
x69 2 2 Coin: 1p 1977 3.5g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x70 2 2 Coin: 5p 1990 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
x71 2 2 Coin: 2p 1988 7.1g 25mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x72 2 2 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.2g 20mm n/a No 3
x73 2 2 Coin: 1p 2004 3.5g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x74 2 2 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.5g 21mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x75 2 2 Coin: 1p 1987 3.5g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x76 2 2 Coin: 1p 2001 3.4g 20mm n/a No 3
x77 2 2 Coin: 1p 1984 3.4g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x78 2 2
Coin: 5
Netherlan
d guilders 1985 3.4g 21mm n/a No 2
x79 2 2 Coin: 20p 1987 4.8g 21mm n/a No 2
x80 2 2 Coin: 50p 1997 7.7g 27mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x81 2 2 Coin: 20p 1990 5.0g 21mm n/a No 2
x82 2 2 Coin: 2p 200- 7.0g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x83 2 2 Coin: 2p 1994 7.0g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x84 2 2 Coin: 2p 1997 7.1g 26mm n/a No 3
x85 2 2 Coin: 1p 1990 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
x86 2 2 Coin: 10p 2004 6.5g 24mm n/a No 2
x87 2 2 Coin: 5p 1996 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
x88 2 2 Coin: 5p 1996 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
x89 2 2 Coin: 5p 1990 3.3g 20mm n/a No 2
x90 2 2 Coin: 2p 1981 7.0g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x91 2 2 Coin: 20p 1997 5.0g 21mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x92 2 2 Coin: 10p 2004 6.5g 24mm n/a No 2
x93 2 2 Coin: 5p 1991 3.2g 17mm n/a No 2
x94 2 2 Coin: 5p 2006 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
x95 2 2 Coin: 2p 1996 7.0g 26mm n/a No 3
x96 2 2 Coin: 20p 2000 4.9g 21mm n/a No 2
x97 2 2 Coin: 1p 1971 3.3g 20mm n/a No 2
x98 4 3 Coin: 5p 1990 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
x99 4 3 Coin: 5p 1990 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
x100 4 3 Coin: 10p 2001 6.4g 24mm n/a No 2
x101 4 3 Coin: 20p 2002 5.0g 21mm n/a No 2
x102 4 3 Coin: 2p 2003 6.7g 26mm n/a No 3
x103 4 3 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.3g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
781
x104 4 3 Coin: 2p 2000 6.3g 26mm n/a No 4
x105 4 3 Coin: 1p Unknown 2.4g 20mm n/a No 4
x106 4 3
Coin: Pre-
dec. 1p 1967 9.2g 31mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x107 4 3 Coin: 2p 1999 7.1g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x108 4 3 Coin: 1p 1986 3.3g 20mm n/a No 2
x109 4 3 Coin: 1p 1988 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
x110 4 3 Coin: 2p 1981 7.1g 26mm n/a No 2
x111 4 3 Coin: 2p 1986 7.1g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x112 4 3 Coin: 2p 1988 7.1g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x113 4 3 Coin: 1p 2001 3.6g 20mm n/a No 3
x114 4 3 Coin: 2p 1997 7.1g 26mm n/a No 3
x115 4 3 Coin: 10p 1997 6.6g 24mm n/a No 2
x116 4 3 Coin: 1p 1988 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
x117 4 3 Coin: 1p 1997 3.2g 20mm n/a No 2
x118 4 3 Coin: 1p 1971 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
x119 4 3 Coin: 5p 2001 3.1g 18mm n/a No 2
x120 4 3
Coin: 1
US cent Unknown 2.3g 19mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x121 4 3 Coin: 10p 2000 6.6g 24mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x122 4 3 Coin: 2p 2000 7.1g 26mm n/a No 3
x123 4 3 Coin: 1p 2004 3.6g 20mm n/a No 3
x124 4 3 Coin: 2p 1990 7.0g 26mm n/a No 1
x125 4 3 Coin: 2p 1993 7.1g 26mm n/a No 3
x126 4 3 Coin: 1p 2003 3.4g 20mm n/a No 3
x127 4 3
Coin: 5
US cents Unknown 4.7g 21mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x128 4 3 Coin: 1p Unknown 2.9g 21mm n/a No 4
x129 4 3 Coin: 2p 1987 7.2g 26mm n/a No 2
x130 4 3 Coin: 2p 1988 6.9g 26mm n/a No 2
x131 4 3 Coin: 2p 1971 6.7g 26mm n/a No 2
x132 4 3 Coin: 1p 1987 3.6g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x133 VOID
x134 2 2 Ring Pull n/a 0.6g
26mm x
20mm n/a n/a n/a
x135 2 2 Coin: 10p 1997 6.5g 24mm n/a No 2
x136 2 2 Coin: 2p 1971 6.9g 26mm n/a No 2
x137 2 2 Coin: 2p 2002 6.9g 26mm n/a No 3
x138 2 2 Coin: 1p 1979 3.6g 20mm n/a No 2
x139 2 2 Coin: 1p 1985 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
x140 2 2 Coin: 1p 1986 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
x141 2 2 Coin: 1p 1984 3.4g 20mm n/a No 2
x142 2 2 Coin: 5p 1991 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
x143 2 2 Coin: 10p 1992 6.4g 24mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x144 2 2 Coin: 2p 1971 7.0g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x145 2 2 Coin: 5p 1999 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
782
x146 2 2 Coin: 2p 1990 7.2g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x147 2 2 Coin: 1p 1999 3.4g 20mm n/a No 3
x148 2 2 Coin: 2p 1980 7.0g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x149 2 2 Coin: 2p 1980 6.9g 26mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x150 2 2 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.4g 20mm n/a No 4
x151 2 2
Coin: 25
Cents
Trinidad
and
Tobago 1976 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
x152 2 2 Coin: 2p 1978 6.7g 26mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x153 2 2 Coin: 2p 1971 6.8g 26mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x154 2 2 Coin: 50p 1997 8.0g 27mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x155 2 2 Coin: 2p 1971 7.0g 26mm n/a No 2
x156 2 2 Coin: 2p 1977 7.1g 26mm n/a No 2
x157 2 2 Coin: 1p 1975 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
x158 2 2 Coin: 2p Unknown 7.2g 26mm n/a No 4
x159 2 2 Coin: 2p 1971 7.1g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x160 2 2 Coin: 1p 1974 3.4g 20mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x161 2 2
Coin:
Pre-dec.
1p Pre-dec. 8.8g 31mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x162 2 2 Coin: 2p Unknown 6.7g 26mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x163 1 1 Coin: 1p 1973 3.4g 20mm n/a No 2
x164 1 1 Coin: 1p 1971 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
x165 1 1 Coin: 2p 1986 7.1g 26mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x166 1 1 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.4g 20mm n/a No 3
x167 1 1 Coin: 2p 1978 6.5g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x168 1 1 Coin: 2p 2008 7.1g 26mm n/a No 3
x169 1 1 Coin: 2p 2003 6.3g 26mm n/a No 3
x170 4 3 Coin: 50p 1997 7.8g 27mm n/a No 2
x171 4 3 Coin: 5p 1994 3.1g 18mm n/a No 2
x172 4 3 Coin: 5p 1990 3.1g 18mm n/a No 2
x173 4 3 Coin: 20p 2001 5.0g 21mm n/a No 2
x174 4 3 Coin: 20p 1983 4.9g 21mm n/a No 2
x175 4 3 Coin: 5p 2007 3.3g 18mm n/a No 2
x176 4 3 Coin: 1p 2002 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
x177 1 1 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.3g 20mm n/a No 4
x178 1 1 Coin: 2p 2005 6.8g 26mm n/a No 3
783
x179 1 1 Coin: 50p 1997 7.7g 27mm n/a No 2
x180 4 6 Coin: 2p 1971 6.7g 26mm n/a No 2
x181 4 6 Coin: 5p 1991 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
x182 4 6 Coin: 2p 1995 6.9g 26mm n/a No 3
x183 2 7
Coins: 1p
x 2 Unknown 7.0g 20mm n/a No 4
x184 2 7 Coin: 2p 1971 6.7g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x185 2 7 Coin: 1p 1987 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
x186 2 7 Coin: 2p Unknown 6.9g 26mm n/a No 4
x187 2 7 Coin: 2p Unknown 5.8g 26mm n/a No 4
x188 2 7 Coin: 2p 1971 7.0g 26mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x189 2 7 Coin: 2p Unknown 7.1g 26mm n/a No 4
x190 2 7 Coin: 2p 1988 7.0g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x191 2 7 Coin: 1p 1971 3.5g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x192 2 7 Coin: 1p 1998 3.2g 21mm n/a No 4
x193 2 7 Coin: 1p 1989 3.4g 20mm n/a No 2
x194 2 7 Coin: 1p 1988 3.4g 20mm n/a No 2
x195 2 7 Coin: 2p 1977 7.0g 26mm n/a No 2
x196 2 7 Coin: 20p 1998 4.9g 21mm n/a No 2
x197 2 7
Coin:
Crooked
hand-
made nail n/a 21.2g
Length 77mm;
head 16mm x
15mm n/a
Yes -
crooked 3
x198 2 7 Coin: 2p 2000 6.9g 26mm n/a No 3
x199 2 7 Coin: 1p 1985 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
x200 2 7 Coin: 2p Unknown 7.0g 26mm n/a No 4
x201 2 7 Coin: 1p 1987 3.4g 20mm n/a
Yes -
crooked 2
x202 2 7 Coin: 10p 1996 6.3g 24mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x203 2 7 Coin: 2p Unknown 6.8g 26mm n/a No 4
x204 2 7 Coin: 5p 1990 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
x205 2 7 Coin: 5p 1990 3.1g 18mm n/a No 2
x206 2 7 Coin: 20p 1999 5.0g 21mm n/a No 2
x207 2 7 Coin: 1p 1992 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
x208 2 7
Coin:
Half-
penny
Unknown
(1971-
1983) 1.6g 17mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x209 2 7
Coin: 1
US cent 1980 3.0g 18mm n/a No 2
x210 2 7 Coin: 1p 1995 3.6g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x211 2 7 Coin: 10p 1992 6.5g 24mm n/a No 2
x212 2 7 Coin: 2p 200- 6.7g 26mm n/a
Yes - edge
and crooked 3
x213 2 7 Coin: 1p 1976 3.4g 20mm n/a
Yes - edge
and crooked 2
x214 2 7 Coin: 1p 1988 3.3g 20mm n/a No 2
x215 2 7 Coin: 2p 1988 7.1g 26mm n/a
Yes - edge
and crooked 2
784
x216 2 7
Coin: 1
Eire
penny 1971 3.0g 20mm n/a
Yes - edge
and crooked 2
x217 2 7 Coin: 10p 1992 6.3g 24mm n/a No 2
x218 2 7 Coin: 1p 1991 3.4g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x219 2 7 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.3g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x220 2 7 Coin: 2p Unknown 7.1g 26mm n/a No 2
x221 2 7 Coin: 1p 1971 3.4g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x222 2 7 Coin: 5p Unknown 3.1g 18mm n/a No 2
x223 2 7 Coin: 2p 1971 6.9g 26mm n/a No 2
x224 2 7 Coin: 1p 1996 3.5g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x225 2 7 Coin: 2p 1988 7.1g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x226 2 7 Coin: 1p 2001 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
x227 5 9 Coin: 2p 1988 7.0g 26mm n/a No 2
x228 5 9
Coin: 1p
in wood Unknown 12.7g 20mm 62mm Yes - edge 2
x229 5 9
Coin:
Pre-dec.
1p in
wood Pre-dec 25.1g 30mm 66mm
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x230 2 7 Coin: 2p 2001 7.2g 26mm n/a No 2
x231 2 7 Coin: 20p 1996 4.9g 21mm n/a No 2
x232 2 7 Coin: 1p 1971 3.3g 20mm n/a No 2
x233 2 7 Coin: 1p 2000 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
x234 2 7 Coin: 2p 1991 7.1g 26mm n/a No 2
x235 2 7 Coin: 20p 1989 5.0g 21mm n/a No 2
x236 2 7 Coin: 2p Unknown 6.0g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 4
x237 2 7
Coin:
Pre-dec.
Halfpenn
y Pre-1971 5.3g 25mm n/a
Yes -
crooked 3
x238 2 7 Coin: 1p 1986 3.4g 20mm n/a No 2
x239 2 7 Coin: 2p 1971 6.9g 26mm n/a No 2
x240 2 7 Coin: 1p 1991 3.6g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x241 2 7 Coin: 2p 1988 7.0g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x242 2 7 Coin: 1p 1990 3.4g 20mm n/a No 2
x243 2 7 Coin: 2p 1978 6.9g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x244 2 7 Coin: 2p 1971 7.0g 26mm n/a No 2
x245 2 7 Coin: 2p 1979 6.9g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x246 2 7 Coin: 1p Unknown 4.3g 20mm n/a No 4
x247 2 7 Coin: 1p 1979 3.4g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x248 2 7 Coin: 1p 1989 3.4g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x249 2 7 Coin: 1p 1981 3.5g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x250 2 7 Coin: 10p 1992 6.4g 24mm n/a No 2
x251 2 7
Coin:
Pre-dec.
1p 1936 7.7g 30mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x252 1 8 Coin: 2p 1997 7.1g 26mm n/a No 2
785
x253 1 8
Coin:
Pre-dec. 1921 4.3g 25mm n/a No 2
x254 2 7
Coin:
Pre-dec.
1p 1914 8.8g 31mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x255 2 7 Coin: 2p 2000 6.9g 26mm n/a No 3
x256 2 7 Coin: 10p 2001 6.4g 24mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x257 2 7
Coin: 20
Czech
haleru
Unknown
(1993-
2003) 0.7g 17mm n/a No 3
x258 2 7 Coin: 1p 1988 3.4g 20mm n/a No 2
x259 2 7 Coin: 1p 1971 3.5g 20mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x260 2 7 Coin: 1p 1977 3.4g 20mm n/a
Yes -
crooked 2
x261 2 7 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.0g 20mm n/a No 3
x262 2 7 Coin: 2p Unknown 6.0g 26mm n/a No 4
x263 2 7 Coin: 1p 1975 3.3g 20mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x264 4 3 Coin: 1p 1979 3.1g 21mm n/a No 2
x265 4 3 Coin: 1p 1998 3.4g 21mm n/a No 3
x266 4 6 Coin: 1p 1980 3.2g 20mm n/a No 2
x267 4 6 Coin: 2p 1978 6.5g 26mm n/a No 2
x268 5 9
2 pieces
of blue
wire Unknown
0.1g
and
0.8g
250mm and
346mm n/a na na
x269 5 9
Coin: 1
Canadian
cent 1979 3.2g 19mm n/a No 2
x270 5 9 Coin: 1p 2002 3.4g 20mm n/a No 2
x271 5 9 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
x272 5 9
Coin:
Half
Franc 1970 2.2g 18mm n/a No 2
x273 5 9 Coin: 1p 1996 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
x274 5 9 Coin: 2p Unknown 7.5g 26mm n/a No 3
x275 5 9 Coin: 5p 1990 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
x276 5 9 Coin: 10p 1992 6.4g 24mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x277 5 9 Coin: 1p 1989 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
x278 5 9 Coin: 5p 1992 3.3g 18mm n/a No 2
x279 5 9 Coin: 5p 2004 3.3g 18mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x280 5 9 Coin: 1p 1988 3.6g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x281 5 9 Coin: 2p 1994 6.7g 26mm n/a No 3
x282 5 9 Coin: 10p 1996 6.5g 24mm n/a No 2
x283 5 9
Coin: 1p
in wood Unknown 4.9g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x284 5 9 Coin: 2p 1995 6.6g 26mm n/a No 3
x285 5 9 Coin: 50p 2002 8.1g 27mm n/a No 2
x286 5 9 Coin: 2p 1971 6.9g 26mm n/a No 2
786
x287 5 9 Coin: 1p 1991 3.5g 21mm n/a No 2
x288 5 9 Coin: 1p 1989 3.5g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x289 5 9
Coin: 2p
in wood 1978 8.1g 26mm 43mm Yes - edge 2
x290 5 9 Coin: 2p 1986 6.9g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x291 5 9 Coin: 2p 20-- 6.2g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x292 5 9 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.3g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 4
x293 5 9 Coin: 1p 1988 3.6g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x294 5 9 Coin: 5p Unknown 3.1g 18mm n/a No 2
x295 5 9 Coin: 10p 1992 6.3g 24mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x296 5 9 Coin: 2p 1987 7.1g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x297 5 9 Coin: 10p 1999 6.3g 24mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x298 5 9
Coin:
Pre-dec.
1p in
wood 1946 12.8g 30mm 43mm Yes - bent 2
x299 5 9 Coin: 2p 1971 7.1g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x300 5 9
Coin: 2p
in wood Unknown 23.5g 26mm 63mm
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x301 5 9 Coin: 2p 1988 6.7g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x302 5 9 Coin: 2p 1998 7.0g 26mm n/a No 4
x303 2 11 Coin: 5p 1999 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
x304 5 9 Coin: 1p 1981 3.5g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x305 5 9
Fragment
of glass n/a 1.2g
18mm x
11mm n/a n/a n/a
x306 5 9 Coin: 2p 1994 6.9g 26mm n/a No 4
x307 5 9 Coin: 2p 1976 6.9g 26mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x308 5 9
Coin: US
dime 1996 2.2g 17mm n/a No 2
x309 5 9 Coin: 1p 1988 3.3g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x310 5 9 Coin: 1p 1997 3.6g 20mm n/a No 3
x311 5 9 Coin: 10p 1992 6.4g 24mm n/a No 2
x312 5 9 Coin: 10p 1992 6.3g 24mm n/a No 2
x313 5 9 Coin: 1p Unknown 4.2g 21mm n/a No 4
x314 5 9 Seashell n/a 0.6g
20mm x
16mm n/a n/a n/a
x315 5 9 Coin: 20p 2000 5.0g 21mm n/a No 2
x316 5 9 Coin: 1p 1993 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
x317 5 9 Coin: 1p Unknown 2.8g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x318 5 9 Coin: 5p 1997 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
x319 5 9 Coin: 2p 1986 6.8g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x320 5 9 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.5g 20mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x321 5 9 Coin: 1p 1986 3.9g 20mm n/a No 4
x322 5 9 Coin: 2p 1971 6.5g 26mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and 2
787
edge
x323 5 9 Coin: 2p 1980 7.1g 26mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x324 5 9 Coin: 2p 1989 7.0g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x325 5 9 Coin: 5p Unknown 3.2g 18mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x326 5 9 Coin: 2p 1989 7.1g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x327 5 9 Coin: 5p 1992 3.1g 18mm n/a No 2
x328 5 9 Coin: 5p 1990 3.0g 18mm n/a No 2
x329 5 9 Coin: 5p 1994 3.1g 18mm n/a No 2
x330 5 9 Coin: 2p 200? 7.1g 26mm n/a No 3
x331 5 9 Coin: 2p 1988 6.9g 26mm n/a No 2
x332 5 9 Coin: 20p 1993 5.0g 21mm n/a No 2
x333 5 9 Coin: 2p Unknown 7.1g 26mm n/a No 3
x334 5 9
Coin:
New 5p
in wood 1975 8.1g 23mm 37mm Yes - edge 2
x335 5 9 Coin: 2p 1986 7.1g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x336 5 9
Coin:
Half-
penny 1971 1.8g 17mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x337 5 9
Coin: 2p
in wood Unknown 14.2g 26mm 46mm
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x338 5 9
Coin:
Half-
penny in
wood 1971 1.6g 16mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x339 5 9 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.6g 20mm n/a No 3
x340a 5 9 Coin: 1p Unknown 6.1g 20mm n/a No 4
x340b 5 9 Coin: 2p 2002 7.2g 26mm n/a No 3
x340c 5 9 Coin: 2p 2002 7.2g 26mm n/a No 2
x340d 5 9 Coin: 10p 2000 6.5g 24mm n/a No 2
x341 5 9 Coin: 1p Unknown 4.4g 21mm n/a No 4
x342 5 9 Coin: 2p 1971 7.0g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x343 5 9 Coin: 1p 1971 3.4g 20mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x344 5 9 Coin: 2p 1971 7.1g 26mm n/a No 2
x345 5 9 Coin: 5p 2000 3.1g 18mm n/a No 2
x346 5 9 Coin: 2p 1971 6.6g 26mm n/a No 2
x347 5 9 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.4g 20mm n/a No 2
x348 5 9 Coin: 1p 1979 3.4g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x349 5 9 Coin: 10p 1992 6.4g 24mm n/a No 2
x350 5 9 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.4g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x351 5 9 Coin: 2p 2002 6.9g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x352 5 9 Coin: 1p 1989 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
x353 5 9 Coin: 20p 1982 4.6g 21mm n/a No 2
x354 5 9 Coin: 1p 1987 3.5g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
788
x355 5 9 Coin: 2p Unknown 7.5g 26mm n/a
Yes -
crooked 2
x356 5 9 Coin: 1p 2000 3.7g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x357 5 9 Coin: 1p 1997 3.4g 20mm n/a No 3
x358 5 9 Coin: 1p 2005 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
x359 5 14 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.4g 20mm n/a No 3
x360 5 14 Coin: 2p 2003 7.0g 26mm n/a No 3
x361 5 14
Coin: 5
French
Centime 1973 1.9g 18mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x362 5 14 Coin: 5p 1990 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
x363 5 14 Coin: 2p Unknown 7.1g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x364 5 14 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.5g 21mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x365 5 14 Coin: 1p 1991 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
x366 3 15
Coin:
Pre-dec.
1p in
wood Pre-1971 14.6g 30mm 63mm
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x367 3 15 Coin: 1p 1997 3.5g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x368 3 15
Coin:
Pre-dec.
1p 1927 1927 9.0g 31mm n/a
Yes -
crooked 2
x369 3 15 Coin: 2p 1989 7.1g 26mm n/a No 2
x370 3 15 Coin: 2p 1971 7.1g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x371 3 15 Coin: 5p 1990 3.1g 18mm n/a No 2
x372 3 15
Coin: 10
Swiss
Rappen 1968 2.9g 19mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x373 3 15
Coin:
Ship
Half-
penny 1944 5.4g 25mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x374 3 15
Coin: 2p
in wood Unknown 11.7g 26mm 51mm
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x375 3 15
Coin: 1p
in wood Unknown 6.6g 20mm 45mm Yes - edge 2
x376 3 15 Coin: 2p Unknown 6.8g 26mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x377 3 15 Coin: 10p 1992 6.4g 24mm n/a No 2
x378 3 15 Coin: 2p 1975 7.2g 26mm n/a No 2
x379 3 15 Coin: 2p 1992 7.1g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x380 3 15 Coin: 2p 1992 7.3g 26mm n/a No 1
x381 3 15 Coin: 20p 2005 5.0g 21mm n/a No 2
x382 3 15 Coin: 2p 2001 7.1g 26mm n/a No 3
x383 3 15 Coin: 2p 2000 7.1g 26mm n/a No 2
x384 3 15 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.4g 20mm n/a No 4
x385 3 15 Coin: 2p 1979 6.9g 26mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x386 3 15 Coin: 1p 1997 3.3g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 4
789
x387 3 15
Coin: 5
Greek
drachma 1984 5.4g 23mm n/a No 2
x388 3 15 Coin: 1p 1979 3.4g 20mm n/a No 1
x389 3 15 Coin: 1p 1988 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
x390 3 15 Coin: 1p 1999 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
x391 3 15 Coin: 2p 2000 7.0g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x392 3 15 Coin: 2p 1981 7.0g 26mm n/a No 2
x393 3 15 Coin: 2p Unknown 6.8g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x394 3 15 Coin: 10p 1992 6.4g 24mm n/a No 2
x395 3 15 Coin: 2p 1999 7.0g 26mm n/a No 4
x396 3 15 Coin: 1p 1991 4.0g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x397 3 15 Coin: 1p 1973 3.3g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x398 3 15 Coin: 2p 1971 6.8g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x399 3 15 Coin: 2p 1999 7.2g 26mm n/a No 3
x400 3 15
Coin: 2p
in wood 1980 10.7g 26mm 50mm Yes - edge 2
x401 3 15 Coin: 5p 1998 3.3g 18mm n/a No 2
x402 3 15 Coin: 2p 2000 7.0g 26mm n/a No 3
x403 3 15 Coin: 10p 1992 6.5g 24mm n/a No 2
x404 3 15 Coin: 10p 1992 6.4g 24mm n/a No 2
x405 3 15
Coin:
Half-
penny 1945 5.2g 25mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x406 3 15
Coin: 25
Danish
Ore 1996 2.8g 17mm n/a No 2
x407 3 15 Coin: 2p 1986 7.1g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x408 3 15 Coin: 20p 1983 4.9g 21mm n/a No 2
x409 3 15 Coin: 2p 2000 6.8g 27mm n/a No 3
x410 3 15 Button? n/a 0.5g
11mm x
10mm n/a n/a n/a
x411 3 15 Coin: 2p 1997 7.0g 26mm n/a No 3
x412 3 15 Coin: 10p 1973 10.8g 28mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x413 3 15 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.4g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x414 3 15 Coin: 1p 2004 3.4g 20mm n/a No 3
x415 3 15 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.5g 20mm n/a No 4
x416 3 15 Coin: 2p 1980 7.0g 26mm n/a No 2
x417 3 15 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.3g 20mm n/a No 3
x418 3 15 Coin: 2p 1978 7.0g 26mm n/a No 2
x419 3 15 Coin: 10p 2005 6.6g 24mm n/a No 2
x420 3 15 Coin: 1p 1991 3.4g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x421 3 15 Coin: 2p 1999 5.8g 26mm n/a No 4
x422 3 15
Coin:
Pre-dec.
1p Pre-1971 15.4g 30mm 55mm
Yes -
crooked and
edge 3
x423 3 15
Coin:
Pre-dec.
1p Pre-1971 13.7g 31mm 42mm
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
790
x424 3 15 Coin: 2p 1981 7.0g 26mm n/a No 2
x425 3 15 Coin: 2p 1980 6.9g 26mm n/a No 3
x426 3 15 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.9g 21mm n/a No 4
x427 3 15 Coin: 2p Unknown 7.0g 26mm n/a No 4
x428 3 15 Coin: 10p 2000 6.4g 26mm n/a No 2
x429 3 15 Coin: 1p 1971 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
x430 3 15 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.4g 20mm n/a No 4
x431 3 15 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.7g
21mm x
18mm n/a No 4
x432 3 15 Coin: 2p 1989 7.0g 26mm n/a No 2
x433 3 15 Coin: 1p 1988 3.5g 20mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x434 3 15 Coin: 1p 1997 3.6g 20mm n/a No 3
x435 VOID
x436 3 15
Coin:
1p 1973 3.3g 20mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x437 3 15
Coin:
1p 1990 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
x438 3 15
Coin:
2p 2001 6.8g 26mm n/a No 3
x439 3 15
Coin:
2p 1989 7.1g 26mm n/a Yes -edge 2
x440 3 15
Coin:
1p 2002 3.6g 20mm n/a No 3
x441 3 15
Coin:
Pre-dec.
1p in
wood Pre-1971 22.6g 30mm
76m
m
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x442 3 15
Coin:
2p 1975 6.9g 26mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x443 3 15
Coin:
10p 2002 6.4g 24mm n/a No 2
x444 3 15
Coin:
2p 2004 6.9g 26mm n/a No 3
x445 3 15
Coin:
2p 1977 6.9g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x446 3 15
Coin:
5p 1990 3.0g 18mm n/a Yes - edge 3
x447 3 15
Coin:
1p 1990 3.4g 20mm n/a No 3
x448 3 15
Coin:
2p Unknown 5.3g 26mm n/a No 4
x449 3 15
Coins:
2p and
5p
2000 and
1990
7.4g
and3.3g
26mm and
18mm n/a No 4 & 3
x450 3 15
Coin:
1p 1984 3.4g 20mm n/a No 2
x451 3 15
Coin:
20p 1982 5.0g 21mm n/a No 2
x452 3 15
Coin:
1p 1990 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
x453 3 15
Coin:
1p 1988 3.5g 20mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and 2
791
edge
x454 3 15
Coin:
1p 1971 3.4g 20mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x455 3 15
Coin:
2p 2002 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
x456 3 15
Coin:
2p 1996 7.1g 26mm n/a No 3
x457 3 15
Coin:
1p Unknown 3.6g 21mm n/a No 3
x458 3 15
Coin:
20p 1995 5.0g 21mm n/a No 2
x459 3 15
Coin:
2p 1971 7.0g 26mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x460 3 15
Coin:
1p unknown 3.4g 20mm n/a No 3
x461 3 15
Coin:
2p Unknown 7.1g 26mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x462 3 15
Coin: 2
German
pfennig Unknown 2.4g 19mm n/a
Yes -
crooked 3
x463 3 15
Coin:
2p 1987 7.1g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x464 3 15
Coin:
10p 2005 6.5g 24mm n/a No 2
x465 3 15
Coin:
2p Unknown 7.1g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x466 3 15
Coin:
1p 1988 3.4g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x467 3 15
Coin:
1p 1997 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
x468 3 15
Coin:
1p Unknown 3.6g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x469 3 15
Coin:
2p Unknown 7.1g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x470 3 15
Coin:
2p 1971 6.8g 26mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
x471 3 15
Coin:
20p 1982 4.9g 21mm n/a No 2
x472 3 15
Coin:
2p 1981 7.0g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x473 3 15
Coin:
1p 1978 3.6g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x474 3 15
Coin:
20p 1982 4.9g 21mm n/a Yes - edge 2
x475 3 15
Coin:
NEW
5p 1975 5.5g 23mm n/a
Yes -
crooked and
edge 3
x476 3 15
Coin:
2p Unknown 7.1g 26mm n/a No 3
792
5.14 – Small Finds in Turf S
. F
. N
o
Tre
nch
Co
nte
xt
Des
crip
tio
n
Yea
r o
f
Issu
e
Wei
gh
t
Dia
met
er
Len
gth
of
wo
od
Sig
n o
f
per
cuss
ion
Lev
el o
f
Co
rro
sio
n
t1 6 4 Coin: 2p 1993 5.7g
27mm x
25mm n/a No 4
t2 6 4 Coin: 5p 2005 3.1g 18mm n/a No 2
t3 1 1 Coin: 2p Unknown 6.7g 26mm n/a No 3
t4 1 1 Coin: 2p 2000 7.1g 26mm n/a No 3
t5 1 1 Coin: 2p 1971 7.1g 26mm n/a No 2
t6 1 1 Coin: 2p 2005 7.1g 26mm n/a No 3
t7 1 1 Coin: 2p 1999 7.0g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 3
t8 1 1 Coin: 2p 1989 7.1g 26mm n/a No 3
t9 1 1 Coin: 2p 2001 6.9g 26mm n/a No 3
t10 1 1 Coin: 20p 1989 5.0g 21mm n/a No 2
t11 1 1 Coin: 1p 2007 3.4g 20mm n/a No 3
t12 1 1 Coin: 2p Unknown 6.9g
25mm x
26mm
n/a
No 4
t13 1 1 Coin: 2p 1971 6.8g 26mm
n/a Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
t14 1 1 Coin: 2p 2001 6.8g 26mm n/a No 3
t15 1 1 Coin: 1p 1995 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
t16 1 1 Coin: 1p 2003 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
t17 1 1 Coin: 2p 2001 7.1g 26mm n/a No 4
t18 1 1 Coin: 2p 1993 6.6g 26mm n/a No 4
t19 1 1 Coin: 1p 1979 3.5g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
t20 1 1 Coin: 5p 1990 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
t21 1 1 Coin: 5p 2000 3.3g 18mm n/a No 2
t22 1 1 Coin: 2p 2004 6.3g 26mm n/a No 3
t23 1 1 Coin: 10p 2004 6.4g 24mm n/a No 2
t24 1 1 Coin: 20p 1996 4.9g 21mm n/a No 2
t25 1 1 Coin: 1p 2006 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
t26 1 1 Coin: 1p 2003 3.3g 20mm n/a No 3
t27 1 1 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.6g 20mm n/a No 4
t28 1 1 Coin: £1 1994 9.4g 22mm n/a No 2
t29 1 1 Coin: 10p 1992 6.5g 24mm n/a No 2
t30 1 1 Coin: 5p 1994 3.3g 18mm n/a No 2
t31 1 1 Coin: 2p 1980 7.2g 26mm n/a No 2
t32 1 1 Coin: 1p 2003 3.4g 20mm n/a No 3
t33 1 1 Coin: 2p 1994 7.0g 26mm n/a No 4
t34 1 1 Coin: 1p 2008 3.6g 20mm n/a No 3
t35 1 1 Coin: 1p 1998 3.6g 20mm n/a No 3
793
t36 1 1 Coin: 2p 2000 7.0g 26mm n/a No 3
t37 1 1 Coin: 20p 1982 4.9g 21mm n/a No 2
t38 1 1 Coin: 5p 1990 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
t39 1 1 Coin: 1p 1991 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
t40 1 1 Coin: £1 1983 9.4g 22mm n/a No 2
t41 1 1 Coin: 20p 1982 4.9g 21mm n/a No 2
t42 1 1 Coin: 20p 1982 4.9g 21mm n/a Yes - edge 2
t43 1 1 Coin: 1p 1988 3.6g 20mm n/a No 2
t44 1 1 Coin: 5p 2002 3.3g 18mm n/a No 3
t45 1 1 Coin: 5p 1990 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
t46 5 9 Coin: 2p in wood Unknown 11.5g 26mm 64mm Yes - edge 2
t47 5 9
Coin: Pre-dec. 1p
in wood 1922 21.7g Unknown 76mm Yes - edge 2
t48 1 1 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.5g 20mm n/a No 4
t49 4 3 Coin: 2p 2002 7.2g 26mm n/a No 3
t50 4 3 Coin: 10p 1992 6.5g 24mm n/a No 2
t51 4 3 Coin: 2p 2000 7.0g 26mm n/a No 3
t52 4 3 Coin: 10p 1992 6.4g 24mm n/a No 2
t53 4 3 Coin: 2p 1971 7.1g 26mm n/a No 2
t54 4 3 Coin: 2p 1998 7.1g 26mm n/a No 3
t55 4 3 Coin: 2p 2003 7.0g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 3
t56 4 3 Coin: 2p 1971 6.8g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
t57 4 3 Coin: 2p Unknown 7.1g 26mm n/a No 3
t58 4 3 Coin: 2p 2003 7.0g 26mm n/a No 3
t59 4 3 Coin: 2p 2000 7.1g 26mm n/a No 3
t60 4 3 Coin: 10p 1992 6.2g 24mm n/a No 2
t61 4 3 Coin: 10p 1996 6.3g 24mm n/a Yes - edge 2
t62 4 3 Coin: 10p 2001 6.3g 24mm n/a No 2
t63 4 3 Coin: 10p 2000 6.4g 24mm n/a No 2
t64 4 3 Coin: 1p 1985 3.5g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
t65 4 3 Coin: 1p 2001 3.5g 20mm n/a No 4
t66 4 3 Coin: 1p 2001 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
t67 4 3 Coin: 1p 1996 3.6g 20mm n/a No 2
t68 4 3 Coin: 1p 1979 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
t69 4 3 Coin: 1p 1999 3.4g 20mm n/a No 3
t70 4 3 Coin: 1p 198- 3.4g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
t71 4 3 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
t72 4 3 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
t73 4 3 Coin: 1p 2003 3.2g 20mm n/a No 4
t74 4 3 Coin: 1p 1998 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
t75 4 3 Coin: 5p 2000 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
t76 4 3 Coin: 1 US Cent 1986 2.5g 19mm n/a No 3
t77 4 3 Coin: 20p 2003 5.0g 21mm n/a Yes - edge 2
t78 4 3 Coin: 20p 1989 4.9g 21mm n/a No 2
t79 2 2 Coin: 10p 1996 6.5g 24mm n/a No 2
794
t80 2 2 Coin: 2p 2000 6.9g 26mm n/a No 3
t81 2 2 Coin: 2p 1980 7.0g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
t82 2 2 Coin: 2p 1981 7.1g 26mm n/a No 2
t83 2 2 Coin: 2p 2000 6.8g 26mm n/a No 3
t84 2 2 Coin: 10p 1992 6.5g 24mm n/a No 2
t85 2 2 Coin: 2p 2001 6.9g 26mm n/a No 3
t86 2 2 Coin: 1p 1996 3.6g 20mm n/a No 3
t87 2 2 Coin: 1p 2000 3.4g 20mm n/a No 3
t88 2 2 Coin: 20p 1983 5.0g 21mm n/a No 2
t89 2 2 Coin: 1p 1994 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
t90 2 2 Coin: 1p 2004 3.3g 20mm n/a No 3
t91 2 2 Coin: 1p 1986 3.4g 20mm n/a No 2
t92 2 2 Coin: 1p 1989 3.4g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
t93 2 2 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.3g 20mm n/a No 4
t94 2 2 Coin: 1p 2005 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
t95 2 2 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
t96 2 2 Coin: 5p 2001 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
t97 2 2 Coin: 5p 2001 3.2g 18mm n/a No 3
t98 2 2 Coin: 1p 2002 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
t99 3 15 Coin: Pre-dec. 1p 1936 9.1g 31mm
n/a Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
t100 3 15 Coin: 2p 1971 6.9g 26mm
n/a Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
t101 3 15 Coin: 2p 1997 7.1g 26mm n/a No 4
t102 3 15 Coin: 2p 1997 6.9g 26mm n/a No 3
t103 3 15 Coin: 2p 1993 6.9g 26mm n/a No 4
t104 3 15 Coin: 10p 1996 6.5g 24mm n/a No 2
t105 3 15 Coin: 1p 2005 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
t106 3 15 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.4g 20mm n/a No 4
t107 3 15 Coin: 1p 200- 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
t108 3 15 Coin: 1p 1971 3.4g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
t109 3 15 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.3g 20mm n/a No 4
t110 3 15 Coin: 1p 2004 3.7g 20mm n/a No 4
t111 3 15 Coin: 1p 1990 3.4g 20mm
n/a Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
t112 3 15 Coin: 5p 1997 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
t113 3 15 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.7g 20mm n/a No 4
t114 3 15 Coin: 2p in wood Unknown 28.6g 26mm 90mm
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
t115 3 15 Coin: 2p 1991 6.4g 26mm n/a No 3
t116 3 15 Coin: 10p 2005 6.5g 24mm n/a Yes - edge 2
t117 3 15 Coin: 20p 1982 4.8g 21mm n/a No 2
t118 5 9 Coin: 2p Unknown 6.8g 26mm n/a No 4
795
t119 5 9 Coin: 2p 1999 6.7g 26mm n/a No 3
t120 5 9 Coin: 2p 200- 6.9g 26mm n/a No 3
t121 5 9 Coin: 2p 1987 7.2g 26mm n/a No 2
t122 5 9 Coin: 2p Unknown 6.9g 26mm n/a No 4
t123 5 9 Coin: 2p 1975 7.0g 26mm n/a No 2
t124 5 9 Coin: 2p 1981 7.0g 26mm n/a No 2
t125 5 9 Coin: 2p 2004 7.1g 26mm n/a No 3
t126 5 9 Coin: 2p 1996 7.0g 26mm n/a No 3
t127 5 9 Coin: 2p 2006 7.0g 26mm n/a No 3
t128 5 9 Coin: 2p 2001 7.2g 26mm n/a No 4
t129 5 9 Coin: 2p 1994 6.8g 26mm n/a No 3
t130 5 9 Coin: 2p 1971 6.9g 26mm n/a No 2
t131 5 9 Coin: 2p 1971 7.`1g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
t132 5 9 Coin: 2p 2004 7.1g 26mm n/a No 3
t133 5 9 Coin: 2p 1976 7.0g 26mm n/a No 2
t134 5 9 Coin: 2p 1978 7.0g 26mm n/a No 1
t135 5 9 Coin: 2p 1987 7.1g 26mm n/a No 2
t136 5 9 Coin: 2p 2002 7.0g 26mm n/a No 3
t137 5 9 Coin: 2p 1971 6.9g 26mm n/a No 2
t138 5 9 Coin: 2p 1980 7.1g 26mm n/a No 2
t139 5 9 Coin: 1p 1990 3.4g 20mm n/a No 2
t140 5 9 Coin: 1p 1990 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
t141 5 9 Coin: 1p 2000 3.3g 20mm n/a No 3
t142 5 9 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.0g 21mm n/a No 4
t143 5 9 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.3g 20mm n/a No 4
t144 5 9 Coin: 1p 1998 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
t145 5 9 Coin: 1p 1996 3.4g 20mm n/a No 3
t146 5 9 Coin: 1p 2005 3.4g 20mm n/a No 3
t147 5 9 Coin: 1p 2002 3.6g 20mm n/a No 3
t148 5 9 Coin: 1p Unknown 4.0g 21mm n/a No 4
t149 5 9 Coin: 1p 2005 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
t150 5 9 Coin: 1p 1988 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
t151 5 9 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.0g 20mm n/a No 4
t152 5 9 Coin: 1p 1990 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
t153 5 9 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.5g 21mm n/a No 3
t154 5 9 Coin: 1p 1980 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
t155 5 9 Coin: 1p 1980 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
t156 5 9 Coin: 1p 2000 3.5g 20mm n/a No 3
t157 5 9 Coin: 5p 2004 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
t158 5 9 Coin: 20p 2003 4.9g 21mm n/a No 3
t159 5 9 Coin: 10p 2006 6.4g 24mm n/a No 2
t160 5 9 Coin: 10p 2001 6.4g 24mm n/a No 2
t161 5 9 Coin: 10p 1992 6.4g 24mm n/a No 3
t162 5 9 Coin: 10p 1992 6.4g 24mm n/a No 2
796
t163 5 9 Coin: 10p 1992 6.4g 24mm n/a No 2
t164 5 9 Coin: 10p 1992 6.3g 24mm n/a Yes - edge 2
t165 5 9 Coin: 2 Euro cent Unknown 3.0g 19mm n/a No 3
t166 5 9
Coin: 1 Canadian
cent 2002 2.1g 19mm
n/a
No 3
t167 5 9 Coin: 5p 1992 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
t168 5 9 Coin: 5p 1990 3.1g 18mm n/a No 2
t169 5 9 Coin: 5p 1992 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
t170 3 15 Coin: 2p 1971 7.0g 26mm
n/a Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
t171 3 15 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.2g 20mm n/a No 4
t172 3 15 Coin: 2p 1971 7.4g 26mm n/a No 3
t173 3 15 Coin: 2p Unknown 6.4g 26mm n/a No 4
t174 3 15 Coin: 2p Unknown 7.0g 26mm n/a No 4
t175 3 15 Coin: 1p 2002 3.6g 20mm n/a No 3
t176 3 15 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.2g 20mm n/a No 4
t177 3 15 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.3g 20mm n/a No 3
t178 3 15 Coin: 1p 1989 3.3g 20mm n/a No 2
t179 3 15 Coin: 1p 2003 3.4g 20mm n/a No 3
t180 3 15 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.4g 20mm n/a No 4
t181 3 15 Coin: 5p 1991 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
t182 3 15 Coin: 5p in wood 1971 7.3g 18mm 79mm
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
t183 3 15 Coin: 2p Unknown 7.0g 26mm n/a No 3
t184 3 15 Coin: 1p 1995 3.2g 20mm n/a No 4
t185 3 15 Coin: 1p 1971 3.5g 20mm
n/a Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
t186 3 15 Coin: 2p Unknown 6.8g 26mm n/a No 3
t187 3 15
Coin: Pre-dec. 1p
in wood Pre-1971 12.7g 31mm 53mm
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
t188 3 15 Coin: 2p Unknown 7.1g 26mm n/a No 4
t189 3 15 Coin: Halfpenny Unknown 1.6g 17mm
n/a Yes -
crooked 2
t190 3 15 Coin: 2p 1971 6.9g 26mm
n/a Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
t191 3 15 Coin: 2p 1979 7.1g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
t192 3 15 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.2g 20mm n/a No 4
t193 3 15 Coin: 1p 1989 3.4g 20mm
n/a Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
t194 3 15 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.4g 20mm n/a No 3
t195 3 15 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.6g 20mm n/a No 4
t196 3 15 Coin: 1p 1999 3.5g 20mm n/a No 4
t197 3 15 Coin: 1p in wood Unknown 5.7g 20mm 40mm
Yes -
crooked and 2
797
edge
t198 3 15 Coin: 5p 1990 3.1g 18mm n/a No 2
t199 3 15 Coin: 5p 1997 3.1g 18mm n/a No 2
t200 3 15 Coin: 5p 2002 3.2g 18mm n/a No 2
t201 3 15 Coin: 20p 1983 5.0g 21mm n/a No 2
t202 3 15
Coin: Halfpenny
in wood Unknown 7.4g 24mm 30mm
Yes -
crooked 2
t203 3 15 Coin: 1p 1979 3.6g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 2
t204 3 15 Coin: 2p 1981 7.1g 26mm
n/a Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
t205 3 15 Coin: 2p 1981 7.2g 26mm n/a Yes - edge 2
t206 3 15 Coin: 2p in wood 1980 11.6g 26mm 48mm
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
t207 3 15 Coin: 2p in wood Unknown 11.1g 26mm 52mm Yes - edge 2
t208 3 15 Coin: 1p in wood 1976 22.0g 20mm 112mm Yes - edge 2
t209 3 15
Coin: Pre-dec 1p
in wood 1938 14.9g 30mm 46mm
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
t210 3 15
Coin: Unknown
coin in wood Unknown 19.0g
Unknown
-
engulfed
in wood 60mm
Yes -
crooked 2
t211 3 15
Coin: Pre-dec. 1p
in wood 1964 13.1g 30mm 47mm
Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
t212 3 15 Coin: 1p in wood 1978 9.3g 20mm 36mm Yes - edge 2
t213 3 15 Coin: 1p in wood Unknown 9.3g 20mm 36mm Yes - edge 2
t214 3 15 Coin: 10p 2000 6.2g 24mm n/a No 2
t215 3 15 Coin: 2p in wood 1971 42.7g 26mm 117mm Yes - edge 2
t216 3 15 Coin: 1p in wood Unknown 42.7g 20mm 117mm Yes - edge 2
t217 3 15 Coin: 2p 1999 7.1g 26mm n/a No 4
t218 3 15 Coin: 2p 1993 6.7g 26mm n/a No 3
t219 3 15 Coin: 1p 1973 3.5g 20mm n/a No 2
t220 3 15 Coin: 1p 1971 3.4g 20mm
n/a Yes -
crooked and
edge 2
t221 3 15 Coin: 1p Unknown 3.5g 20mm n/a Yes - edge 3
t222 4 3 Piece of string Unknown 0.1g
Length:
250mm
with one
knot
making it
circular n/a na Na
t223 6 4 Black bootlace Unknown 3.0g
Length:
395mm
with one
knot n/a na Na
t224 2 2 Seashell Unknown 3.1g
28mm x
21mm n/a na Na
798
5.15 – Unstratified Finds
S.
F.
No
.
Des
crip
tio
n
Yea
r o
f Is
sue
Wei
gh
t
Dia
met
er
Len
gth
of
wo
od
Sig
ns
of
Per
cuss
ion
Lev
el o
r
Co
rro
sio
n
u1 Coin:
Pre-dec
1p
1963 8.4g 30mm n/a Yes -
edge
2
u2 Coin:
2p
1989 7.2g 26mm n/a No 2
799
APPENDIX 6 – ‘SANCTIFYING OUR SITES’ BLOG ENTRY
Houlbrook, C. 2013. Sanctifying Our Sites: Self-reflection on an archaeological
dig. Then Dig: Zeitgeist. http://arf.berkeley.edu/then-dig/
If I had to propose a title for my line of research – and the label-loving realm of
academia suggests that I do – then I would declare myself a folklore archaeologist.
Basically, I employ archaeological methodologies in my study of folkloric objects
and structures.
But these archaeological methodologies rarely include excavation, and so, even
though I’ve been dipping my toe into non-research-related digs over the years, I’m
really – in the literal and metaphorical sense of the term – an archaeologist without a
trowel. However, in September 2013, I had my first opportunity to get my hands
dirty in a dig that was relevant to my research.
For my thesis, I’ve been studying British coin-trees, which are exactly what they
sound like: trees which have had coins embedded into their barks for various
folkloric purposes, such as luck or wish-fulfilment. I’ve catalogued over 200 of these
trees, ranging in date from the late 18th century to the present day.
There was one particular coin-tree which took my interest; a dead hawthorn in
Argyll, Scotland, which I was having difficulty dating. One source claimed that it
was ‘centuries’ old, whilst the landowner opined that the custom had begun in the
1920s. The coins embedded into the tree, however, all post-dated the 1950s. And so
when the evidence on the ground doesn’t proffer the information you need, what do
archaeologists do? We dig.
I’m not writing this post to discuss the results of this excavation, which will be
published elsewhere (although for the sake of the curious reader, I’ll briefly remark
that the landowner’s estimation of the 1920s doesn’t appear to have been far off the
mark). Instead, what I’m aiming to discuss are the processes of an excavation from
the perspective of someone who’s new to those processes. Because, even though I’d
been to this coin-tree site before, it suddenly felt very different – because this time I
wasn’t there as a folklorist, but as an archaeologist.
There’s something about designating a place an ‘archaeological excavation site’ that
gives it more prestige – even, to a certain extent, a sense of sanctity. The ranging
rods, surveying equipment, array of buckets, shovels, trowels, and measuring tapes,
all contribute to this shift, as if they imbue it with greater importance. They are
props, removing it from the surrounding landscape, marking it out as something
‘special’. Archaeologists are often accused of desecration; in the hackneyed words of
Mortimer Wheeler, ‘Archaeology is destruction’ (1954: 15). However, I would argue
that we do the opposite. We don’t desecrate; we consecrate.
Although I’m always careful around coin-trees, I’ve never felt the same excessive
anxiety as I did on this excavation. I was suddenly incredibly cautious about how I
physically engaged with the site; I was reluctant to touch the tree, and whenever I
800
moved around in its vicinity, I did so gingerly, as if so much as breathing on the
coin-tree would bring the whole thing crashing down. It was a strange transition from
my last visit, when I’d viewed the coin-tree as a natural part of the landscape rather
than as a fragile monument, and it really struck me that archaeology doesn’t just
explore sites; it alters them.
And we alter ourselves to accommodate them.
From what I’ve observed, people don’t revere these coin-trees. They don’t perceive
them as solemn or consecrated, but as interesting features that they can touch, climb
over/under, sit on, and hammer their own coins into. They don’t worry about the
fragility of these structures; to them, it’s inevitable that the coin-trees will eventually
fragment and decay. And so there’s nothing conservative about the ways in which
members of the public interact with these monuments.
But as archaeologists, we don’t class ourselves as ‘members of the public’. To an
extent, we don’t class ourselves as ‘people’. We’re like time-travellers; we’re scared
to interfere lest we alter something that shouldn’t be altered, and so we remove
ourselves from time and place. We treat our sites as sacred; we handle our finds not
as if they were objects meant to be handled, but as artefacts, fragile and enshrined.
Now I’m not suggesting that all archaeologists everywhere change their approach.
There’s a reason we act the way we do. But what I am suggesting is that in some
cases perhaps, in order to gain both a fuller and deeper understanding of a site, we
should allow ourselves to engage with places and structures the way everyone else
does. To experience them as people rather than just as archaeologists.
PEER RESPONSES:
Sara Gonzalez, Assistant Professor, University of Washington
Much like Ceri describes, I too approach the practice of archaeology with a sense of
reverence. I understand the sites where I work as belonging to a living heritage; their
spaces and materials as deserving of proper treatment and care. Care here refers to
the attitudes and practices one observes while working with cultural heritage.
Yet, this perspective is not so much an artifact of my training, as it is the result of my
experiences working with Indigenous communities in California and the Pacific
Northwest. In these contexts the science and trappings of archaeology neither
consecrate nor make an ancestral place sacred. In fact, archaeology can, and often
has, achieved quite the opposite effect (Deloria 1969; Mihesuah 2000; Trigger 1980).
This colonial legacy has led many within the field to re-configure the practice of
archaeology so that it is informed by both archaeological and Indigenous values and
principles.
Let me illustrate using an example of my work with the Kashia Band of Pomo
Indians at Fort Ross State Historic Park in northern California where I am working
with the tribe and the California Department of Parks and Recreation to develop a
cultural heritage trail. Given Kashia concerns over the practice of archaeology on
801
ancestral sites, the project worked with the community to develop a research
methodology that integrates Kashia worldviews into the management and
representation of their ancestral homeland, Metini (Gonzalez 2011).
The disturbance of sacred sites with profane acts—which is how the Kashia define
archaeological practice—is potentially spiritually dangerous. Hence, despite a long
history of collaboration with anthropologists in the early 20th century, the tribe
refused to participate in archaeological research until it was reframed as a ceremonial
undertaking (Dowdall and Parrish 2003). This reframing was achieved through
observance of Kashaya cultural laws in our daily practices wherein we regarded
Kashia ancestral sites as part of a sacred, living landscape that requires sacrifice on
the part of individuals.
To borrow Ceri’s words, in altering ourselves to accommodate these places, we
mitigate the danger of archaeology and demonstrate our respect for both the tribal
community and their ancestors. This was the primary way we moved away from
creating knowledge about the Kashaya to creating knowledge with them (Tamisari
2006:24). The distinction here is forming reciprocal, non-hierarchical relationships
that respect the individual contributions of collaborators. In this way we came to
view the knowledge we create as the result of social relationships that proceed from a
place of mutual respect, honesty, integrity, and trust. This, in turn, fostered an
openness of communication so that tribal elders, scholars, and community members
could remember and share histories of Fort Ross and Metini, thus contributing to the
development of interpretation for the cultural heritage trail.
We each have our own way of relating to our work and to the places we find
ourselves in. But I would urge archaeologists, as Ceri does, to explore how local
communities engage with their cultural landscapes, as this knowledge broadens our
imagination and approach to the places and spaces of our work.
References
Deloria, Vine 1969 Custer Died for your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. Macmillan,
New York.
Dowdall, K. M. and O. O. Parrish 2003 A Meaningful Disturbance of the Earth.
Journal of Social Archaeology 3:99-133.
Gonzalez, S. 2011 Creating Trails from Traditions: The Kashaya Pomo Interpretive
Trail at Fort Ross State Historic Park. Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Anthropology,
University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley.
Mihesuah, D. A. (editor) 2000 Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian
Remains? University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Tamisari, F. 2006 “Personal Acquaintance”: Essential Individuality and the
Possibilities of Encounters. In Provoking Ideas: Critical Indigenous Studies, edited
by T. Lea, E. Kowal and G. Cowlishaw, pp. 17-36. Darwin University Press, Darwin.
802
Trigger, B. G. 1980 Archaeology and the Image of the American Indian. American
Antiquity 45:662- 76.
Matt Law, Faculty Member at Bath Spa University
The Monstrous Antiquities conference at UCL next month will explore how
archaeology has provided food for tales of the supernatural. Ceri’s work highlights
another interesting aspect of archaeology and the supernatural, namely how
archaeology can contribute to understanding how folkloric practices originate and
persist. As a newcomer to archaeological fieldwork, she also provides some
important insights into what archaeological investigations can mean.
The idea of consecrating places through designating them as archaeological sites is
especially interesting, and feeds the idea of archaeology as social or political action.
As Don Henson (2009, 117) has noted, archaeology is ‘inherently elitist’, as
archaeologists seek to maintain their position as the experts, and it has a tendency to
become ‘a self-selecting clique, defined by references to itself and reinforced through
adopting particular methods of communication and practice’ (Henson 2009, 121).
But this idea of sanctifying sites shows that archaeology –especially when it is
conducted with people outside of the discipline – has the power to instil broader
value on places that may be of immense social importance, but overlooked because
of the transient or marginalised nature of the groups to whom they are important (e.g
sites used by the homeless or vulnerably housed (Kiddey and Schofield 2011); or
those related to clandestine crossings on the US-Mexico border (De León 2012).
Folklore and superstition are prone to being overlooked in modern Britain.
The objective nature of the archaeological process is rightly identified here. Often,
this is a way of attempting to ensure scientific objectivity, much more rarely a coping
strategy when faced with particularly harrowing finds. My own experience is that
archaeologists’ emotional engagement with their sites is seldom as dispassionate as
the language of the reports they later produce would suggest. Of course, many do
explicitly discuss experiential aspects of the site, especially from the perspective of
the population being studied (this can even be attempted from analysis of snail shells
from the site (see Evans 2005), and both objective and subjective approaches to
archaeology should be (and often are!) seen as complementary, although care should
always be taken not to privilege the excavator’s worldview, which may not reveal
much about life in the past.
References
De León, J., 2012. “Better to be hot than caught”. Excavating the conflicting roles of
migrant material culture. American Anthropologist, 114 (3), pp. 477-495.
Evans, J.G., 2005. The snails, in D. Benson & A. Whittle (eds.) Building Memories:
the Neolithic Cotswold long barrow at Ascott-under-Wychwood, Oxfordshire.
Oxford: Oxbow. pp. 55-70.
803
Henson, D., 2009. What on earth is archaeology? In E. Waterton & L. Smith (eds.)
Taking archaeology out of heritage (Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing) pp. 117-135.
Kiddey, R., and Schofield, J., 2011. Embrace the margins: adventures in archaeology
and homelessness. Public Archaeology, 10 (1), pp. 4-22.