In a message dated Mon, 22 Jan 2001,
Ron May <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>While seeking information from fellow archaeologists concerning
>architectural concealments of old shoes last year, I received a
>barrage of emails from academic archaeologist totally denying
>any cultural explanation. Then, I received one or two messages
>from English and Welsh archaeologists and museum people and
>learned there is a 1000 year old tradition of hiding shoes in
>chimney hearths to protect the future occupants of said house
>from evil spirits during sleeping hours. As the research
>unfolded, academic archaeologists have been so overtrained to
>avoid "religious explanation" of artifacts or features that
>they totally missed the pagan tradition of concealing boots
>and shoes in chimneys.
and:
>Then I began getting messages from England
>and Wales and Ned Heite, and the story unfolded of a pagan
>practice of hiding shoes in chimneys to protect the occupants
>from evil spirits. As in the case of dowsing, the
>archaeologists were loathe to suggest credibility to any
>meaning.
Ron,
The discovery of concealed shoes is well-documented, although
just what proportion of finds are 'ritual' (in a broad sense....
intentional, that is, but not necessarily magical in intent)
is unclear and no doubt some concealments are not ritual in
any sense. I work as the resident cordwainer and historian of
shoemaking and leatherwork for Plimoth Plantation (the living
museum of 17th-century Plymouth, Mass) where I have been collecting
reports of concealed shoes for five years now. I have, to date,
over 120 such reports filed with expectations for hundreds more
once I begin a more aggressive phase of collecting. That people
have, over at least five centuries, sometimes left shoes in a
more-or-less inaccessible part of various kinds of buildings is
not in question (Northampton Central Museum in England has over
1000 filed reports since they began keeping records back in the
late 50s), but how to interpret such concealments is not always so
easy...or shouldn't be anyway. There is always more than one
possible explanation for why a shoe has come to be in the fabric
of a house (while concealments in or near chimneys are the most
common, this is by no means the only place they are found) and
magic is only one such possibility. Interestingly, there seem
to be no references in compilations of ancient superstitions or
magical customs to such a practice, though there are many, many
others involving shoes and boots. By extending some of the
documented practices and beliefs it's possible to hypothesize
about the intent behind some of the concealments. The truth is
no one knows why this was done and I have little doubt it was
done for a variety of reasons at various places and times.
It's certainly an interesting subject for speculation.
I'd like to comment on a couple other things you said. I hope I'll be
forgiven if I wax a bit philosophical here, but this discussion seems to
warrant it:
>What I see here is that those same people would be loathe
>to lend credence to dowsing.
and:
>Maybe it is just American archaeologists who feel threatened
>by that which they can not explain?
It's a common fallacy that if one denies the truth of some
extraordinary claim (say, dowsing, for example) or simply
expresses skepticism with regard to that claim then that person
*must* feel threatened or angry, otherwise they'd accept the truth
of the claim (deep-down, they *must* know the claim is true!).
I'm certainly no psychologist, but it seems to me that this
anger is often just a projection by the one making the accusation.
While I'm perfectly happy to accept the liklihood of magical intent
on the part of some hiders-of-shoes, I am just as convinced that
dowsing, like astrology and sheep's entrails-reading, is not a valid
method of divination, not because I feel threatened or because I
can't explain it, but because I have read the results of carefully
controlled tests of such claims. I approach archaeology as a
science (though I have heard it said that it's really more a
technique than a science...and this seems to be reflected in the
attitudes of some in this particular discussion) and I try to apply
scientific skepticism, when applicable. (Let's not confuse skepticism
with cynicism...another common mistake). When good evidence to support
the claims of dowsers is published I will read it with great interest
and reconsider my views on the matter.
By the way, and I'd be very interested to hear more about your work on
concealed shoes!
Rusty Moore
Plimoth Plantation
Plymouth, Massachusetts
www.plimoth.org/Museum/cc-shoe.htm
|
