Oral history

The question of oral history, and how effective and accurate it is, interests me greatly.

Anyone who has gone into their family history will find that accounts given by grandparents and other members of the oldest generation of the family turn out to be almost invariably inaccurate, and often woefully so, when tested against the cold hard facts of official records. Older generations, if not genuinely forgetful of details, can be deliberately vague about matters which filled an earlier age with horror (such as illegitimacy) which today are regarded as nothing to get worked up about.

At some stage, any detectorist who has private “permissions” will encounter oral history, whether from what the landowner relates about the history of the land or from what other local people have to say in the pub. The difficulty for the detectorist will be in working out what is reliable and what is not. So far, the owner of my second permission has told me the following:

  1. During WWII, Italian POWs were used on the land to straighten the course of the stream to relieve flooding;
  2. In 1940 all the fields bar 1 were down to pasture, and the land was ploughed in its entirety in that year by order of the government;
  3. It was returned to pasture only around 2003;
  4. There was a cemetery on the highest part of the land;
  5. There was once a cottage in the corner of one particular field;
  6. There was some connection with a monastery.

But which of these can I rely on?

The farmer’s family bought the land in 1937 and took possession of it in 1940 when the sitting tenant left. So items 1 and 2 are either from the farmer’s own memory or what his father told him. He himself took the decision to return the land to pasture in or around 2003. All, I suggest, can be reasonably relied on.

However items 4 – 6 are pieces of information that he has been told at varying dates by local people who may or may not have been passing on genuine and reliable information. Some may be a complete fabrication. Of these three, I suspect item 5 is the most likely to be true,  if only because in the days before electricity and piped water cottages could be, and were, built pretty much anywhere. In the 1851 census, for example, some of my own ancestors were enumerated living in a “cottage in the field”. It’s possible that footings or foundations of the cottage on this farm may still have been visible within  living memory, but equally any building on the spot may simply have been a shed or barn.

One fairly scholarly folklorist’s estimate that I once read set a limit on the reliability of oral history as “living memory of living memory”. In other words, think of yourself today. You are told X by someone of, say, 90 years old, who was told the same unformation when he or she was a child of 10 by someone who was also 90 at the time he or she gave the information.

  • Informant aged 90 in 2013 – born 1923.
  • That person told in 1933 by someone aged 90.
  • Older informant born c1843.
  • Older informant probably told the information c1853, allowing for him or her to be old enough to understand and remember what they were told.

In other words, reasonably reliable oral history available today probably dates from no later than the earlier years of Victoria’s reign. Earlier testimony is not entirely worthless, but it becomes increasingly unreliable as it recedes into the past. In oral history the key evidence is, “I personally witnessed X”. Beyond that, it’s “I was told by the man who personally witnessed X”, but beyond that we are into “friend of a friend” territory, rather like urban legends.

The Port Run

Let’s face it – without the kindness of landowners detectorists would be stuck in their own gardens. Even the beaches are owned by someone and permission  is needed to detect on them. So let’s hear it for landowners, eh?

I went out this morning to deliver bottles of port to the landowners of the two personal permissions on which I’ve been doing my solo detecting this year. As well as the port, I enclosed print-outs for each of the finds from their land which has been recorded with the PAS this year. I also took the opportunity to return Farmer No 2’s Roman grot which the FLO had been unable to identify beyond “probably 2nd century”.

Unfortunately neither farmer was around when I visited. Farmer No 1 was out hedging but I left his carrier bag by the kitchen door under an old tiled cart shed. Farmer No 2 was nowhere to be seen either so I left his carrier by the back wheel of his 4×4 under the car port by the side door. Not wanting to risk leaving the coin out in case someone nicked the carrier bag, I posted it through the letterbox so that it was safe. Once I got home I left a message on Farmer 2’s answerphone telling him where the coin was.

I phoned Farmer No 2 again this evening to check he’d found the coin and retrieved the carrier bag (yes to both) and we had a chat about his land, its history and the surrounding area. He mentioned again the “graveyard” supposed to be on the land according to the testimony of a 90-year-old villager when he himself was a lad of about 10. This would date the testimony, as oral history, to sometime about 1880. The area indicated is where the tenant tends to keep his cattle and is accordingly badly churned up, so I’m not sure when would be best to give it a go. The farmer also mentioned again the claimed connections with a local religious house, though he did not have any details. Clearly in the New Year I am going to have to take another trip to Warwickshire county archives.

Coin case

A while ago I picked up a useful digital caliper from Aldi for precisely measuring artefacts.

Today I picked up an aluminium coin case from Lidl. At £12.99 it’s not a deluxe item and the trays seems to be a little shallower than the photograph suggests, but it’s nice enough and as good a way as any of storing coins.

At least it would be if I’d found anything worth putting in it. My coin finds to date amount to an Irish halfpenny, a few Victorian and 20th pennies, a couple of seriously cruddy Cartwheel pennies and a George V florin. I am yet to find my first silver hammy, let alone a gold coin of any sort. Still, at least I can sit and look at the coin case and imagine what I’d like to put in it.

New Insights from the Metal Detected Brooches of Early Medieval Frisia

Many hundreds of brooches from the early medieval period have been recovered by metal detector enthusiasts since the hobby became popular in the 1970′s. Although much of this material remains in private hands, some of it has become available for study, either through purchase by the state, or by gracious individual loan. Brooches from Frisia were chosen for this study for several reasons. Firstly and quite crucially was the availability of suitable collections for handheld XRF (hhXRF) analysis. Secondly the region has a particularly interesting early medieval past, especially in terms of its relationship to the North Sea economy and the Carolingian hinterlands, the results could therefore be compared against current historical and archaeological theoretical frameworks.

Very little is known about the organisation of metalworking in the region at this time, a large scale compositional and morphological study could contribute to our understanding of trade, production and the subsequent use of these very personal items, subsequently providing a positive contribution to these debates. Typological studies of brooches also date back well into the 19th century and thanks to the dedication of the late Jurjen Bos, the typologies for two of the most numerous and important categories, the Equal-Arm and the Disc brooches were recently brought up to date (see Bos 2006b, 2006c), providing a solid starting point for my research. Finally, if successful, any results that were of merit could form the basis for future comparisons to other regions, further engaging with debate over the early development of Northwest Europe.

This Master’s thesis from the University of Leiden can be read at New Insights from the Metal Detected Brooches of Early Medieval Frisia. It runs to 180 pages.

FLO night

I attended the meeting of RHDS this week to get back the finds I handed over in early October and to show the FLO the handful of items found since then that I thought might interest her.

Most of those earlier finds, ie the spectacle buckle, the piece of pottery and the various pistol shot, had been recorded on the PAS database though one or two had upon further consideration been deemed to be insignificant and therefore not recordable.

She also gave me back my farmer’s Roman grot which was grotty enough for her to be able to say only that it was probably 2nd century. I had hoped there might be more definite information for him about it but at least he now knows a little more about it than he did. When I next see him I’ll return the coin and give him copies of the PAS print outs of the recorded items found on his land.

None of the few items I showed the FLO this week was deemed to be recordable.