Object Biography Index

Three ceremonial miner’s axes

2012-08-30T14:07:33+00:00

{joomplu:1198 detail align right}

1884.26.1, 2, 3

Elin Bornemann

In Pitt-Rivers’ collection, and currently on display on the Lower Gallery of the Pitt Rivers Museum, are three miner’s axes from Saxony, Germany. These are not the tools used by miners, but rather served as insignia during miners’ parades.

The first of these axes (1884.26.1) has a wooden handle inlaid with ivory decorations, with motifs including flowers and crossed swords. The largest of these inlays is a crucifix flanked by two praying figures. It is not surprising to find religious motifs, since mining was a dangerous occupation, and people felt they had to trust in the protection of God. The blade has a long upward-pointing spike, which is typical for this type of axe.

{joomplu:1199 detail align right}

The second axe (1884.26.2) has a much plainer handle without decoration, but the blade has a much more elaborate cut-out pattern. It is of a similar shape, but the upward spike is less pronounced.

This type of axe is called ‘Bergbarte’, and while it is derived from the tool used for mining, it evolved into a ceremonial accessory during the 17th century. It was part of a miner’s parade uniform, which similarly developed from the working clothes of the miners. The Bergbarte became the parade accessory of the higher mining officials as well as the low-ranked miners. A book on the dress of miners in the Kingdom of Saxony, published in Germany in 1831, shows a Saxon miner in his parade uniform, carrying the Bergbarte over his shoulder, as well as a higher official with the rank of ‘Oberberghauptmann’, whose uniform and axe are more ornate, but basically consist of the same elements.

{joomplu:1200 detail align right}

The third axe in Pitt-Rivers’ collection (1884.26.3) is of a different type. It has a long handle of dark wood, inlaid with mother of pearl, the end sheathed in brass. The blade is small, also of brass, with a floral decoration and a four-lobed shape cut out. This is probably an example of the type called ‘Steigerhäckchen’, although they typically also have an upward-pointing spike on the blade. The corner where it is supposed to be on Pitt-Rivers’ specimen is slightly more rounded that the opposite corner, so it is possible that the spike was originally present and broke off, and the corner was then smoothed to make it safe. The Steigerhäckchen was the insignium of the intermediate ranks in the miners’ parade. A ‘Steiger’ is still a miner, but with some supervisory responsibilities. The 1831 book shows several uniforms which include a Steigerhäckchen, for example this of a ‘Schichtmeister’ (= shift supervisor).

{joomplu:1201 detail align right}

All three axes are described as ‘Saxon miner’s axes’ in the Accession Book. They are probably from the Erzgebirge, a region whose name literally means ‘ore mountains’. The chain of mountains is situated in the south of the German state of Saxony, running along the border with the Czech Republic. Its highest peaks are 1244 m and 1215 m. The mining industry of that region had its beginning in the 12th century with the discovery of silver, tin and copper. More and more deposits, particularly of silver, were discovered in the following centuries. The mining of these ores reached its high point in 1530. In 1542 silver was found in Potosi, Bolivia, and imports from there into Europe began to dominate the market. But the Erzgebirge also yielded iron ore, kaolin for the production of porcelain, uranium ores for the production of dyes, and tungsten. Mining contitued throughout the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, until most sites were closed down in the 1980s and 1990s. The timeline for the history of mining in Saxony, as presented on the website of the Saxon miners’ association, terminates in 1991.

The traditions which came out of that history are alive to this day. Miners’ parades are held in several Saxon towns every year in December, and the miners still wear their parade uniforms and carry Bergbarte and Steigerhäckchen. There are a number of miners’ choirs with a repertoire of traditional miners’ songs, who perform in uniform complete with Bergbarte. Mining has dominated life in the Erzgebirge for so many centuries, and people feel strongly about their heritage and are keen to keep it alive.

Pitt-Rivers collected these three axes in the 19th century, but they reach much further back into history. The Bergbarte with the inlaid handle is dated 1675. Since ceremonial axes only developed in the 17th century, this is an early example of its kind. At the same time they connect with the present, with miners today carrying axes of exactly the same shapes. These three axes represent several centuries of unbroken tradition in the Erzgebirge mining communities.

{joomplu:1202 detail align right}

Further reading:

Website of the Saxon miners’ association, with information on history of mining, timeline, current activities and photos of miners’ parades of recent years (in German)

G. E. Rost: Trachten der Berg- und Hüttenleute im Königreiche Sachsen: nach dem neuesten Reglement mit landschaftlichen Umgebungen aus den verschiedenen Bergamtsrevieren nach der Natur gezeichnet in Kupfer gestochen und treu colorirt. (Freiberg: 1831)
Available online here

Online catalogue entry for Bergbarte in museum in Dresden

Klemm, Gustav Friedrich: Allgemeine Kulturwissenschaft: Werkzeuge und Waffen (Leipzig: 1854), p. 121 (for Steigerhäckchen), pp. 127-128 (for Bergbarte)

August 2012

{joomplu:1203 detail align right}

Canopic jars 1884.57.13-17 and 1884.67.28

2012-08-07T11:13:55+00:00

Beth Asbury, Pitt Rivers Museum

{joomplu:1196 detail align right}

The founding collection of the Pitt Rivers Museum contains no less than five canopic jar lids and one canopic jar. 1884.57.13 and .14 are both human-headed and sit together on a low shelf in case C.122.C (Human Form in Art) below 1884.57.16, which has a baboon’s head, and sits in the upper case, C.122.A. 1884.57.14 is made of painted pottery, but all of the others are of pale limestone with only 1884.57.13 decorated with black painted outlines to highlight its features. 1884.57.15 has a human head and sits on top of canopic jar 1884.57.17.1 in Treatment of the Dead case C.7.A (Fig. 1). Lastly, 1884.67.28, also human-headed, sits slightly crookedly on a shelf in Human Form in Art case C.147.A, possibly after having been sawn off its jar.

All of these objects are ancient Egyptian in origin, but their original collectors and the regions within Egypt that they came from are unknown. What is known is that all of these lids were in the first batch of objects that Pitt-Rivers sent for display in the Bethnal Green Museum probably in 1874, and they are listed in the Delivery Catalogues of objects packed for Oxford as having been transferred from South Kensington Museum in 1884. Canopic jar 1884.57.17.1 (Fig. 2) was not in the first batch like the lids, but is listed in Delivery Catalogue I, so was probably also on display at some time between 1874 to 1884. Lid 1884.57.15 and jar 1884.57.17.1 are displayed with the complete canopic jar 1908.64.5.1-.2, bought from J.C. Stevens Auction Rooms as Lot 407 on 27 May 1908. 1908.664.5.2 is a falcon-headed lid.

According to Ikram (1998: 276, 2003: 125), canopic jars get their name from Canopus, near modern day Abu Qir on Egypt’s Mediterranean coast. Here, Menelaus’s pilot, Koptos, was worshipped as a form of the god, Osiris, as a human-headed jar filled with Nile water. Classical authors’ references to Canopus and these jars were read by Renaissance scholars who wrongly connected them to the containers used to hold ancient Egyptians’ mummified internal organs, which are often found in tombs. They were known as qebu en wet, ‘jars for embalming,’ and generally put near the foot of the mummy, sometimes in specially built niches inside the tomb (Ikram 2003: 125).

The oldest example is that of the 4th Dynasty Queen Hetepheres (c. 2575-2465 BC) [1] at Giza, which was a plain square box of Egyptian alabaster with four compartments and a lid (Ikram 2003: 127). The earliest jar version is that of Merysankh III of the same Dynasty, also at Giza, and they appeared with heads, possibly representing the deceased person, in the Middle Kingdom (c. 2030-1802 BC) (Ikram and Dodson 1998: 278). In the Middle Kingdom the internal organs were put under the protection of one of the Four Sons of Horus and in the New Kingdom (c. 1550-1070 BC) the jars took on the heads of these gods (Ikram 2003: 127). Horus was the son of Isis and Osiris, and represented the rightful, living heir to Osiris, the god of the Afterlife. Duamutef, the jackal-headed, protected the stomach; Qebhsenuef, the falcon, protected the intestines; Hapi, the baboon, the lungs; and Imsety, a human, protected the liver (Brier 1996: 27).

{joomplu:1197 detail align right}

Why the ancient Egyptians developed the mummification technique is still a debated topic. Egyptian cemeteries are usually on the west bank of the Nile Valley, on the desert’s fringes, avoiding the fertile floodplain used for farming. In exceptional circumstances – arid, waterlogged or frozen conditions, where aerobic bacteria cannot function – organic material and therefore, potentially, whole human bodies, can survive. It is generally believed that the discovery of naturally desiccated bodies buried in shallow graves in the sand during the Predynastic Period (c. 4000-2960 BC) gave the ancient Egyptians their ideas of life after death and inspired them to develop artificial mummification techniques later in the Dynastic Period (c. 2960 BC-AD 332) (Ikram 2003: 49-50). However, burials from the Naqada II Period (c. 3650-3300 BC) at Hierakonpolis have been found with partial wrapping of the body, especially the head and hands, with linen (Friedman 1999: 7) and Badarian (c. 4500-4000 BC) burials commonly contain pottery vessels, slate palettes and stone beads (Murray 1956: 89, 94), which could mean that the religious belief in an afterlife and desire to preserve the body came first and not the other way around (Ikram 2003: 50).

Either way, although the ancient Egyptians did accept physical death, perhaps they saw that to some extent the person who had died still survived, but could not imagine their survival without the body (Frankfort 1948: 93). I think that they perceived that caring for the body when the person died, that is, taking the time to bury it away from the flies and scavenger animals, had this effect and that by trying even harder to look after it, they would be even more likely to survive. This would explain why in the Early Dynastic (c. 2960-2649 BC) graves became brick-lined or bodies were wrapped in reed matting (Brier 1996: 20). Unfortunately, this had the opposite effect because it meant the bodies lost contact with the hot, drying sand for longer and decomposed more (Brier 1996: 20). The Egyptians did not understand the important role of the desert sand and did not revert to it (Tyldesley 2000: 146), this meant even more drastic measures of preservation had to be developed, and by trial and error over a long period of time, they developed the famous technique familiar to all British school children today.

The ancient Egyptians’ belief in the afterlife is reflected in the myth of Osiris, the epitome of the good king and the good god (Plutarch, De Iside 13, 49). His story was what everyone aspired to follow (Brier 1996: 21), although it appears to have been a taboo subject for Egyptian texts because mentions of it are very brief despite their frequency (Lichtheim 1976: 81). The 18th Dynasty Hymn to Osiris is the fullest ancient Egyptian account (Lichtheim 1976: 81-86), but the most famous version of his myth is Plutarch’s De Iside et Osiride. In summary, the Egyptians believed that before humans ruled Egypt, it was ruled by the gods. Osiris taught people how to farm, but his evil brother, Seth, was jealous of him and decided to kill him. He managed to get Osiris’ measurements and had a box made that only he would fit into. He held a party and told his guests that whoever fitted into it would win it and, of course, Osiris fitted perfectly, but did not realise it was a trick. Seth slammed the lid down and threw the box, now Osiris’ coffin, into the river.

Osiris’ good wife, Isis, found the box stuck in a tree and rescued him. Seth found out and tore Osiris’ body to pieces and scattered them all over the country. Isis carefully collected all the bits together again, wrapped him up in bandages and hid the body in the marshes with the help of her sister, Nephthys, guarded by the jackal-headed god, Anubis. Isis turned herself into a bird and breathed the breath of life back into Osiris long enough to become pregnant with Horus. The other gods eventually decided that Osiris could be the god of the Afterlife and the Underworld, but the battles between Seth and Horus continued, colourfully described in a text known as the Contendings of Horus and Seth (Lichtheim 1976: 214-223). It was the ultimate triumph of good over evil – Osiris overcame death by having his body preserved and protected by Isis – and the ancient Egyptians aspired in their deaths to do the same and to live forever with him in the Afterlife.

The living body was known as a khet and a dead body a khat (Ikram 2003: 24), but the ancient Egyptians also believed that everyone had a ka (the life force of a person) and a ba (personality of a person). To survive after you had died, the ka and ba needed the same provisions, like food, as they did in life and to be able to return to the body (Ikram 2003: 23). It was therefore essential for the body to be preserved [2], which is why the ancient Egyptians invested so many resources in mummification and tomb building – tombs were known as ‘houses of the ka’ (Ikram 2003: 27). The role of the Four Sons of Horus is also specifically mentioned in relation to the ka in a text at the end of a Ptolemaic (Greek) Period (332-30 BC) copy of the Book of the Dead belonging to a lady called Tentraty or Teret, and called the Lamentation of Isis and Nephthys (Lichtheim 1980: 116-121):

“Thoth recites your liturgy,
And calls you with his spells;
The Sons of Horus guard your body,
And daily bless your ka.”

Unfortunately, no ancient Egyptian accounts of the mummification process have been found, possibly because it was never written down as embalmers learnt on the job, like other craftsmen (Brier 1996: 38). Herodotus (2. 86) and Diodorus (1. 91) do say it was a professional trade. Herodotus was an ancient Greek historian and the first person to write an account of mummification, but at a time when the process was just passed its height and beginning to decline. His work is supplemented by Diodorus (1. 91 and 19. 98-99), Strabo (16. 2. 41-2 and 45) and Pliny (16. 21, 24. 11, and 31. 46). These date to c. 484-420 BC, the 1st century BC, c. 63 BC- AD 21, and AD 23-79, respectively (Shaw and Nicholson 1995: 126, 22, 280, 197), not, then, the height of the Egyptian empire.

Herodotus’ (2. 85-88) account says that after the initial mourning rituals, the embalmers showed the deceased person’s relatives wooden ‘sample corpses’ to help them decide which method they wanted. In the first method, the brain was taken out with a hook, the side of the body cut with an Ethiopian stone [3] and the viscera (internal organs) removed. The body cavity was cleaned with palm wine and spices, filled with myrrh, cassia and more spices, then sewn up. The body was packed in natron for 70 days, then washed and wrapped in bandages and gum. The second method was cheaper and involved injecting the body with cedar oil through the anus and packing it for 70 days, after which the cedar oil would have dissolved the guts and the natron the flesh. The embalmers then returned the body without doing anything else to it. The third method was the cheapest and simply involved the entrails being cleaned out with myrrh and the body being left in natron for 70 days.

Herodotus was a foreigner and a tourist, so might not have been told the whole truth of what was going on, might have had translation issues, and might not even have been to Egypt. He might have heard these things third hand from soldiers or sailors, and some of the stories he tells in other parts of his book, The Histories, are quite unbelievable (see 3. 101-105). This all puts into doubt his other descriptions, but, despite this, he is the best written source we have. Diodorus (1. 91) adds details, like the family being given a price list beforehand, the prices of the three methods being a talent of silver, twenty minae and the third, ‘very little indeed.’ Coinage was not used in Egypt until Greek times (Smith and Dawson 1924: 174), so we do not know how much mummification would have cost prior to this, but according to the British Museum in 1930 (1930: 229), Diodorus’ prices equated to £250 for the first method and £60 for the second. Lists of prices from the Greek period have survived and Brier (1996: 74) has published one example.

Diodorus (1. 91) says the ‘scribe’ marked the place for the embalming incision, which was on the left side of the body, and the ‘slitter’ did the cutting, but was then chased away with stones for harming one of his ‘tribe.’ Herodotus does not mention this. Could this be because Diodorus visited Egypt around 59 BC (Brier 1996: 71), during the Roman Emperor Nero’s reign (Shaw and Nicholson 1995: 312), whereas Herodotus visited around 450 BC (Shaw and Nicholson 1995: 126, 311), and before the Graeco-Roman conquests (332 BC and 30 BC, respectively)? The Greeks were not allowed to dissect bodies (Smith 1914: 190, Brier 1996: 100), so it could be that this ritual was an introduction after Herodotus’ time. It must have been a very ritualised process because they need not even have used a ‘sharp Ethiopian stone’ as they had bronze knives too at this time (Brier 1996: 63).

Diodorus (19. 98-99) and Strabo (16. 2. 41-2 and 45) say that tar from the Dead Sea was used in the process, Pliny adds that ‘cedar juice’ (16. 21) and cedar ‘pitch’ (24. 11) were used, and also mentions natron (31. 46). Natron is a naturally occurring compound of sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate (often with impurities of sodium chloride (common salt) and sodium sulphate), and its main source is Wadi Natrun (Lucas 1932: 62, 66). It was known as netjry, ‘divine salt’ (Ikram 2003: 54). Many Late Period (c. 688-332 BC) mummies are thought to have been made by simply being covered in bitumen and it is often said that the modern word ‘mummy’ comes from a Persian word, mumiya, meaning bitumen or mineral pitch (Pettigrew 1834: 1), but Lucas (1914) questioned this. He (1931: 20) argued that what was identified as ‘pitch’ was tree resin and the cedar oil of Herodotus’ second method was impure oil of turpentine. On the other hand, work by Spielmann (1932) did detect the presence of bitumen in some mummies.

There is also some inconsistency in descriptions of the length of time the mummification process took. Herodotus (2. 86, 87 and 88) says it took 70 days, but Diodorus (1.91) says it was 30 days. Inscriptions on Queen Merysankh III’s tomb (mentioned above) record that there were 273 days between her death and burial (Dunham and Simpson 1974: 8), but Brier (1996: 57) believes this delay could have been due to her tomb being unfinished. In the Bible (Genesis 50. 2-3), Jacob’s embalming took 40 days and the mourning period 70 days. The consensus today though, is that the whole procedure took 70 days, but the mummification part of it probably did not take that long and was padded out with rituals and the time it took to wrap the bodies.

Diodorus (1. 93) says that the kidneys and heart were left inside the body, and the mummies worth so much to people, that they could use them as security on a loan and were disgraced if they could not pay it back. Porphyry (4. 10) says the entrails were put in a box and held up to the sun, and this is the only ancient source to mention the canopic chest (Brier 1996: 77). Filce Leek (1969) was sceptical about being able to extract the brain through the nose (known as excerebration [Ikram 2003: 62]), but his experiments on sheep showed, to his surprise, that the technique was perfectly viable, very effective, and quite necessary as removal of the internal organs means the body is less likely to decompose (Ikram 2003: 62-63). Some questions yet to be answered, however, are how much natron was used, what was done with the blood, bladder and spleen, and what order the organs were removed in (Brier 1996: 323).

The physical study of mummies shows that the technique changed over time and this can be useful for dating purposes (for example, Gray 1972). Brain removal was not common until the New Kingdom (Ikram 2003: 63) when mummies started to be really well preserved. In the 20th Dynasty (c. 1186-1070 BC) there was a decline in central state power and a series of famous tomb robberies (Peet 1930). The court moved north and the royal tombs at Thebes in the south were left vulnerable, but the priests of the god, Amun, opened them, rebandaged the kings and moved them to secret caches (Tyldesley 2000: 110-12). This had the advantage that the embalmers could see the previously poor results of their work and thus the 21st Dynasty (c. 1070-945 BC) technique saw mummification at its peak (Brier 1996: 92-93). In this period, many are described as being packed with a ‘cheeselike substance’ under the skin, which stopped it shrinking and helped make the body look more lifelike (Smith and Dawson 1924: 116, Brier 1996: 269).

By the end of the 20th Dynasty, canopic jars were not always put near the mummy’s feet, but were sometimes placed on either side of it (Ikram 2003: 128). During the 21st and 22nd Dynasties (c. 1070-712 BC), the viscera were usually wrapped and put back inside the body cavity, but canopic jars, sometimes, solid, ‘dummy’ jars, were still used (Brier 1996: 85, Ikram 2003: 128), so important were they as part of the traditional funerary assemblage by then. Giving another twist to this, King Shoshenq II (c. 890 BC) even had dummy viscera made for himself in silver coffinettes! In the 3rd Intermediate Period (c. 1070-660 BC), the visceral parcels were sometimes accompanied by wax figures of the Four Sons of Horus (Ikram and Dodson 1998: 289). The proper use of canopic jars was revived briefly in the 25th Dynasty (c. 712-653 BC), but during the 26-30th Dynasties (c. 688-343 BC), the viscera were placed between mummys’ legs (Ikram 2003: 69) and the mummification technique declined (Brier 1996: 94).

The use of canopic jars further declined during the Graeco-Roman Period (332 BC-AD 364) (Ikram 2003: 128), but the bandaging technique used on mummies improved however, and became an elaborate ‘art form’ (British Museum 1930: 233, Brier 1996: 99). The Romans also introduced realistic portraits into the wrappings and most examples come from the Fayum area in the first two centuries AD. The best were done in encaustic (pigments mixed with beeswax) (Brier 1996: 100-1) and although only a very small number of mummies had portrait panels, they do show how the local elite had adopted Roman trends (Montserrat 1993; Doxiadis 1995). Due to these new influences, however, there was a decline in the previously held religious beliefs. When Christianity arrived in the 1st century AD, ancient Egyptian funerary practices declined even further and church leaders, such as Athanasius and St Anthony, spoke out against mummification (Brier 1996: 78). The practice was banned in AD 392 by Emperor Theodosius (Brier 1996: 100), but hundreds of crude mummies indicate that it still existed until Islam’s introduction in the 7th century (Smith 1914: 195).

Looking into the development and accoutrements of mummification, ancient Egyptian tombs and gravegoods, is to look into the development of their religion, science, craftsmanship and affluence. Canopic jars are the tip of an iceberg of industry and theology the depth of which Egyptologists are still working hard to fully understand. Although some observers may criticise this ancient civilisation for being obsessed with death, many others see their beliefs as a reflection of a life they enjoyed and subsequently wished to lead forever. In the words of Diodorus (1.93), ‘a person may well admire the men who established these customs…and affectionate care of the dead.’

Beth Asbury
Pitt Rivers Museum
August 2012

Notes

[1] The chronology used is that of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York as of August 2010.

[2] Knowing this makes it sad that the contents of canopic jar 1884.57.17.1 have been identified as ‘burnt matter…likely the embalmed viscera’ on the object database (http://databases.prm.ox.ac.uk).

[3] For a discussion about an ancient Egyptian knife that Pitt-Rivers thought might have been used in mummification, see my object biography of Flint Knife 1884.140.82.

References

Bible, The, The Student Bible: New International Version, 1992. Zondervan: Michigan.

Brier, B. 1996. Egyptian Mummies: Unravelling the Secrets of an Ancient Art, O’Mara: London.

British Museum, 1930. A General Introductory Guide to the Egyptian Collection in the British Museum, Harrison and Sons: London.

Diodorus of Sicily, Library of History, Book 1 translated by C.H. Oldfather 1933, Book 19 translated by R.M. Geer 1971, Loeb Classical Library, Heinemann: London.

Doxiadis, E. 1995. The Mysterious Fayum Portraits: Faces from Ancient Egypt, Thames and Hudson: London.

Dunham, D., and Simpson, W.K. 1974. The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh III, vol. 1, Eastern Press: New Haven, Connecticut.

Filce Leek, F. 1969. ‘The Problem of Brain Removal During Embalming by the Ancient Egyptians,’ Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 55, p. 112-117.

Frankfort, H. 1948. Ancient Egyptian Religion: An Interpretation, Harper and Row: New York, London.

Friedman, R. Maish, A., Fahmy, A.G., Darnell, J.C. and Johnson, E.D. 1999. ‘Preliminary Report on the Fieldwork at Hierakonpolis: 1996-1998,’ Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 36, 1-35.

Gray, P.H.K. 1972. ‘Note Concerning the Position of Arms and Hands of Mummies with a View to Possible Dating of the Specimen,’ Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 58, p. 200-204.

Herodotus, The Histories, translated by R. Waterfield 1998, Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Ikram, S. and Dodson, A. 1998. The Mummy in Ancient Egypt: Equipping the Dead for Eternity, Thames and Hudson: London.

Ikram, S. 2003. Death and Burial in Ancient Egypt, Pearson: Edinburgh and London.

Lichtheim, M. 1976. Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume II: The New Kingdom, University of California Press: Berkeley.

Lichtheim, M. 1980. Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume III: The Late Period, University of California Press: Berkeley.

Lucas, A. 1914. ‘The Question of the Use of Bitumen or Pitch by the Ancient Egyptians in Mummification,’ Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 1, p. 241-45.

Lucas, A. 1931. ‘“Cedar”-Tree Products Employed in Mummification,’ Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 17, p. 13-21.

Lucas, A. 1932. ‘The Occurrence of Natron in Ancient Egypt,’ Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 18, p. 62-67.

Montserrat, D. 1993. ‘The Representation of Young Males in ‘Fayum Portraits’,’ Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 79, p. 215-225.

Murray, M.A. 1956. ‘Burial Customs and Beliefs in the Hereafter in Predynastic Egypt,’ Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 42, p. 86-96.

Peet, T.E. 1930. The Great Tomb Robberies of the Twentieth Egyptian Dynasty, Clarendon Press: Oxford.

Pettigrew, T.J. 1834. A History of Egyptian Mummies, Longman and Company: London.

Porphyry, De L’Abstinence, translated by M. Patillon and A. Segonds 1995, Les Belles Lettres: Paris.

Pliny, Natural History, Book 16 translated by H. Rackham 1945, Books 24 and 31 translated by W.S.H. Jones 1966 and 1963, Loeb Classical Library, Heinemann: London.

Shaw, I. and Nicholson, P. 1997. British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt, British Museum Press: London.

Smith, G.E. 1914. ‘Egyptian Mummies,’ Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 1, p. 189-197.

Smith, G.E. and Dawson, W.R. 1924. Egyptian Mummies, Allen and Unwin: London.

Spielmann, P.E. 1932. ‘To What Extent Did the Ancient Egyptians Employ Bitumen for Embalming?’ Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 18, p. 177-180.

Strabo, The Geography, translated by H.L. Jones Book 16: 1956, Book 17: 1932, Loeb Classical Library, Heinemann: London.

Tyldesley, J. 2000. The Private Lives of the Pharaohs, Channel 4 Books, Macmillan: London.

Staurolite crystals from Auray, Brittany, France. 1884.56.5, 1884.56.6, 1884.56.7

2012-07-18T10:18:35+00:00

Rosanna Blakeley, Cataloguing Assistant, Small Blessings Project (Feb-Sep 2012, Pitt Rivers Museum.

{joomplu:1193 detail align right}

The primary documentation for three staurolite crystals in Lt. General Pitt-Rivers’ founding collection is as follows:

Accession Book IV entry - 1884.56.1 - 100 Charms Magic etc. - Specimen of staurolite, regarded by Bretons as of supernatural origin and to have supernatural powers Auray Brittany 33/ 9029

Delivery Catalogue II entry - Religious emblems 3 specimens of staurolite 33/ 9029 13 Cases 225 226
'Green book' entry - South Kensington Receipts, 27 February 1879 - 2 crystals in form of crosses or 'Green book' entry - South Kensington Receipts, 1 August 1879 - 'A crystal staurolite'

These three staurolite crystals were originally displayed at the South Kensington Museum in London (now known as the V&A) in 1879 before coming to the Pitt Rivers in 1884. They are currently on display in the court in Case 61.A in the same box, with a label that reads: ‘Staurolites (‘Pierres de la Vraie croix’), found in the soil in the neighbourhood of AURAY, BRITTANY, believed to be of supernatural origin & to have magic virtues. P.R. coll. [33/9029].’

Staurolite is a mineral consisting of basic aluminium and ferrous iron silicate. One of the properties of staurolite is that well-formed crystals are commonly twinned and appear cross-shaped, either at 90 or 60 degree angle. The name staurolite is derived from the Greek stauros meaning cross and lithos meaning stone. Hence, staurolite crystals are known as ‘cross stones’.

Staurolite is commonly found in the Brittany region of France, and it is possible that Pitt Rivers collected these examples during one of his visits to Brittany in October-November 1878 and March-April 1879. Other well-known locations where staurolite is found are The Blue Ridge Mountains and Fairy Stone State Park in Virginia. The name of Fairy Stone Park makes reference to several other terms for staurolite crystals - ‘Fairy Stones’, ‘Fairy Crosses’ or ‘Fairy Tears’.

{joomplu:1190 detail align right}

The accession book entry for these objects states that Bretons believed staurolite crystals had ‘supernatural origins’ and ‘supernatural powers’. There are several similar examples in the Adrien de Mortillet (1853-1931) amulet collection, also from Brittany, which were collected sometime before de Mortillet’s death. One of them is shown on the second photograph on this page, which was collected by him in Brittany before 1931 and was donated to the Pitt Rivers Museum by the Wellcome Institute in 1985 (1985.52.1328). de Mortillet notes in his catalogue that staurolite crystals were still being used as amulets. The examples in these collections point to a history of staurolite crystals being considered amulets.

So how did these staurolite crystals acquire associations with fairies? Duffin and Davidson throw light on this in their article ‘Geology and the Dark Side’ [2011]. In this article they examine the ‘diabolical and supernatural folklore traditions of geology’ [p.7] based on the ‘vernacular terminology’ [p.8] used in reference to various stones and fossils.

According to Duffin and Davidson fairies have commonly been linked to crystals and fossils in European folklore traditions. However, fairies had more negative connotations in the past than they do today. Fairies were

commonly held responsible for the sudden, otherwise inexplicable onset of illness in humans and livestock, to cause profound meteorological changes adverse to farming practices, to upset the fertility of the fields and to harbour an unhealthy interest in children whom they might kidnap or otherwise cause harm to. [p.10]

Duffin and Davidson also suggest that there is a variety of folklore associating fairies with crystals and fossils because people were believed that they lived underground.

Duffin and Davidson specifically mention ‘Fairy Crosses’ from the Blue Ridge Mountains in Virginia. This name may have been given to twinned staurolite crystals due to the migration of fairy folklore with Irish settlers to the USA in the mid-nineteenth century. The term ‘Fairy Tears’ refers specifically to another explanation that twinned staurolite crystals are the petrified tears shed by fairies when they heard of Christ's crucifixion. The combination of both Christianity and folklore is interesting in this particular story behind staurolites.

The American mineralogist George Frederick Kunz (1856–1932) also provides information on the use of staurolite crystals in North American culture. In his book The Magic of Jewels and Charms [1915] Kunz traces the ‘popular fancy’ for ‘Fairy Stones’ in North America back to the Trail of the Lonesome Pine [1908] written by John Fox, Jr. Kunz explains that Fox ‘makes one of these pretty staurolite crystals exercise an important influence over the destinies of his hero and heroine’ [p.37]. He then goes on to recount that subsequently the manager of a New York theatre ‘cleverly utilized’ this aspect of the book when he put on a dramatization of the Trail of the Lonesome Pine. The manager gave a ‘Fairy Stone’ to every woman in the audience, ‘few of whom were not unconsciously influenced by the symbolic half-religious, half-mythical quality ascribed to this attractive little gem’ [p.37].

The importance of staurolite crystals as amulets, especially in North America, is also highlighted in Dunwich’s Guide to Gemstone Sorcery [2003]. Gerina Dunwich is a professional astrologer, occult historian, and New Age author. She claims that United States presidents Roosevelt, Harding, and Wilson all carried a staurolite for good luck [p. 83]. Dunwich also says that in some places it has been common to give children staurolite ‘to wear about their necks or carry in their pockets to keep them safe from wicked spells and the power of the evil eye’ [p. 83].

So staurolite crystals have been considered to be fairies tears, good luck charms, and in some cases have been used to protect children from evil spirits. They continue to have folklore and supernatural associations today. A basic Internet search brings up websites that list staurolite crystals as ‘powerful crystals’. There is also a website for a holiday cottage claims that the ‘surrounding fields are world famous for producing naturally occurring "cross stones". These are as the name suggests, stones in the form of a cross said to bring good luck to the bearer!’ [1]

It is impossible to say exactly why Pitt Rivers’ chose to collect these staurolite crystals, but perhaps he was interested in how natural objects acquire folklore and supernatural associations. Further, these objects are from Europe and perhaps their contemporary use as amulets intrigued a scientific man like Pitt Rivers.

References / Further Reading
Duffin & Davidson. 2011. ‘Geology and the Dark Side’ in Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, Vol. 122, Issue 1, pp. 7-15
Dunwich. 2003. Dunwich’s Guide to Gemstone Sorcery. Career Press.
John Fox, Jr. 1908. Trail of the Lonesome Pine. London: Constable & Company.
G F Kunz. 1915. The Magic of Jewels and Charms. Philadelphia & London: J.B. Lippincott.

Notes
[1] http://www.gite-brittany.org/phdi/p1.nsf/supppages/1527?opendocument&part=2

July 2012.

Fijian Clubs

2012-06-11T14:34:52+00:00

{joomplu:1145 detail align right}

Fijian Clubs; 1884.12.101 .1, 1884.12.115 and 1884.12.105

Faye Belsey, Pitt Rivers Museum

There are 71 clubs from Fiji in the Founding collection. There is no doubt that this number of clubs is a result of Pitt River’s early interest in weapons. There is a great variety of club type from Fiji and other Pacific Islands. The variety of type of club in Fiji is not surprising given the nature of Fijian society. Warfare was part of everyday life on the islands where by the early 1800’s chaos reigned with local feuding and increasingly bloody civil wars becoming commonplace.

The different type of club illustrates that demand was great. The highly diversified array of Fijian war clubs reveals that the Fijian had devised a weapon for every type of stroke. Within the founding collection the variety of club type is evident. In this object biography I will discuss three different type of club.

1884.12.101.1 Totokia

{joomplu:1142 detail align right}

The documentation for this club is as follows:

Accession Book IV entry - 1884.12.1 - 302 - Weapons Clubs Heavy club toka, with pointed head bent at right angle with a carved encircling raised band of knobbed rings behind the point Fiji (Ratzel 2.287) [Drawing]
?Black book entry - 382 - 384 Club mace headed carved and furnished with a wooden spike 382 - 385 shew gradual development of length of spike Fiji Is
Delivery Catalogue I entry - Maces and clubs from various countries Club with spike carved wood Fiji 431 Screen 13 178 179
Pitt Rivers Catalogue Entry (1874) - Screen 13 ... 431 to 434 Fiji curved clubs with spikes, called Toka; the form of which may be described as that of Nos 408, 409 and 410, bent on one side. [p77]
Additional Pitt Rivers Catalogue entry - Nos 431 to 434 are Fiji clubs called Toka. They are probably derived from an earlier form, resembling the Australian spiked clubs Nos 408 to 410, but curved to one side so as to present the point to the adversary [p67]
Written on object - FIJI P.R. coll [431]
Pitt Rivers Museum label - OCEANIA MELANESIA, FIJI. Wooden 'pineapple' club. Pitt Rivers Founding Collection, 1884.

This type of club is called a Totokia. Clubs were the foremost weapon used in warfare, the use of clubs often resulting in deadly consequences. This type of club was particularly lethal. This type of ‘beaked’ battle hammer club was an evolution from the Ai tuki battle hammer club with arched neck, heavy studded head and cone shaped ‘business end’. The development was the pointed ‘beaked’ end designed to ‘peck’ holes into the skull.

{joomplu:1143 detail align right}

1884.12.115 Culacula

The documentation for this club is as follows:

Accession Book IV entry - 1884.12.1 - 302 - Weapons Clubs Club with cylindrical polished head and broad blade suggesting duck's head with rosettes for eyes carved all over into 'pimples' with hatching Fiji Group. [Drawing]
?Black book entry - 381 Mace headed club Curved ornamented with eyes Fiji Is
Delivery Catalogue I entry - Clubs Australian and Polynesian Club wood carved Fiji 498 and 499 Screen 14 172 173
Pitt Rivers Catalogue Entry (1874) - Screen 14 ... 499 to 501 Clubs. Varieties of the same form. Fiji Islands. [p80]
Additional Pitt Rivers Catalogue entry - ... the lower part of the blade and cross rib of this weapon ... has developed as to project far beyond the other parts and form a kind of cross bar with which to pick a hole in the enemy's skull. Nos 499 to 501 are varieties of the same form used in Fiji, Samoa and the Friendly Isles. [p70]
Pitt Rivers Museum label - OCEANIA MELANESIA, FIJI. Carved paddle club. Pitt Rivers Founding Collection, 1884.
Written on object - [on handle] FIJI IDS P.R. coll [499]
Written on object - [on handle] FIJI group P.R. coll.... [499] H.B. cat C.C. LXXVI

This club is a Culacula. Not all clubs were used for warfare. Fijian society was based on a system of interrelationships between groups, interresponsibilities and interexpectations. All of this especially relied on a series of ceremonial exchange. Exchanged were a range of material culture including all types of craftwork; mats, fans, bowls, sinnet, canoes, pots, fishing equipment, bark cloth, food and weapons including clubs. The decorative nature and form of this Culacula club suggests that it was unlikely used in warfare but more likely as a ceremonial object, possibly an item for exchange or for ceremonial use in dance and ritual. It is possible that such decorative clubs were also produced by the later half of the nineteenth century for trade to European visitors to the islands. The blade of the club is carved all over on both sides into raised ‘pimples’ and hatching with two rosette shapes carved at the broadest part of the blade suggesting the eyes of a duck’s head. These paddle clubs are Tongan or Samoan in origin. Particularly decorative clubs of the type exclusive to chiefs and priests were handed down as heirlooms. If used in warfare the broad blades of these clubs could also be used to shield impact from spears and arrows.
The second image of this club shows the carved broad blade head of 1884.12.115.

{joomplu:1144 detail align right}

1884.12.105 Waka

The documentation for this club is as follows:

Accession Book IV entry - 1884.12.1 - 302 - Weapons Clubs Similar club [to 1884.12.104], with massive head Fiji or Tonga
Black book entry - 355 - 356 Clubs head formed by branching roots of tree studded with ivory Tongataboo [sic] Is
Delivery Catalogue I entry - Maces and clubs from various countries Club wood long Fiji 405 Screen 13 178 179
Pitt Rivers Catalogue Entry (1874) - Screen 13 ... 404 405 Long clubs of the same construction [ie the head of which is formed of the branching roots of a tree] formed of the branching roots of a tree studded with teeth. Tongataboo and Fiji. [p76]
Additional Pitt Rivers Catalogue entry - It has been supposed that the mace was suggested by the use of a small tree with the root torn up from the ground, the branching roots cut off and pointed to serve as spikes. Such clubs are used in the Tongataboo and Fiji Islands, Nos 403 to 405 and are called Maloma according to Wilkes ... [p65]
1862 Catalogue of objects owned by Pitt-Rivers - Catalogue of Arms belonging to Lt Col A. Lane Fox. Gren Guards taken at Park Hill House Clapham 21st August 1862 - 3. Tongatabu Club South Sea [could also be 1884.12.104]
Pre-PRM label - CLUB FIJI
Pitt Rivers Museum label - OCEANIA MELANESIA, FIJI or TONGA. Rootstock club. Original Pitt Rivers Founding Collection, 1884.
Written on object - FIJI or TONGA IDS. P.R. coll..... [405]. HB C. XXV.

This club is a rootstock club called Waka. The mace like head of the club is carved from the buttress roots of the uprooted sapling from which the club was made. The handle of the club is carved with zigzag design in relief, known as tavatava. The design has been interpreted as a pictorial representation of sennit binding and is a design borrowed from Fijian body art.

The role of the craftsman in Fijian culture was a much-valued skill and the woodcraftsmen in Fiji formed a distinct group in the community, with their own chiefs and specialists in making various items. Clubs were lovingly crafted and some clubs required years to make. Club carvers ‘matai ni malumu’ were highly skilled in selecting the correct type of wood for making the club and experienced enough to experiment with design as the variation in design and ornamentation on Fijian clubs attest to.

{joomplu:1141 detail align right}

1884.12.104 Waka with inlaid ivory

Documentation for this club is as follows:

Accession Book IV entry - 1884.12.1 - 302 - Weapons Clubs Long stout club with root head and chip carved handle, the head knobs shell inlaid Fiji or Tonga
Black book entry - 355 - 356 Clubs head formed by branching roots of tree studded with ivory Tongataboo [sic] Is
Delivery Catalogue I entry - Maces and clubs from various countries Club wood Fiji 404 Screen 13 178 179
Pitt Rivers Catalogue Entry (1874) - Screen 13 ... 404 405 Long clubs of the same construction [ie the head of which is formed of the branching roots of a tree] formed of the branching roots of a tree studded with teeth. Tongataboo and Fiji. [p76]
Additional Pitt Rivers Catalogue entry - It has been supposed that the mace was suggested by the use of a small tree with the root torn up from the ground, the branching roots cut off, and pointed to serve as spikes. Such clubs are used in the Tongataboo and Fiji Islands, Nos 403 to 405 and are called Maloma according to Wilkes ... [p65]
1862 Catalogue of objects owned by Pitt-Rivers - Catalogue of Arms belonging to Lt Col A. Lane Fox. Gren Guards taken at Park Hill House Clapham 21st August 1862 - 3. Tongatabu Club South Sea [could also be 1884.12.105]
Written on object - 'FIJI or TONGA IDS. P.R.Coll.... (404). HB. C.XXIV.'
Pre-PRM label - (paper, stuck on, printed) 'CLUB. FIJI.' [JC 13 6 2003]
Pre-PRM label - (paper, stuck on, written) '404. LONG CLUB OF THE SAME CONSTRUCTION, FORM[ED] OF THE BRANCHING ROOTS OF A TREE, STUDDED WITH TE[ETH ?] TONGATABOO AND FIJI.'

This club is on display in the Museum on the Upper Gallery in case 31.A. It is also a rootstock Waka club with the head formed from the branching roots of the tree. In this instance the ends of the cut tree root have been inlaid with whale ivory shaped as stars and triangles. Often the number of kills by the warrior of a particular club was indicated by the inlay of human teeth or ivory around the head of the club or by the cutting of notches on the grip. A club with many kills to its credit was thought to achieve ‘mana’, with power and life of its own. A club achieving this status is the ultimate compliment to the warrior to whom the club belongs and the craftsman who made the club.

Further Reading:
Clunie, Fergus Yalo i Viti A Fiji Museum Catalogue. Fiji Museum, Suva, Fiji Islands 1986
Clunie, Fergus 'Fijian Weapons and Warfare'. Bulletin of the Fiji Museum No.2. Fiji Museum, Suva, Fiji Islands 1980
Churchill, William Club Types of Nuclear Polynesia. The Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington 1917.
Ewins, Rod Fijian Artefacts Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery Collection. Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Tasmania, Hobart 1982.
Tippet, Alan Richard Fijian Material Culture A Study of Cultural Context, Function and Change. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 232. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawaii 1968

11 June 2012

Flint knife 1884.140.82

2012-05-15T07:39:37+00:00

{joomplu:1047 detail align right}

Beth Asbury, Pitt Rivers Museum

Today, the flint knife, accession number 1884.140.82, lies in the bottom left corner of cabinet 81.A on the Lower Gallery. It is boldly labelled, ‘Flint Sacrificial Knife, found near Kom Ombos, Nile,’ possibly conjuring up images of messy ancient Egyptian human sacrifices in the minds of any children using the Clore Learning Balcony, where this case sits. It was on display in Bethnal Green and/or South Kensington Museum sometime before becoming part of the Museum’s founding collection because it is listed in Delivery Catalogue II, one of the two volumes compiled when the objects were packed for Oxford (Blackwood 1964: ii). It was presumably not displayed initially because it was later found, sometime before May 2001, when a note of what was written on it was added to the database, in the Flint Store with the flint ring, 1884.140.83.

The knife is 30.6 by 8.4 cm and has been dated by the Museum’s World Archaeology Researcher, Dr Alice Stevenson, to the Early Dynastic period of ancient Egypt (c. 2960-2649 BC [1]). This is based on its similarity to other examples from 1st Dynasty (c. 2960-2770 BC) tombs at Abydos, such as the one illustrated here [2], in Petrie (1925: Plate 6, Figure 1) and UC16205 in the Petrie Museum in London [3]. They are known as ‘comma-shaped’ knives (Graves-Brown 2010: 450-451, 534). There are 229 ancient Egyptian objects in the Museum’s founding collection, ranking it as the 17th out of 136 countries represented [4], but this knife is the only early period Egyptian object within that collection (Stevenson, pers. com.).

The knife is illustrated in Figure 14, Plate 33, of Pitt-Rivers’ important article, On the Discovery of Chert Implements in Stratified Gravel in the Nile Valley Near Thebes [5], a paper that he gave to the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland in June 1881 after a trip to Egypt earlier that year (Stevenson, no date). In it, Pitt-Rivers compares Egyptian flints to European ones from the Palaeolithic (Early Stone Age) period (1882: 384-385, 389) and describes his discovery of worked flints at deep, aged strata, not in tomb contexts or on the ground surface. His work was significant because the existence of a prehistoric Stone Age period in Egypt had not yet been accepted, even by prominent Egyptologists like Auguste Mariette, the head of the Antiquities Service there in 1858-1881 (Supreme Council of Antiquities, no date), who Pitt-Rivers mentions twice (1882: 384, 387). It was generally believed that flint tools were used in Egypt in conjunction with tomb building and mummification, and did not belong to any earlier phases of human activity in the area (Stevenson, no date).

Pitt-Rivers was one of the first people to study Predynastic period (c. 4000-2960 BC) flints (Graves-Brown 2010: 20). He had already learned how to knap flints himself and in his article he observes that the knapping of the flints he is able to study in situ in Egypt pointed in the opposite direction to where they were exposed, meaning that they were worked before they were deposited (1882: 389-390). He even makes sure he has a witness to back his observation (1882: 394-397). Although the exact date of the tombs nearby was unknown to Pitt-Rivers, the flints had to be very much older (1882: 390) (he discounts them having been buried at a later date and sinking down [1882: 392-3]) and in the Discussion at the end (1882: 399-400) he has accepted that they are Palaeolithic and therefore evidence of the prehistoric occupation of Egypt.

Pitt-Rivers also uses the article as a platform for a more general discussion of flint objects in Egypt, which is where his description and illustration of the flint knife comes in. The knife is the only ancient Egyptian object from this trip that he got from south of Luxor and one of the few that has its donor listed in the founding collection (Stevenson, no date). Pitt-Rivers specifically says in his paper that he acquired the knife from ‘Mr McCallum, the artist’ in 1874. I am certain that this is Andrew MacCallum (1821-1902), who in the same year accompanied Amelia Edwards on a trip in Egypt. Edwards published a book about her adventures on that trip called A Thousand Miles Up the Nile in 1877 and went on to found the Egypt Exploration Society in 1882 (Bierbrier 1995: 138, 265-266) [6]. In her book, Edwards refers to herself as ‘the Writer’ and to MacCallum as ‘the Painter’ (Rees 1998: 37-38). To add to the identity confusion he also uses the initials ‘A. M’C’ himself in a note he sends to Edwards and signs his surname ‘M’Callum’ in a letter to The Times newspaper, both reproduced in her book (2010: 481, 723).

MacCallum was born in Nottingham and became known as a landscape painter, patronised even by Queen Victoria (de G.S. 1879 [7], Bierbrier 1995: 265, Long 2004). He was commissioned to decorate the interior of the first lecture theatre of the South Kensington Museum (now the Victoria and Albert Museum) in 1857 (Long 2004), so presumably circulated in similar society to Pitt-Rivers. MacCallum was in Egypt at the same time as Edwards in order to paint a large picture of one of the famous New Kingdom (c. 1550-1070 BC) temples at Abu Simbel in the far south (Rees 1998: 38, Edwards 2010: 134) and, according to Rees (1998: 38), already knew Edwards. ‘Egypt by 1873 was already thoroughly opened-up tourist territory’ (Rees 1998: 37) and MacCallum had been to Egypt three times, bringing useful experience to Edwards’ boat party (Edwards 2010: 134).

Edwards (2010: 348-349) describes how MacCallum often enjoyed going off on an ‘afternoon excursion…striking off generally into the desert; looking for onyxes and carnelians among the pebbles that here and there strew the surface of the sand.’ He later became a known collector of antiquities (de G.S. 1879) and Edwards mentions one occasion during their trip where he haggles for a small stuffed crocodile (Edwards 2010: 529). His biggest discovery, however, was a shrine or painted chamber at Abu Simbel (Bierbrier 1995: 266), which Edwards (2010: 476-520) dedicates a whole chapter to. She (2010: 519) records how, ‘the Painter wrote his name and ours, with the date (February 16th, 1874), on a space of blank wall over the inside of the doorway…On arriving at Korosko, where there is a post-office, he also despatched a letter to the “Times,” briefly recording the facts here related.’

Knowing this background makes it very exciting when Edwards (2010: 578) describes how, ‘between Kom Ombo and Silsilis we lost our Painter. Not that he either strayed or was stolen, but that, having accomplished the main object of his journey [work on his painting], he was glad to seize the first opportunity of getting back quickly to Cairo.’ Although it could never be proven, as he could have bought it anywhere on the trip or even from outside of Egypt at another time, it would be lovely to think that it was at this point in Edwards’ story that MacCallum haggled for, or found for himself, the Kom Ombo knife that he subsequently gave to Pitt-Rivers. Pitt-Rivers seems to have been very proud of his acquisition, describing it as, ‘a remarkable specimen of a flint knife…As a specimen of flint chipping it is unequalled’ (1882: 386).

{joomplu:1048 detail align right}

Along with the knife, Pitt-Rivers illustrated two flint bracelets from MacCallum in Figures 7 and 8, Plate 31, of his article. He (1882: 385-386) calls them ‘remarkable objects...excellent workmanship…found in one of the tombs near Koorneh…unique, so far as I know’ [8]. One of these, 1884.140.83, appears to have also become part of the Museum’s founding collection as it has a matching label [9], although a letter to Pitt-Rivers from MacCallum in 1896 (Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum PR Papers L1635) mentions that he gave him three flint bangles and knives (in the plural). As an unknown number of objects were kept in Pitt-Rivers’ houses in London and Dorset, and were not sent to Oxford (Petch 1999), and some artefacts were also moved to Dorset from South Kensington Museum after most of the objects in the founding collection were transferred to Oxford (Petch 2009), perhaps that is what happened to these other items.

Despite his admiration for it, Pitt-Rivers appears not to have been sure of what the knife was originally made for. In his article (1882: 386) he firstly writes that, ‘it has probably been one of [those] used by the Egyptians in embalming the dead.’ However, he later (1882: 398) says it is, ‘supposed to be a sacrificial knife.’ It is very unlikely that either of these uses is correct though as evidence for human sacrifice in ancient Egypt is rare and controversial, and the evisceration (removal of internal organs) of mummies may not have been practised until much later than this knife dates to. Let us discuss human sacrifice first, however.

In Abydos during the 1st and 2nd Dynasties (c. 2960-2770 BC and c. 2750-2649 BC) funerary enclosures for rulers were surrounded by subsidiary burials of people, ‘retainers’ (Wilkinson 2000: 32), some of who are suspected to have been ‘killed to accompany their master’ (Spencer 1993: 71-72). Petrie (1925: 8), for example, published a number of burials of people he believed had been buried alive and cited some apparently hastily built walls of the retainer tombs of Qa’a (c. 2807-2800 BC) and Khasekhemwy (c. 2687-2676 BC) as evidence that their occupants had been interred at the same time as those kings’ funerals took place. Spencer (1993: 79) likewise argues that the skeletons of these subsidiary burials, for example, around the tomb of Aha (c. 2960-2926 BC), were all of young people up to 25 years old, and because of their uniform ages at death, probably too much of a coincidence to have died naturally. The numbers of these apparently sacrificial burials reached a peak with Djer and Djet (c. 2926-2880 BC and 2880-2873 BC), he says (1993:79), whose retainers even had stelae with their names on.

{joomplu:1049 detail align right}

Reisner (1936: 108, 116, 121) agrees that the subsidiary burials around the tombs of Semerkhet (c. 2807-2800 BC) and Qa’a (68 and 26, respectively) were of people buried alive or put to death, and calls such burials, sati-burials. His (1936: 108, 118) evidence is that these burials are ‘in such close contact with the main tomb that they seem to be part of it’ and even that they were ‘certainly under the superstructure of the main tomb,’ and therefore had to have been interred at the same time as those kings were. However, he (1936: 118) disagrees with Petrie’s evidence of the hastily built walls, arguing that even if the blocks of graves were made at the same time, the burials could still have been made one at a time later on. He (1936: 108, 116, 120-21) identifies four different types of subsidiary burial and, unlike Spencer, argues that those around the tombs of Djer and Djet (317 and 174, respectively) are not so clear and could be family burials laid out by the heads of those families or the king, although he does not discount the possibility that some were sati-burials.

Although our flint knife is of the Early Dynastic period and similar to others found from that time in Abydos, there is nothing to show that this specific knife, or type of knife, was connected to these deaths. The practice, if it did exist, seems to have been the ruler’s prerogative only, and it cannot be proven that the people buried with them were not volunteers or that they did not commit suicide (Wilkinson 2000: 31) after all. Arguments that the later ancient Egyptians were against murder, even by their sacrosanct king, is based on the character, Djedi’s, retorts to Cheops in the fourth story of the 13th Dynasty (c. 1803-1649 BC) text known as Papyrus Westcar, where it is implied that he should know better than to kill his subjects or treat them badly (Parkinson 1997: 112-116, 124: note 37, Parkinson 2002: 50).

As for whether the knife was used in mummification, it is true that despite the ancient Egyptians having copper and bronze tools, flint knives seem to have been the preferred choice, perhaps because of their extreme sharpness or the heavily ritualised and strong tradition behind the embalming procedure (Pitt Rivers 1882: 384, Brier 1996: 63). Sadly, the ancient Egyptians did not leave an explanation of the procedure themselves and the main written source is Herodotus (2. 85-90), supplemented by Diodorus (1. 91 and 19. 98-99) and a few other Classical authors, all of whom were writing a long time after the technique passed its peak [10]. Herodotus’ (2. 85-88) account says that after the initial mourning rituals, the embalmers showed the relatives wooden ‘sample corpses’ to help them decide which method they wanted. In the first method, the brain was taken out with a hook, the side of the body cut with an Ethiopian stone and viscera removed. Diodorus (1. 91) says the ‘scribe’ marked the place for the incision and the ‘slitter’ did the cutting, but was then chased away with stones for harming one of his ‘tribe.’

Porphyry (4. 10) says the dead person’s entrails were put in a box and held up to the sun, and is the only ancient source to mention the canopic chest (Brier 1996: 77). The oldest example of such a chest is that of Queen Hetepheres (Ikram 1998: 277, Peck 1998: 23) of the 4th Dynasty (c. 2575-2465 BC), much later than our flint knife. Before this clear evidence of evisceration being performed, not enough survives for anyone to be confident about what exactly was done with the body when a person died, other than that it was often wrapped with linen (Peck 1998: 23-24). At Hierakonpolis, for example, several burials of the Naqada IIB period (c. 3650-3300 BC), including two intact ones (B71 and B85), have been found with evidence for the partial wrapping of the body, especially the head and hands, with linen, but it is not clear if this was just to help keep the bones articulated or was a precursor for the more elaborate preservation techniques used later (Friedman 1999: 7). This also makes it difficult to say for certain then, that Pitt-Rivers’ flint knife was used in mummification.

Egyptology was still very much in its infancy in Pitt-Rivers’ time, so he can be forgiven for not knowing what the knife was for. We now know that flint and chert were used to make tools from the Lower Palaeolithic to Dynastic period in Egypt and that they are some of the finest examples produced in the world (Teeter 2011: 202). Some were produced by professionals for specialist jobs, like butchering and harvesting, and many others were ‘produced by ordinary people on the spot’ (Teeter 2011: 202). My first thoughts upon looking at our knife were that it appears to have no handle, and therefore impossible to hold and impractical, but perhaps this was because it was never made to be used and was instead a high status, not utilitarian, object for a high status person. Presumably great skill was needed to knap a curved flint blade, especially of this size, and these initial thoughts seem largely to be the case. Some flint artefacts, like fish-tail knives and ripple-flaked knives, were prestige items, and their development reflected the growth of a new social, and probably religious, elite at this time, who could control and consume the production of such things (Teeter 2011: 202, Hendrickx 2011: 93-94).

The function of ripple-flaked knives appears to have been ‘purely ceremonial’ and some may have been considered to have magical powers as they were found deliberately broken before being deposited in graves (Teeter 2011: 221). The finer examples of flint tools found in graves are often made of caramel-coloured flint, a bit like our knife is, perhaps chosen to imitate metal (Stevenson 2011: 72). Stone may also have been favoured because of the Egyptians’ awareness of its durability, making it a particularly suitable material to make grave goods with (Graves-Brown 2010: 125). Stone knives appeared in Early Dynastic graves into the Middle Kingdom (c. 2030-1802 BC) (Graves-Brown 2010: 125) and a tomb scene at Beni Hasan shows curved blades, not dissimilar to our flint knife, still being manufactured during that period (Teeter 2011: 202).

Despite appearances, our flint knife may actually have had a handle. An example of a comma-shaped knife from a 1st Dynasty tomb at Abusir el-Meleq had a wooden haft (Graves-Brown 2010: 450-451) and a fish-tail knife of the Naqada I-IIA period found recently at Hierakonpolis shows they could have been hafted with reeds and leather (Teeter 2011: 219). Other organic materials, which would also be less likely to survive, like ivory or bone, could have been used as well (Teeter 2011: 220). Lastly, these knives may have been made because people liked the way they looked too:

‘Although the relevance of the aesthetic aspect is difficult to evaluate for the Predynastic mind, it nevertheless is to be accepted as an aspect of craft specialisation, if only because of the high technical skills required to produce these objects’ (Hendrickx 2011: 94).

Having established that the knife is very unlikely to have been connected to human sacrifice or mummification, the label so neatly handwritten across its middle is unfortunately misleading. However, as with other objects in the collection, the labels, even outdated ones, are important to the Museum. As the introductory guide book discusses, old labels are retained, ‘for the glimpses they offer into the mindset of the first Museum staff, as well as into the history of anthropology…if we changed them it would change the feel of the whole Museum…[and] it is not feasible to change all the out-of-date names’ (Pitt Rivers Museum 2009: 15). I am pleased to have contributed to what is now known of this attractive object though and have found myself a new Egyptology hero in Andrew MacCallum to take an interest in.

Acknowledgements
I owe many thanks to Dr Alice Stevenson, World Archaeology Researcher at the Pitt Rivers Museum, for kindly providing me with a copy of Pitt-Rivers’ article on chert in Egypt, Caroline Graves-Brown’s thesis, bringing my attention to the UC16205 knife in the Petrie Museum and the finds at Hierakonpolis, and for lots of other helpful suggestions and recommendations. Thanks also go to Dr Joanna Kyffin at the Egypt Exploration Society for her permission to reproduce the line drawing of the knife found by Petrie at Abydos.

Notes
[1] The chronology used is that of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York as of August 2010.
[2] This knife was found in the Osiris Temenos at Abydos and although Petrie (1902: 11) does not provide a specific date for it, he does illustrate it with other flint knives without handles belonging to the first half of the 1st Dynasty, and later dates the identical one mentioned, also from Abydos, to the 1st Dynasty (Petrie 1925: 6 and Plate 6, Figure 1).
[3] Search for UC16205 here.
[4] See the statistics here.
[5] Flint is a form of chert, see here.
[6] Edwards even wrote to Pitt-Rivers (L563) looking for financial support for the Society (originally called the Egypt Exploration Fund) in 1888 (Stevenson, no date).
[7] I would have been really pleased if the author of this article had been the Egyptologist, Anna (Nina) de Garis Davies, and the ‘s’ of these initials to have been a typo. Although the QWERTY keyboard was invented in 1868 (Computer Hope 2012), Nina de Garis Davies was not born until 1881 (Bierbrier 1995: 117), two years after this article was written.
[8] Petrie (1902: 16) later found a grave at Abydos, M14, containing eight flint bracelets, but did not publish any illustrations of them in his field report.
[9] A bow (1884.15.106) and spear (1884.19.160) collected by MacCallum in Sudan were also acquired by Pitt-Rivers, and an Egyptian tablet and set of canopic jars of his made their way to the British Museum in London (Bierbrier 1995: 265-266).
[10] The mummification process is further discussed on my object biography of Canopic Jars 1884.57.13 - .17.1 and 1884.67.28.
[11] Figure 3 is courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society

Further Reading
Bierbrier, M.I. 1995. Who Was Who in Egyptology (third edition), Egypt Exploration Society: London.
Blackwood, B.M. 1964. Handlist to Subject Index, Pitt Rivers Museum: unpublished.
Brier, B. 1996. Egyptian Mummies: Unravelling the Secrets of an Ancient Art, O’Mara: London.
Computer Hope 2012. Available at: www.computerhope.com/jargon/q/qwerty.htm (accessed on 5 April 2012).
de G.S., A. 1879. ‘Andrew M’Callum,’ The New York Times, April 13, 1879. Online edition: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F20B1FF9395A137B93C1A8178FD85F4D8784F9.
Diodorus of Sicily, Book 1, translated by C.H. Oldfather, 1933. Loeb Classical Library, Heinemann: London.
Edwards, A. 2010. A Thousand Miles Up the Nile, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Friedman, R. Maish, A., Fahmy, A.G., Darnell, J.C. and Johnson, E.D. 1999. ‘Preliminary Report on the Fieldwork at Hierakonpolis: 1996-1998,’ Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 36, 1-35.
Graves-Brown, C.A. 2010. The Ideological Significance of Flint in Dynastic Egypt (Volume 1), unpublished PhD thesis, University College London: London.
Hendrickx, S. 2011. ‘Iconography of the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods,’ in Teeter, E. (ed.), Before the Pyramids, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: Chicago.
Herodotus, The Histories, translated by R. Waterfield 1998, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Ikram, S. and Dodson, A. 1998. The Mummy in Ancient Egypt: Equipping the Dead for Eternity, Thames and Hudson: London.
Long, B.S. 2004. ‘MacCallum, Andrew (1821-1902),’ rev. Mary Guyatt, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Online edition, May 2006: www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/34675.
Parkinson, R.B. 1997. The Tale of Sinuhe and Other Ancient Egyptian Poems: 1940-1640 BC, Clarendon Press: Oxford.
Parkinson, R.B. 2002. Poetry and Culture in Middle Kingdom Egypt: A Dark Side to Perfection, Continuum: London.
Peck, W.H. 1998. ‘Mummies of Ancient Egypt,’ in Cockburn, A., Cockburn, E. and Reyman, T.A. (eds.), Mummies, Disease and Ancient Cultures, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 15-37.
Petch, A. 1999. ‘Cataloguing the PRM founding Collection,’ Journal of Museum Ethnography 11, 95-104. Online here.
Petch, A. 2009. Founding Collection Introduction
Petrie, W.M.F. 1902. Abydos: Part I, Egypt Exploration Fund: London.
Petrie, F. 1925. Tombs of the Courtiers and Oxyrhynkhos, British School of Archaeology in Egypt, University College London: London.
Pitt Rivers, A. 1882. ‘On the Discovery of Chert Implements in Stratified Gravel in the Nile Valley Near Thebes,’ Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 11, 382-400. Online: www.jstor.org/stable/2841765.
Pitt Rivers Museum 2009. Pitt Rivers Museum: An Introduction, University of Oxford: Oxford.
Porphyry, De L’Abstinence, translated by M. Patillon and A. Segonds 1995, Les Belles Lettres: Paris.
Rees, J. 1998. Amelia Edwards: Traveller, Novelist and Egyptologist, Rubicon: London.
Reisner, G.A. 1936. The Development of the Egyptian Tomb Down to the Accession of Cheops, Harvard University Press: Cambridge.
Spencer, A.J. 1993. Early Egypt: The Rise of Civilisation in the Nile Valley, British Museum Press: London.
Stevenson, A. (no date). Pitt-Rivers and Egypt, online here.
Stevenson, A. 2011. ‘Material Culture of the Predynastic Period,’ in Teeter, E. (ed.), Before the Pyramids, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: Chicago.
Supreme Council of Antiquities (no date). A Brief History of the Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA): 1858 to present. Available at: www.sca-egypt.org/eng/sca_history.htm (accessed on 6 April 2012).
Teeter, E. 2011. Before the Pyramids, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: Chicago.
Wilkinson, T.A.H. 2000. ‘What a King is This: Narmer and the Concept of the Ruler,’ Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 86, 23-32.

May 2012.

‘On Primitive Locks and Keys’

2012-02-17T09:19:43+00:00

{joomplu:960 detail align right}

A recent acquisition reuniting with the old

Faye Belsey, Pitt Rivers Museum.

On a mild September day I travelled to Dorset to collect a number of objects previously belonging to Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt-Rivers. Kindly offered to the Museum by his great-grandson, Anthony Pitt-Rivers, among these objects were a collection of rather rusted and sorry looking locks and keys, numbering 105 items along with a collection of fine Mexican carved stone figurines (2010.78.1- .38), a pottery pig (2010.81.3) and two pottery lamps (2010.81.1 & .2).

The locks and keys were of particular interest. In terms of learning more about General Pitt-Rivers' collecting habits and theoretical approaches to the evolution of form, locks and keys play a pivotal role. Certainly from around the time he inherited an estate and fortune from his great-uncle, but possibly long before, Pitt-Rivers had been particularly interested in the development of locks and keys. A large number from all over the world, particularly strong areas of representation being Europe and the UK, are to be found in both his second collection and the founding collection housed at the Pitt Rivers Museum, a number of which are displayed in the Lower Gallery of the Museum in Case 72.A & 73.A. Some of the earliest keys in the founding collection are Romano-British, obtained largely from excavations that General Pitt-Rivers would have been well informed of, if not had carried out himself, such as those finds from London Wall. Pitt Rivers excavated part of the London Wall in October - December 1866 at the site of a foundation of a new wool warehouse, the site was 70 x 200 feet. He found fragments of pottery, metal and leatherwork, Roman coins, animal bones (identified by Richard Owen), Augustus Wollaston Franks identified the Roman Samian ware [Chapman, 1981: 249-50] [see Bowden, 1991]. It is possible that 1884.2.30 - .35 were excavated at this time.

{joomplu:965 detail align right}

Of the 105 locks and keys donated to the Museum in 2010 by Anthony Pitt-Rivers, four are provenanced to London, only two of which are Romano-British; 2010.80.8 ‘Roman Bronze Key found at City Excavations’ (description recorded in the catalogue of the second collection); 2010.80.9 ‘Key found in London (Pitt Rivers vellum label attached to key, it is possible that this key could match with four keys recorded in the catalogue of the second collection of General Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt-Rivers held by Cambridge University Library. The possibilities are: "Add.9455vol1_p16 /2 Date: Ditto [1882 May 1] Description of article: Series of Twenty Three (23) ancient Roman Keys. Found in London..." or "Add.9455vol3_p826 /13, 14 & 15 Description of object: Bought at Sotheby’s, Wellington Street, Strand, London... three Roman iron keys..." however the match is not possible due to insufficient information associated directly to the object and lack of illustrations in the catalogue).

Pitt-Rivers' early interest in the development of locks and keys culminated in the publication of On the Development of Primitive Locks and Keys in 1883. Though published ‘late’ in the General’s collecting career it was an important year for progressing towards immortalizing his legacy and establishing the Pitt-Rivers Museum in Oxford, in the previous year he had entered in negotiations with the University of Oxford to establish a Pitt-Rivers Museum and in May 1884 the deed of gift of founding collection to the University of Oxford is signed and locks and keys are a notable part of the founding collection. Though focusing on locks and keys, the volume also hinted at speculative theory of the development and distribution of forms that the General later applied to other examples of material culture and used as a basis to organize the displays at the Pitt-Rivers Museum, Oxford. I think it is worth quoting from Primitive Locks and Keys to highlight this point:

{joomplu:966 detail align right}

…It is sometimes thought when simple contrivances such as weapons of stone and bronze, some of the simpler kinds of ornaments, and of tools obviously adapted to primeval life are found to extend over wide areas, and in places very remote from one another, that the few ideas necessary for the construction and use of them might easily have suggested themselves independently in different places. To the student of primitive culture who has become impressed with the persistency of art forms, this independent origin of such things does not appear so certain even in the case of the most simple contrivances. But when we come to a complex piece of mechanism, such as a spring padlock having several parts—the spring, the case, the parallel bar, and the key, in all of which the resemblance is maintained in distant countries, and which, with slight modification and continuously progressive improvements, are put together in the same manner in all parts of the world—such a supposition cannot be admitted, the necessity for a common origin is apparent, and the study of the periods and the circumstances connected with the distribution of it cannot be set aside as superfluous.

Assuming that the tumbler pin-lock and the spring padlock cannot be traced back earlier in Europe than the commencement of our era, it is by no means certain that they may not have existed earlier elsewhere. The commerce carried on with the East in early times was of a nature to render it very probable that any contrivance for securing goods should have spread from place to place with the merchandise exported and imported between China, India, and Europe. A brief survey of the trade relations between different countries will be sufficient to show this…” (pp.26 – 27)

{joomplu:971 detail align right}

The publication is well illustrated with a number of plates. On the opening page of the volume Pitt-Rivers states that:

The materials for this paper, together with the rest of the Museum, have been in course of Collection since the year 1851, and some of the specimens illustrated here have been exhibited to the public at Bethnal Green and South Kensington for some years.

This tells us that from his early days of collecting, functional objects and what he refers to as ‘simple contrivances’ such as locks and keys held a great interest for him. Sadly it is not possible to match most of the objects illustrated to objects in the collections. However, on receiving the 105 locks and keys from the General's original collections I endeavored to match as many as possible to the catalogues of the second collection and the publication. This took a small feat of detective work.

{joomplu:957 detail align right}

Unfortunately the original vellum labels Pitt-Rivers attached to objects had become stiff and brittle over time and were mostly lost from the locks and keys and those that still had them attached were incredibly fragile and liable to breaking in any attempt to read them. In some cases though, from the information on the vellum labels, it was possible to match objects to catalogue entries and also to illustrations and references in Primitive locks and Keys. This is a credit to the skill of the draftsmen who illustrated the second collection catalogues and the illustrations in the publication. Despite this only 10 keys and locks were found to possibly feature in Primitive Locks and Keys and none of these were found to appear in the second collection catalogues.

Of those matched to the publication, it is possible that 2010.80.67 is one, a Roman key from Switzerland, illustrated in Plate III, Figure 27 B ‘Key to raise a single tumbler lock found at Nonfous, Switzerland, Roman (‘La Ferronnerie’)’. Illustrated in the same plate are a number of Roman keys and tumbler locks from Europe which on page 11 the General goes on to explain the distribution of tumbler locks determined by the localities in which the locks and keys have been found; France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland and England. The key featured as figure 27 B serves to illustrate the type of key adapted to fit single tumbler bolts, and such a bolt is featured alongside it as figure 26 B ‘Bolt for single tumbler found in the Forest of Compiègne, Roman (‘La Ferronnarie’)’, adapted from the Roman keys with teeth designed for bolts with several tumbler holes in them (or it could be said that one type ‘developed’ from the other), as illustrated in the same plate alongside the two keys mentioned.

2010.80.67: though very rusted it is possible that this key is the key illustrated as fig. 27 B in Plate III, shown here:

In terms of being able to match any of the 105 keys from the 2010 acquisition to existing entries in the Cambridge University Library catalogue of the second collection of General Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt-Rivers, this proved even more difficult -- only 9 were found to match entries. This was largely possible due to the existing label attached to the object and illustrations in the catalogue. Those that matched were:

2010.80.1 [lock] & 2010.80.7 [key] – The Pitt Rivers Museum label - [Label attached to object on donation to the museum in 2010, now in RDF] LOCK FROM OLD CHURCH DOOR AT SHREWTON PRESENTED BY MR J. BROWN SALISBURY. P. 1013 was found to match the Accession entry - Entry in the Cambridge University Library held catalogue of the second collection of General Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt-Rivers volume 3 page 1013, Add.9455vol3_p1013 /6: "Date: Aug. Description of object: Presented by Mr James Brown Salisbury... Lock and key, from an old Church door at Shrewton, Wilts [2 Drawings annotated 1/4] Price: Presented. Deposited at: Removed to: Room 4 drawer under case 13 [in red].

2010.80.2 – The Pitt Rivers Museum label - EUROPE, UK, SCOTLAND, SHETLAND ISLANDS. Wooden chest lock. Don. by G. A. Pitt-Rivers, 2010 was found to match the Accession entry - Entry in the Cambridge University Library held catalogue of the second collection of General Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt-Rivers volume 3 page 960, Add.9455vol3_p960 /1: "Date: 1893 June 15. Description of object: [Sale of Bateman Coll: Sotherby] ... Bateman Coll: Sotheby ... Lot 259 Contd A wooden chest lock of Shetland fabric Length 3 7/8 in [Drawing] Price: Lot 259 £2.14. Deposited at: Removed to: Room 4 case 10 [in red].

2010.80.6 .1 & .2 – The PRM label - [broken] Reproduction of Roman lock from materials found at artaunium (Saalburg) Obtained from Homburg was found to match the Accession entry - Cambridge University Library held catalogue of the second collection of General Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt-Rivers volume 2 page 254, Add.9455vol2_p254 /14: "Date: Aug & Sept 1886. Description of object: Objects from Homburg ... Reproduction of a Roman lock from materials found at Artaunum (Saalburg) Homburg [Drawing] Price: Deposited at: Museum Lock collection Rm IV Transferred to: Room IV case 10 [in red].

2010.80.8 – The PRM label [mostly illegible] ROMAN BRONZE KEY FROM CITY EXCAVATIONS. HILTON PRICE COLL. SIMILAR TO ENGLISH LATCH KEY matched the Accession entry - Entry in the Cambridge University Library held catalogue of the second collection of General Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt-Rivers volume 2 page 47, Add.9455vol2_p47 /4. Date: 28 May 1884 Description of article: Bought of Fenton & Sons, Holywell Street Strand ... Roman Bronze key found in City Excavations [Drawing] Price: Deposited at: Museum Farnham Transfered to: Rushmore 25.9.87 [may only relate to padlock] Added: Room IV case II [in red].

2010.80.12 – The object matched the illustration and information given in the Accession entry Accession entry - Entry in the Cambridge University Library held catalogue of the second collection of General Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt-Rivers volume 2 page 251, Add.9455vol2_p251 /4. Date: Aug & Sept 1886 Description of article: Objects from Nuremburg ... A lock and key from Nuremburg [2 Drawing] Price: 14.10 Deposited at: Ditto [P. M. F. Transfered to: Added: Room 4 case 2 [in red].

2010.80.13 – The object matched the illustration and information given in the Accession entry - Entry in the Cambridge University Library held catalogue of the second collection of General Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt-Rivers volume 2 page 329, Add.9455vol2_p329 /4. Date: 1887 Description of object: Chinese padlock and key Presented to General Pitt Rivers by John Evans Esq [Drawing] Added note: Accompanying these Padlocks is a letter from Edward Peacock ESq of Bottesford Manor, Brigg, about a lock in his possession with a drawing of the object Price: Deposited at: Museum Farnham (8) Added: Room IV case I2 (no key) [in red]

2010.80.52 – The PRM label Pitt Rivers Museum label - PADLOCK FOUND IN CRANE ST SALISBURY NR THE AUDLEY HOUSE, TO WHICH IT PROBABLY BELONGED. PRES. BY MR J. BROWN [on reverse p. 1013 aw. 194 matched the Accession entry - Entry in the Cambridge University Library held catalogue of the second collection of General Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt-Rivers volume 3 page 1013, Add.9455vol3_p1013 /7: "Date: Aug. Description of object: Presented by Mr James Brown Salisbury ... Iron padlock, found in Crane Street, Salisbury, near the old Audley House, to which it probably belonged. Presented by Mr James Brown, South View, Salisbury [Drawing annotated 1/4] Price: Presented. Deposited at: Removed to: Room 4 drawer under case 13 [in red].

The collecting of locks and keys by General Pitt-Rivers reflects the fact that he was an opportunistic collector, taking the opportunity to add to his collection when and wherever possible. Pitt-Rivers holidayed in Germany and Austria in July 1882 and evidently bought a number of objects for his collections on this visit, among them locks and keys. In the founding collection objects with the number 14860 were obtained in Austria and Germany including a bunch of 9 keys; 1884.2.13 .1 - .9.

No provenance is given for this object in the Accession Book. Note that this bunch is probably one of the ones listed on an insert page [between pages 80 and 81] in vol 1 of the Pitt Rivers Catalogues of the Farnham Museum currently housed in the Cambridge University Library Manuscripts room, the page is headed 'List of Articles to go to Museum' as 'Bunch of Roman keys Bronze (11) Simmering Austria'. It was collected by Pitt Rivers during a visit to Germany and Austria in 1882. However only 10 have been tentatively identified. Note that if this identification is right these keys come from Simmering in Austria. ?It is also mentioned on page 85 (including 1884.2.13) with drawing: "Bunch of Roman Keys. 10 in number on Ring. Bronze, Simmering Austria." It is possible that some of the keys with a German and Austrian provenance in the 2010 acquisition were purchased on the same trip.

Pitt-Rivers also collected locks and keys from the usual sources; Auction houses, notably Sotheby’s; 2010.80.2 has written on the object: “LOT 259 SOTHEBY JU:93. BATEMAN COLL: P.960. OLD SHETLAND CHEST LOCK.” Thomas Bateman was, an English antiquary and barrow-digger, his collection was sold by public auction in 1893.

Locks and keys were also purchased from Fenton & Sons, London ‘Dealers of Antiques and Articles of Vertu’. Some of the locks and keys were purchased from James Brown, a resident of Salisbury or Sarum, Wiltshire according to the accession book, his collection was sold, both Goddard and Pitt Rivers bought at that sale.

{joomplu:958 detail align right}

It would appear that Pitt-Rivers possibly purchased contemporary English locks and keys from locksmiths and hardware stores. A few of the more ‘modern’ (Victorian) English locks in the 2010 acquisition were made by Boobbyers often inscribed as 'BOOB BYER & CO' on the latch, such as the box lock with key 2010.80.14. After corresponding with Brian Moorland, curator of the History of Locks Museum it was interesting the find out that 'Boobbyers were like the B&Q of Victorian times and sold everything from nails to pails in their London store. They also had a large department selling all sorts of patent and branded locks.’ A second lock; 2010.80.16 is inscribed on the latch with 'V R' (Victoria Regina) and crown, 'Detecter Patent' and 'BoobBayer & Sons 14 Stanhope Street, London WC' Like B&Q today some products where the original patent has expired were copied and offered with their own name on, hence the lock clearly marked 'Detector Patent'. Chubb was the most celebrated of the detector locks but other less well known detector patents were by firms like Tann, Marr and Cotterill. Brian Moorland was able to date this lock to the Mid Victorian period.

It is possible with the more modern locks to find out about the manufacturer or origins of the lock from what information is inscribed on the object itself, often patenting information as in the case of 2010.80.15 where the words 'Barron's Patent have been inscribed on the inside and outside of the lock. In 1778, Robert Barron patented the double-acting tumbler lock, the first reasonable improvement in lock security. The tumbler (or lever) falls into a slot in the bolt which will yield only if the tumbler is lifted out of the slot to exactly the right height. As its description suggests, the Baron lock had two such levers, each of which had to be lifted to a different height before the bolt could be withdrawn. Barron's device was developed further in 1818 by Jeremiah Chubb, who incorporated into the lock a spring mechanism which would catch and hold any lever that had been raised too high by a lock picker. Not only did this add another level of security, it showed when the lock had been tampered with.

So the large majority of the 2010 acquisition of locks and keys belonging to the collections of General Pitt-Rivers kindly donated by his Great Grandson Anthony Pitt-Rivers and now amalgamated into the collections of the Pitt-Rivers Museum, Oxford were for the most part not matched to any existing documentation but none the less form an important function in the discourse of Pitt River’s collecting habits and thinking. From the global range and variety of form evident from looking at the assemblage of locks and keys as a whole, especially when reunited with locks and keys from the founding collection it is possible to apply Pitt-River’s theories of development and distribution; the evolution of form through the direct comparison of objects of the same type.

In the Pitt-Rivers papers held at Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum there are some letters relating to locks and keys which must relate to Primitive Locks and Keys. The first obviously relates to his research:

L86

Chubb & Sons
Lock and Safe Compy Ltd
Patent Safe and Detector Lock Warehouse
128 Queen Victoria Street
London EC
March 21st 1883

Major General Pitt Rivers
4 Grosvenor Gardens
S.W.

Dear Sir,
I am unable to find out where those wooden locks came from today but may perhaps be able to do so in the course of a week or so. I hope to be able to go up & see your collection next week I will then see if we could spare any of our locks, so as to complete your collection, but I have so much pressing work on just now that I am afraid I cannot look into the matter before then.

I enclose an old pamphlet * that may be of some use to you.

I am, Dear Sir,
Yours faithfully
John C: Chubb

Copy of yellow paper-bound pamphlet 'On the Construction of Locks and Keys' by John Chubb, Assoc. Inst. C.E. Institute of Civil Engineering vol IX

And the other two relate to his circulation of the paper to interested colleagues:

L100

Nash Mills. Hemel Hempstead

June 8 1883

My dear Pitt Rivers

I have glanced over your Essay on Locks and Keys which is very interesting You will find a few verbal suggestions and corrections in pencil. ... As to the subject itself you have paid much more attention to it than I have - I am not however sure that the Saxon T ended articles are really keys. They generally occur in pairs and have often their an iron loop connecting them. Was there not some connection between Rome and China for steel? I have an impression that Pliny mentions it - See my Bronze book p. 10 If stell, why not locks. Your Greek words want the accents to be added - I am sorry I have not more time to go into the matter - I called the other morning in the hopes of seeing you but found in were off to Oxford.

[Illegible salutation]

John Evans

L118

124 Buckingham Palace Road
London SW
July 28/ 83

I write to acknowledge the receipt of your admirable monograph on Locks, for which I hope you will accept my very best thanks. It contains an immense amount of valuable information on the subject and being treated from the "development" point of view all the facts fall into their places [insert] so [end insert] naturally and complicated problems assume a simplicity, which must carry conviction, even to such back-sliders as the British Museum authorities, that this is the only rational method to employ. As no doubt you intend to describe other portions of your anthropological collection in a similar way it will help greatly to revolutionise the antiquated systems of arrangement adopted at most museums and make the public take a more intelligent interest in such matters than they do at present.

I am glad to find that you have considered the few notes I sent you of sufficient importance to be commented on and utilised in your book. I venture to enclose one or two remarks on the plates, which illustrate your work, in case the facts I mention may be new to you. When I wrote my paper on wooden locks for the Soc. Ant. Scot. I had not had the advantage of studying your collection, and was only working on the surface so to speak.

I remain
Yrs very truly
J. Romilly Allen

Source: Rethinking Pitt-Rivers | Primitive Locks and Keys

It is likely that he had a much wider correspondence, but it appears this has not survived.

Marathon Spearheads

2011-08-08T07:39:08+00:00

{joomplu:818 detail align right}

Re-thinking Marathon: two 'memorabilia' from the battle of Marathon at the Pitt-Rivers

Dr Yannis Galanakis, Department of Antiquities Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford

Introduction

Among the objects in the founding collection of Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt-Rivers, and within a relatively small group of ancient Greek antiquities, are two iron socketed spearheads. The first of the two spearheads (1884.120.42; FIGURES 1, 2, 5) has a much-corroded, leaf-shaped blade, with a slightly-pronounced midrib and a socket, which still contains traces of the wooden haft (total length: 26.5 x max. blade width: 4.4cm, 125gr). The second spearhead (1884.120.43; FIGURES 3, 4, 5), also badly-corroded, has a long narrow blade with a slightly-pronounced midrib and is curved upwards [1] (total length: 35.1cm x max. blade width 3cm, 126gr).

A label written on both spears informs us about their previous owner and their alleged provenance, to which I return below in more detail (‘P.R. 1531 R. PORRET, F.S.A. Coll. TUMULUS AT MARATHON, GREECE’). According to the records in Oxford, Pitt-Rivers sent these objects to Bethnal Green Museum for display, as part of the first batch of objects sent there, probably in 1874. Both spearheads were listed in the Delivery Catalogue of 1884 to the Pitt Rivers Museum as having been transferred to Oxford from the South Kensington Museum (later V&A), where they were once also on display. [2] Since then, however, they appear not to have been displayed at the Pitt Rivers Museum itself.

What makes the two spearheads stand out is that despite an interest in arms and armour from the famous battlefield of Marathon among 19th century travellers and collectors, these are the only weapons of this type known today that are said to come from ‘a tumulus at Marathon’ and thus associated with the battle. Their rarity makes the following discussion all the more interesting, given that in 2010, when this research on the spearheads was conducted, the 2500th anniversary of the famous battle was celebrated. [3]

The spearheads belong to well known types, [4] which are both chronologically attested in the 7th and 6th centuries BC (i.e. the ‘archaic period’) and could thus make potential (but certainly not definite) candidates for a 490 BC context, when the battle of Marathon took place. Although it is impossible to validate today the use of these weapons in this particular battle, we can certainly venture a history of these objects and of other memorabilia attributed to Marathon, all of which are now in collections outside Greece. This small contribution attempts a meta-narrative interpretation of these ancient objects and their lifecycle in the 19th century.

{joomplu:819 detail align right}

The modern life of the Oxford spearheads can be traced before 1874, when they were already in the possession of the General Pitt-Rivers. From the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London, we learn that ‘Richard Porrett, Esq., FSA’ exhibited specimens of ancient weapons and ‘two spear-heads from a tumulus at Marathon’ during the society’s meeting on 5 June 1851. [5] The label on the objects supports this report since it reproduces the same information regarding their previous owner, ‘R. PORRET, F.S.A.’. However, despite the fact that the society’s report mentions a ‘Richard Porrett’ (note also the double –tt– at the end of the surname, unlike the single –t– that is marked on the blades of the spearheads), the only Porrett with an expertise in weapons and a member of the Society of Antiquaries (since 1840) and of the Royal Society (from 1848) was Robert Porrett (1783-1868); a chemist, storekeeper and keen antiquarian. [6] As his father was an ordnance storekeeper at the Tower of London, Robert had the opportunity to study antiquities and become an authority on armour writing articles in the society’s proceedings and in Archaeologia. For this reason, it looks more likely that the individual associated with these Marathon spearheads in this instance is Robert rather than ‘Richard’ Porrett (the name ‘Richard’ perhaps being a typo in the society’s 1851 report). If this identification is correct, then one can perhaps assume that sometime between 1868, when Robert Porrett died, and 1874, General Pitt-Rivers became the new English owner of the two spearheads. [7] Given the General’s interest in arms and armour, there is no surprise that the two spearheads ended up in his collection, which after all began in the 1850s as a small collection of weapons. [8]

The large tumulus at Marathon in the 18th and 19th centuries AD

Marathon became famous in world history when in 490 BC the joint Greek forces (mainly Athens aided by Plataea) fought against the Persians and their allies, during the first Persian invasion of Greece. [9] The rather small Greek army, as described in the ancient sources, fought against a numerically stronger opponent. [10] The battle, which is considered one of the most important in world history, ended with a victory for the Greek side, which prevented Persian attempts to subjugate the southern Greek states – at least for the time being. A second attempt in 480-478 BC ended with the same result and the retreat of the Persians from Europe.

The Society’s 1851 report gives as a provenance for the two spearheads, displayed by Porrett in the society’s meeting, ‘a tumulus at Marathon’, while the label on the spearheads reads: ‘tumulus from Marathon’. Although many tumuli once existed in the plain of Marathon (see also discussion below), it appears likely that both the society’s report and the label on the object allude to the tumulus at Marathon – the most famous and visible landmark in the area, which travellers and antiquarians visited as early as the 1670s. [11]

{joomplu:820 detail align right}

From the late 18th century and throughout the 19th century the interest for the location of the battlefield and the general area of Marathon increased, as did the number of travellers to Greece. The English antiquary Richard Chandler (1738-1810), who visited Marathon in August 1765 and published his account a few years later, [12] expressed the view that the ‘principal barrow’ that still towers above the level of the plain was that of the 192 ‘gallant Athenians’, [13] who according to the ancient sources fell in the battle of Marathon. Chandler, in an 19th century romantic and at the same time nostalgic way, later compared to friends the tumulus at Marathon with the castle-mound in Oxford, where he lived.[14]

In October 1788, Louis François Sébastian Fauvel (1753-1838) – a painter, antiquarian and French consul in Athens – conducted an eight-day excavation in the most visible landmark on the plain Marathon: the tymbos or soros or large tumulus as it is also known (about 9m in height above ground x min. 50m in diameter).[15] This brief research on the soros did not yield the finds Fauvel was expecting and for this reason he decided to turn his attention to other areas in the plain, richer in finds, which he later sold to various museums.[16]

Soon after Fauvel’s dig, the number of travelling parties flocking to the tumulus at Marathon increased. It appears that as early as the late 18th century, travellers who visited Marathon were interested in discovering traces of the ancient battle, especially weapons. For example, in 1801, Edward Clarke and his party ‘had no sooner reached this Tumulus…entered a passage which had been recently excavated towards its interior…and in the examination of the earth…found a great number of arrow-heads, made of common flint…’ collecting many of these in the process. [17] Clarke is critical of Fauvel’s excavation which had seemed to ‘ransack the other hidden contents’ of this ‘lofty sepulchral mound’. Fauvel’s trench presented to ‘the spectator a chasm…visible from the village of Marathon at the distance of two miles and a half’, [18] and revealed to Clarke that the work was ‘ignorantly conducted, as the operation does not extend below the visible base of the mound and the present level of the Plain…in order to find the conditory Sepulchre, if the bodies were not promiscuously heaped towards the centre of the Mound, it would be necessary to carry the excavation much lower.’ [19] Regarding the interpretation of the soros, Clarke noted that ‘some have believed it to be the tomb of the Athenians: others have pretended that is the Sepulchre of the Plataeans’. [20] The idea, that the tumulus was the resting place of the Athenian dead, remained popular in the early 19th century, and changed only temporarily (as we will see below), by Dodwell’s interpretation of the stone ‘arrowheads’ found in the large tumulus. [21]

{joomplu:821 detail align right}

Just a year after Clarke’s visit, another attempt to excavate the soros took place. In 1802, Lord and Lady Elgin returning to Attica from the island of Kea landed on Marathon with their entourage. [22] Despite the fact that their research was no more successful than that of Fauvel’s, they also searched for weapons, a sign of the collecting frenzy that developed for Marathon memorabilia.

It is from this point onwards that Marathon became an ubiquitous destination for travellers and antiquarians in Greece. Edward Dodwell (1767-1832), the Irish painter who travelled extensively around the country, visited Marathon in 1806. In his reminiscences of this trip, published in 1819, he remarked that: [23] ‘the great tumulus has been opened, but without success; because it was not excavated to a sufficient depth. It is singular that no ancient armour has ever been found in the plain of Marathon, nor scarcely any relics of the many thousands who perished in this memorable field. Time may bring to light some interesting particulars; and a proper examination of the tumuli would be productive of objects of interest to the antiquarian and the historian…’

Dodwell’s information is interesting, because with the exception of ‘some fragments of coarse pottery and a great many small arrow heads of black flint, which probably belonged to the Persian army’, nothing else was found on the tumulus. Only in the plain, Dodwell remarked that ‘almonds of lead’ (sling-shots) are sometimes discovered there as in ‘different parts of Attica; and are generally not larger than the fruit with the shell on. They were used by the slingers, and are sometimes inscribed.’ [24] Dodwell’s idea that the tumulus might have been the burial ground of the Persians who feel in the battle of Marathon, based on the stone ‘arrowheads’, became popular in the early decades of the 19th century.

A contemporary to Dodwell, Sir William Gell (1777-1836), who travelled extensively around Greece and the islands in 1804-1806 and 1811, noted in his 1827 Itinerary of Greece that ‘the tumulus, supposed that of the Persians, toward the centre of the plain…consists of a large heap of earth, in which are found arrow heads of brass, and others of flint, apparently such as were used by the Ethiopians, who joined the Persian invaders, according to Herodotus.’ [25] Although Gell is one of the earliest sources mentioning the presence of ‘arrow heads of brass’ on the mound, it is not clear from his description whether he actually found any himself, as a few lines below he repeats the information already mentioned by Dodwell, that ‘the tumulus has been opened, but nothing has been discovered, nor is it cut down to the level of the natural soil.’ [26]

Thus, between 1800 and 1830, the soros or large tumulus at Marathon had become a tourist attraction and a source of stone ‘arrowheads’, allegedly – and rather uncritically – associated with the mercenaries of the Persian army. [27] Yet, no bones, or any other arms and armour were mentioned in the description of the early travellers, most of which were tempted to dig something out for themselves. That metal arrowheads and sling-shots might have come to light from any location within the extensive plain is a possibility, not least because these types of objects are neither limited to Marathon nor to this battle, but are attested throughout Greece. Nevertheless, there are doubts as to whether the sling-shots would have actually been used as early as 490 BC, since most scholars place their introduction sometime in the second half of the fifth century BC. [28]

{joomplu:822 detail align right}

When in 1906 Saumarez Brock sold a number of metal arrowheads, rivets and a few metal ornaments to the British Museum [BM], she informed the museum that these had been discovered during a dig conducted by her father, Admiral Brock, in 1830 in ‘a grave at Marathon’. Although some scholars, such as the eminent ancient historian Nicholas Hammond, rushed to identify the source of these objects as the soros at Marathon, [29] scholarship was already by that time skeptical about the exact provenance of the Brock material. [30] For example, Forsdyke, writing in 1919-1920, considered the Marathon objects at the BM an accumulation of material coming from a ‘modern shop.’ He was the first to point out clearly that ‘arrowheads no doubt find a readier sale as relics of a famous victory rather than on their own merits, and it would probably be found that Marathon has always been an attractive source of curiosities for the traveller. It ought not to be accepted as a provenance for ancient weapons without good evidence of their discovery.’ [31] Forsdyke was sceptical not least because Admiral Brock’s dig was not – at least by name – known prior to 1906.

These early ‘excavations’ were nothing extraordinary; on the contrary, it appears that like the Elgins had done in 1802, travelling parties to the site developed a strong interest in digging up holes in search of memorabilia on the tumulus of Marathon, perhaps tempted by the fact that it was already half-open. There are many stories to suggest that Admiral Brock’s activities were far from an isolated incident: for example, commodore Elliott during his cruise in the Levant collected a number of various curious remains of antiquity ‘dug up from the plains of Marathon and of Troy’, [32] while Heathcote Campion who visited tombs in Greece in 1836 noted that ‘the tumulus [at Marathon] was opened some years ago, and nothing but a helmet and a quantity of flint arrow-heads were found’. Although it is impossible to ascertain to which ‘opening’ of the tumulus Campion is alluding here, the ‘discovery of a helmet’ [33] may perhaps refer to an ancient Greek helmet of the Corinthian type with a skull purportedly found inside it, allegedly in 1834, and now in the Royal Ontario Museum in Canada. If there is any connection between the two, then Campion’s note may refer to any recent (1830s) excavation at Marathon, though not necessarily in the area of the tumulus.

I hope to have made clear by this point, if not by Forsdyke’s comment above, that the association of objects, especially weaponry, with the tumulus – the most visible landmark in the plain – made the various memorabilia circulating in the market at the time even more memorable and worth purchasing. For this reason, any ‘association’ of objects allegedly from ‘Marathon’ should not be uncritically used, especially if the circumstances of their discovery remain unclear. [34]

{joomplu:823 detail align right}

By 1836, the demand in Marathon memorabilia was such that the unauthorized excavations on the tumulus and in the plain got significantly out of hand. The excavations of the ‘speculators in antiquities’, as described by Finlay, or ‘antiquities hunters’ according to Wilde, [35] had left the tumulus in a rather deplorable state as suggested by the 1838 engraving of the soros (FIGURE 6). [36] On 12 May 1836, the Greek Minister of Education responsible for cultural affairs, Iakovos Rizos Neroulos, sent a decree to the Provincial Directorate of Attica specifically prohibiting any unauthorized excavation: ‘being informed that foreign travellers passing via Marathon are frequently excavating, with the help of the locals, in the very tumulus [mound] of those Athenians who fell in the battle (the so-called soros) in order to find arrow heads, and wishing this most ancient monument of Greek glory to remain untouched and untroubled, we ask you to issue as quickly as possible the necessary orders to the municipal authority of Marathon, so that it is not allowed for anyone on any pretext to excavate the afore-mentioned tumulus or the other monuments on the field of battle.’ [37]

Apart from the ransacking of the tumulus in search of ‘arrow heads’, an important aspect raised by the decree of Neroulos is that the monument had to be protected, above all because it was ‘the very tumulus of those Athenians who fell in the battle.’ It can thus be observed that by the 1830s, and perhaps slightly earlier, scholarship had already returned to the original idea, expressed in the 18th century by scholars such as Chandler, mentioned above, that the large tumulus at Marathon is better interpreted as the resting place of the 192 Athenians rather than the Persians and their mercenaries who fell in the battle, despite the fact that no ancient source describes the burial of the Athenians, or that of the Persians for that matter, as a ‘tumulus’. [38] In addition, Neroulos’ point that the tumulus represents a ‘most ancient monument of Greek glory’ came at a time when Greece had just achieved its independence from the Ottoman Empire (in 1830). The struggle of Greeks for independence, progressively and during the course of the revolution (1821-1830), was linked to the struggle of the ancient Greeks to stop the Persians from invading Europe.

That this was indeed the ‘tumulus of the Athenians’ was supported further by William Martin Leake (1777-1860), [39] a contemporary of Dodwell and Gell. Leake, who visited the tumulus in 1802, at the same time as the Elgins, [40] and in 1806, published the reminiscences of his trips many years later and long after Dodwell and Gell. This retrospective approach may explain the inconsistencies observed in his account: for example, while in 1841 he remembered the discovery of ‘many brazen heads of arrows’ [41] (most likely in relation to his 1802 visit), a few years earlier (1835, and most likely in relation to his 1806 visit) he noted that he had heard ‘that arrow heads of bronze have also been found there, but we searched for them without success.’ [42] This extract could offer some support to the view that although metal arrowheads with an alleged provenance from Marathon were circulating in the market, no visitor to the site had ever discovered one, at least by 1830-1840. The only securely identified ‘product’ of the soros, amidst the earthen fill of the mound, were fragments of ‘black flint, rudely shaped by art’ in great numbers [43] - the ‘stone arrowheads’ identified by every visitor to the site from 1800 to the 1830s.

However, by the 1830s it was not only the identification of the tumulus that had changed (from ‘Persian’ to ‘Athenian’), but also the interpretation of the stone ‘arrowheads’. [44] In a paper read on 1838, [45] George Finlay (1799-1875), an antiquarian with property all over Attica, influenced by the observations made by Leake, became the first to identify the mixed layering of the mound. [46] He suggested that the so-called ‘Persian stone arrowheads’, were probably of a much earlier date, while at the same time noting their presence in areas unrelated to the Persian invasion. Finlay interpreted them as prehistoric objects, ‘parts of the weapons and instruments of domestic economy used by the inhabitants of the country who preceded the Hellenes and Pelasgi’. [47] For this reason, he suggested that the earth piled up to form the ‘tumulus of the Athenians’, as he believed, actually belonged to a period much earlier than the battle of Marathon. Even the mineral source of the stone ‘arrowheads’, which in earlier reports was invariably described as ‘flint’ and later as ‘flint and black flint’ or even ‘obsidian and flint’, came under scrutiny [48] (a problem finally settled in the 1860s). [49] To add to the confusion of the possible different uses of the stone ‘arrowheads, Finlay remarked that flints similar to those found on the tumulus were frequently attested in Greece in boards for threshing out grain, [50] and should not thus be unquestionably accepted as weapons and/or even as prehistoric utensils. During the course of the 20th century, archaeological work at various locations within the plain of Marathon has brought to light obsidian and flint arrowheads, dating to the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, [51] and based on the Finlay collection it can be ascertained that the majority of the ‘stone arrowheads’ from the tumulus may have actually belonged to obsidian flakes.

The lack of any metal arrowheads from the digs of Schliemann (1884, supervised by the Greek archaeologist D. Philios [52]) and Staïs (1889-1891) appears to reinforce the idea [53] that the soros was probably not the source of any metal weaponry that surfaced during the course of the 19th century in the art-market. [54] In addition, in the 1870s many more tumuli were identified in the plain (which we now know that they belong to different chronological periods), [55] allowing us to assume (but certainly not prove) that the source of the metal weapons, if indeed from Marathon, might have been any archaic and classical grave in the area. [56] For this reason, the use of both metal and stone ‘arrowheads’ as additional evidence for the identification of the tumulus with the grave of the Athenians [57] should no longer be considered a strong argument.

Heinrich Schliemann (1822-1890) on the basis of the meagre finds in 1884 but also the re-dating of the stone ‘arrow-heads’ to an earlier period, [58] concluded that the tumulus was ‘a mere cenotaph, which belongs most probably to the ninth century B.C.’ [59] The excavations of Valerios Staïs, a few years after Schliemann, brought to light two brick offering trenches, a common funeral feature in 7th and 6th century Attica, for the so-called trench ceremonies. [60] The best preserved of these two trenches was covered with a layer of ashes and charred bones of small animals or birds. [61] In total some 34 pots were found, most of them associated with the offering trenches. They are mainly black-figure pots of the sixth century BC, including several lekythoi. [62] In one of his early reports, Staïs mentions an interesting piece of information: that a corroded spearhead was discovered close to one of the offering trenches and next to the large early sixth-century neck-amphora. [63] Unfortunately, this object is not illustrated, is not mentioned in any of Staïs’ subsequent reports, or any other report ever since. If it exists, it would be the only weapon ever to have been discovered in a proper archaeological excavation in the large tumulus at Marathon, and could potentially offer some support as to the provenance of the Pitt Rivers Museum spearheads.

The assemblage discovered by Staïs is not uncommon in funeral tumuli scattered across the plains of Attica and marking the graves of aristocratic families, while some of the shapes of the pots found in the grave (e.g. the pyxides) have been considered as more appropriate for female burials. [64] However, this material was taken as evidence that proved, once and for all, that the large tumulus at Marathon was that of the Athenian dead.

Staïs’ opinion is now widely, but certainly not unanimously, accepted. [65] The large tumulus possesses, since the 1830s, a central role in the reconstruction of the battle as well as in Modern Greek identity. It has also become part of European identity, with the ancient Greeks taking he role of the defenders of Europe against the eastern threat. [66] Yet, the monument’s poor excavation record (also in terms of excavation practices [67]), the inconsistencies in the evidence (e.g. presence of weapons or not), and the different interpretations regarding the pottery discovered during Staïs’ work (dated between 570 and 490 BC), [68] have all cast doubts on the identification of the tumulus with the burial place of the Athenians, with a number of scholars interpreting it as the burial ground of an aristocratic archaic family.[69]

It is possible that the tumulus may have had a long and rather complicated history, which can only be partially understood today due to the poor excavation of the monument – perhaps a renewed investigation on the tumulus and its immediate vicinity may shed some additional light. [70] Some scholars have suggested that the large tumulus may have started its life as a prehistoric mound. [71] Apart from the early 6th century BC pottery found by Staïs, [72] there is also early 5th century pottery, i.e. contemporary with the battle; but there is also later material, such as the late Roman graves noted by Staïs neat the top of the mound. [73] To cut a long story short: we appear to be dealing with a monument that had a complex lifecycle; a lifecycle that in the last two centuries has been reduced to a single moment – Marathon’s most illustrious moment: the battle of 490 BC. [74] Something similar might be true for the equally problematic ‘tumulus of the Plataeans’ excavated by Spyridon Marinatos in 1970; the mound supposedly used for the burial of the allies of the Athenians who fell in the battle. [75] Yet, the ‘tumulus of the Plataeans’ has not received the same publicity as that of the ‘Athenians’, not least because it does not help reconstruct the battle, which – at least in the 20th century – appears to be the main pre-occupation of scholarship with regard to the large tumulus.

Following the rejection of the ‘stone arrowheads’ as prehistoric flakes, as early as the 1830s, it appears that soon afterwards metal arrowheads became the main source of battle memorabilia from Marathon, with scholars supporting their appropriateness for the Greek army based on descriptions by Homer, who refers to bronze arrowheads with three longitudinal ribs (also know as ‘trilobate’ in the archaeological literature; [76] interestingly these same arrowheads are now considered as typically ‘Persian’ and/or ‘Scythian’). [77] All in all, by the time the two spearheads surfaced in London in 1851, there were plentiful descriptions about the discovery of weapons at Marathon and in association with the tumulus. That a number of travellers mention the existence of metal arrowheads and slingshots (at least from the plain of Marathon) suggests that certain categories of objects were already in demand. Porrett’s spearheads should thus be interpreted under this light and be considered a welcome addition to an ever-increasing corpus of memorabilia allegedly from Marathon. Their connection to ‘a tumulus’ at Marathon could well follow Forsdyke’s argumentation about ascribing provenance to particular landmarks so to increase the intrinsic value of an object, which could perhaps otherwise have seemed mundane.

It is worth noting that references to the discovery of spearheads from Marathon are very rare. With the exception of Staïs’ 1891 reference to a corroded [most likely iron] spearhead, mentioned above, the whereabouts of which remain unknown, there are only two other instances that mention the discovery of similar objects from ‘Marathon’. The first is in 1806 by Nicholas Biddle, who refers, rather obscurely and laconically, to ‘one head of a spear found at Marathon where many have been discovered’. [78] No material is specified in Biddle’s reference, and one cannot exclude the possibility, given the early date when this record was made and the numerous examples quoted, that, in this instance, he might have been referring to arrowheads. The second reference is by Forsdyke who in his 1919-1920 article remarked that ‘the latest accession [from Marathon] is a pair of large iron spearheads and some more leaden slingshot which were dispatched to the BM on loan from his majesty’s armoury in the Tower of London’. [79] Forsdyke’s description leaves little doubt that perhaps more iron spearheads from ‘Marathon’ may have once existed in the market and subsequently in private collections, such as the Tower of London, where Robert Porrett served for 55 years, originally as an assistant in the department of royal armouries (from the age of 12) and later as chief curator. From one of his obituaries we learn that through his work at the Tower, Porrett became interested in antiquities, and ‘although there has been an armoury at the Tower for centuries, it is to Mr. Porrett we owe the design of the present valuable collection. He made many important additions to the Tower galleries’. [80] Unfortunately, the mystery should remain for now, both with regard to how Porrett acquired the two ‘Marathon’ spearheads (in Greece or in England) and whether more once existed (or still exist for that matter) in the Tower of London, at the BM and in Greece.

{joomplu:824 detail align right}

In closing this overview on the history of the large Marathon tumulus in the 18th and 19th centuries AD, it is worth mentioning that despite the decree by Neroulos of 1836, unauthorized digging at Marathon certainly continued as the flow of tourists to Greece increased. During the visit of the Princess of Wales, Alexandra of Denmark, to her brother George I, king of Greece, in 1877, the correspondent of the Illustrated London News, who was sent to cover the royal visit, went to Marathon and wrote a brief note. [81] In it he remarked that the only thing that remains connected with the battle in the landscape is the ‘mound’ raised in honour of the 192 men who lost their lives. ‘The mound does not seem to have been opened; a mud house or look-out station appears to have been made on the top, which makes the summit irregular’ (FIGURE 7). The illustration that accompanied his note shows a scene familiar to several 19th century travellers to Marathon: visitors arriving by carriage, while on one side an excavation takes place most likely in search of antiquities that can be given to the tourists (judging also by a pot – an amphora? – shown to the left of the three men). The correspondent of the Illustrated London News was certainly familiar with illicit digging activities, which he described in one of his correspondence, a month after his visit to Marathon. [82] It is only with the second archaeological law of Greece, ratified in 1899, that the trafficking of antiquities became, to some extent, more controlled and better regulated, not least because illicit digging and antiquities trafficking became a criminal offence.

Other Marathon memorabilia and the ancient Greek weapons at the Pitt Rivers Museum

With the bulk of the objects –the stone ‘arrowheads’– now dissociated from the battle of Marathon, [83] we are mainly left with metal arrowheads, [84] and to a lesser extent sling bullets. [85] Apart from the spearheads discussed here, the only other weapons with an alleged provenance from Marathon are an iron dagger with ivory hilt and decorative tip in the BM (GR 1864.2-20.113, Stangford coll.) and a helmet, in the Royal Ontario Museum in Canada. [86]

By 1864 the British Museum, today the main depository of ‘Marathon’ weaponry memorabilia, had already acquired 15 arrowheads and a dagger from ‘Marathon’ from the collection of Percy Clinton Sydney Smythe, 6th Viscount Strangford (1780–1855). [87] There was also another batch in 1888, of nine lead sling-shots from ‘Marathon’, purchased by the same museum in a Christie’s sale and originally in the collection of Albert Denison, 1st Baron Londesborough (1805–1860). Ten more arrowheads, along with a few bronze ornaments, iron rivets and other smaller fragments entered the BM in 1906 from Saumarag Brock with the same alleged provenance. Three more arrowheads and sling-shot were added in 1935, 1959 and 1975, coming from William Greenwell, the Royal United Services Institute and Henry Solomon Wellcome. There is also a flint blade (ex-William Allen Surge coll.) and a few obsidian blades from Marathon, the latter from the Finlay collection. [88] Three cylinder seals, among the first to be recorded from a European collection and originally in the possession of Sir William Hamilton (1730-1803), were added to the BM in 1772 (1772,0315,GR.418-420). Said to be possessions of the Persians who fell in the battle of Marathon, they date to the 19th, early 7th and 5th century BC respectively. Their alleged provenance from the plain of Marathon and their interpretation as Persian possessions probably stems from the romantic connotations already attached to the battlefield in 18th century scholarship. Finally, the so-called ‘trophy’, a piece of sculpture now at the BM, presented to the museum in 1802 and said to be from Marathon is of a much later date (probably first century BC) and thus not contemporary to the battle. Its commemorative function, as a later dedication to the war dead, and even its provenance have been questioned, suggesting that it may actually be unrelated to Marathon altogether.[89]

The only other substantial collection of ‘Marathon’ arrowheads still in existence is that at Karlsruhe in Germany (35 pieces). Elisabeth Erdmann has shown that they fall into four types, three of which are contemporary with the battle and the fourth is not, [90] clearly suggesting that the association of this material with the famous battle is not trustworthy.

As for the Pitt Rivers Museum: apart from the two spearheads, the museum also has a small collection of ancient Greek weapons that include two bronze helmets – a Corinthian of the second half of the 6th century BC (1884.32.16) and a plain pilos-shaped helmet of the 4th century BC (1935.2.1); five lead sling bullets (1884.29.18-21; 1937.56.59), all but one inscribed and dated to the Hellenistic and Roman periods; the triangular top of a long-pointed and socketed bronze spearhead allegedly from Achaea in the Peloponnese (1884.119.347; 7th-5th century BC?; perhaps also Villanovan or Roman); and finally a collection of about 60 arrowheads (1884.119, 380-386, 391-392; 1884.119.401-420; 1927.24-29; 1956.1.7, 29-31); the arrowheads, described by the Museum as ‘Greek and Scythian’, are of various types: tanged, barbed, of the socketed triangular type, and leaf-shaped, [91] which chronologically fall between the 7/6th and the 5/4th centuries BC.

The numerous arrowheads in existence in collections across the world (the Pitt Rivers Museum having a fair amount of them), of types similar to those now in the British Museum and Karlsruhe appears to suggest that these ‘Greek’, ‘Scythian’ and ‘Persian’ type arrowheads were probably far more common than people have previously thought and should thus not necessarily be fixed to a particular location, unless they come from a well-excavated context.[92]

Given the almost complete absence of weapons from the authorized excavations of the 19th century (Schliemann and Staïs), it appears likely that the provenance of the two Pitt Rivers Museum spearheads, said to be from ‘a tumulus at Marathon’ (perhaps the large tumulus marking the landscape in the plain), was ascribed to the objects retrospectively following the desire of antiquarians to collect memorabilia associated with the battle of Marathon.

Concluding Remarks

Through their re-discovery, objects acquire multiple lives – and this process makes the role of memorabilia (souvenirs) all the more important in mythologizing and glorifying the past. The two Pitt-Rivers spearheads are part of this process. The reason they were discussed here is because of their alleged provenance from Marathon. They form part of an impressive group of memorabilia which became very popular throughout the course of the 19th century and especially the first half. The two spearheads are otherwise unexceptional and without their special ‘association’, they may have easily been lost in the bulk of ancient Greek weaponry, now widely distributed outside Greece, in European and American collections. Yet, their alleged association provided the ideal pretext to discuss the life of these objects, not in antiquity, but rather after they were discovered, displayed and finally collected by the General Pitt-Rivers. They gave us the opportunity to place them within the framework of 19th century travellers and antiquarians; the 18th and 19th century nostalgia and romance of the Greek past; the development of art-dealing in Greece; and the transformation of the tumulus at Marathon, from a landmark with a long and mixed history, to an emblem of democracy, embedded in modern Greek and European identities.[93]

Almost all travellers to Greece who later decided to write their reminiscences, including their trip to Marathon, make a reference to how they collected arrowheads. This trend, according to which every visitor could afford an ancient memento, gave rise to a ‘veni, vidi, emi’ (I came, I saw, I bought) ethos which progressively gave rise to the more professional and organized art-dealers’ shops in Athens, now willing to satisfy an ever-growing clientele; not just the big collectors. It is in 1840 that one of the first, if not the first, Antiquarian shops was established, that of Pavlos Lambros, later to be directed by his son Jean Lambros. Soon afterwards many more antiquarian shops made their appearance in Athens. In the meantime, specialised travellers books, which became the indispensable guide for every respected tourist, made suggestions for excursions, with Marathon occupying right from the very beginning a very important place in their itinerary: [94] ‘when Marathon became a magic word’ to use the line from Lord Byron’s poem ‘the Plain of Marathon’. [95]

I would like to end this biography on the memorabilia from the battle of Marathon, part of the Re-thinking Pitt-Rivers project, with the most tantalizing recent discovery and at the same time the earliest known act of acquiring such items from the battlefield: the discovery of one of the casualty lists commemorating the members of the Erechtheis tribe (one of the ten tribes in Athens), who fell at Marathon. [96] The stele was found in the villa of Herodes Atticus at Loukou, in central Peloponnese. The Marathonian Herodes, tutor of Marcus Aurelius and one of the richest men of his time, probably asked for this stele, most likely sometime in the middle of the 2nd century AD, to be transferred there from the plain of Marathon, where for about 650 years it marked the place where the Athenian dead were buried, along with numerous other Attic monuments in order to decorate his villa. [97] The removal and transference of the casualty list highlight the fascination of Herodes about this particular battle. At the same time, it reveals an interest of Herodes in the past, not dissimilar to that of the 18th-19th century travellers and antiquarians, in collecting and displaying memorabilia. [98] After the name of the tribe, there is an epigram for the dead followed by a list of names. This rather strict arrangement, which so much resembles modern war memorials, and without any ornamentation provides us with the earliest insight into the new model army of the recently-established Athenian democracy, where everyone is listed as equal, irrespective of their social differences in life, and as a member of his tribe and a soldier of Athens:

Fame, ever brilliant as she seeks out the ends of the earthShall learn the valour of these men: how they died
Fighting the Medes, and placed a crown on Athens
A few, accepting battle against many. [99]

References:

Alexandridou, A.F. 2009. ‘Offering trenches and funerary ceremonies in the Attic countryside’, Acta Hyperborea 12, pp. 497-522.
Alexandridou, A.F. 2010. The Early Black-Figured Pottery of Attica in Context (c. 630-570 BC), Leiden.
Antonaccio, C.-M. 1995. An Archaeology of Ancestors: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Early Greece, Lanham.
Baedeker, K. (ed.) 1883. Griechenland: Handbuch für Reisende, (1st edition), Leipzig.
Baedeker, K. (ed.) 1894. Greece: Handbook for Travellers,(2nd edition), Leipzig.
Baitinger, H. 1999. ‘Waffen und Bewaffnung aus der Perserbeute in Olympia’,AA 114, pp. 124-139.
Baitinger, H. 2001. Die Angriffswaffen aus Olympia [Olympia Bd. XXIX], Berlin.
Bertsch, D. 2005. Anton Prokesch von Osten (1795-1876): ein Diplomat Österreichs in Athen und an der Hohen Pforte: Beiträge zur Wahrnehmung des Orients im Europa des 19. Jahrhunderts Munich.
Billows, R.A. 2010. Marathon: the Battle that Changed Western Civilization, London.
Chandler, R. 1763. Marmora Oxoniensia, Oxford.
Chandler, R. 1776. Travels in Greece, Oxford.
Clarke, E.D. 1818. Travels in various countries of Europe, Asia, and Africa, 4th edition, London.
Constantine, D. 2011. In the footsteps of the Gods. Travellers to Greece and the Quest for the Hellenic Ideal, London.
Diamant, S.R. 1977. ‘A Barbed and Tanged Obsidian Point from Marathon’, JFA 4, pp. 381-386.
Dodwell, E. 1819. A classical and topographical tour through Greece during the years 1801, 1805 and 1806, vol. II, London.
Erdmann, E. 1973. ‘Die sogenannten Marathonpfeilspitzen in Karlsruhe’, AA 88, pp. 30-58.
Eschenburg, M. 1886. Topographische, archaeologische und militärische Betrachtungen auf dem Schlachtfelde von Marathon, Berlin.Evans, J. 1872. The ancient stone implements, weapons, and ornaments, of Great Britain, London.
Finlay, G. 1839a. ‘On the battle of Marathon’, Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature of the United Kingdom 3, pp. 363-395.
Finlay, G. 1839b. ‘On the position of Aphidna’, Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature of the United Kingdom, pp. 396-405.
Finlay, G. 1870. ‘Observations on Prehistoric Archaeology in Greece’, American Journal of Science 50, pp. 251-254.
Finlay, G. 1871. ‘The Stone period in Greece’, Athenaeum 2269 (22 April 1871), pp. 498-499.
Foss, C. 1975. ‘Greek Sling Bullets in Oxford’, JHS 95, pp. 40-44.
Forsdyke E. J. 1919-1920. ‘Some arrow-heads from the battlefield of Marathon’, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London, pp. 146-157.
Fotiadis, M. 2006. ‘Collecting Prehistoric Antiquities’, in Darcque, P., Fotiadis, M. and Polychronopoulou, O. (eds.), Mythos: La prehistoire egeenne du XIXe au XXIe siecle apres J.-C., Athens, pp. 9-15.
Gehrke, H.J. 2009. ‘From Athenian identity to European ethnicity. The cultural biography of the myth of Marathon’, in Derks, T. and Roymans, N. (eds.), Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity. The Role of Power and Tradition, Amsterdam, pp. 85-99.
Goette, H.-R. and Weber, T.-M. 2004. Marathon. Siedlungskammer und Schlachtfeld - Sommerfrische und Olympische Wettkampfstätte, Mainz.
Gray, E.C. 1840. Tour to the Sepulcres of Etruria in 1839, London.
Hamilakis, Y. 2007. The Nation and its Ruins. Antiquity, Archaeology and National Imagination in Greece, Oxford.
Hammond, N.G.L. 1968. ‘The Campaign and the Battle of Marathon’, JHS 88, pp. 13-57.
Hammond, N.G.L. 1973. Studies in Greek History, Oxford.
Hicks, D. and Stevenson, A. (eds). forthcoming. The Museum as Field Site: Characterizing the World Archaeology Collections of the Pitt Rivers Museum. Oxford: Archeopress.Hölkeskamp, K.J. 2001. ‘Marathon. Vom Monument zum Mythos’, in Gab es das griechische Wunder? Griechenland zwischen dem Ende des 6. und der Mitte des 5. Jahrhunderts v.Chr. Tagungsbeiträge des 16. Fachsymposiums der Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung, veranstaltet vom 5. bis 9. April 1999 in Freiburg im Breisgau, Mainz, pp. 329-353.
Hsu, C.L. 2008. ‘The mounds associated with the battle of Marathon in 490 B.C. and the dating of Greek pottery’, in Kurz, D. with Meyer, C., Saunders, D., Nichols, K. (ed.), Essays in Classical Archaeology for Eleni Hatzivassiliou 1977-2007 (Studies in Classical Archaeology 4), Oxford, pp. 165-169.
Korres, G.S. 2010. ‘Οι λεγόμενοι Τύμβοι των Μαραθωνομάχων’, in Paschalidou, E.S. (ed.), 2.500 έτη από την ιστορική μάχη του Μαραθώνα, Athens, pp. 15-27.
Koumanoudis, S.N. 1978. ‘Μαραθώνι’, Archaiologika Analekta ex Athenon 11, pp. 232-244.
Krentz, P. 2010. The Battle of Marathon, Yale.
Leake, W.M. 1835. Travels in Northern Greece, vol. 2, London.
Leake, W.M. 1841. The Topography of Athens and the Demi, vol. 2, London.
Lenormant, F. 1867. ‘Les armes de pierre de marathon’, Revue archéologique, pp. 145-148.
Marinatos, S. 1940. ‘Forschungen in Thermopylai’, in Wagner, M. (ed.), Bericht über den VI. Internationalen Kongress fur archäologie, Berlin, 21-26 August 1939, Berlin, pp. 333-341.
Marinatos, S. 1951. Thermopylae. An historical and archaeological guide, Athens.
Marinatos, S. 1970a. ‘From the silent earth’, Archaiologika Analekta ex Athenon 3, pp. 61-68.
Marinatos, S. 1970b. ‘Further discoveries at Marathon’, Archaiologika Analekta ex Athenon 3, pp. 349-366.
Marinatos, S. 1970c. ‘Further news from Marathon’, Archaiologika Analekta ex Athenon 3, pp. 153-166.
Mersch, A. 1995. ‘Archäologischer Kommentar zu den “Gräbern der Athener und Plataier” in der Marathonia’, Klio 77, pp. 55-64.
Miller, M.C. 1997. Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century B.C. A Study in Cultural Receptivity, Cambridge.Mingazzini, P.1974-75. ‘L'anfora di Sophilos nella tomba dei maratonomachi’, Annuario della Scuola Italiana di Atene 52-53, pp. 9-13.
Murray, J. (ed.) 1840. Handbook for Travellers in Greece (1st edition), London.
Murray, J. (ed.) 1854. Handbook for Travellers in Greece (3rd edition), London.
Murray, J. (ed.) 1872. Handbook for Travellers in Greece (4th edition), London.
Murray, J. (ed.) 1884. Handbook for Travellers in Greece (5th edition), London.
Murray, J. (ed.) 1900. Handbook for Travellers in Greece (7th edition), London.
McNeal, R.A. (ed.). 1993. Nicholas Biddle in Greece: the journals and letters of 1806, University Park.
Nicholls, R.V. 1958-1959. ‘Old Smyrna: The Iron Age Fortifications and Associated Remains on the City Perimeter’, The Annual of the British School at Athens 53/54, pp. 35-137.
Nisbet Ferguson, M. and Nisbet Hamilton Grant, J.P. 1926. The Letters of Mary Nisbet of Dirleton, Countess of Elgin, London.
Petrakos, V. 1996. Marathon, Athens.
Philios, D. 1890. ‘Δύο λέξεις περί του πως γράφονται τα των ανασκαφών’, Deltion Archaiologikon, pp. 4-13.
Pritchett, K. 1960. Marathon, vol. 4.2, Berkeley.
Protopsaltis, E.G. 1967. Ιστορικά Έγγραφα περί Αρχαιοτήτων και λοιπών Μνημείων της Ιστορίας κατά τους Χρόνους της Επαναστάσεως και του Καποδίστρια, Athens.
Pückler-Muskau, H.L.M Fürst von, 1840. Südöstlicher Bildersaal – Griechische Leiden, vol. II, Stuttgart.
Ross, L. 1837. ‘Archäologisches von den Griechischen Inseln’, Morgenblatt für gebildete Leser,Kunst-Blatt no. 103 (26/12/1837), pp. 421-423.
Schliemann, H. 1884a. ‘Das Sogenannte Grab der 192 Athener in Marathon’, Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, pp. 85-88.
Schliemann, H. 1884b. ‘Exploration of the Tumulus at Marathon’, The Academy 616 (23 February 1884), pp. 138-139.
Schoolcraft, H.R. 1847. The Red Race of America, New York.
Schulze, H. 2010. ‘Archäologie eines Schlachtfeldes. Zeugnisse der Schlacht von Marathon’, Antike Welt 41:6, pp. 75-80.
Skelton, J. 1830. Engraved illustrations of ancient arms and armour, from the collection of Llewelyn Meyrick, at Goodrich court, Herefordshire; after the drawings, and with the descriptions of Dr. Meyrick, vol. i, London.
Smith, W. 1842. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, London.
Snodgrass, A.M. 1964. Early Greek armour and weapons from the end of the Bronze Age to 600 B.C., Edinburgh.
Snodgrass, A.M. 1967. Arms and Armour of the Greeks, London.
Spyropoulos , G. 2009. Η Στήλη των πεσόντων στη μάχη του Μαραθώνα από την έπαυλη του Ηρώδη Αττικού στην Εύα Κυνουρίας, Athens.
Staïs, V. 1890. ‘Aνασκαφαί τύμβων εν Αττική. Ο τύμβος των Μαραθωνομάχων’, Deltion Archaiologikon, pp. 65-71 and 123-132.
Staïs, V. 1891. ‘Ανασκαφαί και Ευρήματα’, Deltion Archaiologikon, 34, 67 and 97.
Staïs, V. 1893. ‘O εν Μαραθώνι τύμβος’, ΑΜ 18, pp. 46-63.
Steinhauer, G. 2004-2009. ‘Στήλη πεσόντων της Ερεχθηίδος’, Horos 17-21, pp. 679-692.
Steinhauer, G. 2009. Marathon and the Archaeological Museum, Athens.
Stoneman, R. 1987. Land of Lost Gods: The Search for Classical Greece, London.
Themelis, P.G. 1974. ‘Μαραθών. Τα πρόσφατα αρχαιολογικά ευρήματα και η μάχη’, Archaiologiko Deltio 29 (Meletes), pp. 226-244.
Traill, D. 1995. Schliemann of Troy. Treasure and Deceit, London.
Vanderpool, E. 1967. ‘The Marble Trophy from Marathon in the British Museum’, Hesperia 36:1, pp. 108-110.
Walpole, R. 1817. Memoirs Relating to European and Asiatic Turkey, London.
Welwei, K.W. 1979. ‘Das sogenannte Grab der Plataier im Vranatal bei Marathon’, Historia 28, pp. 101-106.
Whitley, J. 1994. ‘The Monuments That Stood before Marathon: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Archaic Attica’, AJA 98:2, pp. 213-230.
Whitley, J. 2001. The Archaeology of Ancient Greece, London.
Wilde, W. 1840. The Narrative of a Voyage to Madeira, Teneriffe, and Along the Shores of the Mediterranean, Dublin.
Wilson, T. 1899. Arrowpoints, Spearheads, and Knives of Prehistoric Times,Washington.
Wordsworth, W. 1839. Greece. Pictorial, Descriptive, and Historical, London.

Abbreviations:

AA: Archäologischer Anzeiger
AJA: American Journal of Archaeology
AM: Athenische Mitteilungen
CVA: Corpus Vasorum AntiquorumIG: Inscriptiones Graecae
ILN: The Illustrated London News
JFA: Journal of Field Archaeology
JHS: Journal of Hellenic Studies
JHS/AR: Journal of Hellenic Studies – Archaeological Reports
SEG: Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum

Notes:

[1] It is not clear whether the curve is intentional (e.g. ‘ritual killing’ of the object) or accidental (e.g. because of taphonomic conditions).

[2] According to PRM’s AP Leverhulme project on founding collection 1995-1998.

[3] There are several books on the battle of Marathon. For a concise and accessible history, see most recently Krentz 2010 and Billows 2010; for the site of Marathon see Petrakos 1996; Goette and Weber 2004; Steinhauer 2009.

[4] 1884.120.42 belongs to Baitinger’s type B 9 (Baitinger 2001, 51-52, e.g. see nos. 817, 837 [type B 9b] and 853, 862 [type B 9c]; this type was in use during the 7th, 6th, 5th and even 4th centuries BC (Baitinger 2001, 52). 1884.120.43 is closer to Baitinger’s type B 10b (Baitinger 2001, 52-53, e.g. no. 940) and perhaps also type B 8d (Baitinger 2001, 48-49, e.g. nos. 778, 772 [though these are larger than 1884.120.43); type B 10b was in use from the 7th to the 5th century BC (Baitinger 2001, 48-50). Generally speaking, however, some spearhead types can be notoriously similar across regions and periods.

[5] Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London vol. II (1853), 171; also The Gentleman’s Magazine XXXVI (1851; new series), 179.

[6] I would like to thank Alison Petch for her help on the matter. For a biography on Robert Porrett see: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/22459

[7] There is no mention of any Marathon spearheads among Pitt-Rivers’ publications.

[8] For Pitt-Rivers, his weapons collection and its expansion under the curatorship of Henry Balfour, who was particularly interested in bows and arrows, see an excellent overview by Frances Larson: http://england.prm.ox.ac.uk/englishness-Balfour-and-Technology-Weapons.html (last accessed (3 August 2011).

[9] On the history of scholarship on Marathon, especially on the so-called ‘tumulus of the Athenians’, see Goette and Weber 2004, 6-11; Krentz 2010, 111-136, esp. 122-129; for a most recent blog article see: http://rogueclassicism.com/2011/07/19/marathon-musings/ (posted by rogueclassicism on 19 July 2011; last accessed 3 August 2011)

[10] Although there are discrepancies amongst the ancient authors, what appears to be the likeliest scenario is that the Greek army was indeed smaller than the Persian: see Krentz 2010, 90-94 (for the Persians), 102 (for the Greeks). The casualty list recently found in the villa of Herodes Atticus in the Peloponnese, which is mentioned at the end of this paper, includes the phrase ‘a few, accepting battle against many’ – even if it was part of Athenian propaganda, to hail the courage of the men who fell at the battle and advertise the success of the newly-founded Athenian democracy, it may also echo the real difference in the numbers of the two armies.

[11] For travellers visiting Marathon as early as the 1670s see Constantine 2011, 30.

[12] Chandler 1776, 163-166.

[13] Chandler 1776, 165-166.

[14] Constantine 2011, 209.

[15] Fauvel is also responsible for the the earliest modern map of the Marathon plain (1792; Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Collection Barbier, no. 1341). The map marks clearly the location of the large tumulus, the most prominent landmark in the area: see also Krentz 2010, 122-123.

[16] Goette and Weber 2004, 7-8.

[17] Clarke 1818, 23.

[18] Clarke 1818, 24.

[19] Clarke 1818, 24.

[20] Clarke 1818, 24-25.

[21] E.g. in 1828, Dionysios Pyrros (1777-1853), Greek scholar and traveller, recorded in his work Περιήγησις της Ελλάδος και πόλεμοι αυτής αρχαίοι και νεώτεροι that ‘to the west of the swap, in the plain of Marathon, there is a conical soros made of soil and earth. This [tumulus] was built in honour of the Greek soldiers who were killed in the Marathon battle, and which covers the gathered bones of the aforementioned soldiers’ (Protopsaltis 1967, 3).

[22] Nisbet Ferguson and Nisbet Hamilton Grant 1926, 204; also Krentz 2010, 123.

[23] Dodwell 1819, 159.

[24] Dodwell 1819, 159-160.

[25] Gell 1827, 59; while the tumulus was considered the burial ground of the Persians, the grave of the Athenians was placed in a small marsh near the sea, ‘where the vestiges of ten monuments with marble foundations, and fragments of columns’ may have marked their tombs (Walpole 1817, 336).

[26] Gell 1827, 59.

[27] The Ethiopians are most commonly cited by the travellers, based on Herodotus’ description; though Herodotus, in that particular instance, is not referring to the battle of Marathon, a point already raised by Finlay (1839a, 392). The Scythians are also mentioned as possible users of the stone arrowheads, e.g. Schoolcraft 1847, 219: ‘Among the relics found in excavating the low mounds on the plain of Marathon, as we were informed by one of our countrymen, who was at Athens some years ago, there were spear heads made of flint, which, he declared, were like those he had often seen ploughed up in his native fields. These, it was conjectured, might have been among the weapons of some of the rude Scythians in the Persian army, which met its defeat on that celebrated battle ground.’

[28] E.g. Foss 1975; Baitinger 2001, 31-32.

[29] Hammond (1968, 17, n. 16), who also mentions General Meyrick as co-excavator of Admiral Brock. Meyrick had in his collection, already in 1830, bronze arrowheads from Marathon: Skelton 1830, vol. i, pl. 44, figs. 7-8.

[30] See Pritchett 1960, 142-143 and most recently Krentz 2010, 111-136, esp. 122-129 with additional references. For the earlier scholarship, see in particular Pritchett 1960, esp. 142-143.

[31] Forsdyke 1919-1920, esp. 147.

[32] The Literary Gazette and Journal of the Belles Lettres (5 May 1838), 284.

[33] Gray 1840, 342, who also notes that the tumulus had been ‘ransacked ages since.’

[34] E.g. in 1836, the German nobleman and artist, Hermann Fürst von Pückler-Muskau (1785-1871), who visited Marathon, like so many others, observed that every collector in Athens has numerous Marathon ‘Pfeilspitzen aus Erz’ (ore/metal), though in this case, he does not specifically associate them with the tumulus: Pückler-Muskau 1840, 468-469): Bertsch 2005, 507.

[35] Finlay 1839a, 365; Wilde 1840, 450.

[36] Drawn by Captain Irton and engraved by G.W. Bonner; it was published in Wordsworth 1839, 113.

[37] Translation by Petrakos 1996, 186, n. 43.

[38] Thucydides (2.34.5) mentions that they were buried ‘on the spot’; Pausanias notes that the Athenians were buried on the field of the battle, on the plain of Marathon (1.29.4; 1.32.3). Chandler uses the word ‘barrow’, which in English also conveys the form of the tomb; but Pausanias is using the words ‘mnema’ and ‘taphos’, both meaning ‘grave’, though the former can also be interpreted as a ‘memorial’ or a ‘monument in honour of dead’. The word ‘tymbos’ directly expresses in ancient Greek the form of the grave, literally meaning ‘tumulus’, ‘mound’.

[39] Leake 1835, 431-432; also Goette and Weber 2004, 9.

[40] Leake 1841, 77-101 (on the landscape and its ruins) and 203-237 (on the battle itself) based on his observations from his visits to Marathon in 1802 and 1809.

[41] According to Krentz 2010, 127, Leake is probably describing here (in his 1841 book) his first visit in 1802; see also Finlay 1870 (where he dates Leake’s second visit in 1805).

[42] Leake 1835, 431-432: ‘While I was employed on the summit of the Soros…my servant amused himself in gathering, at the foot of the barrow, a great number of small pieces of black flint which happened to strike his observation. These flints are so numerous, and have been so evidently chipped by art into their present form, like gun-flints, that there is good reason for believing them to have been the heads of arrows discharged by the Persians who fought at Marathon, and to have been interred with the Athenians, after having been gathered from every part of the plain, after the battle.’

[43] Leake 1841, 100.

[44] It is worth noting that, despite Leake’s identification of the tumulus as the tomb of the Athenians, the stone ‘arrow-heads’, which continued to a large extent to be identified as belonging to the Persian mercenaries, were now explained ‘as an offering to the victorious dead’ (Leake 1841, 100).

[45] This suggestion is already mentioned by Ludwig Ross (1837, 423), who acknowledges Finlay as the source of this information: ‘aus welcher die in dem Grabhügel von Marathon vorkommenden Pfeilspitzen gemacht sind, die man früher für Persische Waffen hielt; allein ein eifriger Antiquar, Hr. Finlay, hat diese Pfeilspitzen seitdem über ganz Attika…’ Yet, at that point Ross was still ambivalent as to the material of the stone: ‘Flintstein (oder Obsidian?)’.

[46] Finlay 1871, 258, where he mentions that he first identified the so-called stone arrowheads as obsidian flakes in 1836.

[47] Finlay 1839a, 363-395, esp. 392-393 (on the Marathon arrowheads). An extensive collection of obsidian cores and flakes from Finlay is still preserved at the British School at Athens in what appears to be its original chest. For the collection of stone tools in the 19th century in Greece, Finlay and the Marathon flint and obsidian tools see Fotiadis 2006.

[48] Sir William Wilde, an Irish surgeon and father of Oscar Wilde, in his narrative on Marathon mentions that during his visit, in the company of Finlay, he picked up some of the flint and obsidian arrow-heads that are scattered in such quantities through the earth of which this monument is composed (Wilde 1840, 450-451). Wilde, impressed by the vast quantities on the mound, was sceptical with regard to their identification as arrowheads of the Persian army, probably influenced by Finlay.

[49] Finlay 1870; that obsidian arrowheads in the plain of Marathon may date as early as the Neolithic period see Diamant 1977.

[50] Finlay 1839b, esp. 404-405.

[51] See e.g. Diamant 1977; Steinhauer 2009, 80.

[52] Philios 1890, who criticised the excavation approach of both Schliemann and Staïs.

[53] Put forward by Krentz 2010, 126-129.

[54] Lenormant (1867, 146) mentions that the majority of arrowheads discovered every year are made of bronze: ‘dans les terres du tumulus de Marathon, et dont les paysans ont toujours quelques échantillons à vendre aux voyageurs’; although some have attributed to Lenormant the discovery of these bronze arrowheads (e.g. Wilson 1899, 14), this is not mentioned by Lenormant himself who simply refers to local diggers as the source of these bronze arrowheads, always ready to sell samples to travellers.

[55] Already noted in the 1875 topographical map of the region prepared and annotated by H. Lolling of the German Archaeological Institute (see e.g. the map published in the AM 1 [1876], pl. iv); another map was published by Eschenburg (1886); that more tumuli once existed in the plain see Clarke 1818, 19 (map), 28.

[56] The first illustration of metal arrows that I was able to find is in Skelton 1830, London, pl. 44; reproduced in Smith 1842, 893 (three-tongued arrowheads).

[57] See e.g. Steinhauer 2009, 120.

[58] Schliemann 1884b, 138; although Lenormant in his 1867 article on the stone weapons from Marathon returned to the earlier view that they were indeed the weapons of the Persians (Lenormant 1867, 145: ‘les objets qui se découvrent le plus habituellement à Marathon sont des armes, et particulièrement des pointes de flèches’), other scholars were less convinced: Evans 1872, 328-329 and 360, where he concludes that the so-called stone arrowheads from Marathon are nothing but flakes.

[59] Schliemann 1884, 139; also Schliemann 1884a. He found pottery (possibly Bronze Age, since he mentions that ‘the bulk of the pottery is like the Trojan’ and that some are similar to ‘the most ancient pottery in the royal tombs at Mycenae’); obsidian (including a knife fragment from the ‘foot of the hillock’); perhaps faience (‘the fragment of a vase of Egyptian porcelain’); and animal bones; but nothing to suggest that this is the burial place of the 192 Athenians. It is worth-noting that Schliemann had the previous year conducted small-scale excavations at Thermopylae, being pre-occupied by the investigation of these illustrious battlefields: Traill 1995, 226-228, 234-235.

[60] The best preserved and studied offering trenches are attested in the Athenian Kerameikos; contrary to Athens, where funeral trenches was a feature mainly of the 7th century BC, in Attica they appear to have lasted longer (throughout the 6th century BC): see Alexandridou 2009 (with additional bibliography); 2010.

[61] Staïs 1890, 70: according to the analysis conducted by the Professor of Mineralogy, K. Mitsopoulos, the report of whom is included in Staïs (1890), the charred bones studied by him belonged to humans; this point, however, only suggests a burial function for the tumulus during the 6th century BC, and not necessarily that the bones belonged to the 192 fallen Athenians; a question remains as to whether the 192 dead soldiers were actually cremated or simply inhumed (both practices attested at the time).

[62] Staïs 1890, 65-71, pl. Δ; 1891, 34, 67, 97; 1893; CVA i (Athens, Greece), pls. 10-14; some of them are beautifully illustrated in Steinhauer 2009, 124-139.

[63] Staïs 1891, 67.

[64] Mersch 1995, esp. 56-59.

[65] See e.g. Mingazzini 1974-75; Koumanoudis 1978; Whitley 1994; Mersch 1995; Schulze 2010.

[66] Not to forget that the tumulus at Marathon is also the starting point of the ‘Marathon race’ because of the Marathon runner who ran to Athens to announce the victory news and fell dead of exhaustion after having exclaimed the famous ‘nenikikamen’ (we have won). The historicity of the event is disputed and appears to be a creation of a later date (Steinhauer 2009, 113).

[67] Critisiced already by Philips in 1890; see most recently Korres 2010, esp. 23-26.

[68] Mersch 1995, esp. 56-59.

[69] Whitley 1994; Goette and Weber 2004, 11; Alexandridou 2009.

[70] Most recently suggested anew by Korres (2010).

[71] Schliemann 1884a; 1884b; Antonaccio 1995, 119; there is always the possibility that the earthen fill of the mound was re-used, as already suggested by Finlay, thus complicating the stratigraphy further. It has to be noted that the stratigraphy of the mound has never been properly studied.

[72] E.g. Hsu 2008 on the so-called ‘War Archon’s vase’, a jar that looks earlier than the Proto-Attic style to which it is often ascribed; for this pot see also Petrakos 1996, esp. 144-145; Korres 2010, 26. It was found filled with ash and bones; if this was indeed the cremation of a human being, then a Geometric/Archaic date would not be inappropriate. Since it was found 3m below the ground of the tumulus (i.e under the soil), it appears to represent the earliest burial – all the intact or restorable vessels above this point were of the 6^th and early 5^th c. BC.

[73] Staïs 1890, 128; the late Roman graves were located 1m below the mound’s uppermost layer.

[74] E.g. Whitley (1994) has raised the problem whether the tumulus became the locus of tomb and hero cult. He believes that this is indeed the mass grave (polyandrion) of the Athenian warriors and suggests that the tumulus should be viewed as an example of ‘the appropriation of aristocratic values and symbols to serve the needs of the new democracy’; see also Hölkeskamp 2001. There is also a first century BC inscription, which records that the Athenian dead received honours (IG II, 471=IG II², 1006). Yet, as far as we know, there is no substantial post-early 5th century material on the tumulus that would indicate continuous visits and offerings to the dead; this lack of evidence does not seem to support a 5th century hero cult established for the Athenian dead and modelled after the aristocratic practices of 7th and 6th century Athens and Attica as envisaged by Whitley (1994; 2001, 363-365).

[75] Marinatos 1970a; 1970b; 1970c; the pottery from this mound dates to the late 6th and early 5th century BC. Against Marinatos’s interpretation: Themelis 1974; Koumanoudis 1978; Welwei 1979; Petrakos 1996, 65-67; most recently in favour of Marinatos, see Korres 2010, 18-23. For a brief overview see Steinhauer 2009, 140-145; Krentz 2010, 129-130.

[76] Homer, Iliad v.393; xiii.650; see e.g. Evans 1872, 328.

[77] E.g. Snodgrass 1964, 151, 153-155, esp. 154-155; 1967, 99; Miller 1997, esp. 29-62, including the impact of the spoils of war and the Persian arms and armour captured in Greece.

[78] McNeal 1993, 157.

[79] Forsdyke 1919-1920, 146-147.

[80] Under the Crown. A Journal of General Literature, vol. I (1869), 315.

[81] ‘The Classic Sites of Ancient Greece’, ILN 24 March 1877, 267-268 (drawing in p. 268 by William Simpson).

[82] ‘Illustrations of Greece’, ILN 21 April 1877, 363-365.

[83] Hammond 1973, 101.

[84] E.g. metal arrowheads now in London (BM); the Fitzwilliam; and Karlsruhe; the Museum of Breslau (Wrocław) also had arrowheads from Marathon (AA 1940, 200), which were destroyed in World War II.

[85] E.g. London (BM) and Oxford (Ashmolean).

[86] The BM ‘model’ sword and the Greek Corinthian helmet and skull (purportedly found inside it in 1834), now in the Royal Ontario Museum: see Gray 1840, 342. The two helmets at Olympia (a Corinthian, of ‘Miltiades’, and an example of an ‘eastern-type’) may not necessarily relate to Marathon but to the Persian wars more broadly (also 480-478 BC). For the Royal Ontario Museum helmet see most recently: http://rogueclassicism.com/2011/07/19/marathon-musings/ (posted by rogueclassicism on 19 July 2011; last accessed 3 August 2011)

[87] Forsdyke (1919-20, 146) mentions that more triangular arrowheads were given to the BM by General Meyrick, but their association with ‘Marathon’ is no longer repeated in the BM records.

[88] The BM also has a clay tile ending in a palmette antefix from ‘Marathon’ (purchased in 1816 from London Elgin).

[89] Vanderpool 1967; Goette and Weber 2004, 8.

[90] Already noted by Nicholls based on doubts raised by Forsdyke (Nicholls 1958-1959, 129, n. 120, where it is noted that ‘the British Museum and Karlsruhe material shows a strange diversity in date’); see also Erdmann 1973; Baitinger 1999.

[91] Some of the BM arrowheads, made of bronze and iron, are on display, described as ‘Persian’ and ‘Scythian’; for the small ‘Scythian’, ‘pyramidal’ socketed bronze arrowheads see in particular: Snodgrass 1964, 151, 153-155, esp. 154-155; 1967, 99.

[92] One should mention here that most of the types of arrowheads are comparable to those found at Thermopylae during Marinatos’s work at the site in 1939, now on display in the National Archaeological Museum at Athens: Marinatos 1940; 1951; AA 1940, 194-201; JHS/AR 1938-1939, 199-200. For the types of arrowheads used at the time of the Persian Wars see Baitinger 2001, 9-11, 30, 92, types IA3-5, IIB 3c and IID1-3 (nos. 15-46, 302-307, 378-479).

[93] E.g. for the creation of this symbol, from antiquity to present day, see Hölkeskamp 2001 and Gehrke 2009, esp. 94-97. For the development of a similar narrative to Marathon, but this time primarily Greek-oriented, and cumulative of ‘the destiny of the nation’, see the other major battlefield: Thermopylae and Marinatos’ excavations in 1939 during the Metaxas dictatorship (Hamilakis 2007, 169-173).

[94] See e.g. Murray 1840, 67-68; 1854, 209-211; 1872, 218-219; 1884, 360-361: where it is noted that ‘amid [the tumulus] have been found many arrow-heads both of brass and of obsidian. The tumulus, which had suffered from careless visitors and weather, is now protected by a circular trench, cut at the expense of the Emp. of Brazil in 1876. It was opened in the spring of 1884 by Dr. Schliemann, who satisfied himself (as well as by the character of the potsherds found as by the absence of human bones) that the barrow was of pre-historic age, and not a sepulchre.’ The information about brass and obsidian arrow-heads exists also in the 1884 edition; Murray 1900, 470-472, where in 470a-b the visitor is additionally informed that ‘a more thorough investigation…undertaken in 1890 revealed the ashes and bones of many corpses, together with vases of a type which is known to have been in use at the time of the Persian wards’; also, Baedeker 1883, 111-114; 1894,124-126: ‘the obsidian arrow-heads and other objects found during earlier excavations inclined some antiquarians to place the construction of the mound in prehistoric times’ and presents the view of Staïs as conclusive.

[95] Lord Byron visited Marathon with his friend, Hobhouse, in 1809; while Byron was admiring the landscape, Hobhouse was investigating antiquities, something that Byron dismissed as ‘antiquarian twaddle’ Stoneman 1987, 181).

[96] SEG LVI (2006), 113-114, no. 430; more fragments in p. 115, nos. 431-432.

[97] Pausanias, the ancient Greek traveller (1.29.4) had already seen the markers: ‘on their graves stand slabs bearing the name and tribe of each.’

[98] Chandler 1776, 166: ‘I…looked, but in vain, for the pillars on which the names were recorded, lamenting that such memorials should ever be removed’ – this extract is quite insightful: Herodes did indeed remove the casualty lists or at least some of them, sometime in antiquity (though not necessarily from the tumulus); Chandler, who in 1763 published Marmora Oxoniensia (a fine edition of the inscriptions among the Arundel marbles in Oxford), lamented the loss and removal of antiquities from their original setting.

[99] Translation by Pierre MacKay: http://surprisedbytime.blogspot.com/2011/04/marathon-stone.html; for the inscription see SEG LVI (2006), 113-114, no. 430 and Steinhauer 2004-2009; for the archaeological context and the re-use of the casualty list in later times see Spyropoulos 2009.

List of Figures:

1. Side 1 of the first ‘Marathon’ spearhead (1884.120.42) © Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford, photographed by Yannis Galanakis.

2. Side 2 of the first ‘Marathon’ spearhead (1884.120.42) © Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford, photographed by Yannis Galanakis.

3. Side 1 of the second ‘Marathon’ spearhead (1884.120.43) © Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford, photographed by Yannis Galanakis.

4. Side-view of the second ‘Marathon’ spearhead (1884.120.43) © Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford, photographed by Yannis Galanakis.

5. Drawings by the author of the two ‘Marathon’ spearheads at the Pitt Rivers Museum (1884.120.42-43)

6. The ‘Tumulus of Marathon’ around 1838, engraving by G.W. Bonner based on a drawing of Captain Irton; published in Wordsworth 1839, 113.

7. Visiting the large tumulus at Marathon in 1877, drawing by W. Simpson; published in the ‘The Classic Sites of Ancient Greece’, ILN 24 March 1877, 268.

Acknowledgements:

I would like to thank Alison Petch (PRM) for inviting me to write an object-biography for the 'Rethinking Pitt Rivers' project; Alice Stevenson (PRM) for facilitating my research at the museum; Stella Skaltsa for her comments on an earlier draft of this paper; and Andrew Shapland (British Museum) for providing me with useful information on the BM's Marathon memorabilia. Any errors and omissions remain with the author.

Egyptian boat

2011-02-16T17:23:33+00:00

1884.81.10

{joomplu:93 detail align right}

Alice Stevenson

After completing the first two catalogues of his collection (Lane Fox 1877), Pitt-Rivers turned his attentions to ‘modes of navigation’ as another area in which to demonstrate his ideas about the development and spread of culture. To this end he collected together not just relevant information from other books, but also several boat models from all corners of the world in order to establish their mode of construction. ‘Taken together’ he wrote in 1875, ‘they enable us to trace back the history of ship-building from the time of the earliest Egyptian sculptures to the commencement of the art’ (Lane Fox 1875, 434). Thus for Pitt-Rivers, Egypt was an important point of reference ‘...as the cradle of western civilisation, certainly the land in which western culture first began to put forth its strong shoots’ (Lane Fox 1875, 413). Within this context his rationale for purchasing the large Egyptian boat model from the London-based antiquities dealers Rollin and Feuardent, some time before 1879 is clear. At this time it was installed in the Bethnal Green Branch of the South Kensington Museum, most probably in the cases devoted to modes of navigation.

Today the 1.12 metre-long boat sits in the Pitt Rivers Museum’s Court case number 45 (‘Funerary Model Boats’), which is situated directly behind the totem pole. Its crew—a standing pilot, a sitting helmsman, two standing lookouts and 14 rowers—are a motley bunch.[1] Their mismatched features suggest that they in fact come from a number of different models, a deception most likely pulled by the auctioneers, or who they acquired it from, in order to increase the model’s commercial value. Despite these additions, the model remains incomplete with two rowers, seven oars and the mast missing.

While for Pitt-Rivers the significance of this Egyptian boat was in the nautical technology it displayed, for the ancient Egyptians such boats were of enormous symbolic value. The Nile is the lifeblood of Egypt. Transport along it was a vital part of ancient Egyptian life in many practical ways, such as in the movement of goods and people. Consequently, it is unsurprising that the boat was ingrained into the consciousness of ancient Egyptian society and it became a key symbol for the notion of travel in a much wider sense. Boats were one of the primary means by which the gods themselves traversed the heavens and the underworld, while on earth their images were carried from temple to temple in such vessels. Boats also carried the dead from this world to the next and it is in this context that the Pitt-Rivers model has to be understood.

Models such as this were made specifically for the tombs of wealthy individuals from around the time of the First Intermediate Period (2160–2055 BC), but particularly in the Middle Kingdom (2055–1650 BC). [2] On the basis of the style of the stern of the Pitt-Rivers boat it has been suggested that it would originally have been made around and interred in a Theban burial (Merriman 2009, 607). It would have been placed in the tomb chamber around the coffin, possibly along with other types of models that would have performed other scenes such as food preparation or the bearing of offerings (see Tooley 1999). The largest collection of such models known came from the tomb of Djehuty-nakht at Bersheh, where no less than twelve offering bearers together with almost 55 model boats were discovered (Freed et al 2009).More usually, such ship models were found in pairs, with one rigged for transport upstream, the other for downstream.

Not only would these watercraft have been able to provide transport for the deceased, but they would also allow them to undertake one of the most important of all Middle Kingdom pilgrimages; the journey to Abydos.

The site of Abydos (see O’Connor 2010), in Upper Egypt, was the cult centre of Osiris, god of the dead. Abydos rose to prominence during the Predynastic period and it was here in the desert area known as the Umm el-Qa’ab that the first kings of the Egyptian state chose to construct their royal tombs. One of these tombs, that of King Djer’s, was identified by later Egyptians as the resting place of Osiris himself and it was across this landscape, from the temple by the Nile to the tomb in the desert, that an annual festival was staged. During the festivities the image of Osiris was taken from the temple to his tomb amidst a dramatization of his murder and subsequent rebirth. Egyptians’ sought to witness this so that they too could be associated with the god that promised life after death.

It is this pilgrimage that is probably represented by the Pitt-Rivers model, because it is the deceased himself that is shown seated on the boat towards the stern end. He is wrapped in white linen, an indication that he is a mummiform figure and not a representation of the individual in life. It thus links him and his vessel to funerary ceremonies, the journey to the afterlife and the promise of rebirth.

References

Freed, R.E., Berman, L.M., Doxey, D.M. and Picardo, N. 2009. The Secrets of Tomb 10A: Egypt 2000 BC. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts.

Lane Fox [Pitt-Rivers], A.H. 1875. ‘On early modes of navigation’. The Journal of the Anthropological Society of Great Britain and Ireland 4, 399–437.

Fox [Pitt-Rivers], A.H. Lane 1877. Catalogue of the Anthropological Collection lent by Colonel Lane Fox for exhibition in the Bethnal Green branch of the South Kensington Museum June 1874 Parts I and II. London: Science and Art Department of the Committee of Council on Education HMSO [Re-issued 1879]

Merriman, A.M. 2009. Egyptian Watercraft Models from the Predynastic to Third Intermediate Periods. Unpublished PhD thesis, UCL, London.

O’Connor, D. 2010. Abydos. London: Thames and Hudson.

Tooley, A. 1999. Egyptian Models and Scenes. London: Shire publications.

Notes

[1] As Merriman (2009, 513) in her PhD thesis, this ‘helmsman’ is certainly not original as it is actually the figure of a paddler, who would have been positioned elsewhere on a vessel originally.

[2] For an example of a recently excavated (2007) intact tomb with models see here

February 2011

Etruscan chalice

2011-02-09T09:29:42+00:00

from Chiusi 1884.37.83

Lucy Shipley, University of Southampton

{joomplu:572 detail align right}

This object is an Etruscan ceramic vessel, made of bucchero, the signature ceramic style of the Etruscan world, with the characteristic black sheen this type of ceramic is famous for. This style of pottery is thought to have been deliberately designed to mimic the effect of metal dining ware for a fraction of the cost. However, this vessel is a little different from the other examples of buccheroid chalices to be found in collections all over the world: firstly, in its form, and secondly, in its location, as it resides within the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford.

When this museum is mentioned, what comes to mind? The vision of Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt Rivers himself, striding across a landscape dotted with perfectly regular trenches measured in intricate grid squares? The cabinet of curiosities which forms the main galleries, a joyous maze of archaeological and anthropological materials, where at every turn a new artefact catches the eye: a shark's tooth amulet, a samurai sword, a gaping mask, a strange and intriguing musical instrument. The archaeology of the Mediterranean Iron Age certainly does not, yet the vociferous collecting of Pitt Rivers and other donors has resulted in just such material being included within the museum's possessions. This bucchero vessel is, however, part of Pitt Rivers' own founding collection, and while there is little information attached to it detailing how it came to be found in this archaeological treasure chest, I would suggest that it came via an antiquities dealer, as during the late 19th century, in the wake of early excavations at Vulci and Caere, the activities of tomboroli, or grave robbers, in Tuscany, Umbria and Lazio became more intense, in response to the increase in interest and value of Etruscan material. This is confirmed by the composite nature of the vessel: the bowl is from one object, while the stem and base are from another. This vessel is labelled as being from “Toscana, provincia di Siena, Chiusi,” which I would suggest is an accurate description of the findspot for both halves of the vessel. Chiusi, and the neighbouring city of Cetona, were both large Etruscan centres, with Chiusi in particular being known for its production of high quality bucchero wares. Some of the more intricate stylistic elements of the two halves of this vessel also strongly support the original provenance supplied by the label. However, there is no idea of where the vessels came from more specifically, although I suspect they originate from the Poggio Renzo necropolis at Chiusi. Whichever of the numerous tombs of Poggio Renzo the vessels came from, perhaps imported alongside the Etruscan helmets and bronzes mentioned in the Hebdomadal Council review of the collection in 1883, in the most recent phase of its biography, the two pieces, brought together by antiquities dealers and delivered to Oxford, lay, carefully shrouded in protective wrappings, in a cardboard box, labelled simply “ceramic.”

{joomplu:573 detail align right}

It is at this point that the form of the vessel comes to the fore: for this is not simply another piece of ceramic, another fragmentary pot to be consigned to the back room, while the flashy metal artefacts it arrived with are placed out in the gallery: as I unwrapped the fragments of this vessel, it quickly became apparent that it was not only beautiful, as so many buccheroid ceramics are, but also rather unusual. The lower half of the vessel is in fact a caryatid chalice, of Rasmussen Type 1b (Rasmussen 2006:95), which although chipped, battered and bruised, is very much still recognisable as such. The upper part of the chalice, an open form bowl, displays a cylinder-made decoration frieze (a type of decorative technique particularly associated with Chiusi (Minetti 2004) which shows a scene of seated figures, standing attendants and a winged divinity, repeated around the entire outer surface of the chalice, and seems to be of Rasmussen Type 2e (Rasmussen ibid: 190). Some individuals are accompanied by birds, and some carry a lituus, or curved staff, which has been seen as a symbol of the Etruscan elite or ruling class. The lower part of the vessel, its stand and base, with mould made supports in the shape of more seated female figures, who are familiar from the cylinder frieze, is reminiscent of the images from the upper pot, and perhaps explains why the two were placed together. Caryatid chalices generally depict standing individuals, while this representation of seated figures recalls strongly the processional scenes from other Etruscan artefacts, such as the frieze plaques from Poggio Civitate (Gantz 1971). In a further reference to the cylinder frieze, these female figures (recognisable as such from their dress, hairstyle and bodily representation) are accompanied by birds, and seated on backed chairs. On the base of the chalice, between the broken remnants of where these caryatid supports were placed, are male bearded heads, creating a series of six couples: three male faces, and three female sitters.

I would suggest that these two objects were probably taken from elite tombs in the Poggio Renzo necropolis, as the deposition of intact and valuable finewares is common in Etruscan mortuary practice. As the two halves could be separated by around 50 years, with the lower half dated to around 620-580 BCE and the upper to around 600-550 BCE, they probably came from different tombs. The original practice of deposition links the two halves of this chalice with many of the other artefacts to be found in the Pitt Rivers Collection: the practice of conspicuous consumption by elite communities to demonstrate wealth. In the wake of the emotional stress, grief and, in a more machiavellian sense, the power vacuum left by bereavement, the deposition of such valuable materials, perhaps highly associated with the deceased and used by him or her in the important social intercourse of banqueting and hosting within the elite community, could serve as a demonstration of solidarity. In such a way, this object became part of a show of continuity, emphasising the security of social systems through their confidence in disposal of wealth, even at times of difficulty. Riva (2010) has recently explored the connections between material culture and society in Etruscan funerary contexts, and her work smashes through the simplistic concept of an afterlife banquet for the dead, to the motives beneath such symbolic and ritual acts, demystifying the role of artefacts like this chalice in the Etruscan funeral.

Before deposition in the tomb from which it was surreptitiously removed in the 19th century, these chalices probably belonged to an elite Etruscan individual, whose identity and gender seem destined to remain unknown. While not an example of the more common styles of drinking cup, the kantharos or kyathos, they nonetheless could have been used at banquets by their owner or guests, or possibly as a libation cup for ritual use. Rasmussen (2005:95) suggests that this form of chalice derives from Greek and Near Eastern examples, although the form is completely Etruscan. As the caryatid figures on this example, while accompanied by winged divinities, are not standing and facing out to the viewer, it is tempting to assume that they represent noblewomen, rather than goddesses, although the presence of birds and the throne like nature of the chairs on which they sit (different from the camp-stool style chair seen in other friezes) could push for the latter interpretive scheme. The presence of the male bearded faces alongside the seated females recalls the importance to Etruscan artistic representation of couples, as discussed by Bonfante (1981), and the presence of such a motif on a drinking vessel recalls the description of Theopompus of Etruscan (Histories book 4) of the mixed-sex dining practices of Etruria, which he elaborates upon in scandalised fashion. I would like to think that the cylinder seal image, and the seated caryatids, formed a narrative of two idealised gender performances separated by time: whenever these chalices were used or drunk from, the images of women and men seated together alongside divinities would have caught the eye, and reminded the user of their mythological or symbolic meaning, emphasising the roles that elite men and women needed to play, combining relationships with gods and with each other into a seamless performance of self. The maintenance of this motif over the intervening time period serves only to emphasise the continued importance of these ideals in the construction of elite Etruscan identity

References

Bonfante, L. 1981. “Etruscan Couples and their Aristocratic Society” Women's Studies Vol. 8: pp. 157-187.

Gantz, T. 1971. “Divine Triads on an Archaic Frieze Plaque from Poggio Civitate (Murlo) Studi Etruschi vol. 9 :1-22.

Minetti, A. 2004. “L'Orientalizzante a Chiusi e nel suo Territorio” Roma, Erma di Breitschneider.

Rasmussen, T. 2005. “Bucchero Pottery from Southern Etruria” Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Riva, C. 2010. “The Urbanisation of Eturia: Funerary Practices and Social Change 700-600BC” Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. *

* Recommended further reading.

Note:

Sadly this object is not currently (2011) on display. Its original description by Lane Fox was 'South Kensington Receipts, 16 and 17 January 1878 - Brought in by hand by General Lane Fox 17.1.78 1 Black Tazza' and it was described in the 1920s at the Pitt Rivers Museum as 1884.37.1 - 113 Pottery Ancient Wheel-made Large footed bowl (champagne glass form) on a stand, of black ware with three curved (flying buttress) supports from edge of base to the cup which has a frieze decoration: supports painted with seated figures; three masks on the foot Etruscan from Chiusi Clusium (300 to 400 BC) 21.1.78'.

Lucy is a AHRC-funded postgraduate at the Archaeology Department of Southampton University. She took part in the Characterizing World Archaeology collections at the Pitt Rivers Museum project assessing the Etruscan collections. Her report on these collections will soon be available.

February 2011.

Cedar bark cape 1884.140.1047

2011-01-24T13:15:29+00:00

{joomplu:569 detail align right}

Madeleine Ding, Cataloguer, Pitt Rivers Museum

This cedar bark cape was made on the Northwest coast of America. The cape is made in a continuous round of twined cedar bark. The label relating to this object states it was obtained on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Vancouver Island is a large island off the coast of British Columbia, Canada, whose west coast is the traditional home to the Nuu-chah-nulth tribe.

The cape is mentioned in two original record books; Delivery Catalogue I page 62 and Green book (a book written at Bethnal Green and South Kensington Museums as Pitt-Rivers loaned items to those museums) page 168.5844. However, until recently the location of the cape was unknown. The cape was recently relocated and given an entry in a new Pitt Rivers Accession book PR IX on page 25. The documentation is as follows:

PR IX accession entry - NORTH AMERICA, CANADA, BRITISH COLUMBIA. Cedar bark cloak. Found unentered at Osney with plant fibre clothing. Found with PR number inscribed on the object "211/ 12099". This number matched the record on PRM possibles for a cedar bark cloak so the cloak was therefore accessioned with an 1884.140 accession number.[FC 5/10/2010]

Delivery Catalogue I entry - Miscellaneous objects principally wearing apparel Case 69 Cedar bark cape Vancouver Island 211/ 12099 73 Case 69

'Green book' entry - South Kensington Receipts, 18 March 1881 - The objects numbered 1 to 292 [?that is, numbers assigned by Pitt Rivers] .... 211 Cedar bark Indian cape Vancouver Island West coast

The cape was identified by a pre-Pitt Rivers Museum label attached to the object ‘CEDAR BARK INDIAN CAPE FROM THE TRIBES OF THE WEST COAST OF VANCOUVER ISLAND OBT. BY DR W. F. DALLY. [on reverse of label] 211/ 12099’. Also written on the object was the number ‘211/ 12099’. This unique number referred only to this object.

The cape is made of cedar bark. The cedar tree is a very important plant to peoples of the Northwest coast. As the famous carver Bill Reid says cedar is a ‘source of some of the finest materials for making objects of use and beauty’. (Stewart, 1984: 9). The wood is used for buildings, poles, canoes and boxes, the bark for baskets, matting and clothing, the roots for baskets and hats and the withes for ropes.

Cedar bark is used in outer clothing to keep dry and warm. In the damp environment of the northwest coast the bark is quick drying and layers provide insulation. According to Hilary Stewart (1984) capes like the one in our collection were worn by women. The job of collecting bark from cedar trees in the forest was a woman’s task.

{joomplu:570 detail align right}

Bark was taken from trees when the sap was running, during spring time (Stewart 1975: 88). The bark is removed in long strips. The inner lighter bark is removed from the tougher outer bark. The inner bark is beaten (with stones) to make it softer. Stewart (1975: 88) records and illustrates the bark shredder tools used to work the fibre. The fibre is used in strands and strips for making “coarse woven products such as mats, baskets and shawls”. (Gerber 1989: 51)

The cape would have been woven on an A-frame. The strips of shredded bark are hung over a circular cord and twined in place. The cape has a continuous length of single twining with rows every 10 to 15 mm. To make the shoulder cape flare out extra bundles of shredded cedar bark are added (Stewart, 1984; 144) only visible on the inside.

Dr Frederick Dally was the first recorded owner of the cape. Dally was an English man working as a professional photographer in Victoria on Vancouver Island. He lived in British Columbia between 1862 and 1870 (National Library and Archives, Canada). Joan Schwartz (Canada Encyclopedia) records Dally was ‘a keen observer and amateur anthropologist, Dally photographed the coast and interior tribes and also collected native artifacts’. Dally returned to the UK after undertaking dentistry training to work as a dentist. Lt. Col. Pitt Rivers acquired the cape along with 51 other objects collected by Dr Dally.

The cape was delivered to South Kensington Museum in March 1881 and was probably displayed between 1881 and 1884. This object was listed in the Delivery Catalogue as having been transferred from South Kensington Museum in 1884. The cape has been at the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford since 1884.

There is a similar twined cedar bark poncho-style cape on display in the Court, wall case 18 A. It’s accession number is 1961.9.1.

January 2011

Sources

Gerber, Peter R. (1989) Indians of the Northwest Coast, Facts on file: New York: Oxford, photographer Maximilien Bruggmann, translated Barbara Fritzemeier

Schwartz, Joan, Dally, Frederick http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0002114 [accessed 26/10/2010]

Mattison, David (1999-2000) Camera Workers: The British Columbia Photographic Directory, 1858-1950 - D - Volume 1 (1858-1900)

http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/200/300/david_mattison/camera_workers/1999/cw1-d-names.html [accessed 02/12/2010]

Stewart, Hilary (1984) Cedar: tree of life to the Northwest Coast Indians, Douglas & McIntyre: Vancouver/Toronto

Stewart, Hilary (1975) Indian Artefacts of the Northwest coast, University of Washington Press: Seattle and London

English Ship Model 1884.54.39

2011-01-24T12:11:25+00:00

English Three Decker Ship Model in Bone 1884.54.39

POW Ship Model (early 19th century) from the founding collection of General Pitt Rivers

Yanyue Yuan, MSc Student in Material Anthropology and Museum Ethnography

Linacre College, University of Oxford

The Three Decker Ship Model made of bone lies inconspicuously at the bottom level of Case 70 which holds a variety of ivory and bone-made artefacts such as fans and accessories. This ship model was among the first batch of objects sent to the Bethnal Green Museum for display around 1874 and was probably displayed at the Bethnal Green and/or the South Kensington Museum, for it was listed in the Delivery Catalogue of objects transferred from South Kensington.

Measuring 430 mm (approximately 17 inches) in length, the model is medium-sized. Like most bone ship models, it is built of a combination of bone and wood. Bone planks are fixed onto outer layers of the hull, bulkheads and ribs made of wood are clearly visible. The ship is fixed onto a larger wooden base. The beak, the fore bulkhead and the rudder were restored in 1939. The label reads ‘an English First Rate’, which, according to the rating system of the Royal Navy, referred to ships with 100 guns. As a three-decker, it is supposed to carry guns on three fully-armed decks. Nevertheless, the object lacks any significant decorations to mark its status. Compared to ship models scattered in other museums in England, it looks extremely simple, with no mast, flag, figurehead, rigging or even guns. Barely discernible are simple carving patterns incised into the bone for decoration on the upper part of the stern. This model is much outshined by the HMS Leopard (1884.54.44), also from the founding collection, displayed in an individual case. Anchoring quietly in the sombre light, the Three Decker model is far from symbolic or representative among the museum’s navigation collection. Still, its particular historical background and revealing feature offer a series of intriguing clues about artefacts of this category.

The current database infers that the model was constructed by a French Prisoner of War in the early 19th century, though its creator and the process of acquisition by Pitt Rivers are now hard to trace. This lack of a traceable history applies to hundreds of other prisoner of war ship models. Unlike the HMS Leopard made by the well-known shipwright George Stockwell, this model does not offer us a specific story of its own, but rather urges us to probe into the history of artefacts of the wider category of ‘Napoleonic Prisoners of War’. It also arouses further inquiries into aspects of the life of French prisoners in Britain, their living conditions, their motivation for making handicrafts, and how they managed to create ship models in this setting; different types of ship models and the current situation and location of this particular type of artefacts.

French prisoners of war were a consequence of the war launched by Napoleon on England and Holland in 1793, which lasted for more than two decades until the famous Battle of Waterloo in 1815 marked the end of the Napoleonic army as a European menace. In the course of twenty years or so, a vast number of prisoners were brought to England and several prison camps were established at places like Dartmoor and Norman Cross. In all, there were around fifty depots in England and Scotland. Freeston classified French prisoners into three categories: to be confined in prison ships afloat (hulks), in prison buildings ashore or released on parole (presumably, a privilege granted to officers above a certain rank). The issue of French POW was a serious political matter of the epoch that was even discussed and debated in Parliament (Hansard Report 14th June 181 vol. 20 cc 634-9). Lord Cochrane, as a Member of Parliament, travelled to investigate prisons in Exeter, Launceston and other depots and argued that the prisoners should be immediately attended to. Among those who rejected this view was Mr Whitebread, who overtly stated that the situation of prisoners was indeed quite comfortable.

Given the fact that it was the first time that England received such a large number of prisoners of war in the early 19th century, many problems would emerge, such as overcrowding and disease caused by humidity. On the whole, however, French soldiers (especially in prisons) were treated humanely and were given the freedom to pursue leisure activities. It was in these circumstances that prisoners occupied themselves with making small workboxes, ship models and other handicrafts. As men who sailed and fought before being imprisoned in a foreign country, they were motivated to make ship models to express their appreciation of ships and, one imagines, to occupy their time in captivity. The process was enjoyable and the outcome was often rewarding. The prisoners offered their ‘works of art’ to express gratitude to people who cared for them, and who sometimes even kindly supplied them with the materials they needed. Apart from this, they also acquired permission to sell their handiwork at the markets held in the prisons, provided that all the deals were conducted under surveillance of the authorities and the prices for the goods were approved by certain agents. In Dartmoor, for example, a market occupying a hundred square feet was set up in the middle of the prison. In some cases, the models were also sold to prison officials and Naval officers who sometimes smuggled small tools and material into the prisons. In hulks, however, the conditions made it very difficult for prisoners to make objects, let alone to find occasions to sell them. It is likely that the most exquisite ship models were produced outside prisons, by those who were on parole.

Despite the fact that England held prisoners of a variety of nationalities, including Italians, Swiss, Poles, Saxons, Spaniards, Dutchmen and Americans, French prisoners were probably the first to come up with the idea of ship models. This is not surprising, considering the large number of apprentices from every craft, as well as skilled craftsmen from West Africa, who were conscripted by Napoleon. These prisoners developed the technique and instructed seamen of other nations in the art of making ship models out of bone and other materials. This poses an interesting contrast to English prisoners on the continent, who idled away their time playing ball games; models by English prisoners are virtually non-existent.

Knowing how such crafts were built contributes to a better appreciation of these ship models. To make a model like this one, one needs some simple tools, including a knife, drills, a ruler, a plane, chisels, a saw, a vice or clamp, files, abrasives and a hammer. Ship models made of bone (in many cases, beef bones) were more common ones because bones were easy to acquire as leftovers of meals. The wood used for the hull was also available in unlimited quantities from timber used in the construction, repair and heating of the prisons. Yet bones are not as easy to master as it seems. Though the outside of a bone is smooth and hard, below its thick surface lies an interior of a cellular construction. What’s more, bone straight from the animal has a high fat content and will soon become dirty and acquire a yellowish hue, so it was usually boiled or bleached (either under sunlight or with sulphur dioxide) before being used in craft. Most models were encased once completed, and some original cases are as appealing as the models themselves. Some ship models took a long time (up to six months) to make and were an accomplishment through collaboration.

Hundreds of ship models made by the French Prisoners are now displayed in museums and historic houses of England. A large number of them even found their way to the United States. Some are occasionally available in antique shops and auction sales. An early 19th Century French prisoner model offered by the Christie’s, for example, has an estimated price of £2,000 -£3,000.

The value of these handicrafts lies in the imagination and creativity demonstrated by the French prisoners of war. The also provide us with replicas of famous vessels in the naval history. The current model is of a comparatively average quality, for which there may be several reasons: a lack of materials or appropriate tools may have been an obstacle to perfection, or it may come from a stage when the prisoners were practising and improving their craft before learning to construct remarkable replicas. This model of an English three-decker ship in bone is of a significance typical to its category: its historical value surpasses its aesthetic merit, and it is a testament to the patience and skill applied to an elaborate artistic task.

References

Boyd, Norman Napier. 2000. The Model Ship: Her Role in History. Woodbridge: Antique Collectors’ Club.

Chudley, Ron. 1983. Our Brother the Enemy. Exmouth: Hartley House.

Freeston, Ewart C., 1973. Prisoner-of-War Ship Models 1775-1825. London and Southamption: The Camelot Press Ltd.

Harvey, Wallace. 1971. Whitstable and the French Prisoners of War. Kent: Pirie and Cavender Ltd.

Parker Gallery. 1949. Description of a few old surviving shipmodels. London : The Parker Gallery.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1811/jun/14/french-prisoners-of-war

Chinese hairpins

2010-12-09T13:27:58+00:00

“Rhapsody in Blue”

Imogen Clark, Magdalen College, University of Oxford. MAME student, Pitt Rivers Museum.

{joomplu:497 detail align right}

Objects 1884.79.163.1 to .5 are a series of elaborate, Chinese, silver hair ornaments. Each is made up of pieces of silver cut and laid to form floral patterns. Each is inlaid with kingfisher feathers and ‘beads’ of coloured glass. To each of the items are attached coiled, metal springs, the ends of which are decorated with (probably imitation) pearls. The overall design is symmetrical; the pieces appear to be attached together and would presumably have been pinned to the back of the head.

Very little is known about these ornaments. They are Chinese, but it is not known when or where or by whom they were collected. Their designation, as part of Pitt Rivers’ Founding Collection, is also dubious. They are the very last pieces to be listed under the 1884.79 number in the Accessions Book which suggests that they were assigned to the Founding Collection because they had been found unentered into any other other accession book and were assumed to come from the founding collection (as many such undocumented pieces did) (Jeremy Coote pers.comm.). This might mean that they were not part of the Pitt-Rivers' founding collection. Researching a detailed biography for these objects with only this documentation is not feasible. However, these objects need not remain totally silent. As items of clothing, they may speak on matters of identity. Emma Tarlo in her volume on Indian dress argues that clothes are not merely defining but are also self-consciously used to define, to present, to deceive, to enjoy, to communicate and to reveal and conceal different parts of our identities (Tarlo 1996: 8). Because it is used so intimately, clothing becomes the frontier between the self and the not-self: a dubious boundary which can be regarded alternatively as an extension of the self or ‘immaterial’ to it (Ibid. 16). Ethnicity, a facet of broader identity, is also displayed and manipulated through clothing (Eicher ed. 1995). Beyond identity, these ornaments also reflect Chinese aesthetics, conceptions of beauty and interpretations of colour. These interpretations are difficult, given that there are few first hand ethnographic accounts of China c. 1884. Nevertheless, these objects can be unpacked using information gleaned from the historical and archaeological records and read with an anthropological eye.

Silversmithing in China can be traced back to the gilded, silver-filigree ornaments of the Zhou dynasty in the 2nd century BC (Duda 2002: 11). Shang and Zhou period tombs contain much jewellery: earrings, belt hooks and hairpins were particularly common (White 1994: 13). Hair ornaments became especially popular in the Han period (206 BC – AD 220). Both men and women wore hairpins. The principal hair ornament used by women in the Han period was the zan, a decorated hairpin which protruded from the top of the hair arrangement. Occasionally these were decorated with a buyao, an ornament attached to end of the zan which quivered as the wearer moved (Ibid. 21). Hair ornaments continued to develop through Chinese history, becoming more like crowns in the Tang period (618 – 906 AD). New innovations such as the crown-like wide diadem developed during the Song, Yuan and Ming periods. Buddhist imagery also began to be incorporated from the Tang dynasty onwards (Ibid. 23, 25).

The use of kingfisher feathers in Chinese ornaments also appears to have a long history. Often not surviving archaeologically, our evidence comes instead from Chinese poetry. The first mention of the kingfisher in Chinese literature is in the Tso Chuan in which the Thane of Ch’u is described arraying himself on a snowy evening in 530 BC in a fur cap, ‘halcyon cloak, and leopard slippers’.[1] Mentions of goods made from kingfisher feathers are frequent after this early date. Such goods include quilts, carriages, hairpins, sashes, skirts and many more (Kroll 1984: 242-3). In a poem composed in 607 the Emperor of Sui, Yang Kuang (580 – 618 AD) is described on his visit to the tent of his vassal Chi’i-min, Qaghan of the Eastern Turks as using a ‘halcyon palanquin’ (Ibid. 243).

The use of kingfisher feathers in ornaments, and particularly in hair ornaments, thus appears to have a long history in China. The Pitt Rivers objects, if indeed they were collected by Pitt Rivers, would have been collected prior to 1884 (the date the General’s collection was made over to the university museum). Thus it seems likely that they date from the period of the Qing Dynasty in China (1644 – 1911 AD) (as do the other Chinese ornaments made from kingfisher feathers held by the Pitt Rivers Museum and donated by a Mr. J. Keir: objects 1951.5.1 - .20).

There is little information available describing how kingfisher feather ‘enamelling’ was actually undertaken during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, a snippet from Mary Parker Dunning’s book Mrs Marco Polo Remembers, in which she recorded her travel experiences of 1908, does describe the process.

I bought a kingfisher pin. The foundation of the pin is cheap silver. Then the wonder worker, a patient, spectacled Chinaman, takes a single hair from out of the bird’s wing, draws it through a bit of glue and lays it on the silver foundation. Then another hair, which he lays beside the first. Then another and another and another, endlessly and headachingly and eye-tiringly, until he has laid the filaments from the feathers of the bird’s wings so closely together that they look like a piece of enamel. [Mary Parker Dunning 1968 (quoted in Jackson 2001: 50-1).]

Before the gluing process could begin however, the metal framework had to be prepared. This was done by soldering gallery wire to the edges and surfaces of the metal base, creating partitions defining the motif. The different components would then have been soldered together to make three-dimensional forms, and the feather filaments cut to size and glued in (Richard Mafong in Jackson 2001: 51). Jack Thompson, at the Conservation laboratory, Portland, Oregon has identified the type of glue used as funori, a mixture of animal hide glue or alternatively, isinglass (made from the swim bladders of fish) and seaweed extract. Funori, applied warm, dries very thin and is thus perfect for attaching very light materials such as gold leaf or kingfisher feather filaments (Jackson 2001: 52-3). Thompson’s findings appear borne out by Sung Ysing-Hsing’s [2] work on 17th century Chinese technology which describes glue made from the bladders and intestines of fish (Ibid. 54). The whole process of inlaying with the feathers was called tian-ts’ui, literally ‘dotting with kingfishers' (Jackson op. cit. x).

By all accounts, then, the process was painstaking. Presumably, the labour entailed in producing these ornaments, and indeed in first catching the kingfishers to strip them of their feathers, translated into high prices for the consumer. The possession of ornaments made from the feathers of kingfishers would have signified wealth and status. Kingfisher feathers appear frequently among the items of the imperial household during the Qing period and earlier. They were not restricted to those of Qing imperial descent, however, and appear to have been popular among wealthy Han, Manchu and other smaller ethnic groups, although the manner in which they were worn varied.

The Emperors of the various dynasties of China issued regulations regarding dress. In 1759 the Qianlong Emperor (reign 1736 – 95) continued this pattern by commissioning a massive work, the Huangchao liqi tushi (Illustrated Precedents of the Ritual Paraphernalia of the Imperial Court) which was published and enforced by 1766. Concerned that Manchu customs were being diluted by Chinese ways, this work outlined in great detail the (Manchu-style) dress appropriate for differently ranked officials and members of the Imperial household for different occasions: official and non-official. These, in turn, were subdivided into formal, semi-formal and informal occasions (Garrett 2007: 10). These guidelines delineated precisely which stones, colours, motifs, patterns, garments, accessories etc should be worn by individuals of certain ranks on different occasions. Whilst these regulations were intended to diffuse Manchu customs across the Empire, unifying the country, they only appear to have succeeded partially. It may have been impossible to distinguish, by clothing, Han from Manchu among Mandarin officials at court (Ibid. 68), but distinctions in dress appear to have continued away from the court. In particular, Han wives of officials appear to have been keen to retain their Chinese identity, taking care not to wear Manchu-style clothing (Ibid. 98).

Kingfisher feathers were most used for hair ornaments, other jewellery and hats. The court hat (chao guan), diadem (jin yue), and torque (ling yue) were worn by female members of the Imperial household as part of their court dress. On official occasions, lower ranking women wore a silk headband on the forehead in place of the diadem or coronet. These could all be decorated with kingfisher feathers. On informal festive occasions Manchu women wore a dianzi headdress which resembled a cap made of wire lattice and was decorated with various stones, enamel and often kingfisher inlay (Ibid. 38, 40, 46). On non-official occasions Manchu women wore a liang ba tou headdress which was shaped like a pair of batwings and sat atop the head. Originally constructed out of the wearer’s hair, false hair and satin were used instead in the 19th century. These were lavishly ornamented with artificial blossoms, silk tassels and jewelled ornaments, including those made from kingfisher feathers (Ibid. 54). Kingfisher hair ornaments worn by Han Chinese women include the coronet or “phoenix crown” (feng tien), modelled on those worn by empresses in earlier Chinese-ruled dynasties, including the Ming. These headdresses were worn on formal occasions. The feng tien was formed over a copper wire base and covered with kingfisher feather inlay flowers, butterflies, phoenixes, pearls, mirrors and other adornments (Ibid. 100). A less elaborate version of the feng tien was the tien tsu. Originally worn by Manchurian nobility on informal occasions, the tien tsu, by the late Qing period, was worn on formal ones also (Jackson op. cit: 98).

Both groups, Manchu and Han, appear to have used hairpins with kingfisher inlay extensively. The hairstyles of Manchu and Han women differed: Manchu styles strove to achieve height and volume whilst Han styles concentrated the hair in buns at the back or the sides of the head. Thus although both used hairpins, these hairpins differed according to hairstyle and consequently ethnic group. For example, Han hairstyles required double-tipped hairpins (Duda op. cit. 125). The hairpins used by both Manchu and Han women could be made with kingfisher inlay (Jackson op. cit. 61). To achieve these hairstyles the hair was first combed, then coated with a sticky gel (pao hua) made from thin shavings of a wood called wu-mo or pau-hua-mo which had been steeped in hot water. This jelly-like liquid helped set the hair into its elaborate shapes which were also held in place with decorative pins and sometimes adorned with fresh flowers (Garrett 2007: 113; Jackson op cit. 63, 67-9).

Ornaments, particularly hair ornaments, made from kingfisher feathers were often part of a bride’s trousseau. Girls worked on their trousseaus from a very young age. The wedding coronet, often a family heirloom, played an important part in the wedding ceremony. Covered in intricate kingfisher feather enamelling, these coronets could be hung with a ‘veil’ made from strings of pearls. This veil shielded the bride’s face until it was removed by the groom after the ceremony in their sleeping apartment. Only at this point would a groom set eyes on his bride for the first time, and she on him. Once removed, the groom placed his new wife’s hair ornaments in the centre window of latticework at the rear of the wedding bed. The positioning of the ornaments here ensured the couple’s fertility (Jackson op. cit: 95).

On these occasions and on every other mentioned thus far, the use of kingfisher feathers not only displayed wealth and status but also enhanced the wearer’s beauty. Indeed some authors have argued that the display of wealth and status was secondary to the main aim of enhancing women’s beauty in particular (White op. cit. 25). Lin Yutang in My Country and My People (1935) notes that ‘the important thing about women’s dress is not fineness of material but neatness, not gorgeous beauty but elegance, not that it agrees with her family standing but that it agrees with her face’ [emphasis added] (Jackson op. cit. 70-1). That the feathers of kingfishers were considered beautiful is amply demonstrated in Chinese poetry. This poetry consistently depicts the kingfisher as tragically beautiful, so beautiful that it attracts men’s notice, nets and certain destruction (Kroll op. cit. 246). Both the colour and shimmering quality of the halcyon kingfisher’s feathers were extolled by Chinese poets. These two aspects are contained in the term ts’ui. This term, one of only two chromonyms in Chinese directly derived from the animal kingdom (Ibid. 246), is frequently applied descriptively in Chinese poetry, for example to describe various atmospheric phenomena, the faded colour of distant hills, mountain air, the temple locks of women and the plumage of the mythical phoenix. The poet-Emperor Hsaio Kang described newly formed sourpeel tangerines on the bough as ‘golden and halcyon’ (Ibid. 246-8). Probably the most effusive poem describing the halcyon kingfisher, Rhapsody on the Halcyon Kingfisher, was penned by Chiang Yen (444 – 505).

The rare beauty of those two birdsIs born on the Golden Isles and the Hills of Flame…
[there they]
…dazzle green leaves in the wintry hill-gaps
And mirror blooms of vermilion on chilly holms.
Collecting their quick nature and docile heart,
They rear up on pinions of carmine, plumes of bice blue.
But their fate is finally cut short by hunting men
Who stuff the Private Repository with southern caches.
The provide shining trimmings for treasure screens,
Are presented as gorgeous ornaments for lovely women;
Mingled with white jade to form a pattern
Or interleaved with purple gold to give colour-
Foremost of the marvellous hues in the five metropolises,
In the highest place of exquisite adornments within the eight culmina. (Ibid. 249)

‘The women who wore such items as these would naturally enough be thought of as taking on some of the halcyon’s own luster’, its exoticism, its connotations of wealth, its association with royalty, its beauty, its synonymy with unattached freedom; all important values and virtues for women (Ibid. 243).

Within Chinese society, dress has long been a way to identify people’s position within the social hierarchy. The Chinese character fu thattranslates as clothing or dress, also has a wide range of connotations including ‘to serve’, ‘to obey’ and even ‘to be in mourning’ (Roberts 1997: 11). Kingfisher ornaments, hairpins in particular, were highly involved in the quotidian lives of the women of late Imperial China. They anchored the stern hairstyle, so tight that it caused the hairline to recede substantially by middle age (Garrett 2007: 103). Kingfisher feather ornaments also decorated the liang ba tou batwing headdress. The heavy wooden frames of these headdresses caused headaches such that some, although not all, Manchu women were relieved to be able to put these away in the years following the end of the Qing dynasty and the founding of the Republic in 1911 (Wilson 1986: 67). Thus hairpins and adornments physically intruded in the daily lives of their wearers creating a particular body hexis (Bourdieu 1977), affecting the way in which the head was held and felt. They even affected the manner in which ladies walked: a true lady never let her hairpins sway. Noblewomen thus learnt to walk without moving their heads (Duda op. cit. 125). Kingfisher coronets feng tien and tien tsu may also have been linked to unwelcome arranged marriages for some women, happy matches for others. The way in which the feathers were worn was further used to construct ethnic difference (e.g. in the liang ba tou opposed to the feng tien). It might also have signified overarching similarity and recognition of shared history: the use of kingfisher feather enamelling dates back many centuries, spanning a variety of ethnic groups. Its display signalled wealth and status alongside and in tension with beauty and elegance. Its social meanings should also be related to its materiality: that particular iridescent blue which captivated Chinese poets from the medieval period onwards continues to capture our attention. Its appeal, in particular its shimmer, may even be cross-cultural (Morphy 1989): the visual qualities of this object were probably the sole reason I was drawn to it and not its neighbours in its crowded cabinet. ‘Dress is a coded sensory system of non-verbal communication that aids human interaction in space and time’ (Eicher 1995: 1). As a sensory system, dress must be ‘lived’ and ‘experienced’. The lives of many women in late Imperial China were experienced in the context of cumbersome, painful, beautiful, iridescent hair ornaments that could signify wealth, status, ethnicity and identity. Objects like 1884.79.163.1 - .5 can condense all these meanings, embody tensions and contradictions shedding a halcyon light on their wearers.

Notes

1. Tso Chuan, “Chao kung” 12th year (equivalent 530 BC). Kroll’s footnote (Kroll 1984: 239) references Legge, J. 1960 (reprint). The Chinese Classics, Vol. 5 (Hong Kong University Press: Hong Kong): 637.

2. Sung Ysing-Hsing 1966. Chinese Technology in the Seventeenth Century (Dover Press: New York): 262.

Bibliography

Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice (CUP: Cambridge).

Duda, M. 2002. Four Centuries of Silver. Personal Adornment in the Qing Dynasty and After (Times Editions, Art Media Resources Ltd.: Singapore, Chicago).

Dunning, M. P. 1968. Mrs Marco Polo Remembers (Houghton Mifflin Co.).

Eicher, J. (ed.) 1995. Dress and Ethnicity (Berg: Oxford).

Garrett, V. M. 1994. Chinese Clothing: An Illustrated Guide (OUP: Oxford, Hong Kong).

Garrett, V. M. 1997. A Collector’s Guide to Chinese Dress Accessories (Times Editions: Singapore).

Garrett, V. M. 2007. Chinese Dress from the Qing Dynasty to the Present (Tuttle Publishing: Tokyo; Rutland, Vermont; Singapore).

Jackson, B. 2001. Kingfisher Blue. Treasures of an Ancient Chinese Art (Ten Speed Press: Berkeley, Toronto).

Kroll, P. W. 1984 “The Image of the Halcyon Kingfisher in Medieval Chinese Poetry” Journal of the American Oriental Society 104(2): 237 – 251.

Morphy, H. 1989. “From Dull to Brilliant: The Aesthetics of Spiritual Power Among the Yolngu.” Man 24(1):21 – 40.

Roberts, C. (ed.) 1997. Evolution and Revolution: Chinese Dress, 1700s – 1900s (Powerhouse Publishing: Sydney).

Tarlo, E. 1996. Clothing Matters. Dress and Identity in India (Hurst and Company: London).

Wilson, V. 1986. Chinese Dress (Victoria and Albert Museum: London).

Model monuments

2010-09-29T08:33:18+00:00

A set of models of prehistoric stone monuments

Caroline Butler (MSc Professional Archaeology)

{joomplu:474 detail align right}

Hidden away in a box in the Pitt Rivers store rooms are a set of 13 models depicting various megalithic monuments from England and the Isle of Man. All the models (accession nos. 1884.140.85-97) are made from the same materials, at the same scale with very similar information recorded on each. They first arrived at the museum as part of the founding collection in 1884, but had previously been displayed at the Bethnal Green and South Kensington museums.

The 'Green book' holding the South Kensington museum receipts has an entry dated 25th February 1875 for “16 cork models of Prehistoric monuments”. Clearly some have gone astray but in the delivery catalogue most are listed as being displayed in case 43, so they were on show as part of the Pitt Rivers collection at Bethnal Green and later South Kensington Museums. The 16 models fall into 3 groups: sites in Devon and Cornwall; sites on the Isle of Man; Other sites. From Cornwall and Devon are represented the sites of Chun Quoit, Lanyon Quoit, Trethery Quoit (called Trevethas or Havy Stone on model), Men-Al-Tol, Grim's Pound, Spinster Stone, Dance Maen ('Merry Maidens')(destroyed), Nine Maidens near Carn Kenidjack (missing). Six models belong in the group relating to the Isle of Man; King Orry's Grave and opposite King Orry's Grave, Cloven Stones, Ballakelly, Mount Murray (missing) and the Calderstones (actually in Liverpool but grouped here for reasons explained below). There are two 'Other' models; Kit Coty's House in Kent and Wayland Smith's Grave in Berkshire (now more familiarly known as Wayland's Smithy).

A typical description is that for Chun Quoit in Cornwall which reads: “Cork and moss model on a base of wooden blocks covered with painted paper of a chambered monument called Chun Quoit. Cork represents the stones of the monument and the moss shows undergrowth, which covers the whole of the base. Orientated with compass points marked on each side, and at a scale of 10 feet to 1 inch.”

{joomplu:475 detail align right}

Archaeology is an intensely visual subject, and throughout its history it has been graphically represented. Today archaeologists are making use of computer games software to reconstruct and explore former landscapes (Challis et al 2010), alongside a whole range of digital technology to capture and present their findings. But what happened in the days before powerpoint or overhead projectors? Much archaeological reporting happened through antiquarian societies. Papers were published in these societies' journals, but these papers were often little more than transcripts of talks that had been given at the meetings. It is clear from many of these papers that visual aids were used. Artefacts were often passed round and lantern slides may have been used, along with illustrations and engravings, but it also seems clear that models were an important tool. As Evans observes “Though time has lent them anachronistic charm, in their day they were a ‘modern’ vehicle for technical demonstration ... At a basic level they were a key accompaniment to presentation and an item of ‘performance’”. (Evans 2004; 109, 120) This opens the possibility that the set of models held at the Pitt Rivers Museum was used in this way.

Pitt Rivers was a great fan of models as a way of illustrating sites and excavations. He said “The use of carefully made models of excavations are of the utmost importance in museums” (Pitt Rivers 1897, 333) and bore this statement out with his use of models. In his museum at Farnham he had over 100 models, some simple representations of sites which he visited as Inspector of Ancient Monuments, but many were of his excavations. These were often complex, meticulously-crafted works giving details on artefacts and burials found at different depths and locations. (Evans 2004, 121) While Pitt Rivers may be one of the more famous users of archaeological models, he was not the first. His earliest models date from the early 1870s but he would have already seen other models such as Stone's model of his excavations at Standlake in 1857. (Bowden 1991, 155) However, this set of models does not seem to fit within what is known of Pitt Rivers' visits or model making activity.

The models have further information to reveal. As well as the compass points, scale and title, which often includes additional geographical information such as “Foundation of hut at Grim's Pound (6 miles from Moreton Hampstead) Devon” (1884.140.90), on the underside of the base all the models have a set of labels. Written in pencil on all them is 'Meg Case 77' and a glued label with a number between 2934 and 2949. 'Meg' could refer to 'main exhibition gallery' and as the lost models also have their four-digit number recorded in the delivery catalogue these notes may give further indication of their display history before their arrival at the Pitt Rivers Museum. However the most interesting information comes in the notes written in ink. All the models follow the same formula. For example, on the base of the model of Kit Coty's House (1884.140.89) it says “25 April 1868 2pm; New Series No. 2; Class Sacrificial Dolmen”. They also all have an interesting monogram.

{joomplu:476 detail align right}

At first it appeared that the date and time may refer to when they were made, but it became clear looking at the models of King Orry's Grave (1884.140.87) and Sepulchre opposite King Orry's Grave (1884.140.88) which shared a date of Friday 23 Sept 1870 but had respective times of 1pm and 1¼pm that it must refer to the time of a visit. Nothing was known of how these models came into the Pitt Rivers founding collection but the monogram did not look like it represented Pitt Rivers or Lane Fox.

A bit of research uncovered two papers read to the Anthropological Institute titled “Notes on some archaic structures in the Isle of Man” and “A description of some archaic structures in Cornwall and Devon” by one A.L. Lewis. (Lewis 1872a, 1872b) Closer reading showed that each of these papers contained descriptions of visits to all the sites represented by the models, plus details of further sites. Each site description also included measurements, or reasons why measurements were not taken, and hence presumably why there is no model. The paper on the Isle of Man also included plans of the sites (including the Calderstones as Liverpool was the point of departure). It seems highly likely that these models relate to these papers and were used in Lewis's talk to illustrate the raw measurements contained in his paper.

Alfred Lionel Lewis was clearly a keen anthropologist with a special interest in stone monuments, though a chartered accountant by profession. He joined the Anthropological Society of London in 1866 and from then until his death was highly active in various societies including the Anthropological Institute and British Association. (Brabook 1920) Indeed, it was this involvement that led to the paper on the Cornwall/Devon sites, “On attending the meeting of the British Association meeting at Exeter, (1869), I took advantage of being so far on the road to pay a visit to some of the megalithic and other remains in the southern extremity of Britain”. (Lewis 1872b, i) He was clearly known for his models as his obituary says “he made skilful models of many of the stone monuments he described”. (Brabook 1920)

Wayland Smith's Cave, Berkshire and Kit Coty's House, Kent were not mentioned in the two papers already referred to as these had been visited earlier in 1868. However, these were mentioned, along with many of the sites in Cornwall and Devon, in another paper that Lewis initially read at the British Association meeting in Exeter but then rewrote, which discussed the purposes of the stone monuments, using the terms that appear on the bases of the models. (Lewis 1871)

Lewis and Lieutenant-General Pitt-Rivers (or Colonel Lane Fox as he was before 1880) would have known each other through their shared interest in anthropology. If these models were used in Lewis' talks on stone monuments, Pitt Rivers would have seen them because on 6th November 1871 he participated in the discussion following Lewis's presentation on the Isle of Man to the Anthropological Institute “After a few remarks from the President and Col. Lane Fox, Mr Lewis, in reply to Col. Lane Fox said...”(Lewis 1872a, 299). It does not take much to imagine that Pitt Rivers after seeing these models either acquired them or was offered them by Lewis for his collection. Perhaps these models also played an important part in encouraging Pitt Rivers' own use of models as illustrative and demonstrative tools.

References

Bowden, M. 1991. Pitt Rivers: the life and archaeological work of Lieutenant-General Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt Rivers Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Brabook, E. 1920. 'A. L. Lewis Obituary' Man 20 (Dec):188, 189

Challis, K., Chapman, H. and Gaffney, V. 2010. 'Computer games and virtual landscapes' British Archaeology 114: 40-43

Evans, C. 2004. 'Modelling Monuments and Excavations' in de Chadarevian, S. and Hopwood, N. (eds.) 2004. Models: The Third Dimension of Science Standford: University Press

Lewis, A.L. 1871. 'Notes on the buildings and the purposes of megalithic monuments' Journal of Anthropology 1(3): 286-296

Lewis, A.L. 1872a. 'Notes on some archaic structures in the Isle of Man' Journal of the Anthropological Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1(3): 295-299

Lewis, A.L. 1872b. 'A description of some archaic structures in Cornwall and Devon' Journal of the Anthropological Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1(3): i-ix (appendix)

Pitt Rivers, A.H.L.F. 1897. 'Presidential address to the Dorchester meeting of the Archaeological Institute' Archaeological Journal 54: 311-339 quoted in Bowden 1991, 143

Further Works by A.L. Lewis

1868. 'The new Gentile revelation' The Anthropological Review 6(21): 217-220

1869a. 'Report on the International Congress on Archaic Archaeology' Journal of the Anthropological Society of London 7: 26-29

1869b. 'Reminiscences of a visit to Locmariaker and Gavr Inis' Journal of the Anthropological Society of London 7: 72-73

1870. 'The People's inhabiting the British Isles' Journal of the Anthropological Society of London 8: 34-40

1870. 'Notes' Journal of Anthropology 1(1): 116

1872c. 'The builders of the megalithic monuments of Britain' Journal of the Anthropological Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1(1): 70-73

The Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland hold 'a collection of lectures on stone circles and monuments' by A.L. Lewis. The online catalogue record can be accessed here [accessed 28/9/10] or through the National Register of Archives [accessed 28/9/10]

The photographs on this page were taken by Caroline Butler, the project team's thanks to her for allowing us to use them on this site.

To find out more about other monument models created for Pitt-Rivers for his second collection see here.

1884.32.3 Nuer headdress

2010-06-10T10:43:52+00:00

Research note on a beaded headdress collected by John Petherick in the Southern Sudan

{joomplu:317 detail align right}

Jeremy Coote and Alison Petch

In the early 1990s it was decided that part of the Pitt Rivers Museum’s Upper Gallery should be redisplayed. The area had traditionally been used to display different types of weaponry and this overall theme was continued. However it was agreed that, in addition, there should be two displays which concentrated on objects from specific geographical areas. After some debate it was agreed that one of the displays should contain artefacts from Nagaland in north-eastern India (artefacts from this area are very strongly represented in the Museum’s collections) and Southern Sudan, specifically objects made by the Nuer and Dinka.

The decision to display objects from the Southern Sudan was taken because two of the most famous ‘Oxford anthropologists’, E. E. Evans-Pritchard and Godfrey Leinhardt, undertook important fieldwork among the Nuer and Dinka and the Museum has a collection made by Evans-Pritchard, including 437 artefacts and around 1,500 photographs. In addition, the Museum received, as part of the founding collection of Lt.-General A. H. L. F. Pitt Rivers, 142 objects collected by John Petherick in the Southern Sudan between 1853–1865. This meant that the display could show a historical range of objects and set them into context with photographs taken by Evans-Pritchard in the 1930s. Both of the authors of this research note worked on the redisplay. One of the authors, Jeremy Coote, had actually undertaken fieldwork in the area himself. He arranged that photographs should also be displayed so that the exhibit showed something of the material culture of the area over the last 150 years. This display was completed in 1994.

One of the objects which had to be displayed, because of its rarity and striking lack of resemblance to other material culture items from this geographical area, was a beaded headdress collected by John Petherick [1884.32.2, see Plate 1]. This had been part of Pitt Rivers’s own collection and had been displayed with other objects at Bethnal Green Museum, London (then part of the South Kensington Museum, which is now known as the Victoria and Albert Museum). Pitt Rivers published a catalogue raisonné for part of these displays including a description of the headdress:

Screen 4 North Arch ...Helmet of cylindrical white beads with neck-guard at back worn by Nouar [sic] on both sides of the Nile, from 8-10 ˚ N Latitude. Similar in form to the ancient Egyptian head-dress. Obtained by Mr Petherick (see Journal of the Royal United Services Journal vol iv no xiii).

Both writers classified the headdress as armour. For all objects which were donated as part of the founding collection there are a series of hard copy sources of information including the so-called Black book entry (written before the collection came to Oxford in 1884), the delivery catalogue (in which items which were transferred from London to Oxford in 1884 are listed), and the accession book entry (written in the 1920s by a member of the Museum’s staff). Here are these entries:

Black book entry - ‘78 Helmet cylindrical white beads. Worn by the Nouer [sic] on both sides of the Nile from 8˚ to 10˚ N latitude Similar in form to the Ancient Egyptian Obtained by Con'l Petherick 129’

Delivery Catalogue II entry [page 260] - ‘Hats and Helmets Helmet cylindrical beads with neck guard Nile 129’

Accession book IV page 83 - ‘Helmet of white cylindrical beads elaborately mounted on end on net-work with neck-guard Nuer C Africa.’

Relatively little is known about John Petherick (1813–82). He was a Welsh mining engineer, trader and explorer employed until 1848 in Ali Pasha’s service in the Sudan. From 1853 on he was in trade in the area of the Bahr-el-Jebel (White Nile) during which time he ‘explored’ the Rivers Jur and Yalo. In 1853-58 he was in Zande (Azande or Neam Nam) territory. In 1858 he was appointed British vice-consul in Khartoum. In 1862 he again visited the Southern Sudan, ascending the Bahr-el-Jebel. He left the Sudan in 1865.

He described the collection he had made in the Southern Sudan, including the ‘helmet’ to the Royal United Services Institution evening meeting on 7 May 1860. The journal reference is as follows:

The Nouaer [sic] on both sides of the Nile, from 8 to 10 degrees north latitude, wear a helmet made of cylindrical white beads (fig 22). [see Plate 2]

It is not known exactly how the collection came to be owned by Pitt Rivers but it was certainly publicly displayed by him in 1874, as the mention of several items from Petherick in Pitt Rivers’s catalogue raisonné shows. Petherick himself describes a similar type of headdress in Egypt, The Soudan and Central Africa:

... Anoin and his brothers wore caps resembling sailor’s souwesters, composed of white tubular beads sewn in close contact on to a piece of soft hide the thread is of cotton and in it manufacture a thorn proved a good substitute for a needle.’

Although the reference to hide is confusing, as none of the specimens which have been found to date have the beads sewn on to skin.

Another early reference to the headdress is made by the Revd. J. G. Wood, another ethnographic collector:

A headdress of remarkable beauty was brought from this tribe by Mr Petherick, and is now in the collection of Col. Lane Fox. It is white, in imitation of the white clay with which the head is usually decorated and is made of cylindrical beads shaped as if they were pieces of tobacco pipe. These beads or bugles, as they ought perhaps to be called, are threaded on string and fastened together in a very ingenious manner. The singular point of this headdress is the exact resemblance to the soldier’s casque of ancient Europe, and to the helmets now in use in India and other parts of the world.

The following description of the headdress as it is today concentrates on the two main components of its structure; the string network which forms the structure of the headdress and the beads. The beads are individually knotted onto a string network. The string-network is made of horizontal lines of string with regular vertical lines attached, towards the edges the numbers of vertical strings increase. The beads are then threaded (?with a double thickness of string - or [less likely] threaded twice), tied to the network and then to through the bead to the outside where they are individually knotted. The end line of beads also has a further line of string between the knots and the beads, presumably as further protection. It is fairly obvious that the network was made first and the beads added because in some places the beads have fallen off leaving the remnants of the network, and also because of the way the beads have been knotted onto the network. The beads ‘radiate out’ from a central point at the top of the head either in a coil or in concentric circles.

It has been suggested that the net-work could have started from the upper fringe part and then worked down the neck end. The strengthening side parts run up into the head section but do not go round the edge. They are made by laying a piece of string over the verticals and then tying bead to both bits of string to link string network and the bead together. As the headdress reaches the top there are less beads strung between each vertical thread (it varies from 2 to [more usual] 3 at bottom and one at the top. The ‘fringe’ is made in a semi-circle but appears not to be sewn to back piece but actually worked into it. The whole thing could have been made like a basket, by twining from the top and then lengthening for the neck section on one side. It is possible that the strings to which beads attached are weft and the ‘vertical’ threads are the warp.

Some of the beads have now become detached from the string network. The beads are definitely made of glass, with some variation in colour but basically white. There is a very close match to one of the beads in the A. J. Arkell collection. These beads are described as 2 opaque white glass cylinder beads, possibly from Sokoto, obtained from El Fasher in the Northern Darfur, Sudan. A. J. Arkell was an archaeologist and anthropologist who spent most of his working life in Sudan. He became Head of the Antiquities Service and founded Khartoum Museum. In 1950s and early 60s he was curator of the Flinders Petrie Museum (part of Dept of Egyptology, University College, London). Although Arkell suggested that the beads may have come from Sokoto they are placed among other European glass beads in the Arkell collection.

A review of the bead sample cards in the Museum’s collections suggested that the headdress beads most resemble Czech beads from Gablonz, in colour and general appearance although none of them is the exact size as they are either much smaller or much larger. The two most similar beads are on a specimen card of glass trade beads obtained from George Shashat (Syrian merchant) at El Fasher, supplied by George Djerdjran of Khartoum, 1927. Details on back of card suggest that these beads were not popular in Darfur area. On the sample card itself it says ?Gablonz, suggesting that this was the place of manufacture. Further similarities can be found on the sample card manufactured by Polenz at Hensel, Gablonz, Bohemia. The Bohemian glass bead industry was originally established by the Venetians, and specialized in imitating beads and bead materials used in other areas of the world.

The beads could be drawn rather than wound, however it is not be possible to test whether the beads are drawn as it is not possible see down into the holes because of the string network. Wound glass is made by winding molten glass around metallic rod or wire so there is no need to drill central hole. Drawn-glass beads are made from drawn canes (made by lump of melted glass being blown until a hole is formed, it is then pulled until it becomes a tube) from which large numbers of identical beads can be cut at great speed. Wound beads were individually made and therefore expensive, drawn beads were mass-produced and therefore cheaper.Wound glass beads can be recognized by swirl marks and tiny air bubbles encircling the hole. Early beads have sharp edges and are irregular in length and angle of cut. The final method is moulding or pressing (which was a later technique), where the powdered glass was pressed into moulds with a stick in the middle to provide for a hole, the mould was then fired, the glass when cooled became a compact mass and the stick was burnt leaving the beads perforated.

The History of Beads shows two main indigenous glass-bead trade routes into Southern Sudan, one from west (centred on Bida, Nigeria) and other south from Egypt. European (Venetian, Bohemian and Dutch) glass beads were brought into West Africa in great quantities and traded from there south and east. Bida is just south of Sokoto in the State of Nigeria.It is a twentieth century centre of bead production. None of the African glass-beads in the Arkell collection resemble the headdress beads whereas several of the beads in the European part of his collection do.

We were interested in obtaining as much information as possible about this headdress particularly because it seemed so much at variance with other material culture from this area. John Mack of the British Museum has stated that

... [it is] unlikely to be a defensive helmet ... [it is] much more likely to be the ceremonial wear of a priest or healer ... where there is no single or uniform style.

Original sources were researched in order that contemporaneous descriptions of similar headdresses could be obtained. One such sources was G. Schweinfürth’s Heart of Africa published in .... :

... Since the Dinka cannot do much with his miserable crop of hair, he turns his attention to caps and perukes in a way not infrequent amongst Africans. Whilst I was with Kudy* I often saw these strange specimens of head-gear which, in the shape of a Circassian European chain-helmet, are formed exclusively of large white bugle beads, which in Khartoum are called “muria”. This decoration is especially common amongst the Nueir [sic].

Kudy is the name of a man, possibly from Khartoum, with whom Schweinfurth stayed in the district of Reck (Rek) ‘.. a locality which formerly made a hitch in the traffic with the natives, before Petherick broke a way to the South through the Dyoor and Bongo, and opened a trade with the Niam-niam [Zande]’. Schweinfurth states that he mainly met Western Dinka during his expeditions of 1863–1865/6 and 1868–1871 when he travelled through Dinka territory.

Margret Carey provided another clue to the headdress. She found that there were two similar headdresses in Museum für Völkerkunde (Abteilung Afrika) in Berlin, Germany. One collected by G. Schweinfurth in 1872 (which seems to be a year later than the expedition dates and may simply be the date of donation), which measured c. 500 mm in length and another given to the museum in 1906 by widow of Johannes Duemichen, the former Professor of Egyptology at the University of Strassburg. This headdress was collected during Duemichen’s expedition to Egypt, Nubia and Sudan in the late 1850s and early 1860s. Unfortunately the Berlin Museum für Völkerkunde had no further information about the objects either from the donors or from other sources [Plate 3, if we have copies of their photos I dont think we do].

A further clue was obtained when a reference was found in an Oxford B. Litt thesis by A. A. Blackman written in 1956, The material culture of the Nilotic Tribes of East Africa :

Some of the more conspicuous articles of Nilotic wear are observable today only as Museum specimens. Of prime interest are the bead headdresses of the Nuer and Dinka, of the type on display in the Pitt Rivers Museum, in the Binder collection (from the Gok Dinka) and mentioned in Schweinfurth’s writing. Among the Dinka the king’s headgear was said to have consisted of a cap of white glass beads with a tuft of white ostrich feathers and Titherington records conical hats of grass, leather and ostrich feathers. Helmets are said to be worn during the bioork, the clashes between the sub-sets of Dinka age-sets...

This reference, and the bibliography, enabled us to identify Franz Binder and track him down to Hermannsburg (now Sibiu in Romania). He was an Austrian trader said to have been of Transylvanian origin (Sibiu is in the area known as Transylvania). He traded on the Upper White Nile and had a station at Shamba having bought Rumbok station after the death of A. de Malzac in 1860. He was acting Sardinian vice-Consul in Khartoum in 1859. In 1864, visiting from Cairo, he was in the Sudan where he had transferred his business. We wrote to the Muzeul Civilizatiei Populare Traditionale Astra in Sibiu, Romania to ascertain whether they had the Binder collection of Southern Sudan material and whether they had a similar headdress. They replied that they did indeed have a similar headdress collected by Franz Binder [Plate 4] and enclosing an extract from Verhandlungen und Mitteilungen des Siebenbürg. Vereins für naturwissenschaften zu Hermannstadt.:

Of the greatest interest from a cultural historical point of view are the unusual glass bead head covers, which have already been noted by Schweinfürth, and which he described in the following words:

‘At Kudj one often saw those strange caps, which had the shape of Circassian chain helmets, and were sewn together entirely from those white cylindrical beads that are called muria in Khartoum. This ornament is especially common amond the Nuer.’

One is inclined to be reminded by these strange caps of the prototype of helmets worked as chain armour. Not insignificant is also that the famous padded armour coats of the western Sudan, tournaments and certain sword versions etc all remind one of Byzantine prototypes, which could also have had an effect on our glass bead caps. It does not strike me as implausible that these caps may be recreations of Byzantine chain head covers, possibly brought to the Upper Nile by Arabs. It goes without saying that these head covers, which are actually very impracticable in this hot country, are only worn by people of high status. This interesting question will be addressed again in the discussion of cultural history.

Conclusions

It seems that four travellers in the Southern Sudan in the 1860s managed to obtain very similar beaded headdresses. All the published accounts by these travellers suggests that they associated these headdresses with high status. All the headdresses are similar in construction, structure and in colour, s ize and shape of bead (except on the Berlin headdresses is said to have a single row of turqoise beads. It is strange however that after this date there seems to be little record of any such headgear. Evans-Pritchard who lived in the area some 70 years after makes no mention in his published work of such headdresses being worn or referred to by the Nuer. Although the travellers published accounts seem to suggest that the headdresses are associated with high status and even ceremonial use it is strange that no mention can be found to date referring to such headgear after that date.

It seems to us quite likely that there are other examples of this type of headdress still extant (there might for example be further ones in Eastern Europe, collected by other traders and travellers). We would welcome any further information that readers of this article might have.

Bibliography

Arkell, A.J. 1936. ‘Cambay and the Bead Trade’ Antiquity 10 (1936) pp 292-305

Carey, M. 1986.Beads and Beadwork of East and South Africa Shire Ethnography

Dubin, L.S. 1987. The History of Beads from 30,000 BC to the Present London

Gray R. and Birmingham D. (?poss B. David ref v. unclear!). 1970. Pre-colonial African Trade: Essays on Trade in Central and Eastern Africa before 1900 Oxford OUP

Harding, J.R. 1962. ‘Nineteenth century Trade Beads in Tanganyika’ Man 177 (1962) pp 104-6

Karklins, K. 1985. ‘Early Amsterdam Trade Beads’ Ornament 9 no 2 (1985) pp 36-41

Liu, R. K. 1974. ‘Amira Francoise: Living with beads in the Sudan’ Ornament 5 no 2 (1974) pp 8-14

Mack, J. ( ed.) Culture History in the Southern Sudan

Petherick, J. 1860. ‘On the arms of the Arabs and Negro Tribes of Central Africa, bordering on the White Nile’, Journal of the Royal United Services Institute, 4 (1860), pp. 171-177.

Petherick, John 1861. Egypt, The Soudan and Central Africa: with explorations from Khartoum on the White Nile, to the regions of the equator ; being sketches from sixteen years' travel, Edinburgh: William Blackwood and sons.

Petherick, John and Mrs. 1869. Travels in Central Africa and explorations of the western Nile tributaries, London.

Schweinfurth, G. Heart of Africa

Paper prepared by AP and Jeremy Coote in mid 1990s, and not updated for this project

Manilla or penannular bracelet currency

2010-02-03T11:45:41+00:00

Eric Edwards, Balfour Library, Pitt Rivers Museum

On the lower gallery, in Case 75.A, Ornaments Used as Currency Objects, is an object known as a manilla (1884.99.42). Part of the Pitt Rivers' founding collection, this manilla was salvaged from a shipwreck off the coast off Cork, Ireland, in 1836. General Pitt Rivers was stationed in the army in Ireland some thirty years later, from 1862 to 1866, when he probably obtained the object. Donated in 1884, it was originally displayed at Bethnal Green Museum in London. Made in Birmingham, this manilla was one of a quantity on a ship bound for New Calabar (Nigeria) where they were to be traded for palm oil and ivory. The old Pitt Rivers Museum label said that these manillas were to be traded in Ibo country, West Africa.

Manillas (which were a traditional African exchange medium) were originally metal bracelets or armlets. Later forms were made of copper, bronze, or brass open rings (penannular or almost ring-like), often horse-shoe shaped with enlarged finial terminations. The term is derived from the Spanish for bracelet or manella or the Portuguese for hand-ring (Rees 2000). The origin is from the Latin manus (hand) or monilia, or monile the plural for necklace. The universal name for manillas, which are an ancient form of money or barter coinage, is Okpoho. Manillas originated at Calabar and the word 'okpoko' is the Calabar, Efik, Annang, and Ibibio term for money or brass.

During the 1470s Portuguese explorers became aware that, all along the west coast of Africa, copper bracelets and leg-bands were a means of exchange. Copper, regarded as the ‘red gold’ of Africa, was mined and then traded across the Sahara by merchants from Italy and Arabia. This ‘red gold’ was seen always as the primary metal for exchange and value judgements (Herbert, 1984), whereas gold was regarded by Africans for purposes of adornment and the export trade. For internal purposes one of the oldest, and original general-purpose currencies, was the copper or bronze manilla, and were known at Calabar in 1505. By 1859 manillas were reported on the Benin River and again seen in Calabar in 1688. (Einzig, 1949). These early Portuguese traders bought tusks of ivory, peppers, and slaves by exchanging currency 'bracelets' acceptable to the Africans (Rees, 2000). Eventually manillas became known as slave trade money after they were used by Europeans to acquire slaves. The slave trade in question was that to England and the Americas prior to 1807. Furthermore, Dutch traders “…bought slaves against payment in rough grey copper armlets which had to be very well made, otherwise the natives rejected them by the hundred.” (Meek, 1937). A slave cost about 12 to 15 brass manillas in the 1490s but correspondingly less if they were of copper (Rees, 2000). With inflation a female slave aged 16 in Benin cost between about 50 manillas in 1522. Indeed, smaller pattern Popo Manillas, which were too small to wear as bracelets, were manufactured in Birmingham solely for the slave trade.

The earliest use of manillas was in West Africa. As a means of exchange they originated in Calabar. Calabar was the chief city of the ancient southeast Nigerian coastal kingdom of that name. It was here in 1505 that a slave could be bought for 8-10 manillas, and an elephant’s tooth for one copper manila (Einzig, 1949; Talbot, 1926). Manillas were noted by voyagers and traders on the Benin River in 1589 and at Calabar in 1688. African names for manillas varied according to local customs. The Mkporo was probably a British or Dutch origin manila but a Popo was French. The British Consul to Fernando Po (1856) delineated 5 different manilla types used in Nigeria (Einzig, 1949). There was the Antony Manilla which was valued in interior markets; the ‘bottle necked’ Congo Singolo which was valued only in the market at Opungo; the Onadoo was best for trade in the Kingdom of Calabar, and also in Igbo country between New Kalahari and Bonny; worth half the value of an Antony the Finniman Fawfinna was acceptable in Qua market as well as Julu Town; finally other patterns of manilla represent types evolving at their point of manufacture in Birmingham, England. The Ibos of Nigeria and the Guineans still used manillas as currency in the nineteenth century (Talbot, 1926) (Einzig, 1949).

By the early sixteenth century the Portuguese were actively engaged in the slave trade. Evidence shows that manilas were carried by bearers into the African interior. Eventually the Portuguese lost their monopoly to the English, French and Dutch – all of whom possessed labour intensive plantations in the Caribbean and eventually the Americas. Utilitarian brass manilas were transported from Europe, mainly England, to West Africa. Manillas were then exchanged for slaves who were then transported to the Americas and the West Indies. The final leg of the triangle saw American cotton shipped to Europe. Manillas eventually became the main currency underpinning the slave trade, but the price “… of a slave expressed in manillas varied considerably according to time, place, and the specific type of manila offered.” (Rees, 2000). In 1788 a Thomas Williams (1737-1802), the so-called ‘Copper King’ from Angelsey, and his partners “…declared that the slave trade in particular had led them to invest heavily in the copper industry.” (Herbert, 1984; Harris, 2003).

The Nigerian manillas in the African manilla trade have been described as “…an open bracelet in the form of a horseshoe with lozenge shaped ends, measuring about 2 ¼ inches across and weighing about 3 ounces.” (Herbert, 1984). They are the latest and the smallest pattern manilla and worth, prior to their withdrawal in 1949, three English pence or 20-25 centimes. Bristol, in the early 18th century, was a centre for the copper industry. An important manufacturer was R & W. King who were eventually absorbed by the later United Africa Company. After this period the most significant city manufacturing brass wares in Europe was Birmingham. Most patterns of manilla were made in Birmingham, including the middle period Nkobukob-Onoudu and the lighter in weight late pattern types. Pieces exported from Birmingham in 1836 appear to be of the smaller type – compared to the heavier Portuguese type of the 16th century. A later type was the Okpoho which is the Efik word for brass. Many Okpoho manillas were salvaged from the wreck of the slave ship Douro off the Isles of Scilly in 1843 (Receiver of Wrecks, 2003).

In the 1690s a series of fortuitous developments in the brass industry of Britain improved production. This eventually gave British manufacturers the edge in the brass trade in Africa. This led to the development of the crescent-shaped and flared ended brass piece known as the Birmingham manilla. These were well made and weighed about 90 grams though a larger pattern was about 300 grams. The trade in copper became enmeshed in the slave trade when Birmingham developed into a centre for finished brass wares. In 1767 a factory in Warrington was manufacturing manillas, in 1767 a Warmly company stocked listed its Guinea manillas, and the Cheadle Brass Wire Company opened its Manilla House and Assay Office in 1790 (Herbert, 1984).

Bracelets and manillas were being replaced by western currencies by the end of the 19th century. Bristol established an important role in African commerce after 1807 in the palm oil trade. Manillas of various types were traded for oil instead of slaves. Of interest here is the fact that the Pitt Rivers Museum's manilla on display was for exchange in the palm oil trade. Whatever this manilla had been traded for, prior to its loss in a Cork shipwreck in 1836, it became an item of currency for the African palm oil trade. The Pitt Rivers manilla was not therefore associated with slavery when he collected it.

January 29th, 2010.

References

Bowden, M. Pitt Rivers... CUP, Cambridge. (1991).
Einzig, P. Primitive Money, in its ethnological, historical and economic aspects. Eyre & Spottiswoode, London (1949).
Harris, J. R. The Copper King: Thomas Williams of Llanidan. Ashbourne, (2003 2nd ed).
Herbert, E. W. Red Gold of Africa. University of Wisconsin Press. (1984)
Lynn, M. 'Bristol, West Africa and the Nineteenth-Century Palm Oil Trade'. Historical Research, 64 (155), 359-374. 12.10.2007.
Meek, C. K. Law and Authority in a Nigerian Tribe. p.5. London (1937).
Receiver of Wrecks. Annual report, (2003).
Rees, A. 'Manillas'. Coin News, 46-47, April 2000.
Talbot, P. A. The peoples of Southern Nigeria. Volume 1. London (1926).
Williams, E. Capitalism and Slavery. 83-84. Chapel Hill. (1944).

Human heart in a heart shaped cist 1884.57.18

2010-01-25T15:04:42+00:00

Eric Edwards, Balfour Library, Pitt Rivers Museum

{joomplu:246 detail align right}

In the Court, in Case 122a (Treatment of the Dead) is a heart-shaped lead cist containing a deceased person’s heart (1884.57.18). It was found in a wooden box secreted in the crypt of Christ Church, the oldest church in Cork, in 1863. General Pitt Rivers collected this artefact when he was stationed in Ireland between 1862 and 1866. Donated as part of his founding collection in 1884, it was originally sent to Bethnal Green Museum as the centre-piece of the ‘Human Superstition’ display. This relic, as gruesome as it may appear on first acquaintance, nonetheless holds great historical and cultural interest, and can be the subject of a wealth of stories and associations. It is most likely that Pitt Rivers was quite aware of the import of the object with regard to human beliefs and the emotions that this artefact could engender.

It is evidence of a common and ancient burial rite as well as a traditional sentiment of mourning (Aries, 1974). In medieval times post-mortem removal of the heart (ablation) was in accordance with much older customs as well as separate burial (Puckle, B. S. 1926). For the medieval mind-set the heart represented the entire body and functioned as the receptacle for the record of a man’s life. Funerary practice in northern Europe often involved ablation of the heart and burial elsewhere, and this separation “…is the essence of the practice of heart burial.” (Dawson, 1933). Separate sepulture of the heart is therefore a “…funerary practice based on mystical belief in the power of the heart.” (Mafart et al, 2004). The practice of heart burial derives thus from the soul and human consciousness being associated with the heart. It follows that “…the part most sought after, the noblest part, was the heart, the secret of life and emotion.” (Puckle, 1926) The custom was known to be common in medieval times but “…the existence of procedures for which little Irish evidence exists” with that collected by Pitt Rivers being only one of a few recorded examples (Tait, C. 2001). Strangely, the heart of Daniel O’Connell, the Irish political liberator (1755-1847), was buried in Rome while his remains are interred in Dublin (Bullen, 1913). Indeed one antiquarian opinion thought his heart “…would have made its way to Erin.” (Baddeley, 1895).

The funerary practice of heart ablation and separate burial was a widespread custom among the elite classes of northern medieval Europe (Mafart, B. et al. 2004). From an ancient ritual the custom of heart burial and placement in a sanctified place was revived in the 12th to 18th centuries amongst royalty, nobility, warriors and ecclesiastics (Bradford, 1930). Nobles who died away from home, for practical and hygienic reasons, were dismembered prior to boiling in wine or water. The viscera were often burned at the place of death but the heart was then transported home. An example may be found with a heart-shrine in Leybourne Church thus we “…may lay it down for certain that the body from which the heart was taken was buried elsewhere that at Leybourne otherwise there would have been no separation of its parts…The hearts of some of the most distinguished Crusaders were frequently sent home to be enshrined in their own manorial church, or is some monastery which they founded or endowed.” (Fynemore, 1913). The body of Roland was treated in this manner (Chanson de Roland, CCXIII). It is thought that hearts were removed by those deemed apt for such a chore and these included butchers and cooks (Mafart, et al, 2004). Crusaders and other warriors (Hartshorne, 1861) often merited separate burial of heart and intestines as “…a custom which was promoted by the Catholic reformers and appears not only among ecclesiastical princes, bishops and royalty but also among important war leaders.” (Weiss-Krejci et al, 2010). There is a heart-shaped niche in Fordwich Church, Kent, reputed to be a depository of the heart of a crusader (Stone, 1913).

In Medieval England the church showed no qualms about burying a person in two (or even more) places at once (Marsden, 1996). The heart of Richard the First was put in a casket and interred in Rouen Cathedral as was that of Henry the First (the remainder of whom is buried in Reading Abbey). Again, Eleanor of Castile (wife of Edward I) has her heart and organs in Lincoln Cathedral whilst the rest of her is entombed in Westminster. The heart of Robert the Bruce was ablated and buried in Dunfermline. It was his wish to be interred in Jerusalem. Circumstances prevented this and the heart in a casket is now buried separately in Melrose Abbey. It has been suggested that separate burials of heart and corpse was used by the church as a financial expedient for enrichment (Hartshorne, 1861). Separated relics, e.g., hearts, intestines etc, became valuable commodities whereby bipartite or tripartite interments involving separate ceremonials engendered greater income. However, such redistribution of body parts provoked some opposition and led to a temporary ban by Pope Boniface VIII (Marshall, E. 1895). Executed traitors also had their hearts removed. One such state victim was reputed to be Hugh Dispenser the lover of Edward II, and who was hung drawn and quartered and whose skeletal evidence shows signs of an ablated heart (Lewis, M. E. 2008). The last king to have a separate burial for his heart was George II in 1760 at Westminster (Howse, C. 2008).

Over time separate sepulture of human hearts ceased to be a strictly religious rite and was replaced by a “…sentimental, aristocratic, or family tradition.” (Mafart et al, 2004). An example of one such notable burial was that of Lord Byron whose heart was removed and interred in Missolonghi, Greece, whilst his remains were despatched home to England (Time, 1933). Percy Bysshe Shelley, who drowned in the Gulf of Spezia in 1822, was cremated by his friends whereupon his heart was snatched from the funeral pyre by the explorer Edward Trelawney and given to the poet Leigh Hunt (Norman, 1955; Time, 1933). Shelley’s heart was given to Mary Shelley who treasured the organ between the pages of Adonais until she died herself. The heart, which by then had crumbled to dust, was finally buried with the remains of Shelley’s and Mary’s son, Sir Percy Florence Shelley, in 1889.

With regard to local Oxford history it is reputed that the ablated heart of John Baliol (founder of Baliol College, Oxford) resided in a shrine at Brabourne Church, Ashford, Kent, whilst his body is interred near the high altar of Newby Abbey, near Dumfries (Pilcher, G. T. 1913). In fact his wife, who kept the heart within an ivory casket as a keepsake, had his heart buried beside her in 1289 some six miles south of Dumfries. (Bayley, A. R. 1913). An Oxford ghost story is attached to the heart burial of William King the principal of St Mary Hall (prior to its merger with Oriel College in 1806). The heart was supposedly contained within a silver or marble vase near the north wall of the chapel. According to one Reverend Phelps, Provost of Oriel College, he was haunted by the tapping of the heart of William King. Apparently Phelps, when living in St Mary Hall, had a bed which abutted the wall behind which the vase containing the heart was recessed. On asking the next occupant of the room about the tapping Reverend Phelps was told it was the beating of King’s heart in the vase (Magrath, J. R. 1916).

The lead cist collected by General Pitt Rivers in 1863 has no information as to whose heart resides within. It is not known how long the heart remained entombed or within a niche in the crypt of the church in Cork. Neither is it known what station in life the owner of the heart occupied in life. It is not known if it was a religious rite or sentimental gesture. It can be concluded, however, that it is an example of a very common funerary practice from pre-medieval times up to the nineteenth century – a practice surrounded by many stories and anecdotes of which Pitt Rivers may have himself been aware.

24 January, 2010.

Sources consulted

Aries, P.Western Attitudes Towards Death.Johns Hopkins University Press (1974).

Baddeley, St Clair.Notes and Queries.8^th.S. VIII.November 9, 1895.

Bayley, A. R.Notes and Queries.II.S. VIII.November 15, 1913.

Bradford, C. A.Heart Burial.Allen & Unwin, London (1933).

Brown, E.'Death and the human body in the later middle ages'.Viator,12. 211-217,(1981).

Bullen, R. F.Notes and Queries.II.S. VIII. November 15, 1913.

Corfield, W.Notes and Queries.II.S. VIII.November 15, 1913.

Dawson, W. R.Review of Bradford (1933).Folklore, 44 (2), June 1933.

Fynemore, R. J.Notes and Queries.II.S. VIII. p 336. (1913).

Hartshorne, E. S.Enshrined Hearts of Warriors and Illustrious People…Robert Hardwicke, London (1861).

Howse, C.'The Burial of the Heart'.The Telegraph.12.4.2008.

Lewis, M. E.'A traitor’s death? The identity of a drawn, hanged and quartered man from Hulton Abbey, Staffordshire'.Antiquity, 82, 113-124. (2008).

Mafart, B. et al. 'Post-mortem ablation of the heart: a medieval funerary practice…'International Journal of Osteoarchaeology. 14, 67-73. (2004).

Magrath, J. R.Notes and Queries.12.S.I.March 4, 1916.

Marsden, Dr P.'A hearty burial'.The Independent, 27.4.1996.

Norman, A. M.Shelley’s Heart.Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences.X (1), 114-116. (1955).

Notes and Queries.II.S. VIII.25 October, 1913.

Puckle, B. S.Funeral Customs: their origin and development.T. Lerner Laurie, London (1926).

Sparke, A.Notes and Queries.12.S.I.March 4, 1916.

Tait, C.History Ireland, Spring 2001. Review of Frey, S. L.' 'Burial in Medieval Ireland 900-1500'.Four Courts Press (2001).'

Time Magazine. 'Science: Heart Burial'.31.7.1933.

Wainewright, J. B.Notes and Queries.11.S. VIII. November 15, 1913.

Weiss-Krejci, E & Williams, H.Dead bodies animate the study of politics. In: Mortality – Interdisciplinary Approaches in the Archaeology of Death, Burial Commemoration.University of Exeter (2010).

Zigarovich, J. 'Preserved Remains: Embalming Practices in Eighteenth Century England'.In Eighteenth Century Life, 33 (3), Fall 2009.

An Irish bronze brooch (1884.79.13)

2010-01-12T10:26:33+00:00

Eric W Edwards, Library Assistant, Balfour Library

On the Middle Gallery, in case 98a, there is an early medieval clothes fastener described as a penannular bronze ring brooch with a long pin (1884.79.13). Of northern Irish provenance it is part of the Pitt Rivers founding collection (it has an early number associated with Pitt Rivers items acquired before 1884 of 142-1649), and was originally displayed at the Bethnal Green Museum. It is another example of the wide-ranging nature of the collection of General Pitt Rivers. This zoomorphic brooch is described having a continuous coarse ribbing along its 4.6cm diameter hoop and is complete with its 10.5cm pin. Its splayed terminals are plain enamel decorated, have no ears, and with rounded eyes. The pinched-in snouts are also enamelled with prominent up-turned tips. There is side hatching on the more or less formless pin-head. Such brooches are thus made with a “…pin which swivels round a hoop with a break to enable the pin to be inserted in the cloth.” (Laing, 1996). Alongside this brooch is a much larger one collected and donated by the General. This comes from Lough Neagh in Ireland (the largest lake in the British Isles) and is labelled 'P.R. coll. [1728] (403 Blue)'. It is important to remember it is with Ireland that Pitt Rivers “…had long-term links…through travel and archaeological fieldwork…” (Gosden & Larsen. 2007).

Penannular open ring brooches start in pre-Roman Britain and probably originate from provincial Roman prototypes. In 4th to 6th century Ireland the zoomorphic penannular brooch was the main form found, though the type has been found from the 2nd century onwards. The term derives from the fact that the brooch terminals simulate animal heads because “…the terminals bore a faint resemblance to a backward turned animal head…” (Laing, 1996). In fully developed brooch types the snout, eyes and ears are all present. These brooches show both regional and chronological variations in style and comprise a circular hoop of metal flattened at the ends – the terminals. Attached to the hoop is a movable pin, the loop of which runs along the hoop. The ring is incomplete in order to allow the passage of the pin between the terminals. These brooches exhibit great variation from crudely alloyed simple rings to creatively elaborate examples decorated with enamelling, glass, and gold filigree.

It is believed that the zoomorphic brooch originated through the combined efforts of the Brigantes and their allies the Votadini, being derived from a Brigantian bangle. From this the Votadini created a new motif unlike other representations of animals. It was an abstraction. This new stylised form had, unlike previous examples, the animal facing inwards. The Brigantian bangle was penannular, square ended and lightweight. The Votadini occupied the region from the Forth to the Tyne. The Brigantes, the only tribe to exist in Ireland as well, occupied much of northern Britain.

Most Irish penannular pins are unprovenanced but they were producing proto-zoomorphic Votadini type pins in the second century. Refugee craftsmen may have sought sanctuary in Ireland after the abandonment of the Antonine Wall in 196 AD. Many examples of zoomorphic brooches date from before the Roman occupation. However, only the early forms have been found in Britain whilst later development was peculiar to Ireland. The terminal types are characteristic of these islands. Some are found in Wales, Scotland and England but they are most numerous in Ireland. One of the early metal working centres in Ireland was at Fort Clogher, County Tyrone. Examples of penannular brooches similar to those collected by Pitt Rivers were found at crannog 2 at Ballindery County Offaly, and the River Shannon near Athlone, Co Westmeath.The Shannon example is characterised by being decorated with triskels (Celtic symbol of three legs radiating from a centre) and double spirals, whereas the Ballindery brooch is animal headed with a fine ribbed ring.

These brooches were more than mundane clothes fasteners. They had secular and religious significance in Celtic society. Their greater purpose was to serve as, often personalised, symbols of wealth, rank and status. Not only were the most expensive and elegant examples the preserve of the rich. They also functioned as portable wealth for payment and gift-giving amongst the upper echelons. They indicated sexual equality because women possessed as elaborate brooches as men. These brooches show forms fixed and adopted by the ancient Britons before the Roman invasion, and furthermore their development involved both the British and the Irish. Indeed, open-ring brooches were being made at Clogher by the 6th century. At this time “…distinctively Irish forms of penannular were in vogue across the country and were occasionally taken over to Britain.” (Laing, 1996). The long and increasingly elaborate development of penannular brooches ensured their survival into the dark ages where their continued use illuminates conditions in England, though most brooches found in Anglo-Saxon graves were re-used Roman examples.

October 23^rd, 2009.

Sources consulted

Campbell, Ewan. (2001). 'Were the Scots Irish?' Antiquity, 75. 285-92.

Gosden, C. Larsen, F. & Petch, A. Knowing Things: Exploring the Collections at the Pitt Rivers Museum 1884-1945. OUP. Oxford (2007).

Kilbride-Jones, H. E. (1935-36).'Scots zoomorphic penannular brooches'. Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scotland. LXX, 123-138.

Kilbride-Jones, H. E. (1980). 'Zoomorphic penannular brooches'. Report XXXIX, Society of Antiquaries. Thames & Hudson Ltd.

Laing, L. & J.Art of the Celts. Thames and Hudson, London (1996).

Lewis, J. M. (1982). 'Recent finds of penannular brooches from Wales'. Medieval Archaeology. 26, 151-154.

Megaw, R. & V.Celtic Art. Thames and Hudson, London (2001).

Smith, R. A. (1914). 'Irish brooches of five centuries'. Archaeologia, Vol 65, 223-250.

HMS Leopard 1884.54.44

2010-01-05T09:57:22+00:00

Model of HMS Leopard (1790) from the founding collection of General Pitt Rivers

Eric W Edwards, Library Assistant, Balfour Library

In Case 71 in the Court of the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford is a model of a sailing warship (1884.54.44) from the founding collection of General Pitt Rivers. The model represents the Portland Fourth Rate HMS Leopard, of 50 guns, as she would have looked prior to her launching. The model was made by George Stockwell. The keel of the ship was laid at Portsmouth Dockyard in 1775 but she was eventually launched at Sheerness in 1790.Not only was this model owned and donated by General Pitt Rivers, it is most probable that he was well aware of the history of the vessel herself. HMS Leopard is known in Royal Naval annals for her involvement in what came to be known as the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair of 1807.

George Stockwell is listed in pay books as one of only five senior shipwrights (Quartermen) working in Sheerness Yard in the 1770s and 1780s. Stockwell was christened on Christmas Day, 1729, at Sheldwich. The son of a well digger he entered the dockyard in 1750-1751. As a Sheerness-based model maker and Royal Dockyard shipwright George Stockwell was known to have been active between 1770 and 1790. The model of HMS Leopard was originally thought to have been made between 1770 and 1790, but later investigations proved the model was made at the same time and place as the ship herself. Within the model was found a folded and glued piece of paper. The quill written message therein stated “This moddle was made by Geo Stockwell at Sheerness in the year of our Lord 1787 in the 56 year of his age.” (Navy News, 2002).

There arose, during the years 1650 to 1800 a skilled tradition of constructing models of Royal Naval vessels that were exquisitely executed. As these models were commissioned by the Navy Board (who had the administrative responsibility for Royal Dockyards) they became the generic Navy Board Models. It would have taken George Stockwell and his apprentice a year to build a model ship such as HMS Leopard. It is not doubted that Stockwell’s skills entitle him to be dubbed the “…Michelangelo of the Navy Board Model Makers.” (Navy News, 2002).

Navy Board models always had well defined features. Each one had a scale of 1:48 and comprised the hull only. No rigging or masts were constructed. The model showed therefore gun ports, configuration of the decks, cabins, and carvings. They were always built from the finest boxwood from Turkey with its mature appearance and mellow yellow. Finer details were boxwood, brass, ivory and bone, with painting done in the naval colours of Prussian blue and Venetian red.

The Rating System of the Royal navy

HMS Leopard of 1790 was designated as a Fourth Rate of 50 guns with a crew of 343 men and boys. She was launched in 1790 and disposed of on June the 28th, 1814. She carried 22 long 24 pounder and 22 long 12 pounder carriage guns. In addition she had on the quarter and forecastle decks six 24 pounder carronades, 2 long 9 pounders, and an 18 pounder launch carronade. Between the beginning of the 17th century and middle of the 19th the Royal Navy employed a rating system to categorise its sailing warships. The original classification of 1686 was according to the assigned complement of the vessel, but a later categorisation (circa 1660) opted for rating according to the number of carriage guns mounted.

The structure was revised by Samuel Pepys as Secretary to the Admiralty in 1677. From now the number and weight of the guns carried determined the size of the assigned complement, total rations, and pay. The trend now was for each Rate to have a greater number of guns. Pepys ratio allowed for a First Rate to have 90 to 100 guns. However the scheme of 1801 gave a First Rate ship 100 to 120 guns. This increased the ratio for a Sixth Rate from 4-18 to 20-28 guns. After 1714 any ship with less than 20 was unrated. The term first-rate has passed into common usage and has come to signify the highest quality, whereas second-rate and third-rate used adjectively implies something of inferior quality. A First to Third Rate ships were regarded in this system as “ships of the line”.

Smaller Fourth Rate ships, such as HMS Leopard, with 50 or 60 guns on their two gun-decks were regarded as “line ships” until 1756. After that they were regarded as too small for heavy battle engagements.However, some Fourth Rate ships found themselves acting as flag-ships on far away outposts, or on convoy duties, some converted to troop-ships (e.g., HMS Leopard). A Fourth-Rate with its two gun decks had a crew of between 320 and 420 men and boys, and was about 1000 tons burthen. This ‘burthen’ ton was defined as 35 cubic feet of water and not a unit of mass. Thirty five cubic feet of sea water does have a mass very approximate to one Imperial (long) ton or 2240 pounds. Not so for merchant vessels. For merchant ships a ton is a ‘register’ ton or 100 cubic feet of water.

The Chesapeake-Leopard Affair of 1807

In early 1807, whilst blockading French ships in Chesapeake Bay, a small number of American and British seamen deserted their ships and joined the crew of the United States frigate USS Chesapeake. The harsh, press-ganging method of recruitment to Royal navy ships led to high desertion rates. Many sailors deserted to the United States where their seamanship skills were welcomed. Indeed, desertion by British sailors was common around the area of Norfolk, Virginia, where a Royal Navy squadron lay at anchor. Their task was to watch a pair of armed French ships who had sought refuge in the neutral harbour. Many subsequently joined of the American navy. The Royal Navy found this unacceptable. On June 1st 1807 the British commander in chief of the North American Station issued orders to the captains under his command. These naval officers were ordered to meet the American frigate Chesapeake in international waters beyond the limits of the USA and search for said deserters. Specifically they were to seek out sailors missing from the vessels Belleisle, Bellona, Triumph, Chichester, Halifax, and the Zenobia.

The USS Chesapeake was a 36-gun frigate of some 1244 tons that had been built in the Gosport Navy Yard, Portsmouth, Virginia. She had been commissioned early in 1800 and operated in the West Indies and seas of the southern United States.In June 1807 the Chesapeake, flagship of Commodore James Barron, sailed from Hampton Roads, Virginia, bound for the Mediterranean. As such she was not prepared for any naval action. On the 22nd of June, 10 miles off the mouth of Chesapeake Bay, HMS Leopard intercepted the American frigate. Captain Salisbury Pryce Humphreys of HMS Leopard hailed his quarry but Barron was incensed and refused. The question has been raised as to whether Humphreys was seeking deserters or hoping to press-gang American sailors into the Royal navy.

The Leopard fired three broadsides at the American ship, sending 22 shots into the hull of the American ship. The Chesapeake managing one shot in reply. Three Americans were killed, one was mortally wounded and 17 others injured. Barron thereupon surrendered and was boarded. Only four deserters were found – 2 African Americans, one white American, and one British sailor. All four were taken to Halifax where the Americans were jailed for a while and the British sailor, Jenkins Ratford, was eventually hanged. Humphreys returned to Virginia waters leaving behind the crippled Chesapeake which eventually limped back to Norfolk. Eventually converted to a troopship HMS Leopard was captained in 1814 by Captained Edward Crofton. She was wrecked on the 28th of June en route from Britain to Quebec. Grounded on Anticosti Island in the Gulf of St Lawrence in heavy fog, shewas destroyed but none on board were lost.

General Pitt Rivers must have been very aware of the history of the ship of which he owned the model. He must have also treasured the model that had so expertly been constructed by Stockton as the Michelangelo of model ship makers. Not only must General Pitt Rivers have taken an interest in the ship but he was no doubt impressed by the derring-do exploits of the Royal Navy on the high seas.

Sources Used

Hagan, K. J. This Peoples Navy: The Making of American Sea Power. The Free Press, (1991).

Naval Historical Center, Department of the Navy, Washington DC 20374-5060

Rodger, N. A. M. The Command of the Ocean: a naval history of Britain 1649-1815. London, (2004).

Winfield, R. British Warships in the Age of Sail 1714-1792. Barnsley, (2007).

Winfield, R. British Warships in the Age of Sail 1793-1817 (2nd ed). Barnsley, (2008).

http://www.kenthistoryforum.co.uk/

http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2002/0202/1002020701.asp

You can see an image of HMS Leopard at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Leopard_%281790%29

January 2010

This article is dedicated to the memory of my son William (23.6.1975 to 31.11.2009).

Ten Queensland Photographs in the Founding Collection of the Pitt Rivers Museum

2009-12-11T09:51:04+00:00

{joomplu:697 detail align right}

Christopher Morton

Curator of Photographs and Manuscripts, Pitt Rivers Museum

Box 49 (Australia) in the PRM’s photograph collections was put together by Curator Henry Balfour around 1931 as part of his project to create a systematic research resource out the photographs that had accumulated by that time within the Museum (Edwards & Hart 2004, Morton forthcoming). The ten photographs illustrated here were pasted at that time onto one of the uniform mounts that make up this series. This research note summarises the available documentation for this group of early Australian photographs, as well as some initial research findings about them. The research forms part of a wider Australian Research Council project, ‘Globalization, Photography, and Race: the Circulation and Return of Aboriginal Photographs in Europe' led by Jane Lydon at Monash University, and which the PRM and several other European museums are participating in as collaborating partners.

The ten cartes-de-visite are all pasted onto a cardboard mount forming one card within the geographical series. The fact that they were all kept together in this way suggests that Balfour knew that they were an associated group. The bottom right hand corner of the card is inscribed ‘P.R. coll.’ which has elsewhere in the collection (with some exceptions) indicated that the photographs formed part of the founding collection of the Museum, and thus originally collected by A.H.L.F. Pitt-Rivers. The photographs are organized into two groups. The first six are underlined with the title ‘Brisbane’, although none of the individual images are labelled such. The lower four portraits are individually labelled, three as ‘Rockhampton’ and one as ‘East Queensland’. In fact, all four have been specifically identified as relating to Rockhampton (Sumner 1986: 158).

Published information by Sumner (1986) and Theye (2004) has confirmed that this set of ten photographs are copies of an original set of nineteen carte-de-visite format photographs collected sometime between 1863 and 1872 in Queensland by Amalie Dietrich for the Godeffroy Museum, Hamburg. Sumner (1986: 159) suggests that the Brisbane set were collected during 1863-5 since this was the period that Dietrich was based there. However, it is possible that they were collected as late as 1872 on her journey back. The Brisbane photographs have also been suggested as the work of the Daniel Marquis studio, whereas those from Rockhampton have been suggested as by Joseph Wilder (Aird 2010). Aird notes that Dietrich visited Rockhampton between 1866-7, thus providing a terminus ante quem for these prints.

The fact that these two groupings were made by Balfour suggests that both Brisbane and Rockhampton identifications were somewhere documented for these photographs. In general, Balfour was meticulous about recording relevant information from print backs onto the card beside a photograph, and this is suggested by the mixed and patchy data recorded on the card. For instance, all but one photograph have an identifier (e.g. E/4) recorded, and half of them have individual locations transcribed. In keeping with Balfour’s practice elsewhere in the collection, this suggests that all individual labels were transcribed from the print backs at the time they were pasted onto the board around 1931.

The identifiers themselves fall into two categories. One set connects them with their former life in Pitt-Rivers’s collection (E/1 – E/10). It is not yet known when this set of identifiers was given to the photographs, but other sets of photographs carry similar identifiers, and it can be assumed that they pre-date their transfer to Oxford in 1884. Although a number of other sets of photographs (such as from Fiji and Brittany) are mentioned in the delivery catalogues, this set is not. The second set of identifiers (e.g. 189), recorded next to six of the photographs, are Godeffroy Museum numbers, which can be cross-referenced with the published Godeffroy catalogue (Schmeltz and Krause 1881). The original Godeffroy numbers for the remaining 4 photographs were identified using this catalogue, as well as cross-referencing the documentation and images published by Sumner (1986: 158).

Although Sumner (1986: 160) suggests that two prints in the Archer album in the John Oxley Library (JOL), Brisbane, are likely to be Godeffroy nos 41 and 54 from the Dietrich set, the evidence from the European collections suggests not. The version of Godeffroy 41 in the JOL (Sumner 1986: 162) is slightly different to that purchased by Pitt-Rivers from the Godeffroy (1998.249.5.3), which is probably from the Dietrich set. Likewise, the version of Godeffroy 54 in the JOL (Sumner 1986: 163) is somewhat different to the version in the Museum Volkenkunde in Leiden, which is presumably from the original Dietrich set. Theye (2004: 260) suggests that a further copy of Godeffroy 54 is held in Museum für Völkerkunde, Hamburg, which should be compared with both versions.

Of the original set of nineteen collected by Amalie Dietrich for the Godeffroy Museum, Pitt-Rivers purchased ten images, six from Brisbane and four from Rockhampton. Pitt-Rivers must have bought the photographs during his visit to Germany and Scandinavia with George Rolleston in the summer of 1879 (see separate article on this journey). It is known that ‘duplicates’ of the Godeffroy photograph collection were being offered for sale as early as 1874 (Sumner 1986: 157). The selection of ten images might well have been made on the basis that they best illustrated Aboriginal people holding or using weapons and other material culture, since of the nine Brisbane images that Pitt-Rivers did not purchase, only three show weapons or other material culture (Sumner 1986: 158), whereas all but one of the six he did purchase include such items. In total, Pitt-Rivers purchased around seventy-two photographs from the Godeffroy Museum in 1879, as well as numerous cartes-de-visite from studios in Germany and Scandinavia (see separate article on the founding collection of photographs).

Indigenous Australians were of some research interest to Pitt-Rivers, usually appearing as the most primitive element within his typological series ‘because they assimilate most closely to the natural forms’ (Lane Fox 1875: 9) – a comment that echoed Herbert Spencer’s analogy between simple biological and cultural forms. Most of Pitt-Rivers’ photographs were originally displayed in the South Kensington Museum in a section developed to illustrate physical anthropology, ‘the various races of mankind’. Also on display in this section were two skulls from Australia (see separate article on this section of the 1874 display catalogue).

Dammann’s copies of the Dietrich and Godeffroy collections

{joomplu:698 detail align right}

There are three photographs elsewhere in box 49 that are closely related to the Dietrich set, and which are copies made by the Hamburg-based photographer Carl Dammann, who was copying material for the Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, eventually published in his major work Anthropologisches-Ethnologisches Album in Photographien (AEA) (1872-4). The Dammann material in the PRM was purchased from the Estate of Friedrich Dammann (Carl Dammann’s brother and the continuer of his work) in 1901. The PRM collection has one example of a Dammann copy of the Dietrich set (1998.249.7.13 – see below), and there are a number of other examples of Dammann copies of material from the Godeffroy collection. This is possible evidence of collaboration by the Godeffroy Museum in the Berliner Gesellschaft project undertaken by Dammann, or else points to the Berliner Gesellschaft having acquired copies of the Godeffroy material, which it then shared with Dammann. Of the three copies by Dammann discussed below, two were published in Table 3 of the AEA. It should be noted that the PRM holds prints of around 30 or more other copies made by Dammann of early Australian photographs (i.e. before 1874) and this set will be the focus of future research.

{joomplu:699 detail align right}

[1998.249.7.13] This print was purchased from the Estate of Friedrich Dammann (Carl Dammann’s brother and the continuer of his work) in 1901, and is the same image as Godeffroy no. 53 in the PRM founding collection [1998.249.5.5]. The original image has been suggested as the work of the Daniel Marquis studio in Brisbane. The caption in pencil on the PRM mount, presumably copied from a note on the back of the print, reads “Family at Home”. This image was published by Dammann in the AEA (1872-4) within Table 3 (Australia), with the caption “Australier (Familie)”. Theye (2004: 260) notes that another copy of Godeffroy no. 53 is in the Museum für Völkerkunde, Hamburg.

{joomplu:700 detail align right}

[1998.249.7.14] This print was also purchased from the Estate of Friedrich Dammann in 1901. It is closely related to Godeffroy no. 55 which includes a European man to the right of the group (published in Sumner 1986: 165), copies of which appear in a number of European museums (Theye 2004: 260). This Dammann print is labelled “Bride Capture” on the PRM mount. The original which Dammann copied does not seem to be part of the Dietrich set, but is also possibly the work of the Daniel Marquis studio in Brisbane, and was possibly a print acquired by the Berliner Gesellschaft in the same period. This image was published by Dammann in his Anthropologisches-Ethnologisches Album in Photographien (1872-4) in Table 3 (Australia), with the caption “Australier Brautbewerbung”, i.e. “Australian courtship”.

{joomplu:701 detail align right}

[1998.249.7.15] This print was also purchased from the Estate of Friedrich Dammann in 1901. It is almost identical to one in the John Oxley Library, Brisbane (published in Sumner 1986: 163), but with the standing men keeping their heads down instead of facing the camera. It is also thereby probably the work of the Daniel Marquis studio in Brisbane. Sumner proposes that the John Oxley Library print may be the same image as Godeffroy no. 54. In fact there seem to be several slight variations of this scene, including the version in the Archer album in the John Oxley Library, the version in Leiden, and this Dammann copy of an unknown original, possibly collected by the Berliner Gesellschaft. These variations show that several versions of this grouping were produced by the Daniel Marquis studio and disseminated widely. Dammann did not however use this image in his Anthropologisches-Ethnologisches Album in Photographien (1872-4).

The Dietrich set in the PRM Founding Collection

The following accession numbers (for example 1998.249.5.1) can be seen if you click on the first image shown on this page, to zoom the image, and look at each of the photographs to see the faint numbers below.

PRM no.

Pitt-Rivers no.

Godeffroy catalogue no.

1998.249.5.1

E/5

1998.249.5.2

E/8

1998.249.5.3

Not recorded, but E/2

This version is slightly different to that in the Archer album, John Oxley Library, published by Sumner (1986: 162).

1998.249.5.4

E/4

1998.249.5.5

E/3

This photograph was copied by Carl Dammann and published in the AEA (1872-4).

1998.249.5.6

E/1

1998.249.5.7

E/7

192

1998.249.5.8

E/6

193

1998.249.5.9

E/9

190

1998.249.5.10

E/10

189

References

Aird, M. 2010. Aboriginal Visual History Project. Queensland Report – August 2010.

Edwards, E. and J. Hart. 2004. Mixed box: the cultural biography of a box of ‘ethnographic’ photographs, In Elizabeth Edwards and Janice Hart (eds) Photographs Objects Histories: On the Materiality of Images. London and New York: Routledge, 47–61.

Lane Fox, A. H. 1872. ‘Address to the Department of Anthropology’, Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science for 1872. London: BAAS, 157–174.

– 1875. On the principles of classification adopted in the arrangement of his anthropological collection, now exhibited in the Bethnal Green Museum, The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 4, 293–308.

Morton, C. (forthcoming). ‘Photography and the Comparative Method: the Construction of an Anthropological Archive’.

Schmeltz, J.D.E. and R. Krause, 1881. Verzeichniss der Photographien in Die Ethnographisch-Anthropologische Abtheilung des Museum Godeffroy in Hamburg: Ein beitrag zur kunde der sudsee-volker. Hamburg: Godeffroy Museum.

Süd-see Typen. Anthropologisches Album des Museum Godeffroy in Hamburg, Hamburg: L. Friederichsen & Co. 1881.

Sumner, R. 1986. Photographs of aborigines of north-east Australia: a collection of early Queensland aboriginal photographs, made by Amalie Dietrich for the Museum Godeffroy, Aboriginal History, Vol. 10, 157–70.

Theye, T. 2004. “… ein Blick Für alles Bemerkenswerthe …” – Einige wissenschaftsgeschichtliche Aspekte der Queensland-Photographien Amalie Dietrichs in der anthropologischen Sammlung des Museum Godeffroy’, Jahrbuch des Museums Für Völkerkunde zu Leipzig, Band XLII.

First version 2010, heavily revised May 2011

Dorset hag-stone 1884.56.3

2009-11-12T11:10:43+00:00

1884.56.3 is an object, described by a museum worker as a 'stone with natural perforation, found fixed on a nail to the cottage-door of Kimber, a carter in General Pitt Rivers' employment, to keep away witches'. This is particularly interesting as it must have been acquired between 1880, when Pitt Rivers first inherited the Rushmore estate, and 5 April 1881 when he sent the stone to South Kensington Museum (where his collection was then displayed).

The documentation held at the Museum states:

Accession Book IV entry - 1884.56.1 - 100 Charms Magic etc. - Naturally perforated stone, nailed to a cottage door against witches by a carter Rushmore nr Salisbury

'Green book' entry - South Kensington Receipts, 5 April 1881 - Collection of objects as per list attached nos 293 to 639 540 Holed stone used for the purpose of keeping away witches Rushmore nr Salisbury

Detailed Amulet card catalogue entry - Amulets ) O. Inscribed P. Talismans in cases Q Uninscribed single R Collars, necklets, armlets, rings S-T Juju [sic] U-W Stone X. Dance Y. Unclassed. - Naturally perforated stones Gt Britain Description: Stone with natural perforation, found fixed on a nail to the cottage-door of Kimber, a carter in Gen'l Pitt Rivers' employment, to keep away witches. Dimensions 100 x 64 approx Locality: Rushmore nr Salisbury How Acquired: P.R. coll 540 / 12191

The original documentation does not mention the name of the carter and it is not clear where the information came from, it first appears in the Ettlinger account, she thanks the then curator of the Museum, Tom Penniman, for information so he may have given her the reference, it is irritating that it was not recorded where it was obtained, as that source might have more information about the artefact.

Ettlinger mentions this item in her round-up of folkloric items held in Oxford museums:

More frequently, however, holed stones were fastened to the house- or byre-door, as is shown in three examples in the Pitt Rivers Museum, to keep away witches and pixies, or just for good luck. The first was found nailed to the door of a man called Kimber, who was a carter at Rushmore (near Salisbury), employed by General Pitt Rivers. The second served in 1896 in Ballymena (N. Ireland) to prevent pixies from stealing the milk, while the third, a pebble of black limestone, bored by pholas, was hung behind the door of William Twizel's cottage in Newbiggin-by-the-Sea, Northumberland.]. [Ettlinger, 1943: 235]

To find out more about the stone from Newbiggin go here.

This form of amulet is often called a hagstone, there is a good literature on this type of object. It seems to have been a common Dorset belief, recorded for example here. The stone had a natural perforation, or hole, and were often made of flint or polished pebbles found washed up on the Dorset coast.

In bygone days when superstition played a part in everyone's lives. It was common to see these stone baubles hanging above the doors of people's houses, for Hag stones were believed by some to have protective properties from the powerful effects of evil. On farms it was customary to hang a hag stone on a nail (especially if it was made of iron as this increased the stones power) above the stable door or tied around a horses neck to prevent them from being 'hag rod'. A Dorset expression often used to describe when witches stole horses to ride to their sabbats. In some cases farmers who left their horses or even other livestock unprotected would often find their animals in sweaty and exhausted state with their manes full of tangles, which were known as 'hag knots'. A term often used, as it was believed that a witch tied knots in horse's manes to use as stirrups. [http://www.weymouth.gov.uk/home.asp?sv=1125]

Hag-ridden referred to the

'nightmare, characterised by terror, an impression of being awake but power-less to move or speak, and sensations of weight on the chest. Popular tradition represented such experiences as assaults by witches sitting on sleepers' bellies, inflicting terrifying dreams, and leaving their victims exhausted and haggard ("hag-ridden") in the morning'. [Oates, 2003: 205]

Holed stones were seen as a common counter-charm to deter the 'hag':

When horses were found sweating and exhausted in the morning, it was thought that witches or fairies had ridden them all night, and tangled their manes; this too was called hag-riding, and could be prevented by hanging a holed stone over their stalls, round their necks, or at the stable door. Hooks and shears were effective too (Herrick, Hesperides (1648), no. 892). [http://www.answers.com/topic/hag-riding]

Bibliography for this article

Ettlinger, Ellen. 1943 'Documents of British Superstition in Oxford' Folklore, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Mar., 1943), pp. 227-249
Oates, Caroline. 2003. 'Cheese Gives You Nightmares: Old Hags and Heartburn' Folklore, Vol. 114, No. 2 (Aug., 2003), pp. 205-225

Note: This article was written during the ESRC funded 'Other Within' research project.

AP 2008.

Votive Rags 1884.140.331

2009-11-12T11:09:07+00:00

Alison Petch, Researcher 'Rethinking Pitt-Rivers' project

Artefact 1884.140.331 is an example of the votive rags that were tied to a tree near a well. Oddly this item was not accessioned into the Pitt Rivers Museum collections until the 1990s though it had lain in the museum for over a hundred years by then.

The documentation the Museum has about these objects is as follows:

1884.140.331 Blue book entry - Idols and objects connected with religion Case 78 159 Fragments of rag used as votive offerings for the cure of diseases at St Helens Well Thorp Arch Yorkshire at the present time (2496)
Delivery Catalogue II entry - Religious emblems Votive rags on card 2496 13 Cases 225 226
Detailed Amulet card catalogue entry - Amulets D. Crop Fertility, E. Offerings to Gods etc F. Spirit Houses, Scares G. Sacred and Mem. food H. Relics and Mementos - Models of human body E3 Ex voto rags, pins etc Description: Votive rags from bushes at a holy well hung there by the country people who believe the water is good for eye diseases [insert] if [end insert] combined with an offering of this type to St Helen. They are often left by Roman Catholics being near Clifford where they are numerous Locality: St Helen's Well Thorp Church Yorks Collected by: Mrs Marianne Cooke 1869 How Acquired: PR coll 159 dd Mrs M. Cooke 1869 [sic]

This well was just off the Roman road, the Rudgate. This well was supposed to be devoted to St Helen. The site of the well is actually at Thorp Arch, outside Boston Spa near Wetherby in North Yorkshire. Ellen Ettlinger mentions the rags:

In pre-Christian days, when wells and trees were identified with spirits, offerings were deposited in their immediate neighbourhood to preserve the contact between the worshipper and the divinity. Since the spread of Christianity the real intention of this rite has been preserved only at those wells, where Christian Saints replaced the well spirit. To quote only instances from the Pitt Rivers Museum, this was the case at St. Helen's Well in Thorparch, Yorks. [Ettlinger, 1943: 247-8]

Other accounts of the well mention textiles tied near the well:

Bonser also recalls visiting St Helen's Well in Thorp Arch in the 1930s, when "there were a number of rags and ribbons fluttering from the branches of bushes overhanging the spring which bubbled out of the ground quite close to the banks of the River Wharfe, at a ford where the Roman road, the Rudgate, crossed the river. [http://www.northernearth.co.uk/61leeds.htm]

and

St Helen's Well, Rudgate (SE 451 458)
Situated on the north side of River Wharfe east of Thorpe Arch, and about 400 yards from the river.'This well was re-dedicated from a Pagan deity to St Helen's Well. Metal and pins were thrown into the water and ribbons tied to trees nearby. Waters reputed to be of specific use for eye troubles.' [Speight, Lower Wharfedale].
'The well is now dried up due to the lowering water table but in the not too distant past people, particularly young girls, used to give offerings to St Helen in the form of pieces of cloth tied to the branches of trees around it. In this way, if done in secret, you would see your true love. Also, that ghastly hound the Bargest was supposed to haunt St Helen's Well rattling its chains. Leland mentions a chapel at St Helen's (now gone).' [Guy Ragland Phillips].
St Helen's Cross was found near the spring. There is a plantation to the NE of the well called Chapel Wood and the church at Bilton 3 miles to the North is dedicated to St Helen. [http://people.bath.ac.uk/liskmj/living-spring/sourcearchive/fs3/fs3ew1.htm]

A website image suggests that people still tie things to the tree near the well. Votive rags at wells are a subject that has been written about extensively in Folklore (for example Broadwood, 1898; Hartland, 1893)

Although Pitt Rivers acquired his examples long before most of these authors wrote about them, he must have found the two articles of interest if he recalled the item in his collection.

Bibliography for this article

Broadwood, Lucy E. 1898 'Pins and Metal in Wells Pins and Metal in Wells' Folklore, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Dec., 1898), p. 368

Ettlinger, Ellen. 1943 'Documents of British Superstition in Oxford' Folklore, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Mar., 1943), pp. 227-249

Hartland, E. Sidney 1893 Pin-Wells and Rag-Bushes' Folklore, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Dec., 1893), pp. 451-470

http://www.northernearth.co.uk/61leeds.htm

http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=17274

Note this article was first produced during the ESRC funded 'Other Within' project.

Baker Rifle 1884.27.39

2009-11-12T11:04:52+00:00

Eric W. Edwards, Pitt Rivers Museum Balfour Library Assistant

Introduction

{joomplu:36 detail align right}

The so-called 'Baker' rifle is, in fact, the Pattern 1800 Infantry Rifle, but referred to since Victorian times as the Baker Rifle. This infantry rifle was used by the British Army throughout the Napoleonic Wars. The Baker Rifle had the distinction of the longest service by any rifle in the British Army. The rifle placed in their hands by its inventor, Ezekiel Baker, '...was a superbly designed weapon, both robust and practical.' (Urban, 2004). The Baker Rifle, which was a muzzle-loading flintlock, was the first British rifle to be used. Issued to the Rifle Brigade in 1800 it remained in use until 1838. There is mention of it being used by troops engaged in the so-called 'Kaffir' Wars of 1851, and records of its distribution as late as 1841.

The Baker Rifle in the Pitt Rivers Museum

The displayed rifle in the Gun Case has a label that states the weapon is a Baker Rifle of circa 1800 that was issued to specialist rifle regiments at the beginning of the 19 th century. Further stating that, with the technology of the day, it was too costly for general army issue. Furthermore, it was the first British military firearm to be rifled. It has an Accession Number of 1884.27.39. The rifle was donated by Augustus Henry Lane Fox in 1884 (and therefore part of the Founding Collection) but was collected prior to 1874. It was originally displayed in Bethnal Green and Kensington Museums (V&A).

Stamped on the silver coloured metal lock of the rifle is 'Tower' and 'GR with crown'. Also on the lock is a lock proof mark of a crown over an arrow or chevron pointing downwards. On the brass butt tang is stamped '14/9"CRR'. The weapon is noted as being 1165 mm in length. As will be shown later the rifle on display is, in fact, an 1806 Tower Pattern Infantry Rifle (made after 1806) and possibly issued to the Ceylon Rifle Regiment (CRR) who were formed in 1817, dressed in green, and supplied with a rifle that also used a sword-bayonet. Regimental marks were often stamped on the butt tangs of rifles.

The Origin of the Baker Rifle

The first breech-loading rifle made for the army use was the Ferguson rifle designed in 1774. Rifles had been employed by some units of militia in a number of actions with noted success. The Board of Ordnance had bought, in 1796, some rifles from the famous gunmaker Durs Egg. This weapon looked like a musket and had a 39 inch barrel with 0.704 inch bore. It was this fact that came to the notice of the British Board of Ordnance. The late 18th century Board of Ordnance was a separate department to the British Army that researched procurement of the best weapons, and established offices in Horse Guards. They had the overall responsibility of determining which weapons regiments used, as well as naval artillery requirements. As such the Board was a scientific and professional organisation. It was their intention to obtain the best rifle to equip an elite and specially trained rifle corps as well as already existing rifle units such as the 5 th Battalion of the 60 th Regiment of Foot.

In January of 1800 Colonel Coote Manningham received a letter, from the Adjutant General of the Army, which informed him that the Duke of York intended to give him command of a Corps of detachments from 14 Regiments of the Line. This was for the express '...purpose of its being instructed in the use of the Rifle and in the System of Exercise adopted by soldiers so armed.' (WO 3/21 cited in Blackmore, 1994). This Corps of Riflemen at Woolwich was, as Manningham was informed, not a distinct or permanent unit but was a '...Corps of Experiment and Instruction.' (WO 3/32 cited in Blackmore, 1994).

During the first week of February a series of rifle experiments were conducted at Woolwich near London. Apart from the words of Ezekiel Baker, and the recorded travel expenses of the Master Furbisher, no report of the rifle tests exists. The trials of many submissions resulted in Ezekiel Baker's barrel being adopted as the first issue British rifle. As Baker himself opined 'In the year 1800 the principal gun makers in England were directed by the Honourable Board of Ordnance to procure the best rifle possible, for the use of a rifle corps (the 95 th Regiment) raised by the government. Among those who were selected on this occasion, I was desired to attend: and a committee of field officers was appointed for the purpose of examining, and reporting according to their judgement. There were also many rifles from America and various parts of the continent produced at the same time. These were all tried at Woolwich; when my barrel, having only an quarter of a turn in the rifle, was approved by the committee.' (Baker, 1823). The initial design was not innovative but reflected the better features of continental examples. Baker's first two submissions were rejected by Manningham because they were of musket size and bore and believed too cumbersome, but the third model was approved and this eventually became the first rifle pattern adopted by the British army. As Baker himself said 'When the 95 th Regiment was first raised, I made some rifles of equal dimensions of the muskets, in order that they might be supplied with ammunition, if necessarily supplied, from any infantry regiment that might be near them. They were, however, strongly objected to by the Commanding Officer, Colonel Manningham, as well as all the officers of the Regiment, as requiring too much exertion, and harassing the men from their excessive weight. They were consequently immediately relinquished, and twenty to the pound substituted.' (Baker, 1823).

It seems that Manningham, the father of the thinking rifleman, had a vital role in the decision making process of the Board. It was Manningham who provided Baker with a German Jaeger rifle with the recommendation that he copy it. The final selection therefore of Baker's pattern was one with the Jaeger barrel of 30 inches length. The rifle commissioned by the Board had also a 'carbine bore' of 0.625 inches with a quarter turn seven groove rifling. The rifle did indeed resemble the German Jaeger model, as well as other continental rifles, but the real innovation given the rifle was Baker's quarter turn rifling which was claimed to give greater accuracy. Selection of Ezekiel Baker's third rifle pattern to be the weapon of choice for the new Rifle Corps was a process lasting two years.

In October 1800 another matter was concluded after much argument. The elite Corps of Riflemen was officially established on August 25 th with their accoutrements and distinctive green uniforms approved and authorised for eight companies, and they were equipped throughout with the Baker Rifle. In March the Board of Ordnance had provided Ezekiel Baker with a request for his pattern barrels and rifles. This first batch was for 800, especially for the 95 th Regiment of Foot, and were ordered from gunsmiths in London and Birmingham. This Board of Ordnance manufacturing system established a network of contracts for barrels and locks from gun-makers Egg, Nock, Baker, Pritchett, Brander, Wilkes, Bennett, Harrison and Thompson. The first rifles cost 36 shillings for those with patch boxes in the butt and 32 shillings for those without.

Ezekiel Baker and his Rifle

Ezekiel Baker originally served his apprenticeship with the gunmaker Henry Nock and subsequently worked for this master. However, in 1794, Baker became gun contractor to the British Board of Ordnance. Established in a small workshop in the London Minories he was employed on producing locks and barrels. For a while Baker was in partnership with a lock maker called James Negus. Baker also had government contracts for smooth bore muskets and pistols and supplied the Honourable East India Company.

The specimen rifle made to his specifications and submitted for experiment was chosen in 1800 for the then newly raising Rifle Corps. It was afterwards that he wrote and published his 'Remarks on Rifle Guns.' Indeed, as is known Baker '...demonstrated his invention's superiority in competitive trials organised by the Board of Ordnance.' (Urban, 2004). Further to this, for what eventually became seen as the essence of the Baker Rifle, it '...was also remarked, that the barrel was less liable to foul from frequent firing, than the whole, the three-quarters, or half-turns in angles of the rifle, which was considered of great advantage to the corps, particularly when engaged, as they would not require so often sponging out as the greater angles would and yet possess every advantage of the other rifle in point of accuracy and strength of shooting at three hundred yards distance. For all these reasons the committee gave mine a preference, and recommended to the Honourable Board of Ordnance to have their rifles made upon a similar construction.' (Baker, 1823). From this it can be seen that the rifling twist rate had only one quarter of a turn in the rifle. Such rifling endowed a far more rapid spin to the round lead ball and, in theory, imparted greater accuracy. The barrel of Baker's rifle was only 30 inches in length and therefore one turn in 120 inches. As elements of continental rifles had been incorporated into the pattern it was, as Baker himself pointed out, only the innovative rifling system that he claimed as his own. Bakers main improvements were to reduce barrel length and overall size and weight, and also to reduce the rifle bore to a standard for the time of 0.625 inches.

In 1805 Ezekiel Baker established his own production facilities at 24 Whitechapel Road in London. On one side there was Size Yard and at the rear a large warehouse which he converted into a factory and his own proof-house. Baker had come to the attention of the Prince of Wales and this Royal patron, as Colonel of the 10 th Dragoons arranged the adoption of Baker's cavalry rifle for that Regiment. Soon Baker was appointed court gun maker. Further encouragement by the Prince of Wales led to Baker establishing his own proof house whereby he subjected his guns to his special 'Fire, Water and Target' proof and special proof mark stamps. Ezekiel Baker's private shop and factory developed into a rival to the other gunmakers proof house.

Ezekiel Baker was responsible for improvements in firearms that included bayonet design and fitting, pistol grips, special locks, barrel rammers. The Society for the Encouragement of Arts and Manufactures gave him three silver medals for his developments in safety locks and his bullet moulds. Not only had Baker's rifle shown its improved and reliable accuracy it had also '...managed to overcome the prejudice against such weapons by being robust enough for field service.' (Urban, 2004).

The Development of the Baker Rifle

As the Baker Rifle was, under the terms of the Government contract, made in many gunsmith shops in London and Birmingham, it is not surprising that there are subtle variations to be seen between individual weapons. In addition the rifle was subject to certain modifications throughout its life as a service rifle.

The progress of the Napoleonic War led to changes in the Baker Rifle. A Second Pattern was fitted with the 'Newland' lock and a Third Pattern appeared in 1806 with a pistol grip trigger guard. In addition it had a four and a half inch butt box (or patch box) with a characteristic rounded plain front. This is the type displayed in the Pitt Rivers Museum gun case. Also notable in the Pattern 3 was the 5 inch long flat lock plate, a raised semi-waterproof pan, a sturdy safety bolt, and a flat ring neck cock. By 1809 riflemen were equipped with the Third Pattern introduced in 1806, which by 1823 had become standard issue. As with the Pitt Rivers example the furniture (e.g., butt tang, escutcheon, side plate, trigger guard) of the rifle was made of brass. A sling was fastened to the rifle and it was sighted for 200 yards.

However, Baker Rifle quality varied. This depended on the type of flintlock fitted, on whether they were made in Birmingham or London, but nonetheless service reliability ensured production until 1838. Most of the rifles made between 1800 and 1815 were produced under the Tower of London System, not by Ezekiel Baker. The System meant that Baker subcontracted out production to some 20 or more gunsmiths. For the period 1805-1815 Baker made only 712 rifles. A number of variations included the 1801 Pattern West India Rifle (a simplified version minus a butt box); the 1809 Pattern with its 0.75 inch musket calibre; and 1800/15 Pattern Rifle that had been altered to accept a socket bayonet instead of the usual sword-bayonet.

Between 1805 and 1808 the Board of Ordnance took into its stores some 10,078 English made Baker rifles. This had increased to 14,000 by the end of the Napoleonic War. It was from 1813 that the Baker cavalry carbine had been issued to the 10 th Light Dragoons, whereas a cavalry carbine made by Ezekiel Baker was issued to the Life Guards in 1801. An average of 2,000 Baker Rifles of various patterns were produced in London and Birmingham gun shops between 1804 and 1815. Of these Birmingham supplied 14,615 complete rifles plus 32,582 barrels and 37,338 rifle locks.

Technical Aspects

The Baker Rifle and its pattern variations was in service with the British Army between 1801 and 1838. The weapon was a standard rifle with a calibre (ammunition size) of 0.625 inches (15.9 mm) or 'carbine bore'. It weighed about nine pounds (4.08 kg). Designed between 1798 and 1800 it was 43 and three quarter inches in total length (1162 mm) but the camouflage browned barrel was only some 30 inches (762 mm) long. The Pitt Rivers Baker Rifle measures 1165 mm in total length. Muzzle-loaded, it fired by flintlock ignition a lead ball of 0.615 inches diameter (hence the need for greased linen or leather patches), but later ammunition supplied was ball cartridge. Ignition was provided by a TOWER marked lock (firing mechanism) which was also marked with a crown over GR forward of the lock. A proficient rifleman could achieve a rate of three rounds per minute, and a semi-skilled man could be credited with two rounds per minute. Baker rifles, like Brown Bess muskets, were fully stocked with the wood extending the length of the barrel.

The Baker Rifle stocks were made from English walnut and comprised two class types. Earlier versions have large, two compartment butt box. The second type of stock is not drilled but slit to accommodate a housing for the rammer, and has a smaller butt box. The Pitt Rivers Museum Baker Rifle is of this second type. The butt box of the second type was covered by a 4 and a half inch brass plate or lid. This covered a single compartment for the tools required for regular and essential maintenance. This feature also suggests that in the later version the butt box was no longer a patch box but could contain the new integral ball cartridge.

Rifle Corps officers permitted their men to load their rifles after their own fashion or preference. This was allowed on the condition that they could demonstrate it was accurate to set standards. Live ammunition was used in practise and riflemen could achieve ranges of 150 to 200 yards firing twice a minute. This is a previously unknown level of accuracy compared to the standard issue musket's unreliability beyond 75 yards. Rifle accuracy was required in order to strike an enemy soldier, at a distance greater than that of the enemy musket, somewhere about his person. Certainly with the intention of rendering him hors de combat, if not dead or mortally wounded. The rifleman, who could accurately shoot birds and rabbits for food at some range were naturally expected to shoot moving French armed forces, or other troops, with a good measure of accuracy and regularity. For this purpose the Baker Rifle had brazed to its barrel two sights, front and rear. The rear sight consisted of a block situated 7 inches forward of the breach which was cut with a V notch. The front sight was made from an iron blade on a thin rectangular base. The front sight of the Pitt Rivers Museum example appears to be made of brass. The barrel shows the camouflage browning that was intended to prevent glare from exposing the positions of sharpshooter riflemen.

Following the German style the Baker Rifle was designed to accept a sword-bayonet of some 24 inches long. Therefore the first bayonet for the Baker Rifle was a single-edged flat sword of 23 inches length. It was brass handled with a knuckle bow and clipped onto a muzzle bar. It weighed 2 pounds and, as later reports confirmed, created difficulties for firing when it was attached to the rifle muzzle. Production of the sword-bayonets was contracted out to the Birmingham sword cutler Henry Osbourne. The sword-bayonet was a feature of the rifle during the Peninsular War but was replaced after 1815 with a lighter socket bayonet. Contemporary diaries and letters of riflemen suggest that they liked their little sword even though it was rarely used for hand to hand fighting for various reasons. The sword-bayonet was a weapon of last resort; it was too short to be effective, especially as riflemen were, by definition, sharpshooters. The sword-bayonet was, however, very useful for chopping wood, digging holes, cutting and toasting meat, and many other tasks.

The sword-bayonet became an inevitable concomitant of the Baker Rifle's development. It continued unmodified until 1815 with the length of the sword-bayonet conceived as a rifle and sword to parallel the musket and bayonet concept. The Pitt Rivers Museum sword-bayonet (Accession Number 1884.28.43) is stated to belong to the Baker Rifle displayed (1884.27.39). Although it is not displayed, the weapon is described as a sword-bayonet, straight and flat, single-edged, brass handle and cross-guard forming a bow guard, plate from guard over with spring and button. It states it was made in Birmingham in 1801 although the Baker Rifle on display was made after 1806.

The Baker Rifle, the British Army, and Other Units

Skirmishers were a feature of the early battles fought during the French Revolution. Accordingly, the British Army considered expanding those of its units able to fight in dispersed order. It followed that such units would need to be supplied with a rifle.

The Baker Rifle was initially issued to Manningham's Experimental Corps of Riflemen in 1800. Demand for more Baker Rifles soon outgrew the initial order for 800 to equip the single battalion of the 95 th Regiment of Foot. An additional two battalions each for both the 60 th and the 95 th Regiments had Baker Rifles by 1806-1810. The Baker Rifle was supplied officially only to rifle regiments, their use restricted to those units considered to be elite units. These included the 5 th Battalion of the 60 th , and rifle companies of the 6 th and 7 th Battalions of the 60 th Regiment of Foot. Rifles were issued to the 3 battalions comprising the 95 th Regiment of Foot (which served between 1808 and 1814 in the Peninsular War under Wellington). Baker Rifles were used by the 3 rd Battalion of the 95 th in the War of 1812 as well as at the Battle of New Orleans. Again by the 95 th who stood their ground at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815.

The Baker Rifle was also distributed to the Light Troops of the King's German Legion when they formed in 1804. Other German units such as the Brunswick Oels received Baker Rifles, as did the Portuguese Cacadores. Volunteer Units also, as did the Honourable East India Company in receiving its first order in 1802. Variants of the Baker Rifle (in its carbine pattern) were issued to the 10 th Hussars. After the end of the Napoleonic War Baker Rifles were issued to other light regiments of foot. The 21 st Royal Scots Fusiliers were using Baker Rifles when stationed in Australia between 1833 and 1840. Indeed, the Baker Rifle was eventually used in many countries during the first half of the 19 th century, including by Mexican troops at the Battle of the Alamo.

As far as the rifle regiments were concerned their recruits were chosen for their qualities. Most riflemen could read and write, and surviving diaries and letters bear testament to this. In addition, each rifleman carried a bag for tools containing a ball puller, worm, tommy bar and turnscrew, as well as spare flints and greased patches if required. It is notable, compared to the structure of other Line Regiments, that rifle officers often dined with their men and thus came to know them well. In the field Skirmisher riflemen using Baker Rifles often faced their opponents in pairs. More experienced riflemen had trained and practised in techniques to enable them to shoot running soldiers. This was aided in the field by their ability to practice shoot and hunt rabbits and birds. Riflemen also used specially made moving targets to increase their proficiency in hitting moving soldiers at range. Whereas the Baker Rifle could achieve an average accuracy of 1 in 20 shots hitting the target, in the field this compared to 1 in 200 for the musket.

Conclusion

Designed as a soldier-proof military weapon for ease of mass-production, the Baker Rifle proved to be a very successful and long-serving gun. It was eventually issued to units across large geographical distances - as the Pitt Rivers Museum Baker Rifle indicates it may have seen service in the Ceylon Rifle Regiment some time after 1815, after being made some time after 1806.

There were basic requirements that needed to be met by this rifle. These were: (1) it accepted an existing and established military calibre ball; (2) its rate of fire was reasonably fast for battlefield conditions; (3) it was generally accurate in battle up to (and frequently beyond) 150 yards, and (4) it was robust enough to withstand the rigours of battle and campaigning military service. The accuracy of the Baker Rifle can be attested by the actions of one Rifleman Plunkett of the 1 st Battalion of the 95 th Regiment. During the retreat to Corunna Plunkett shot through the head and killed the French General Colbert at an estimated range of 600 yards. On denying it was a lucky shot he thereupon shot an aide-de-camp going to Colbert's assistance.

Even though it is thought that the friendship of the Prince of Wales aided Baker's success with his Infantry Pattern Rifle now named after him, nonetheless the gun had much to recommend it. The Baker Rifle was a major improvement on the smoothbore musket nicknamed the Brown Bess, which had become standardised as the army's flintlock firearm for over a century. Compared to the 57 inches long Brown Bess the specialist issue , relatively short Baker Rifle proved to be an innovative and handy weapon.

From the time of its 1800 introduction the lock of the Baker Rifle underwent several improvements until the end of the Napoleonic War. This was in common with most other arms of the period. The advantages of the Baker Rifle over its rivals was that it was simple to reload and was less likely to foul after about 25 shots. The Baker Rifle was also sighted along its shorter barrel which ostensibly allowed for greater accuracy over longer ranges.

Recently a series of novels and television series telling of the exploits of a fictional 95 th Regiment Officer - one Richard Sharpe - and his riflemen companions during the Peninsular War, has popularised the history of the Baker Rifle and the 95 th Regiment of Foot under Lord Wellington. The rifle carried by these men in the television series is a replica of the 1806 Third Pattern Baker rifle. It is identifiable by its later pattern butt box with rounded brass plate front. As such the replica is almost identical, if not identical, with the Baker Rifle displayed in the gun case of the Pitt Rivers Museum.

Bibliography for this article

http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/

Baker, E. Remarks on Rifle Guns. 8 th ed. London, 1823.

Blackmore, H. L. British Military Firearms 1650-1850. Greenhill, 1994

http://diggerhistory.info/pages-asstd/customs.htm

Haythornthwaite, P J. & Hooke, C. British Rifleman, Osprey, 2002.

http://home.vicnet.net.au/ » rifles95/rifle.htm

http://www.militaryheritage.com/bakerrifle.htm

Arming the Rifleman. Regimental HQ. Royal Green Jackets Museum, Winchester, 2000.

Peterson, H. L. Encyclopaedia of Firearms, The Connoisseur, London, 1964.

http://www.rememuseum.org.uk/arms/armindex.htm

http://southessex.co.uk/weapons/baker.htm

Urban, M. The Rifles. Faber & Faber, London, 2004.

http://waterloobattletours.users.btopenworld.com/

http://www.1st95thrifles.com/history2.htm

Note: This article was written during the ESRC funded 'Other Within' research project.